PC 2006 03 21
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2006
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and outlined the agenda and
rules of procedure for the meeting.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Debbie Larson, Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Mark Undestad and Jerry
McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kurt Papke and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and
Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
REVIEW OF SAND COMPANIES TIF PLANS TO ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Miller: Thank you Mr. Chair, commissioners. Before you tonight is the draft tax increment
financing plan for the proposed TIF District #9, which is being developed to support the
Gateway Place affordable housing project. Just to refresh you memory we have a map here.
This would be the new Highway 212. Relocated Highway 101. So this is the project, the
Gateway Place project right there. Last year the developer, which is the Sand Companies, they
were awarded tax credits through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. It’s a competitive
process. Part of their application indicated that the City, with our support, was willing to provide
support for their project through the use of tax increment financing. Now state law requires that
any new TIF plan be approved by the Planning Commission of the respective municipality to
ensure that it complies with the city’s comprehensive plan. Now the Planning Commission
already approved this preliminary plat and site plan on February, 2006 and in doing so staff
believes already affirmed that the proposal is in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan
and I listed quite a few of the findings of fact in the staff report that we provided to you tonight.
Just a brief little explanation of what tax increment financing is, in case those watching at home
don’t exactly understand. If you have a bear piece of land, say it’s paying right now $100 in
taxes. Once a development is built, in this case it will be a 48 unit apartment building. Say it
ends up paying $1,000 in taxes. The city in a TIF district can capture the increment, the $1,000
minus the $100. That’s $900 and instead of dispersing that to the city, the county and a school
district, the city can collect it all and use it to facilitate development that might not occur
otherwise. In this case the purpose of collecting the money will be to facilitate affordable
housing. It will be provided to the developer in the amount not to exceed $300,000 to help create
47 of the 48 units to be affordable for people at 60% or less of the median income in the Twin
Cities. The EDA and the City Council will be hearing these and having a public hearing on these
th
items at their April 10 meeting, but what we’re looking for tonight is for the Planning
Commission to pass a resolution which is attached in your packet stating that the proposed TIF
plan is in conformance with the City of Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan. And with that I will
be happy to answer any questions.
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: Thank you Justin. Questions. No questions here? No? No questions there? One
thing that I want to know a little more about is the math with the numbers. You mentioned
$300,000 would be provided, kind of to help basically putting those apartments in place.
Miller: Right.
Sacchet: And then that would be made up through the tax element over how many years?
Miller: It will be a 7, well we’re proposing to provide tax increment financing for 7 years. For 5
years the City will provide 90% of the increment that’s produced by this property back to the
developer. For the 2 years after that, the City will provide 65%, so a total of 7 years increment
will be provided.
Sacchet: So the benefit to the developer is over those 7 years? It’s not like they get something
up front.
Miller: No. It will be a pay as you go, which means they have to pay the taxes and as they pay
those, then it will be reimbursed to the developer.
Sacchet: Okay, okay. I didn’t see the 300 in there. I mean I saw like some other numbers.
Miller: Within the TIF plan, when you create a housing district it can be created for a maximum
of 25 years, and so in doing these we try to create as much flexibility as possible. It is our
intention right now, at the end of 7 years to decertify or end the TIF district. However, at the end
of 7 years if there’s another use that we want to provide money somewhere for affordable
housing in the city, we can keep this TIF district open and that’s probably the number that you
saw. I think over the life of the district it’s anticipated to create maybe $1.2 million dollars.
Sacchet: Okay, so the idea, but the idea is that it’s kept to 300 in this case?
Miller: That’s right. That’s our goal.
Sacchet: But this would be a foundation that the same instrument could be used beyond that
with potentially another.
Miller: That’s right. Right, we would need to enter into a contract with another company,
another developer before the end of the 7 years to try to find a use for the increment.
Sacchet: Now this is kind of unusual for the Planning Commission to actually deal with more
financial issue and so my understanding of our context is actually to look at this in a view of the
comprehensive plan.
Miller: That’s right. The actual numbers and the financial part is really the role of the EDA and
the City Council. The role of the Planning Commission tonight is to ensure that the
2
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
improvements being made through the tax increment financing support is in conformance with
the City’s comprehensive plan.
Sacchet: So our angle is to make sure it fits in with the overall planning.
Miller: Exactly.
Sacchet: And I think we’ve already decided that as such when we approved that type of a
development to go into that place, correct?
Miller: Right. An example would be say a developer wanted to put in apartments or some sort
of development along current 212. That doesn’t have sewer and water and we, staff was
proposing to provide TIF assistance to do that. Clearly that would not be in conformance with
the comprehensive plan and that would be the role of the Planning Commission to say that.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other comments? Questions. Alright, thank you Justin.
Miller: Thank you.
Sacchet: So there is a recommendation here that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution finding that a modification of the redevelopment plan for the downtown Chanhassen
redevelopment project area and the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 9 conform to the general plans for development and redevelopment of the city. Must
have been drafted by an attorney. Do we need to make a motion and vote on that?
Kate Aanenson: That’d be correct.
Sacchet: So anybody want to make a motion here please?
McDonald: I’ll make the motion that we adopt the attached resolution that you just read,
resolution of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission finding that a modification to the
redevelopment plan for the downtown Chanhassen redevelopment project area and a tax
increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 conform to the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the city.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Larson: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Resolution #2006-01: McDonald moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission
adopt the attached resolution that you just read, resolution of the City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for the
downtown Chanhassen redevelopment project area and a tax increment financing plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 conform to the general plans for the development
3
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
and redevelopment of the city. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKE RILEY/RICE MARSH LAKE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: REQUEST
FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF FIVE (5) STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY
WATERSHEDS, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-06, RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ken & Liz Nystrom 8501 Tigua Lane
Bob Myers 8131 Dakota Lane
Kathy Slavics 8140 Dakota Lane
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions, Dan.
Keefe: I’ve got a couple questions. First one, can you list, how does expanding, it looks like
most of these ponds are going to be expanded and enlarged, right so how does that then translate
to clearer water in Rice Marsh Lake? Are we going deeper? Maybe you can just show me, give
me an example. Runoff goes in. Sand gets trapped wherever then it goes out. Real simple.
Haak: Yeah, that’s exactly right. I don’t have to say much more than that. Yeah, the primary
functions of storm water ponds is to trap the sediment, the big particles so not only trash but also
the sand from road salt applications and things like that. The other is for nutrient removal, and
so when you have, especially when you have a larger pond with a little bit more residents time,
the very find particles can settle out and in fact vegetation has a big part to play in removing
some of those nutrients before the water goes on to the next part in the system, whether it’s Rice
Marsh Lake or Lake Riley. So really by getting a big pond, what we’re doing is consolidating…
The original proposal for, that the watershed district brought forth included a lot of storm water
ponds. Actually some in rear yards off of places like Marsh Drive and Lake Drive, off of
commercial pieces and things like that, and what they were able to do by having a little bit more
wetland impact, they were able to leverage a bigger area so for maintenance purposes and just
construction feasibility purposes, they could consolidate those. In addition there’s some
evidence that regional ponding is more effective than water quality treatment so, that’s kind of.
Keefe: Where does all the fill go?
4
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Haak: That is up to the watershed district because they are the project proposers so, that is
something that we conditioned. It’s recommended as a condition by staff is that they cooperate
with staff and let us know where that material is going.
Keefe: Does it stay in the city here?
Haak: Not necessarily. In some cases it does and in some cases it doesn’t. It depends on the
contractor they end up getting and where they have a home for that material.
Keefe: Okay. And then just help me understand the wetland bank piece. If we’re creating larger
wetlands, are we creating larger wetlands or are we not creating?
Haak: Actually these are wetland impacts because we’re excavating wetland to turn it into storm
water ponds. So the wetland banking.
Keefe: Okay. Not one, they aren’t the same?
Haak: No, no. No, they have different regulatory standing so yeah.
Keefe: Alright, so because we’re impacting wetlands and turning them into storm water ponds,
we essentially are reducing the amount of wetland right?
Haak: Correct. And the required mitigation rate for wetland impacts is 2 to 1, so the watershed
district is actually buying over 6 acres of credit in order to mitigate for this project, and those
credits are already constructed. They’re already in the state wetland bank so we’re actually
getting 2 to 1. Unfortunately it’s not in Chanhassen, but we are getting some really good water
quality improvements in the opinion of staff.
Keefe: Okay, great.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Jerry.
McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions. These retaining ponds are mainly to clear up the
water going into Lake Riley, is that correct?
Haak: Well Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, correct yes.
McDonald: And it’s storm water that actually fills the ponds.
Haak: Correct.
McDonald: Now last year I know we had some problems with water over in this area as far as
you know some flooding and everything. Is this going to help those types of situations?
Haak: Well is there one specific pond that you’re thinking of or?
5
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
McDonald: No. In the area over around Lake Drive I believe, in that development when we had
the big storm, there were some issues with water.
Haak: Boy, I’m not.
McDonald: Okay, I could be wrong but, will this begin to help some of those problems as far as
keeping flooding down to a minimum?
Haak: Well the great thing about two of these ponds is that they’re adjacent to large water
bodies that have a lot of holding capacity, so in keeping these ponds down lower in the
watershed, we’re able to storm much more water and yes, in excavating these there will be some
water quantity benefit, but the primary benefit is going to be water quality in most cases.
McDonald: Okay. And in relation to last year’s storm, considered a 100 year event, how will
these help the city as far as managing water during a storm of that kind of capacity and
everything?
Haak: Sure. The only one of these basins that I’m aware of that caused problems, or
experienced any sort of problem in those two storms of last year is the Market Boulevard pond.
There was some water that ran across Market Boulevard. Currently it runs under Market in most
scenarios, toward the east. To the pond that’s just right, just south of Applebee’s and Walgreen’s
there, and in several cases, actually I think in both of those storms there was water in the street.
Now that’s again, that’s the only one, and between Alyson and I we received a good number of
calls on storm water and that’s the only one that I’m aware of. In this case, I’m not sure that in a
storm that large that this will help in a significant fashion, but there will be some benefit from
that, from those excavations. Alyson, can you speak to that or are you aware of any additional
problems?
Fauske: The only other problem that I’m aware of was on south of Lake Drive East just off
Cheyenne Avenue. That little eyebrow cul-de-sac area. There was a gentleman who we did go
out and talk to. Basically the issue is, is his garage is lower than the street in the low point of the
road drains towards the park back there and went through his back yard and so he had water
going down his driveway. But I mean as far as speaking to these projects and the ability to help
that situation, that’s why we don’t allow garages lower than the street anymore. Just because of
situations like that where we have those huge events that our storm sewers aren’t designed to
handle that.
McDonald: Okay. But will this improve our capability you know just any amount or?
Fauske: Yes.
McDonald: I have no further questions.
Sacchet: Any questions?
6
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Undestad: One quick one. The storm ponds, you know the other storm ponds throughout the
city, do you have to come up here when you’re going to start cleaning out, just for the
maintenance and cleaning of those or just when you alter the wetland?
Haak: Yes. There, that’s a really good question and a lot of people, even in my position struggle
with that. There are generally two kinds of storm water ponds in the city. There are the ones
that were constructed in upland areas, in areas that were not wetlands. Have never been wetlands
and only start to take on wetland characteristics when you excavate them. Those you basically
can go in whenever you need to either make those bigger, as long as you’re not impacting any
additional wetlands, or just clean out the sediment. For those that were constructed, like these
were, at least some of these were, actually all of these were constructed in wetlands already, and
those when you make them bigger or you know extend the wetland impact, then you need to
come and get all the appropriate approvals and get the technical folks from all the agencies to
sign off on that as well so, it’s just that second group that would need planning commission and
city council approval.
Undestad: Okay.
Sacchet: Question Debbie?
Larson: Well yeah. Just getting back to the pond that we have dug out, and I think we probably
addressed this at another meeting but I’ll bring it up again. How often do we go in and do
maintenance on these ponds, especially ones within the city? And then I was noticing the one by
Market Street, the smaller portion where the little, what do you call it, a bridge or, it seems like
it’s deeper on that end. So that’s why you, but it will fill up at some point and that’s when you
have to go and dig it out again.
Haak: That’s correct.
Larson: So when you get to that point is there another impact?
Haak: No, the Wetland Conservation Act and the city allow for the maintenance…ponds for
sediment removal because actually those affect the function and the value of that wetland. If you
have let’s say a very nice wetland and for some reason you’ve got a pipe going there that leads
from a major road, if you’ve got a lot of sand and things like that that are spread on that road,
they run off into that wetland. It’s the activity of removing that deposited sediment from that
wetland is exempt from the rules. So that’s something that is anticipated by that Act. With
regards to the city, we have about 400 storm water ponds in the city and we’ve recently
completed an inventory of those and actually the State of Minnesota and the Environmental
Protection Agency have recently, in 2003 was when the state law was, or rule was passed, that.
Actually it wasn’t a rule. It was a permit that was issued and that was done in 2003 that requires
the inspection of all storm water infrastructure pipes and catch basins and storm water ponds on a
5 year basis. So we’ll have to do, at least inspect 20% of our storm water ponds every year from
now on. Now that we know where they are.
Larson: So that’s new?
7
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Haak: Exactly, yes. And actually the Planning Commission will be seeing our Surface Water
th
Management Plan at the April 4 meeting. And actually holding a public hearing on that, and
it’s part of that and I’ll go into greater detail then, but typically also to get to another question
you asked was, the maintenance cycle for a storm water pond is anywhere from 10 to 20 years,
depending on how much primarily again it’s sand. That pond receives.
Larson: Based on the need mainly.
Haak: Exactly.
Larson: Alright, thanks.
Sacchet: Yes Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: I hate to keep asking questions about the water and the capacity but you said a
couple things I just want to get clear. The purpose of these ponds is to take care of the water
quality within Rice Lake and Riley Lake. It is not to mitigate flooding in those types of issues,
so the driver for maintenance is the purpose of clearing up water so, we’re not looking to keep a
certain depth in there for capacity, for flood run off or any of those things?
Haak: Well there is, and that gets into a little bit of the engineering and the storm water facilities
and I’m not the engineer here so Alyson will jump in and correct me if I’m going astray, but
generally in storm water pond designs the area below the normal water level is the water quality
volume, and that’s what we’re increasing, or the watershed district is proposing to increase in
this project. The area above that normal water level is the flood control volume, so really you
can only gain significant strives by raising that level which would be the 100 year level of that
pond. So you get the, it’s called dead storage below the normal level and you get the live
storage, or the flood storage above that normal water level. And because in this case we’re
excavating out below the normal water level, that’s where we’re getting our water quality
benefit, because that water is still, and it stays in the pond for longer.
McDonald: Okay, thanks for clarifying that.
Haak: Does that make more sense?
McDonald: Yep.
Sacchet: Just one quick question Lori. You mentioned a concern with Lake Riley water quality.
Can you say a little more specifics about that. What type of issues did we encounter that this
would be a good counter measure for.
Haak: Sure. Primarily the issue that we’ve seen are you know the typical lake issues. The high
phosphorous levels. The high chlorophyll levels, which results or you know which is an
indicator of increased algae or duck weed, things like that in the pond. Or in the lake, I’m sorry.
And additionally it would be that decreased visibility or the secchi depth. So if you’re out
8
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
boating on Lake Riley and happen to go to Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake may be a little bit more clear
at certain times of the year and Lake Riley might get a little bit greener. A little bit more green a
little faster. Those types of things. So those are all the primary indicators of that water quality
and it just compromises the usefulness of that water body, both for recreational purposes as well
as for habitat for the plants and animals that live there.
Sacchet: Thank you Debbie. This is a public hearing so I’d like to invite any residents that
would like to address this issue in front of us. Is there anybody here? If you want to come up to
the podium.
Kathy Slavics: Do we have to come up?
Sacchet: You have to come up, sorry. And if you want to pull the microphone up a little bit so it
points, and if you want to tell us your name and address for the record, we’d appreciate that.
Kathy Slavics: My name is Kathy Slavics and I live on Dakota Lane which is, my back yard
backs up to St. Hubert’s which is on Rice Marsh Lake, and I am not familiar with a lot of what’s
proposing but I’m curious with 212 coming in, and with Rice Marsh Lake expanding towards
212, how much are we going to be losing of kind of our buffer with noise and all of that because
it looks like it’s going to be expanded quite a bit.
Sacchet: Do you want to say something about that Lori?
Haak: Sure. Actually they’re on Dakota and. Basically the existing pond, if you look, the
existing pond is right here. So the expansion is primarily to the south and east. There is a small
area of existing trees here that is proposed to be removed. But there also is an existing open
water area, if you’re familiar, can see it from your home probably up here. So it’s just, the scale
on this is 1 equals 60, so it’s extending approximately 120 feet further south than the edge of the
open water. So when you look at the entire, I’ll go back to this one. When you look at the entire
area as a whole, this is where the edge of the existing open water is, and you know the proposal
is to extend it a little bit further south. So it still won’t nearly go out to the main part of Rice
Marsh Lake. And again the area that will be removed is kind of right in here.
Kathy Slavics: Okay. And just out of curiosity do you know where the easement is that needs to
be done on somebody’s property?
Haak: Actually there isn’t. This is the Jerome property. All of these four, 1, 2, 3, 4 are all city
owned. This is the one that has an easement so that property owner has already signed the
easement is my understanding or that’s in negotiations so.
Kathy Slavics: So basically all of this area, I’m right here on the cul-de-sac. I have 2 ½ acres
that back up to St. Hubert’s. None of that will be changing? I mean I don’t have to worry about,
because I know part of my property is on the other side of the trail.
Haak: Right, no. The only thing would be that there will be access across that trail but they
would…
9
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Kathy Slavics: Right, and we have a couple easements in our back yard right now so.
Haak: Yep, and that will stay, access will remain into the open part.
Kathy Slavics: Okay. And I wonder too, we had a ton flooding all along here where 101, you
know towards 101 that I wonder if, I mean hopefully that...because we lost a lot of our trails, and
do you know if this is affecting the proposed trails as far as going all the way around the lake?
Haak: Ah no. The, whatever parks and recreation trail system they have worked out, this would
not affect that. The Park Director has reviewed all of these plans.
Kathy Slavics: Okay good, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else would like to address, please come forward and if you let us
know your name and address. And pull the microphone towards you please.
Bob Myers: Bob Myers, 8131 Dakota Lane. Could we put up the map or the, by Dakota Lane.
Haak: Sure.
Bob Myers: Currently these lots run into where the proposed pond to be expanded, is that
correct? These are the corners of the lots.
Haak: That’s something we’ll have to check into. Again this is a watershed district project and I
assume that there were no impacts to private properties unless those lot lines.
Bob Myers: I am the original owner of the land. I very well know where my property line is and
these are the corners of my property. These are my neighbor’s properties, and they are all
impacted.
Haak: We would need to check on that and determine whether or not there are drainage and
utility easements existing or if in fact there, those property corners are appropriately shown.
That’s something again that I was not aware that, if that is indeed the case, we’ll take a look at
that.
Sacchet: So what you’re stating is that according to your knowledge some of this ponding would
touch onto individual’s properties.
Bob Myers: Very much so.
Sacchet: Okay.
Bob Myers: Yes, the property lines, property actually now extends past where the existing pond
is and into a private pond.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: Yeah, that’s definitely something that we need to look into.
Bob Myers: It’s actually shown on the map. So the map is drawn correctly, but the property
lines on there.
Haak: That’s news to me. We’ll check into that.
Sacchet: We’ll have to look into it. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Bob Myers: Well my next question is then, there’s property line markers for these lots and I’m
wondering how those would be affected.
Haak: Well that would, I’m sorry.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Haak: If I may. That would depend on whether or not that is indeed the case. If that’s the case
then we would have to work with, or the watershed district would have to come up with a
proposal for that so that would need to be addressed as a part of that, and you know certainly
again if it’s on your property they would need to communicate with you regarding that so, we’ll
look into that.
Bob Myers: Alright, my next question is when is the start and finish of the construction.
Haak: For these…we’re looking at winter construction because it minimizes the amount of
impact to the rest of the water resource. Some of the others are waiting…this construction
season but again the property owners adjacent to these would be noticed prior to that
construction. I believe, I forget exactly how we worded the condition. I think yes, at least 2
weeks prior to the beginning of work is what is recommended.
Bob Myers: So most likely it won’t be until next winter?
Haak: For these along Rice Marsh Lake, that’s correct. That’s my understanding.
Bob Myers: Okay. And my last question is that, will the property taxes of the people adjacent to
the pond, are they affected in any way?
Sacchet: Pond proximity tax. Do we have such a thing?
Aanenson: Yeah, I’ll speak to that issue. No, there’s no assessments. No, the watershed
district’s paying for these projects with the city paying a small portion.
Bob Myers: Okay, thank you .
11
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else would like to speak to this item? This is your
chance to come forward. Seeing nobody else getting up, I will close the public hearing and bring
it back to the commission. Lori, did I understand Alyson is actually going to look at this.
Haak: Yes she is.
Sacchet: What you propose, I mean this is pretty significant information that was potentially
impacting this, isn’t it?
Haak: It is.
Sacchet: So what would we do if this is the case?
Aanenson: Well they would have to have permission to approve that pond. If that pond is on
private property, they would have to get permission for that so. So it looks like we need some
clarification. I think that can be resolved through a condition that appropriate easements are
secured and access to property if there is an issue.
Sacchet: We can add a condition to that effect.
Aanenson: Correct. That’s what I would recommend, yep. Yep, and then the watershed district
also communicate to those property owners showing them where that property line is.
Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any wisdom to share ladies?
Aanenson: I still think it’d be a good condition to put in regardless.
Sacchet: Did you want to say anything to this still Lori?
Haak: Yes if I might. We have pulled the plat from the Hidden Valley subdivision, which.
Aanenson: Can you zoom in on that Nann? Pull it towards you a little bit Lori and down.
Haak: It’s hard to see. I believe these are the lots in question through here. There is a utility
easement for sanitary sewer that runs through the rear of those yards. In addition there’s a utility
and drainage easement that goes up to the southern edge of that area, so when this subdivision
was platted, there was accommodation made for drainage and utility related improvements in
these areas. That’s why the city gets these easements is so that we can manage water in these
areas. That being said, there is a public right to ponding or utilities within those area. That
doesn’t minimize the fact that it really is in the presence of the city, and especially when we do
city projects, again this is not a city project, to work closely with the property owners so they
know what to expect on their property because even though we do have the easement, there are
property rights that are not conveyed with that easement. So that’s the additional information
that we can provide you.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: Can you point out on this plat where actually the pond is going to be. Where the
current one is and how it expands. Just approximately. I think that’d be interesting for us. Also
for the residents here. Over on the right edge.
Haak: It’s right in, the existing pond is right in here. The proposed pond is down through here.
Sacchet: Okay.
McDonald: So the pond really doesn’t expand that much to the north. The expansion and
everything is more to the south.
Haak: That’s correct. Actually, it’s kind of interesting. As I look at this in more detail, again
this is new to me so you’ll have to excuse me here. The edge of the trail is at a certain elevation
and actually the first let’s say 20 feet south of the trail will remain the same. There will be
excavation beginning approximately 20 feet from that south edge of the trail. So these lines here
are the proposed contours and actually this is the middle of the existing open water it appears.
So, and again you can’t see those on the monitors or on television but here I can see that the
contours that are existing, the deepest part is out here which is basically where that northern
slope would begin being graded. So yes, the extension of the pond would really be south of
where that existing open water is.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you.
Haak: You’re welcome.
Sacchet: So we had a public hearing. We’re discussing. Any comments or questions? Do we,
ready for a motion?
Keefe: I’ll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit 06-06 subject to the following conditions 1 through 14. 14 being all
appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any
construction.
Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
McDonald: Second.
Sacchet: Any further comments? Friendly amendments? No?
Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #06-06, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1.
13
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
2. The applicant shall notify nearby property owners of the proposed project at least two
weeks prior to beginning work. The notice shall, at a minimum, provide a summary of
the purpose of the project, the timeline for project completion, and contact information
for someone with RPBCWD who is able to provide more information about the project.
It is recommended that the applicant work with the City to identify property owners
receiving notice and to provide a link to a project website from the City’s website.
3. The applicant shall restore any disturbed areas and restore or replace any damage to
infrastructure on City property.
4. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water
level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded
within the 7, 14, 21 day time frames depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow
areas shall receive temporary protection within 24 hours of connection to surface waters.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow area and for slopes of 3:1. All
remaining areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion.
6. The applicant shall provide information regarding the fate of the excavated/excess
material, as well as the stabilization and/or containment of the material.
7. Temporary energy dissipation shall be installed at existing flared end sections to the
bottom of the basin at the end of each day to protect against erosion. This could include
temporary plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric secured to the soil.
8. All existing outlets/proposed outlet structures shall be temporary riser structures until the
ponds and adjacent areas are stable.
9. Street sweeping and scraping shall be needed daily (potentially more often) during active
haul times. A dedicated site pickup sweeper may be needed.
10. The applicant shall provide details as to how dewatering will be accomplished for the
basins in this project.
11. The applicant shall have a flocculent available on the project to facilitate sediment
removal from sediment laden water.
12. Energy dissipation shall be provided at all discharge points from dewatering pumps.
Waters receiving dewatering discharges should be large enough to handle the volume and
velocity of the water.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit),
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering, impacts below the OHW of
Rice Marsh Lake), Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their
conditions of approval.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
14. All appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the
undertaking of any construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2
TO PUD-; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS
WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD,
NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTHWEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 312 (1500
PIONEER TRAIL), PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Bruce Jeurissen Belle Plain
Nancy Worm Belle Plain
Jim Benshoof Wenck Associates
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson reviewed the findings of the AUAR.
McDonald: You mentioned about diversity and the way we’re building all of this and one of the
things that I guess we’ve had this discussion before but these things keep kind of coming at us
piecemeal and then it’s difficult to put them into the context of the overall plan. At one time that
area down there, we were looking at more commercial development for tax purposes, and what
I’m seeing now by looking at this, this is becoming pretty much residential and how does that
impact you know our comprehensive plan and what we’re looking for.
Aanenson: Good question. This property over here would like to go more commercial.
Probably do new urbanism, mixed use project. And this piece over here is still guided industrial.
So this piece would switch, it’s guided low or medium, so they’re contemplating a switch to a
different land use.
McDonald: As far as the overall stock then of what we have available for development, you feel
that we’re still okay as far as what we set aside for commercial? The possibility here for
commercial development.
15
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Aanenson: Correct. Yes, with this property, yes.
McDonald: Okay. And the road and the infrastructure that we put in would tend to support that
if someone were to come in with a plan that would be acceptable.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all I have.
Sacchet: Any other questions for Kate? Thank you very much Kate. Bob you’re on.
Bob Generous continued with the staff report outlining the project.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions. Debbie, you have any questions?
Larson: Not at the moment.
Sacchet: Not right now? Mark?
Undestad: I just had one for you Bob. Just on that wetland. On item 10, page 18. MnDot right-
of-way and you need more, they need to secure more land for wetland mitigation other than what
they already have?
Generous: The City has some land that they potentially can do the mitigation in. They just have
to get the plan approved. They have to make sure that there’s sufficient area for them to do it.
It’s a high quality wetland mitigation that they need to do and we think we have the site for that.
Undestad: That would stay within the city?
Generous: Yes, that would stay within the city.
Sacchet: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a number of questions. Let me start, in regards to the rezoning. When
you go PUD you don’t need a variance for private streets, right?
Generous: Correct. Also when you do multi, it’s only for single family and twin homes that you
need a variance on the use of a private street.
Keefe: Right. And then the access road to the north is you said moved to the east because of
slope reasons or?
Generous: Multiple reasons. One, we wanted to get it onto MnDot right-of-way. Two, that’s
where yeah, there’s significant slope. That’s a bluff area in there and it’s also heavily wooded.
16
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
The Bluff Creek Overlay District has designated that whole hill as the primary zone and we’re
trying to preserve it in it’s natural state.
Keefe: Yeah, it looks like there’s a hill, does it have bluff on the south end of this property or
any others to the north?
Generous: Not on the north.
Keefe: I see a 30% slope looks like down maybe on the south end. None of these other ones.
Generous: No, they don’t.
Keefe: It looks like they’re, yeah. Well okay. Retaining walls, you said they’re terracing. What
are the heights of the retaining walls? When you look at the north, it looks like one elevation
comes out at 948 on the north end.
Aanenson: We can let the applicant go through that. They have a slide show too and they’ve
reduced all those and I think they can answer some of those questions.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: That’s it? Jerry.
McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions that you know we talked about diversity of housing
and everything and one of the concerns I have about this is, to me it looks a lot like Liberty on
Bluff Creek. And I guess my concern is that if we’re going to look at diversity of housing styles
and you know different types of appearances, I’m not sure we’re meeting that here. And the
question is, have you worked with the developer a little bit to get this to be a more distinctive
neighborhood than just Liberty on Bluff Creek East?
Aanenson: We made that suggestion so. So that’s their marketing and how they want to present
it.
McDonald: Well I guess, you know that is a concern because that’s one of the things that we
talked about, and I know you went through a lot with Liberty on Bluff Creek and we did a lot to
try to get the look and feel of that. Okay, that’s the only question I have for staff.
Sacchet: Just to follow up on this. So is this kind of a variation of the Liberty development to
the west?
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Yes, it uses two of the basic unit types that they have.
Sacchet: It’s the same type of, except there is a third view in a time.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Generous: Well in the other one there’s 4 I believe.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think if they went through that they can show you the product.
Sacchet: Alright. So if there are no further questions for staff, I’d like to invite the applicant. If
you want to come forward. If you want to add to what staff presented. Anything you want to
add. You want to mention your name.
Shawn Siders: Yeah, sure. Good evening Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. My name is Shawn
Siders and I’m with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company. With me this
evening I have Kevin Clark. He’s our Vice President of Land Development. And with us also is
Chris Moehrl, our project engineer with Westwood Professional Services. We’re pleased to be
in front of you this evening to present with the Creekside. And since we first came to the
commission and spoke to you in August, we made a number of revisions and we’re excited about
those revisions and I‘ll share those with you in a few moments but before we do have that
conversation I just want to run through the two products that we are offering on the Creekside.
I’m going to…presentation here because I have some photographs.
Sacchet: Solving the technical problems. Needs to be waken up. If you want to pull the
microphone a little straighter to me and we get better audio. Thank you. Let’s see, did we
manage to wake up the laptop? It’s in hibernation huh. Back up hard copy. It’s always good to
have handy. Something’s happening. Do you want to jump in from another angle while they’re
trying to fix that for you?
Shawn Siders: No problems. If we could actually have this zoom on to the table here. The first
product that we’re offering in Liberty Creekside is a traditional. Got it?
Sacchet: No, that’s on the table. Alright.
Shawn Siders: Is a traditional townhome collection that we’ve named the Premiere Collection.
We propose development of 98 of these units as Bob indicated around the perimeter of the
development. These units are 3 levels of living space and range in square foot from 1,500 to
2,400 square feet each.
Sacchet: So they’re walk out in the back?
Shawn Siders: Walkout, look out and full basements. Just depending on the topography of each
unit.
Sacchet: How many of those units do you have in the bigger body of your development to the
west?
Shawn Siders: Within Bluff Creek there are 98 I believe. 54?
Sacchet: 54, okay.
18
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Aanenson: It’s a smaller number isn’t it?
Sacchet: Smaller number, okay.
Aanenson: It’s the smallest of the unit types.
Shawn Siders: Yes, correct. Each of these units do have a 2 car front loaded garage with a, as
Bob indicated, a driveway that will accommodate 2 additional vehicles. Since we last discussed
this project with you we’ve also added additional exterior treatments, as you can see. We have
introduced brick and stone. Varied color patterns as well as varied building materials within you
know each unit, which is certainly an upgrade from what we have used in other communities
where we’ve introduced the Premiere product line. We’ve done this for a variety of reasons, and
most importantly is to create a unique community presence with these Premiere units. The price
point for these are approximately $275,000 to $300,000. The second produce is our urban row
home collection that we have named the Concord Collection. We proposed development of 48
of these units within the interior of the development. These units are also 3 levels of living space
and range in square footage from approximately 1,700 to 2,400 square feet. Each unit also has a
standard 2 car rear loaded garage so these will, from the street, and there’s also a driveway that
will accommodate 2 additional vehicles. We’ve also, and these as well included upgrade of the
architecture. Included additional façade treatments as well as brick and stone. We’ve added
awnings as well as raised decks to provide additional private space outdoors in addition to just
the court yard. And the price ranges for this collection is $230,000 to $250,000. In addition to
the varied building materials on the façade we’ve also developed 5 color schemes that will be
used throughout the development. Here is the color board. Now this does not include stone.
We’re working with our color consultant to actually finalize this and complete this, to include the
stone. But you can see here that these 5 color schemes will be used throughout the development
and so we’re creating an anti monotony standard that we would implement in any other
community.
Sacchet: And how many of those units do you have in the other? There are more of those, right?
Shawn Siders: There are more of those, yes sir.
Sacchet: Do we know about how many?
Kevin Clark: There’s like 106.
Sacchet: Over 100, okay. Thank you.
Shawn Siders: Now I’d like to switch just to some of the overall changes that we’ve
implemented into the plan since we last discussed these with you in August. In August we did
present to you a homogenous community with a traditional townhome design. Since then we
have revisited the product mix and have expanded our home side offering to include an urban
row home, which is our Concord Collection, and those are located here throughout the center of
the development. The Premiere product line, our traditional townhome is placed around the
perimeter of the development and the reason we revisited the product mix is because the
19
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Planning Commission did express an interest in seeing you know diversity in products. We
wanted to also provide a unique community presence with the two products, and offer additional
life cycle housing opportunities to the current and future residents. Upon review of the overall
site plan after our previous discussion, we’ve also altered the layout from what you previously
saw. We have rotated this building 90 degrees so that we do have a varied streetscape. We have
actually removed the Premiere building that was located in this cul-de-sac here, and that’s just
been integrated into the site. We have narrowed this street up here to make it a private street.
We have also revised the second access to go through the MnDot property, as Bob indicated.
We’ve included 21 guest parking areas that were not previously designated. We have a guest
parking area here. There’s 11 spaces in this cul-de-sac and there are actually 10 spaces up here.
Now we understand that there will be parking allowed on public streets, but we also understand
that parking will be prohibited within the private streets, and so they will be posted as such and
we’ve accommodated that additional parking within these parking areas within each pod. During
the evolution of this plan and based on your previous direction, we have worked to tighten up the
site and reduce the overall retaining walls. Since we last visited with you we have actually
reduced the overall height of the retaining walls by 30%. We’ve also worked diligently with
your parks and recreation board to identify the preferred location of a trail through the
development. As Mr. Generous indicated we have provided a trail configuration that runs
through the southern perimeter of the home sites, and that will impact the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. We have, as well as the City have worked awfully diligently to make sure that there is
no development impacts within the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District. However, in
evaluating different alignments we’ve come to the conclusion that this trail configuration makes
the most sense for the community as well as our development because we’re also able then to tie
in this trail configuration here. This will be preserved as an open space. We anticipate having a
shelter with some benches to provide an open area, an active open area for our residents to enjoy.
Primary access to the site, as Mr. Generous indicated will be through the Degler-Peterson parcel
at an intersection that’s prescribed by the city. The second access, and we really have to thank
Lori Haak who was here earlier this evening and Kate for their diligent work on finding a
creative solution to protect the Bluff Creek, the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District in this
wooded area, through the Fox property and we’ve identified a second access that we can, that we
will work with MnDot and we’ll work with the City to transfer some of the wetland mitigation
that will be required with the MnDot project to a city owned property and we will work with
those various agencies to transfer that responsibility and basically take over the creation of that
additional high quality wetland. It is our understanding that previously MnDot did provide an
access agreement with Mr. Jeurissen to access his home from Pioneer Trail road. We’ve
reviewed this access agreement and it only proposes access for the existing single family home,
and it does stipulate within it that it will be extinguished once the site is developed and their
residence is more than this one single family house living on this site. That access point was
never proposed to provide a fully developed access to this neighborhood in going forward. One
other item that’s come up during the discussions since we last visited with you, city management
and staff has proposed the creation of a Lyman Avenue fee to share in the cost of upgrading
Lyman Avenue. Based on the plan that we’ve presenting to you this evening, we understand and
agree with that Lyman Avenue fee and we are proud to partner with the City to create the
opportunities to upgrade, to create additional capital projects that will provide additional long
term benefits to the current and future residents of the city. Finally at the last meeting of the
commission, and hopefully Commissioner McDonald this gets a little bit to what you were
20
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
asking about earlier. The commission asked that we illustrate the views of this development
from the Peterson parcel. We worked with our engineer and obtained our plans to develop a
sketch that will kind of illustrate how the Peterson parcel will look at the Liberty at Creekside
project once both are fully developed. And if you could zoom in just a little bit. You can see
here, this is actually the proposed Peterson development, and this is the Liberty at Creekside
development. Now this is at the closest point of the two developments and these are about 700
feet in distance from one another. You’ll note that of course that much of this area will be
landscaped and there is quite a distance and the Peterson parcel is actually a little bit higher than
what the Liberty at Creekside development will be at it’s low point here. So we just kind of
wanted to show the commission how these two developments would look on one another and
there will be a lot of buffer and we really do feel that this is an appropriate transition between the
Peterson neighborhood and the Liberty at Creekside neighborhood. And finally I’d just like to
take this opportunity to thank city staff for their support during the evolution of this project. It’s
certainly been a work in progress. I’d also like to thank you for your past support on the Liberty
and Bluff Creek project and hopefully your support on the project before you this evening, and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions?
Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a couple. When you’re putting in the trail along the Bluff Creek, how do
you minimize the impacts?
Shawn Siders: We will be grading to a certain extent of that area anyways so we’ve worked with
the engineer. We’re just going to have to be very diligent in implementing our NPDES permit
and working with city staff to really minimize and finalizing the exact configuration so that we
minimize the Bluff Creek Overlay District to the extent that it is possible so that we can
accommodate that trail configuration.
Keefe: Okay. One of the things that I saw was there was a number of, and I don’t know if it’s
on your current plan but there were a number of trees that are fairly significant trees which
you’re taking out on the north end of your property. Are those still slated to come out?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Keefe: Okay. So that remains the same?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Keefe: Okay. Alright, that’s all.
Shawn Siders: Somebody asked at the previous question, I’ll just jump in. Somebody asked
what the D stood for in the landscaping plans. That actually stands for a multi-trunk tree so. So
in case anybody’s still curious this evening, that’s what that stands for.
21
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Keefe: Well and it does look like you’ve added, it looks like you’ve exceeded the minimums in
regards to landscaping it looks like, and is there a chunk of that on the south side of the creek or
is most of that on the north side?
Shawn Siders: A majority of that is serving to the south side of, you know within the wetland
mitigation area but we do also have a pretty aggressive landscaping plan as we do within each
most of our communities too, to really dress it up and add a character, create a neighborhood
feel.
Keefe: Well that’s terrific.
Sacchet: Okay? Jerry.
McDonald: Yeah, I have some questions for you. Can you compare the prices for the Concord
and the Premiere back up in Liberty on Bluff Creek with this development?
Shawn Siders: The sales prices will be comparable.
McDonald: And I guess the thing I’m having problems with as I brought up before is when we
talked about diversity, I’m concerned about these neighborhoods looking the same and it’s just
you know a continual thing. Now I understand you’ve got a break but you’re also doing a
development in another piece of property inbetween here. How is this going to be different if I
drive through the neighborhood, how am I going to be able to tell a difference between these and
the ones up on Liberty on Bluff Creek?
Shawn Siders: Understood. Let me get to your, I don’t know if it was a question more than a
statement but we did study a number of possible development scenarios and one of those did
include the introduction of a single family home product that we offer into this site. And with
the partnership that we’re making with the city to expand Bluff Creek Boulevard and the
associated utility improvements with that, with the Lyman Avenue fee and what these other
items, the cost to develop the land and then the subsequent cost of a house was really outside of a
market that we weren’t comfortable with involving ourselves. So that is kind of hopefully
answering your question as to why we’ve landed where we have because we have studied it very
carefully. How this is going to vary from Liberty on Bluff Creek is quite honestly the views.
This development will have striking views of course of the creek, as well as the wetland
mitigation areas. We’re making a number of site improvements that will be different from
Liberty on Bluff Creek. Where we have a swimming pool there, we have, it has more natural
amenities on this site.
McDonald: Well I guess maybe you’re misunderstanding my point in all this. I’m not
questioning the product that you’re putting on the land. I think you’ve done a good job as far as
the layout. What I’m questioning is, is the distinctiveness between the two neighborhoods, and I
guess what I look at is, that’s more of a façade approach. You know the outside can look a little
bit different and that’s my concern here is that there is no difference between the two
neighborhoods. And one of the things that we looked at going forward in this was to get
diversity. I know we’ve had conversations about that, you know with Liberty on Bluff Creek
22
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
and to your credit I think you’ve done an excellent job there. My concern here again is, what’s
the difference? And that’s one of the things we’re trying to put in this area is uniqueness as far
as product. Again I’m not questioning the fact you’re putting townhomes. Or I’m not saying it
should be single family. What you’ve got’s fine. It’s the way it looks. That’s my question to
you.
Shawn Siders: Understood and I appreciate the, at least the support of you know what we’re
proposing and how the site is laid out. We do appreciate that because we did spend a lot of time
with that. As far as the difference in the products or the alteration or the difference in the
product, not the product mix but the exterior or the facades and how those will be treated, what I
can say is, and we do have, you know we have the same color scheme introduced as Liberty on
Bluff Creek but something that we can look at is how the color configurations are matched. So
perhaps the Liberty on Bluff Creek, while it’s designed the color you know color groupings are
combined in a certain way, we can certainly look at introducing a different, I’m trying to find the
right word here, scheme in how we necessarily design the colors because they are relatively
distinct from one another.
McDonald: Okay, then what you’re saying is you are willing to consider at least the color
schemes and some maybe façade schemes that would give some uniqueness to this
neighborhood.
Shawn Siders: What I would say is that, and it’s difficult to explain because we haven’t gone to
this extent yet with Creekside but what we would be willing to consider is the colors on this
particular board are introduced into the community, if you will. So for instance Liberty on Bluff
Creek has a grouping of let’s say 2 or 3 buildings that use a single color you know and then
they’re next to let’s say color scheme 4. Perhaps there are ways that we can, and that’s a
common element as you go through Liberty on Bluff Creek. Perhaps we can look at you know
just one perhaps working with 5 and then that works well with 3 and 2 and so introducing
different patterns into how the color schemes are actually implemented into Creekside.
McDonald: Okay, so you are willing to work with the city to come up with some uniqueness in
this development.
Shawn Siders: Yes sir, within this color board we’d certainly be willing to.
McDonald: Within that color board. And that color board again what you’re looking at is you’re
not going to use all of that down at Liberty at Bluff Creek are you? Isn’t that kind of the choices
you’re looking at.
Shawn Siders: We’ve introduced all 5 color schemes.
McDonald: All 5 colors now. Okay. I hate to put you on the spot on this and everything but it’s
just, this was one of the things that we looked at as far as development in this area and what we
were trying to do as far as diversity and you have to understand, I feel kind of strongly about
this. And again working with you on the Liberty on Bluff Creek I think you all did an excellent
job there. I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to work with the city. Realign the road. Redo
23
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
things. I know that that’s not easy, and again I am not questioning the product type you’re trying
to put on the site. I’m not saying anything about that. I’m looking for strictly uniqueness.
Shawn Siders: Understood.
McDonald: And I’m sorry for.
Shawn Siders: No, no. I appreciate that. No, I appreciate that.
McDonald: That’s the heart of the question I want to get at is how are we going to make this
different.
Shawn Siders: Understood.
Sacchet: Alright? Debbie.
Larson: Just to expand a little bit on what Commissioner Jerry was saying. I mean looking at
this row of 6, to me that’s you know, it’s a nice design. Is there any way that you guys would
consider maybe doing within each set of 2, different colors? I mean just to get it to, to me this
looks like a row house you know and then in the back side it’s very boring, but that’s okay. I
mean, but is there, well I don’t know. I look at the back and I just kind of go, well you know to
me that looks like an apartment complex on the back side.
Shawn Siders: Understood.
Larson: And so, what I’m wondering is, is there any way of the paint you know and the color
scheme if you’ve accepted all those, and they’re all very fuzzy I think.
Shawn Siders: Thank you.
Larson: You know, is it possible that you could break it up somehow and make it not look like
such a long stretch of you know.
Shawn Siders: Understood.
Larson: Just a thought I mean.
Shawn Siders: Can I perhaps point out what we have done, and I don’t know how clear it will
show up on this is, this is I believe the same product that you were just looking at but there are
actually, that was Premiere. We have actually introduced a varied color palette as you go from
you know this is a different color from this which is a different color from this, so we have.
Larson: Right, yeah that’s what I’m talking about.
Shawn Siders: Yeah, so we will do that.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Kevin Clark: But not on the Premiere product.
Larson: Not on this one?
Shawn Siders: The Premiere.
Kevin Clark: We reviewed this also on Liberty on Bluff Creek and the challenge you get into is
we have different elevations with these and they bridge through different units when you have
garages with different roof associations, and when we start mixing all those palettes, I think the
goal you know.
Larson: Oh I see. Well that’s what I’m saying if you do 2.
Kevin Clark: Becomes kind of yucky because you’re blending too many colors. We’re working
with a very professional color consultant to not only bring together the colors but also the
materials so we’re working with varying siding sizes. Different textures with the shake and then
also your roofing. We’ve introduced, I guess going back even into Liberty, you know stepping
back into the project, and I know Commissioner McDonald your request for diversity, is that
we’ve elevated the diversity and the architecture throughout the project and in moving into the
Creekside neighborhood, we thought we had met that objective and were also going to bring that
to this portion of the site too. But from a color standpoint, this product is, just doesn’t lend itself
to kind of that alternating color scheme because it’s just.
Larson: Well I’m not saying every unit.
Kevin Clark: But even within the products, when you change the roof lines. I’m sorry, go
ahead.
Larson: Well I don’t know, I’m just trying to help you alleviate a problem without having to
come up with any major design changes. More so just in colors that you know.
McDonald: I guess the thing that you know, if I could kind of expand upon that. You’ve got
another development between here and Liberty on Bluff Creek.
Shawn Siders: Correct.
McDonald: My concern is, I don’t want to see all the same things going down Pioneer Trail.
That’s what we’re trying to break up and I guess, and again we went through at Liberty at Bluff
Creek. It is not our position to tell you what colors to put on there.
Shawn Siders: Correct.
McDonald: Heaven forbid. We’re not designers. All we can say is we would like to say
something that accomplishes a goal. And I think how you do it, that’s your job. All we’re trying
to do is give you a little bit of guidance and again, we want to get some diversity so that the
people as they drive through these neighborhoods, they are distinctive and people who move into
25
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
them can take some pride in them. It’s not just that we’re the eastern part of this other
development, that’s the big development. And that’s all we’re looking for is you know down the
road. You know we pride ourselves on individual communities and the fact that people are very
proud of their communities around here. I mean we get that all the time. We’re trying to make
sure that that happens again with the development you’ve got. You come before. You do a good
product. We have a lot of faith and confidence in you, and that’s I think all we’re trying to say
here tonight is yeah, maybe we’ve got a little bit of problem on diversity. What can you do
about it?
Kevin Clark: At this point I think we feel we’ve done what we need to do. We’ve stepped up
and provided four separate products in the projects at Liberty. Advanced the architecture.
Advanced the color palette. What we look at here is from a timing standpoint, this is rolling out
3 years after we start Liberty. We’ll probably do some grading next year but really not start units
until the following year. So this is a roll out position for us, and why then we are with the two
products here, we have a small contingent of the products that Commissioner Larson is talking
about. The more traditional townhome product that we would plan on moving into in Creekside.
We’re investing millions of dollars into a model center that we’ll be starting this spring to
support all these products, and look at this again as a support item opportunity for us then to also
play on that investment. So it is key for us that in, while I hear what yourself and others are
maybe saying about diversity, we think we are adding that and that this site, as Shawn
mentioned, I think is built on those views. The fact that I don’t think you’re going to really see
the site. Driving down Pioneer and driving down the new collector road, you’re going to have to
come into this neighborhood to really observe and get a feel for what this little nitch market here
in this area is going to really feel like. With the streetscape and more urban product facing the
road, and then the traditional product which on purpose went around the perimeter to fit into the
contour. To allow the walkout units to more accommodate the grade. I think that the area’s
going to be diverse or have that uniqueness by the nature of it’s setting and how we set the
product into the topography.
Sacchet: I have two questions primarily. One is kind of a detail question. It just reminded me
when you said they’re all walkout, the Premiere levels. Premiere type. Also the ones on the
very north.
Kevin Clark: No, as Shawn mentioned earlier there will be full basement, some lookout and the
walkouts…
Sacchet: Okay, so there’s a mix like that. Okay. My main question is retaining walls. You
mentioned you were able to reduce the height of retaining walls. Could you walk us through a
little bit the retaining wall situation if you would please.
Shawn Siders: Sure. When we were first in front of you in August, I believe we were proposing
a 30 foot retaining wall on the northern edge of the development. Since that time we’ve actually
introduced a tiered retaining wall system and this lower retaining wall will actually be 10 feet tall
and this upper retaining wall will be 11 feet tall. The tallest retaining wall in the entire site, and
part of it is to support the street. The other part is to accommodate the trail. This one will be 15
feet here. These other retaining walls will be shorter than as our these walls as well as these
26
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
walls. These retaining walls I guess let me back up a little bit. These retaining walls will also
tier retaining walls. These will be 11 feet tall and then this one will be 4 feet tall, and this one
will be 8 feet tall. Of course any retaining wall over 4 feet in height in the city will have to be
designed by a professional engineer and we understand that and we have no problem working
with city staff to design a retaining wall that is, you know will support the site and will
accommodate and have long term value to the site.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. It looks like we have no further questions for you. Thank you very
much for answering our questions and your presentation. With that, this is a public hearing so
I’d like to invite any residents that would like to address this item to come forward at this time.
Seeing, do I see somebody trying to get up. Yes, I do see somebody trying to get up. If you
want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you
have to say.
Jim Benshoof: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Jim
Benshoof, traffic engineer with the firm of Wenck and Associates and we have been retained by
Jeff Fox and Rick Dorsey to participate with others on a planning team on their behalf to begin
planning efforts for their property. Coordinate with city staff. Coordinate with developers of
other nearby properties in terms of the overall planning for this area, and I’d like to offer, well
just a few remarks as to an interface we see relative to this project. Just as Kate earlier began
with a bit of an overview, I would like to do the same very briefly. So we’re representing the
property outlined in yellow, that owned by Rick Dorsey, Jeff Fox and others in their families.
We have from a traffic standpoint, kind of the items outlined in pink are of particular importance,
and of course they include the east/west collector roadway through the property. Given the
projection for 12,000 vehicles a day ultimately on that roadway. The alignment, the design are
very important, and we look forward to further follow up with city staff as to those issues
coordinating with ultimate development of the property. And then to the west another matter of
great importance is a planned north/south roadway that is part of the AUAR. A roadway
intended to connect the east/west collector to Lyman Boulevard and of course it also would have
a real importance in connecting and providing access for this development now before you. So
that’s very important. We again have full intentions to follow up further with city staff,
developer of the property to the west, and others as appropriate for the continued planning of that
north/south roadway. Then lastly, shown in pink, the item I’d like to focus a little more attention
on this evening as it relates to Liberty at Creekside, and that is the suggestion for a second means
of access to and from this Liberty at Creekside development. This is just a little more of a blow
up of that area, and the, in the pink of course is the entry road on the west connecting into this
Liberty at Creekside development. The comment in the staff report indicating a need for a
second means of entry and access, and that what has been kind of dashed in blue as the logical
choice. And granted that the alignment of course is flexible, not totally set with the suggestion in
the staff report that it simply come onto that MnDot right-of-way from the Liberty at Creekside
property. And though, I mean I can see myself a lot of logic for that sort of connection. It also
involves some pretty serious you know questions and I think issues that still remain to be
addressed. You note the notation of an expectation of about 600 to 700 vehicles per day. That is
based on the, of course the planned magnitude of development in Liberty at Creekside and the
typical trip generation, the traffic patterns that would be expected. So we would expect that
Liberty at Creekside would generate you know 600 to 700 vehicles per day on that roadway and
27
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
of course about 1,000 feet of that roadway would extend through the Fox property before it
reaches the east/west collector roadway. Well why is that an issue? Because it’s an issue at the
present time because as this exhibit illustrates, the current guiding, as I understand, for this
property in question, low density residential.
Generous: Medium.
Aanenson: Low or medium.
Generous: Medium density.
Aanenson: Low or medium.
Jim Benshoof: Okay, it’s low or medium. Thank you for that. Sorry.
Generous: On Fox’s property.
Jim Benshoof: Okay, well thank you for that correction. Now the point being that what that
guiding, low or medium density residential, a road coming through that property, serving 600 to
700 vehicles per day for the adjacent property, would be a significant impact. And one could
suggest quite a high likelihood of conflicts, of some incompatibility with that level of traffic
relative to that type of development. And so just think it important that you at this time sort of
recognize these unanswered questions relative to what would be the effect on that property. And
further would suggest that one way or the other, as the city proceeds with Liberty at Creekside,
there be measures to try to ensure a satisfactory outcome, both in terms of access for Liberty at
Creekside and for avoidance of undue negative impacts on the Fox property. And I’d like to
share with you kind of examples of two possibilities as to sort of options to preserve and I’ll
admit before showing these to you that they represent some wild and crazy ideas, and I’m not
meaning to suggest that either of these is the absolute answer, but rather to use these as examples
to encourage you to try to retain flexibility and avoid the potential future problems. One would
be kind of some concept like this whereby there is a public loop street system created within
Liberty at Creekside. The sole access to the east/west collector, but the problem associated with
an excessively long cul-de-sac would be avoided by having a public loop street system. Part of
that would cross the corner of the Fox property but I understand that possibly could be worked
out in terms of a possible street align, so I’ll offer that as again as one possible option. The other
one that is, a subject that has been already addressed somewhat. I’m not sure of the absolute
status of this. This notion that there has been some approval on the part of MnDot for access
south to Pioneer Trail, and again I don’t know the exact status of that but perhaps that is still an
option that would be worthy of some investigation. So again with that I’m just suggesting that
the, this notion of a second access that would first cross into the MnDot property and then
ultimately the Fox property to the east/west collector roadway is not an option that just does not
have some serious questions associated with it. And would simply advise that you recognize
those questions and seek to preserve options, so that again that property would not incur serious
negative impacts and of course that other objectives of the city also would be met at the same
time.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: Thank you. Kate, do you want to say anything about this or maybe Alyson or Bob.
Aanenson: Sure. I’ll briefly say both options were explored early on. We’ve already indicated,
as has the applicant, researched the access to the south. That’s where the existing home as it
stays today with future development as any situation where we have a private drive onto a state
road, or a county road. We always try to, our ordinance prohibits that. In this circumstance the
driveway was given just for the existing home. …we worked with MnDot to try to explore that
option and it has been eliminated as an option.
Sacchet: That’s the south access.
Aanenson: That is the south access. So it has been eliminated as an option.
Fauske: Plus the creek crossing. The additional creek, the environmental.
Aanenson: Which is huge. We’d have to go back and amend the AUAR so in working with
MnDot, that was eliminated as an option. The applicant did look at the loop system and there’s
grade issues and I’ll let Alyson address that…
Fauske: Planning commissioners, we actually examined that alignment, that looped alignment.
A couple months ago we were in a meeting looking at that second access issue and we looked at
it and the grades are simply prohibitive through there to make that additional connection. In
addition we looked at the impact to the trees up there. You know a nice bluff of trees up there
and just looking at taking out those trees for a road when there was another alternative. For
those reasons we.
Sacchet: So that was ruled out as well.
Fauske: Yes it was.
Sacchet: Okay. That leaves a question of the impact. How big an impact does, are we
impacting this property by basically putting a requirement of the road access on there, do we?
Aanenson: Well let me take that… If you look at all the properties, all the properties are
connected together. We’ve seen different scenarios from the developer. This is my first time
seeing the single family application that they’ve shown on the site, but the fact that they’re
similarly zoned, even at that, if they came in and put the zoning in place, it’s...
Sacchet: So it’s compatible from that angle.
Aanenson: And again, we believe it’s responsible to provide access to these other properties.
Sacchet: Right, because we do that across the whole city I mean this is not an isolated case.
Aanenson: That’s correct. And we’ll look at that. We’re happy to work with them on
flexibility. Wherever they want to tie in, they’ve shown us a drop, loop road off of that collector
29
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
road, it can be tied in numerous ways. It could be a secondary access if it becomes a commercial
development that really we feel strongly…
McDonald: Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: Yes Jerry.
McDonald: Just a question for staff. This issue came up last week at the City Council meeting.
My understanding was that the direction that you got was to work with the property owners and
that that’s why the road at this point stops at the property line to give you an opportunity to come
up with the alternatives as to how this is going to interconnect, isn’t that right?
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: So this is really an issue that you all are currently working with.
Aanenson: Correct. At this point it stops at their, it can be worked into the future plan and we’re
not prohibiting tying it down. There’s flexibility…
McDonald: So the position of that road at this point does not affect our decision tonight.
Aanenson: The position of the road on?
McDonald: The one to the northeast that they, Town and Country’s actually realigned a little bit.
Generous: As far as going across MnDot’s property.
Aanenson: Where it goes from there, there’s flexibility in that. How that ties into the Fox parcel.
Generous: Or into the east/west collector.
McDonald: Well then if you haven’t settled the connect the dots issue, we have.
Aanenson: You never do when you stub a road to at the property. You have to take it to the
terminus. This has come out on numerous subdivisions, site plans. You do the best you can and
based on the information they’ve given us, the information of the developer, we’ve got a
responsibility… Go back to the AUAR. This is the segment we’re talking about through here
and we’ve seen numerous iterations through here, including a drop road, something that would
tie through so this road could swing into that. Wherever that works out where there is
commercial, residential, I mean there’s flexibility but yeah, our job now and our obligation to
provide that stub street as we would, these people have stubbed you know, as Degler, just as on
Pioneer Pass comes in, we’re asking them to provide an access here so they can get access to this
property. This developer is developing south of this wetland. The creek area. They are still
providing right-of-way for this project.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
McDonald: Okay, well that’s my question. At this point where the stub is at doesn’t affect our
approval of the PUD at this point then.
Aanenson: Of this PUD?
McDonald: Right. The one for.
Aanenson: Yes, it does.
McDonald: Okay, then now I’m confused. If we approve the PUD and the road changes, what
happens to the developer? We just approved something that may have to change.
Aanenson: I don’t believe this would change. What we’re saying is once it gets to this point, it
can be worked into their plans when it comes in. We’re willing to work with them. That was the
issue that was brought up at the council on Monday. Wherever that ends up.
McDonald: Right, and as I understood at the council, all of that is pretty much a black box at
this point and you’re supposed to fill in the points working with all the owners to come up with
an agreeable solution.
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. So if we approve the area tonight with the road where it’s at, is that going to
work with the possible scenarios that you know you’ve been.
Aanenson: The staff’s position is yes.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: Their position, no.
Sacchet: We got that.
McDonald: Okay. And the developer understands.
Sacchet: The public hearing’s still open. You’ll get a chance to talk.
Aanenson: Just so you know, this debate’s been going on for a couple of years.
McDonald: Yeah I know.
Aanenson: So between the staff and the…
Sacchet: Alright, the public hearing is still open. I see some people itching to get up. If you
want to come forward. State your name and address please for the record and pull that
microphone towards you please.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Jeff Fox: My name is Jeff Fox representing the Fox Family and the 54 acres that abuts up south
to the Jeurissen parcel here and I have three things that come up. If this project’s not going
anywhere but grading tonight, what’s the hurry to make a decision when we don’t have the
defined area involved as far as the north collector street and where this is going to come in on the
east/west collector. That’s still somewhat open. As we were told by I think 2 or 3 council
members, I think it was 2 that I can say that the council members told us that staff was supposed
to work with us to come up with a reasonable solution that would benefit to all parties involved,
and that’s the concern to me. I agree with you that it’s a tree preservation area. I don’t know
how many people have been out from the city itself. I’ve spent numerous hours out there and
we’re in the process right now of evaluating each and every tree within there. There’s a fair
amount of that that’s called grub in there, and a lot of that with dead trees in that area. There are
a lot of mature oak trees too, and I’m well aware of that. I want to respect that issue, but I think
we need to take into consideration how much impact are we talking about. Are we talking about
taking our 2 or 3 here? Whether we’re taking out a clump on the hill. To where they’re wanting
to grade the land to begin with. I’m just questioning are we making a decision on something that
needs to be made at this time as long as there’s no project moving forward as far as development
purposes. And as far as that road to the south, it was never, or the road to the north, it was never
brought to our attention. We found that through reading the propaganda, or the information to
the city of Chanhassen in their site. Nor were we brought to our attention, addressed to the Fox
family or the development area we’re talking about did the City ever contact us to discuss this
issue.
Sacchet: Let me ask you a question. I want to make sure I understand clearly what your key
point is and when you’re talking about the trees, are you referring to like a particular option that
needed to be further explored or can you be more specific please?
Jeff Fox: Correct. There was a comment, I mean there was a proposal from Jim Benshoof, our
representative, traffic engineer who was here tonight with an alternative, a loop road cutting the
corner of our tree area there. Of the tree preservation area. And that was what I was talking
about there. I would like to let Rick talk more about elevations because I think you’ll find that
the elevation difference from that location to where the corner is cut, to the elevation where the
road stops, is I think a 10 foot difference. Now there is some grade drop but it’s not as
substantial. Not near as substantial as the rise that’s coming up to this interchange, nor is it from
coming from the people up to this interchange.
Sacchet: So your point is that the loop option should be further explored?
Jeff Fox: I’m not, I want you to understand something, I’m just looking at trying to work with
staff, with the idea that we look at these options. That has never been addressed. Never been
talked to us about. We have talked about different alternative layouts of our land. We’re kind of
held back right now because we’re trying to go different guiding due to the fact that the negative
impact of having all this traffic brought onto our property. When Jim was bringing these
numbers up, I think he was dealing with thinking it was 119 units. We weren’t aware it’s 146
units, so it’s actually more traffic than the numbers we’re talking about. I mean we just don’t
feel single or medium density, seeing the additional traffic up and above the 12,200 cars they
32
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
expected for that area to begin with, that’s going to be beneficial. I mean that’s got to be a
negative impact on the residents…
Sacchet: So let me clarify also that, are you concerned about the traffic volume or are you
concerned about just having a road in the first place? What’s your main concern?
Jeff Fox: Well I think there’s a couple things. We’re trying to mitigate the amount of traffic on
the east/west collector. Trying to reduce it because right now the traffic counts are higher than
what’s on Lyman today based on the very easterly portion of it. Okay, so we’re trying to
mitigate that as one issue, and we’re trying to keep some of the value that’s left in that parcel by
not cutting it into another piece right now. Our piece is carrying a lot of the east/west collector
road. I think the largest percentage of the east/west collector road goes across the Fox property
to start with.
Sacchet: So, what I also hear you say is that you like to…
Jeff Fox: …work on these issues in advance instead of finding them out through the minutes or
say that we’ve been looked at these because I’d just like to believe that there’s better, a possible
options and then when I hear tonight that they’re 2 to 3 years away before building in there, I’m
going what’s another month or so to work this out or 2 months because right now I think there’s
a market study coming that might have some impacts to what’s going to take place in this 2005
area. And it might have some say where the road needs to go. It might have some say on what
size the road needs to be in certain areas.
Sacchet: Yeah, and that’s something we struggle with all the time. I mean we can’t prescribe
the time line to particular developer. Just as we can’t tell you have to develop now, we can’t tell
the other guy he has to wait until you come around. And working together quite often involves
not being of the same opinion so then the challenge of working together is that we bridge that
and I’d certainly like to encourage everybody to work together, especially when you’re not of the
same opinion because that’s when it’s needed. But that’s getting to comments and, did you want
to add anything else today?
Jeff Fox: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you sir. Does staff want to make a comment to any of this? That wasn’t a
comment.
McDonald: You got our attention now.
Sacchet: Woke everybody up.
Aanenson: We had a dialogue about the road connection. We understand that the two property
owners do not want any connection to their property. On this side, the north side…I guess our
position is we want to try to work those out. Just be clear that the 2005 study, excuse me the
commercial study that we’re expecting to get back this spring, that is not going to be a…to
answer all the questions. There’s a long, lengthy process of public dialogue that’s going to
33
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
happen. It may take a year or two. To kind of tie, there’s an element or framework part of the
comprehensive plan that we want to take up with the community too, so we’re not going to
rezone anything based on that information within the next couple months. It might be a year…
so I don’t know what this developer’s timeframe is… They want to rezone something. What I
can do is the people that are interested…and ready to move forward now, providing them the
option that, for development. We did explore those in detail. I believe we communicated the
intent to try to tie those in and tried to work to the best… And again, they have the right to
pursue…so everybody works together and then the other property that everybody work, we work
to locate a park on the property which there’s a little bit of angst but we have…park located
down there. Neighborhood park. Worked on all the other connections…trying to make so
everybody ties together so.
Sacchet: One concern that this raises for me, and there are a couple of places in the city where
we run into a dead end street that was never acknowledged from the other side. What, I mean
what’s the likely, what’s the possibility of something like that happening? I mean I know they’re
planning a stub there and a place, that makes sense for this development. That makes sense in
terms of the overall flow that we perceive at this point for this area. Is there a possibility then of
on the other site, a project comes along and says well we’re not connecting to this because it
doesn’t fit for us?
Aanenson: That’s our job to look at that and your job is to make a recommendation to the City
Council of connecting those. I mean that is our number one issue that we face when we bring in
a project, connecting neighborhoods.
Sacchet: Absolutely.
Aanenson: …for example the construction access and the like, there might be some people that
want to go to a use that’s desirable that’s on that property to the north…so it swings both ways.
There’s advantages…and that’s the kind of balance.
Sacchet: Alright, thanks Kate.
Aanenson: Certainly we haven’t ruled out trying to work with them.
Sacchet: And I would certainly think that staff tries to work with everybody.
Aanenson: Right, and the complexity is, this is the best site we believe for the road. The
complexity is we’re also working with…wooded wetland replacement, which is unique. And
MnDot’s obligated…so we’ve kind of have to seize that opportunity while we’re working
through that permitting process while that’s open, so we have to resolve those issues in a timely
manner too so we don’t lose that option. To have a one way in and one way out, even on that
other circulation, it’s still a long one way in and one way out. It’s certainly the best desired…
Sacchet: Alright. I saw somebody else wanted to come up. Actually two other people. Which
one goes first is the question.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Jim Benshoof: Chairman, members of the commission. Again Jim Benshoof. Just a couple of
brief points. I think I heard you Mr. Chair express concern about, oh about long dead end streets
or interconnecting neighborhoods, Kate as well. Just want to say, and I firmly agree that long
dead end streets are not good, and not for public safety. For use by residents in the
neighborhood. I agree with that. I agree with the principle of interconnecting neighborhoods. I
want to make that clear. But I also, I’d like to also really make clear for you that this, the idea of
this connection is not simply call it a neighborhood street interconnection. This level of traffic
that would be using this street, to and from the Liberty Creekside development, is higher than
what call it a normal neighborhood interconnecting local street would carry, and I just think
important because with it’s proximity to Powers, to the 312 interchange, I’m quite certain that
that’s going to carry the bulk of the traffic. 60-70 percent of the traffic in and out you know of
this neighborhood, and so it would just pose a burden on this Fox property, call it greater than
what would normally be associated with neighborhood interconnecting streets.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?
Sacchet: Please.
Aanenson: If this was to become a commercial center, and all that property to the south was all
commercial, would your premise change?
Jim Benshoof: It would be, I would look at it differently, indeed.
Sacchet: It would be desirable at that point.
Jim Benshoof: It’s the relationship of such a street and the use of the street to…
Aanenson: …commercial.
Sacchet: Yeah, appreciate it. Good evening.
Rick Dorsey: Good evening. My name’s Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Couple
comments I want to make. First, we have every intention of trying to put together the best
development possible for our properties. Our property represents 110 acres between the Fox’s
and our own. It’s a very significant parcel and it’s location has created difficulties for us how to
look at it. It is preliminary guided as low density residential. That probably came about because
of the property that my family owns on it. Not a normal property. Again I’ll point out that you
probably didn’t know that, or know this property existed on that property. You know we’re
looking at tremendous cost to us because this property will probably be lost. It’s a 2 ½ to 3
million dollar home. Why will it be lost? Because the traffic is changing what can actually be
done with the property. 12.200 cars is not a neighborhood parkway coming through. It’s as
much or more traffic than is on Lyman. I guess you call it a A minor collector. Not collector,
excuse me arterial. That’s a county road. This is a neighborhood. Now the big question that
comes into play is the whole process. No, we haven’t been communicated with. No one has
ever called me up to talk about anything. I don’t believe the Fox’s have been called up to be
included in discussions. We’ve not talked with Town and Country from them calling us up,
35
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
other than meeting them at meetings. It does have an impact and we’re trying to work with it.
The first thing we’ve got to do is try and protect what we have. 12,000 cars is a lot of cars.
We’ve talked about with staff and about an idea, and that’s what it is. Right at this point you
know I hear staff saying, or Kate saying you know we’d like to see commercial. Well we’re
looking at what the options are when you have Lyman Boulevard with 12,000 cars, Powers with
14,000 cars, the east/west collector at 12,000 cars. You know you’ve got to look at some other
alternatives. We’re open to trying to do something. Right at this point we can’t do commercial
because the city won’t look at it, so it’s not that we’re holding things up until the study comes
back, it won’t even be considered. We’ve put forth time and a plan to give an idea of what we’re
looking at. This isn’t to say that this is what it will be. But if you look at it, we’re looking at
contributing substantial amounts of land to make park area within the development. Make it a.
Sacchet: Can you explain…
Rick Dorsey: Pardon me?
Sacchet: Do you mind explaining the colors on your.
Rick Dorsey: Well what we initially looked at, until we get the study back we don’t know what
possibilities are there but it’d be a mixed use type development. The initial plan was to focus on
some sort of commercial in this area. But at this time.
Sacchet: The red would be the commercial?
Rick Dorsey: Well possibly.
Sacchet: Well concept. Understood. This is dreaming. It’s brainstorming.
Rick Dorsey: Yep, it’s dreaming. Exactly. Could be more of it. Could be the whole thing. We
don’t know yet until we get information back, but trying to do something that’s balanced. That
has possibilities, we put this together to look at road use and issues. These areas would be
residential in this scenario, and the idea was that it’s an internal parkway with walking paths
through the whole thing. Our goal was to minimize road traffic through it, and in doing so make
it an area where people could go from any one of these points without crossing traffic, to the
point of installing a bridge where water would go underneath it because the traffic’s so heavy
and you can’t get across. That basically goes to the point of before this road was here, this was
one big parcel. With the road here of 12,000 cars, it doesn’t connect neighborhoods. It
disconnects them. And so we’ve been looking at, if we have to go with the residential ways to
connect it back up. Now to make any of this work requires higher density. We don’t want to
look at projects like townhome projects. There’s a lot of them in the area. We would think we’d
have to go vertical somehow to do it. Incorporate commercial to try to bring people to vertical
developments because there aren’t any in Chanhassen. You know there’s a lot of factors that are
there, but at this point in time we can’t move forward. Now the idea of a road coming through,
you know if this was mixed use, sure it could work. However, if it ends up being residential,
again the traffic further breaks up any theme we’re trying to create with this and create continuity
of neighborhoods. Now we understand that they do need to have some sort of access. We’d like
36
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
to work with them. We truly would like to sit down and talk to them and work through and not
have to throw ideas out for them. We’re not looking at having to generate, solve all their
problems, which is their solving their problem creates a problem for us. And I do understand
that you know yes, you do have to go forward and figure something out to provide access. This
property was landlocked originally and you know whether the south is an issue or not, we don’t
know. You know something that could be revisited as an option, just so we know all the options.
The other thing that comes into play is really on this site we believe that there’s going to be a
problem with traffic and confusion and with traffic coming out here, coming up here and the plan
that is different again from what was approved by City Council for design showed this north
collector going here. It’s looking like from the way they stopped it now, and my understanding
is last week at the meeting they said it’s flexible, but that it was going to come around here and
up this way. That creates two intersections. We believe it, as Jim was mentioning, perhaps an
alignment more straight would create a four way intersection and eliminate some of the problems
that are there. Our goal in doing that would be to mitigate some of the traffic. So somebody
wanting to do to downtown to shop, instead of coming up here and out here or coming out
through here, this neighborhood, there’s an option. Maybe coming up here and up, or up here to
Audubon and up. So we’d like to talk about these options and the impact that they have on our
property as well. We’re not first to the table. My property’s in ag preserve. I might, all this
money I’m spending right now might be totally worthless, but I’m trying to.
Larson: Where is the property that you showed us on this map?
Rick Dorsey: Right here. And you know, I mean with the guidance that was there, you know
low density, you know with the traffic, no it probably doesn’t make sense. Medium density, if
you’re having a house like this with medium density around it, my property is worthless. So
we’re looking at trying to come up with solutions with what’s being dealt to us. And we would
like to work together on this. The neighborhoods, they can put in what they want. We’re not
asking that but in this scenario here, these are just outlining off of, this would be the north
collector and there’s some issues as far as where that can line up on Lyman and we’ve hired Mr.
Benshoof’s company to help us determine that and there are very limited locations where that
can access. And it appears that they have to be between the creek and actually my property line
to meet sight line standards. We feel that that is a big issue. It has an impact on this
development as well because of where the traffic will go to site that, before we take an move on.
It can have an impact if we can work out something here where this is a more straight alignment
coming up, and we’ve been told well that it’s too steep. Well, you know this all here where this
is being built is way steeper. Believe me. And cutting into the side of the hill here could be a
possibility to tie that up. Perhaps this is 2 roads coming out. I don’t know. Another different
solution possibly if we could sit down and talk about them.
Sacchet: Yes, it’s tricky. I mean we’ve got to be careful that we don’t plan somebody else’s
stuff. I mean that’s what your concerned in your case of the impact, so you’ve got to be careful
also on how far you go with that.
Rick Dorsey: Yeah, and we’ve, I mean we want to have some flexibility to try and put some sort
of a project together. Our belief is that this property, because of this intersection for the city is
probably the most valuable as far as tax base to the city. We do believe that commercial is
37
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
probably the best use for it. That’s something yet to be determined whether the city wants to do
it or not.
Sacchet: Or mixed, yeah.
Rick Dorsey: You know wants to do it, but if it is that type of use, it can be a great possibility.
Short of doing that, I’ve got to be on the defensive and hope you can appreciate that. 12,000 cars
going by this house is not anything I’m looking forward to. The possibilities of commercial, if
the city would come forth and say hey it’s not just a possibility, we’ll do it. Our attitude would
be different. But we’re not faced with that option yet. We have to wait until the information
comes forth and maybe 2 years down the road to find this out. So what we’re looking at is
basically to look at a couple of key things. Number one is, I think there has to be a definitive
location on Lyman determined so we know where the north collector’s going to go and how it’s
going to interact with this east/west road. And if it has to be over here somewhere, should these
two line up or should they be separated, because that is an issue traffic wise. And I mean that’s
number one. Number two is just looking at it from the standpoint of the comprehensive plan.
Comprehensive plan states that it’s got policies in place to minimize environmental and traffic
impacts on neighborhoods. My neighborhood’s being impacted. My property’s being impacted.
Now there are ways to mitigate this traffic and to take it through design right now to take and try
to move it out to the arterials where it belongs. Why is it coming through the east/west
collector? Because the City has decided they don’t want to spend money at this time to upgrade
Audubon and Lyman. If those were upgraded according to the AUAR, this collector wouldn’t
have to be there right now. Sometime in the future, but not right now. So there’s certainly
things that can be looked at, discussed. We would like to take some time now to do it and sit
down with the other property owners and work through you know what can work. We’re willing
to compromise. I think we’ve already compromised in looking at having 12,000 cars come
through when it didn’t have to be that way necessarily. So yes, we would like to work with
everybody involved. We would like to see everybody involved. Have great developments
because it benefits everybody. And to end there, you know I would ask that the commission
recognize that we have to look at the whole plan since we’re looking at this as a whole area. Not
cherry pick and pull out little pieces of it and put it together. I agree with Commissioner
McDonald. You know this area, we don’t know it’s commercial yet. If the City would tell us
it’s commercial, you know we can move forward. Until such time, or at least give us some
guidance saying this is what we believe. This is the direction, you know we support you. Not
we’re going to wait and you know we sit there and it comes through and then we’re stuck having
to try and figure it out. That’s what we ask is fairness.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.
Undestad: Can I ask you one question?
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Mark.
Undestad: What’s the green area at the bottom?
38
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Rick Dorsey: That’s the tree preserve that we’ve all been talking about. The hill of trees. And
in actuality.
Undestad: The yellow. The yellow right at the edge of the trees there.
Rick Dorsey: Well potentially a district, be it residential, whatever. A quadrant that’s looking to
how you’d service those roads.
Undestad: How close is your tree line there to what’s actually out there?
Rick Dorsey: I don’t understand your question.
Undestad: Where you’re showing your green, your dark green line comes through the yellow
there.
Rick Dorsey: Ask the question again please.
Undestad: I’m just trying to get an idea of coming up from the street below.
Rick Dorsey: From down here?
Undestad: Yep. Where they want to send it up.
Rick Dorsey: Yeah. There’s no trees past the Fox property line.
Undestad: Now I’m looking over to your.
Rick Dorsey: This way?
Sacchet: To the yellow.
Undestad: Other way.
Rick Dorsey: This way?
Undestad: Yeah, now follow your tree line. Just come down.
Rick Dorsey: Over here?
Undestad: Yep, all the way down to there, yep.
Rick Dorsey: Well that’s what Jeff was talking about. There’s actually a few isolated trees of
any consequence that are out in those areas. The question would be is, are they actually part of
the preserve and what constitutes a preserve area. Certainly a few trees here and there, I mean
trees are being taken out on this project and we understand that it’s a preserve area and the Fox’s
are respecting that and at the same time we’ve got to work and look and see what can be done to
39
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
make the best use of the property without destroying it so, I mean that’s what we are looking at.
We’ve very conscious of it. My property’s been in the ag preserve since 1982. At the request of
the City we did take it out. You know we are wanting to work with everybody. We’re not trying
to hold everything up, but I hope you can appreciate that we have significant economic value
there that we do need to protect.
Sacchet: Definitely, thank you very much sir. Just two questions or clarification from staff.
That east/west collector, I mean that was one of the major elements in the AUAR study. I think
that is a firm decision. I mean that’s.
Aanenson: Correct, and there was numerous meetings with the property owners and different
iterations on that drawing.
Sacchet: So that’s not a discussion point at this point.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: That’s been discussed a year or more ago.
Aanenson: The council has ordered the plans and specs.
Sacchet: Then in terms of the impact, I mean of course we want to look at the overall picture but
then from the overall picture we work into the more details. And we’re quite into details with
this particular application in front of us. And so we already went through these steps to my
understanding, that at this point to some extent are being questioned.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. And that I mean these discussions have been going on for quite a while. Okay.
Alright. Public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to add anything more to this. Seeing
nobody getting up, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion
and comments. And at some point a vote. Debbie, are you ready?
Larson: I’ll jump in.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Larson: Okay. Do you have, we’ve got some you know the last thing that you showed us Mr.
Dorsey, I’m just you know looking at that and I’m wondering you know, you’ve got a gorgeous
property there. Beautiful home. Is the plan to put more large homes and just a few? I mean I
guess I’m a little confused as to what the huge concern is.
Rick Dorsey: To answer your question, we don’t know. You know the reason why we don’t
know, first of all at this point in time, with the traffic that’s coming through, we don’t find it
feasible to put in large homes. Would you want to build a large home on a highway? No.
40
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Larson: I grew up in LA. They do it all the time. Really big homes.
Rick Dorsey: Well in the Twin Cities that’s less desirable if you have the option.
Larson: Yeah, I understand that.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. So you know that takes it out of the picture somewhat, and we recognize
that now. The other options that are there in place today would be medium density. Again what
happens there, you know there’s issues that are there. We still have busy roads. You have to
give somebody a reason even with multi family to want to live when they have other options.
There can be a thousand other townhomes around us that are not on a busy road, or as busy of a
road. So from our perspective in looking at it, marketing times, if we were to bring them on the
market today and compete with these others, same price point, you wouldn’t sell them probably.
You have to provide some other reason for them to want to be there.
Sacchet: Got to be optimistic.
Rick Dorsey: Well I’m being realistic. I’m being realistic.
Sacchet: Understand. You’re protecting your interest.
Rick Dorsey: Well I’m being realistic. I’m optimistic, yes I think it can be a great development
but things can happen…
Sacchet: Let’s try to stick with the project. Yeah, let’s stick with the project.
Rick Dorsey: Well to finish your question.
Larson: Yeah.
Rick Dorsey: So do I see in the future big home there? With 12,000 cars, no.
Larson: Or what do you see? I mean.
Rick Dorsey: What do I see? If, right at this point, and this is based on market. People coming
to us saying we’d like to build something there. We’re seeing more demand for commercial use.
No doubt about it. Because of the interchange there. The distance from coming onto 312 from
Eden Prairie, all the way out to Chaska, there will be no other sizeable parcels of land available,
and they see the demographics. Well, that’s a possibility but it’s up to you to tell us. Until such
time we can’t do that. We only have the opportunity to do single family or multi family.
Sacchet: I think we understand your situation. Thank you very much. Appreciate you clarifying
that but let’s keep it to the commission at this point so we try to get this.
Larson: Okay, I’m done.
41
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: It’s alright, keep going.
Larson: I’ll stop.
Sacchet: I don’t want to cut you off. You can keep going.
Larson: No, no, that was it.
Sacchet: Mark.
Undestad: I’d just you know one comment on that. Again the issues on, it looks to me like there
would be some options in there. And when these developments come through, these roads have
to go somewhere. They all do. And I think to go through this they try to find an area that okay,
this makes the most sense. I think on their parcels there, that there probably is some more
options to tighten up that radius if for some reason they just said you know we just don’t want it
coming in here. But that’s the process that staff has to work out with the remaining land owners.
It’s okay, where is this road going to go? It’s going to go somewhere. But exactly where is it
going to go? That’s what they still need to work out.
Sacchet: And there are access points defined. I mean that’s where we started this whole thing
with. There was an east and a west access point that has to be connected.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, since you met last we have made that determination and we’ve gone
through those iterations. We do believe this is the best so, again…we believe is the best.
Sacchet: So there’s flexibility in that but in general the concept is very worked out.
Aanenson: Correct.
Undestad: So again coming back to their project in front of us, the issue of the road ending
where it ends.
Sacchet: Is a given at this point.
Undestad: Is a given. That’s where it’s going to be and then it’s still to be determined which
way it’s going to go.
Aanenson: Exactly.
Undestad: You know where you’d like to see it. They know where they’d like to see it. That
still has to get worked out.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else Mark?
42
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Undestad: Just back to the, do you have something on that, you know the different paint jobs for
signs or something out there. It didn’t sound like you had anything other than this is what we’re
doing up the road.
Sacchet: That’s a tricky one, that one. I mean how much can we on one hand tell them what
they have to do but on the other hand it is a PUD with the idea that we do have a say in this. So
there is a give and take so I think we’re within our rights to push that issue. Dan.
Keefe: Well I think there’s a number of things that I liked from this project. Definitely I think
that they’ve added a lot of trees in the landscaping too and I think they’ve gone way over the
minimums that are required, which I think is terrific. I think I’m happy that they also moved
forward adjusting that retaining walls from 30 foot high one, four down to the lower level and
certain tiering them. I’m also pleased with the alignment of the trails. Trail going along the
Bluff Creek corridor and how the sidewalks tie into the trail. I think that’s very positive. I agree
that in terms of articulation, as much as you can in regards to the buildings, if we can enhance
that articulation and provide as much variety as possible with…limited somewhat given the price
points. To be able to articulate and add a lot of architectural flavor to it but I would recommend
the developer look at that a little bit more. And then last thing in regards to the road, I mean you
know we’ve gone through this question a number of times and I’m in support of connecting
neighborhoods. I think it’s consistent with our comprehensive plan to connect neighborhoods. I
trust that staff has looked at the different options and where the best location of the road is in
terms of this particular neighborhood. How it goes into the other neighborhood, how it traverses
through the other neighborhood, really remains to be seen but in terms of where it stubs in, stubs
out of this particular property, it seems to be appropriate from my standpoint. I’m in support of
this project.
Sacchet: Okay. Jerry.
McDonald: Well let me just say I’m a little conflicted. First of all, I’d like to address what I
consider to be a non-issue that we spent a lot of time on and that’s the roads as to where they go.
Staff has been mandated to take care of the roads. We have entry points and exit points, and it’s
up to them to connect it. I think the developer’s well aware of the controversy of the roads. You
know he’s made a commitment for the stub. If something doesn’t happen, that’s his risk. I don’t
see those as being issues in our decision. What’s before us. Having said that, I would feel more
comfortable if this matter were tabled, and the reason I would feel more comfortable if it were
tabled is that I would like more assurances about the design. I heard what the developer said.
We have gone through a lot about diversity of neighborhoods and uniqueness of neighborhoods
and I guess I just do not feel comfortable that that’s what I’m getting here. I mean I’m sorry but
that’s the way I feel and again, you know I preference all of that with I have the greatest respect
for the developer of this project. I really wouldn’t want to see anybody else in there but I just
feel let down on this issue, and I mean based upon that, I have a problem supporting voting for
this development. That’s why I would prefer to see it tabled and I would prefer, you know we
did get some commitment from the developer to work with staff to do something about the
schemes. I would like to see some more time spent doing that because once we make the
commitment to approve this, that’s it. We never see it again and you know one of the things that
the Planning Commission needs to look at is, we have made determinations about what our
43
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
guidelines are as far as making approvals and I’m afraid that I just do not feel that that guideline,
that I have enough assurances on that. So my position, you know what I will recommend
whenever he gets to it is, I’ll make a motion to table because I really feel that this needs to be
looked at a little bit more. This is a big issue. And again, this has nothing to do with the roads. I
want to make that very clear that I do not feel that that is an issue of this development. I feel
staff has been mandated to take care of that, and they are doing that and City Council is on top of
that. We spent a lot of time last week at the City Council meeting discussing this road so, and
again I don’t want to come across as somewhat of a hypocrite from the standpoint of I do support
property rights and I understand what the developers of that property are going through, but we
have a developer with property who is ready to go and I think that one of the things that we as a
city owe them is a decision on what they ask for. I am saying we need to table it because I am
not satisfied with the internals of the development, and that is the reason I cannot support this.
So having said that I’ll turn it over to the chairman.
Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. I do agree to a large extent. I certainly agree that the traffic, the road
thing I think has been pretty well cooked. There are questions in terms of the use next to it that I
understand is difficult for those adjacent property owners because they don’t quite know if
they’re going to go left or right, but that’s a different issue. That’s not tied into this particular
development. I do agree with you Jerry that in terms of the diversity of this, it’s not where I’d
like to see it. I think it was an issue from the very beginning. I think it was actually the first
issue when even though it was in the discussion stage when this came in that we pointed out
well, can we do some diversity from what’s happening across the hill. I do acknowledge you
made an effort. You come up with the color palettes. With the additional touches on it. I think
that’s very commendable. Is it enough? I mean we’re still basically following cookie cutter
option with a little extra glazing on it. I’m not sure whether this is a reason to table and hold it
up though. I’ve got to be honest about that. It’s certainly not to my satisfaction. It’s not where
I’d like to see it, and I’m struggling because if it were not a PUD I would say we’re out of our
league by getting involved with that because that’s the developer’s right to do it how they want
to do it and it’s not up to us as the governing body as the city to come in and say you have to do
it this and that. We can make suggestions say put a cupola there and the maybe they do. But
then on the other hand what I hear you say Jerry, if we at this point say work with staff, chances
are not much is going to happen because they’ve already worked on it. Let’s face it. I mean I
would assume from their angle they went as far as they’re comfortable going with the diversity,
and within the price point, what you brought up Dan. I think something we need to consider too,
and they do have the formula that they’re successful with, so we can’t expect them to deviate
from their success formula. How they make their living, right? So I’m a little conflicted there
exactly how do we resolve that. I don’t know whether maybe.
McDonald: Well I think Mr. Chairman, I mean the thing that I’m looking for is that, again we’re
not trying to ram a design down anyone’s throat. We’ve been through this before, but we’ve
been through it at Liberty at Bluff Creek. We had problems there with the way that it was, the
colors. The schemes. The facades and everything. The only leverage we have to give to city
staff is to say table the issue. We’re not going to vote on it and send it up. Without that we have
no leverage and staff has no leverage, and my concern is again, working with this developer that
has worked before. They are willing to work with you. I don’t think I’m asking a lot to let’s get
a little bit of uniqueness. If it’s color. If it’s façade changes. We’ve been through this before
44
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
and they did come through but the only way we have any leverage is to get it back to staff and let
them say, we’ve got to get this fixed and then we can resubmit it. That’s the only thing I guess
I’m looking at is, without that you’re right. It goes forward and I don’t think it will ever be
discussed again.
Sacchet: So let me, go ahead.
Keefe: I’ve got a question to ask Jerry. You know there are development design standards that
are laid out for this particular PUD, right? Liberty at Creekside development standards. They’re
listed on page 5, and I guess the only question is, did they not meet the building materials and
design standards as stated in here?
McDonald: It’s the aesthetics. It’s the aesthetics. It’s not the materials. It’s the look and the
feel of it, and that’s part of, whenever we say we want unique neighborhoods, that’s…
Keefe: What one person likes, is totally different what somebody else likes.
McDonald: And again, I am not saying that we’re doing anything with design. We’ve had this
discussion before. We had it about Liberty on Bluff Creek and what we agreed on is, we’re not
trying to design houses. What we’re trying to get is a feel that is unique. Well we turned it over
to staff before. They came back. They worked on it. They got something unique. At that point
they made a decision that it works. That’s what we want and that’s what I’m saying again is,
give it back to staff but you need to give them some leverage.
Sacchet: That’s a good point, but this area that I’m a little fuzzy and I ask you first Jerry since
you bring the idea, and then maybe also address to staff. I mean we’ve given them this direction
to bring in diversity. They come with five color schemes. They come with additional materials.
Additional sidings, what have you. Rock. Brick and so forth. Gables. I don’t know how far
they went with it.
Kevin Clark: We changed elevations. We came with multiple…
Sacchet: So my question to you Jerry is, what more?
Keefe: We need to be very specific.
Sacchet: I mean what more can, let’s say we table this. What more can they bring to us without
taking the whole apart, which I don’t think we can ask them to come with a you know.
Keefe: …materials.
McDonald: Well I guess what I’m saying in all this is, I asked the question of staff you know
and I do not get the feeling that they’re satisfied with this. That they feel there is some more that
could be done.
Sacchet: So let’s ask staff. What more could be done?
45
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Aanenson: If you go back to what we approved for final plat in the Liberty, there’s actually a
plan. There’s no two buildings that sit next to each other with the same color palette and that
was approved as a part of it, and I believe Shawn…here tonight, so there’s different color stone,
brick. There’s no material theme that, buildings that are next to each other so within that, not
only in that but we also mix up the diversity. Now because of the slopes and the grades, we have
more similar products on Creekside, but we would do the same thing here, which would be no
similar color product, so and that’s approved with the final plat. The color schemes so when
they come in for the building permit, so there’s no, yes. If you’re saying the concern is this is
going to look like the other one. That I can’t do anything about. But within the product itself
there’s diversity so when you’re looking at it it’s not all the same look, color, feel within the
product.
McDonald: Well that’s not what I heard the applicant say because the question was asked about
the colors and the way all this goes together, and the particular product line. I’m not sure if it’s.
Keefe: See if they can show us something. They weren’t able to use their slide show…
Undestad: Is that the same paint colors that they used on the other one that’s used on this one?
Sacchet: If we can find something specific that can be added, that’d be good but without it.
Aanenson: Not every one of these units are going to be the same materials. So some of these
will be brick. This one is showing brick. So the one that we just approved on last Monday night,
there’s some of these are going to be the boulders. They all have different color palettes so
there’s not the same look. Now your question I believe is mixing it up within each unit. That’s
more.
Larson: Well no, not with each one unit. With each two. I mean like on this one, a logical split
would be between the two. I mean in the four.
Kevin Clark: I think what we’re saying is that what we went to the extent is we offer what we
have three elevations that we’re doing. Three different.
Sacchet: Designs of the.
Kevin Clark: Architectural designs, and between those different designs, whether it’s, I’m at a
loss now for the different names but the different architectural looks of these buildings, we’ve set
that color palette for those because it just doesn’t look good on a streetscape to create a building
that has that alternating color.
Undestad: Are they the same color palettes on this as on?
Kevin Clark: We would be implementing the same color palette.
Undestad: So all the paint colors, everything is the same.
46
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Kevin Clark: But within diversity within the neighborhood. Now I’m saying we could probably
go back and supplement. Maybe we could look at other, adding some other ones. Adding some
others to supplement this.
Aanenson: Want to clarify again just to make sure we’re all on the same page. So within this
project itself, there’s different façade treatments, so that’s one variety. There’s three.
Kevin Clark: They’re actually, with this, on that elevation, with that look of building, there will
be a minimum of three different color scenarios that can happen. But then there are additional,
two additional elevations that also have diversity.
Aanenson: So there’s color diversity and there’s architectural.
Kevin Clark: Architectural diversity.
Larson: But this isn’t the one that troubles me. It’s the other one that looks like a row house.
It’s the long, the 8 units.
Kevin Clark: Well it is. It’s a three story.
Shawn Siders: It’s intended to be row houses.
Larson: And that one has the colors on it but the picture I have doesn’t.
Aanenson: Right, but there’s also different color palettes for each of those too…
Kevin Clark: Correct, and that’s what lays out is within this one.
Larson: Okay. Okay, it looks like a motel.
Shawn Siders: Commissioner Larson what you have in front of you as well is just an illustrative
example of what we often hand out just for, just to show somebody what that particular project
looks like, so I apologize for any confusion with that, but that’s kind of why we provided that.
Just for illustration.
Larson: Alright.
47
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Aanenson: So those are two that we’re looking at, and you’d be approving. And then within
that, there’s different architecture detail and the different color detail. So your direction for us is
to work with them to give you some other color palettes…
McDonald: Well I guess let me ask this question, because I maybe misread a little bit of what
you were saying. Are you, I mean we have given you direction as staff that we would like to see
diversity, so you go out and you work with developers and you try to come up with that. Is it
your position that you feel comfortable enough with this that you feel that you’ve met that
requirement and where there’s maybe still some things to do, you can work with this developer
and make those changes to get to a point where there is uniqueness within this neighborhood,
because I’m not seeing it. I have to be truthful. Now you’re talking about different facades and
everything and maybe what it is, it’s just the drawings that you’ve supplied us because those are
the same ones that I saw up at Liberty at Bluff Creek. If you’re telling me that’s not really what
we’re going to put down here. It’s a little bit different, that’s probably okay.
Sacchet: Do you want to address that?
McDonald: I’m confused so help me out.
Kevin Clark: You know we are proposing the same products that we are doing in Liberty at
Bluff Creek. But I think the context that I want to put it in is that, as we work with staff and with
the city management, we’ve also worked through a number of issues. Accepting additional fees
for the Lyman Boulevard upgrade. $2,400 an acre. Working with staff and creating the trail
corridor. We, as I mentioned, working through and dedicating sufficient property as outlots or
conservative areas. Improving the mitigation. The landscaping, so there has been give and take,
but I guess our position is, that we don’t feel that we could move into this neighborhood and
create an entire new line, if that’s what you’re asking me because that’s not feasible.
McDonald: No.
Sacchet: We understand.
Kevin Clark: And I just want to make sure that that’s not the direction you think we can go in,
because that’s not going to happen.
McDonald: No. No, and I wouldn’t ask that.
Aanenson: While Mr. Clark was talking about the plans…which we don’t always get, we did
work through, since you met last, we worked through 3 or 4 different designs which they showed
us again in good faith, some single family. Some other type of products and what would work.
Why it wouldn’t work. …why it wouldn’t work and how they eventually ended up back to a
certain number of units and a park site, and that’s how we got back there, so there was an
exercise of a couple different…
McDonald: I guess if you’re going to ask me for a definition of what I’m trying to get at.
48
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Keefe: We are.
McDonald: I want to be able to go into this neighborhood and look at a house and then go down
to Liberty at Bluff Creek and I can’t find it. I want to see some kind of uniqueness.
Sacchet: Distinction.
McDonald: Distinction, yeah. That’s a good word. Distinction between the two areas. That’s
what I’m searching for, or else at this point now all we’re creating is just one big long
development full of townhouses that are all the same. And that’s not what the community here is
all about. We do not have these large land masses of houses that are identical as far as
developments. You have, you know maybe 40 acres and they’ll go in and do things, and then
there’s unique. Well, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Tell me.
Keefe: Lundgren Brothers.
Aanenson: I think some people…Lundgren Brothers, they have a lot of similar looking. I guess
what we looked at too, we looked at the, the other two projects that are coming in. The other two
subdivisions that are coming in are single family detached. And as I worked through them
before, they’re different applications but they’re very similar in the fact that both of those are
predominantly two story homes. I think they’re almost all two story homes. So you’re going to
have a lot of two story homes right in the middle. Single family, by the way. Detached homes.
Keefe: And that’s between these two.
Aanenson: Correct. One will be on the Degler parcel and the other one will be on Mr. Sever
Peterson’s parcel, correct.
Keefe: What is on the west side of this particular parcel? How does the land go on the west
side?
Aanenson: I think they showed that…
Kevin Clark: That cross section where down into the first tier and then down to the creek.
Keefe: …drive along, where are you going to drive and what are you going to see?
Kevin Clark: Well coming out of Liberty on Bluff Creek, you’re going to come through the
neighborhood, off of Audubon. Onto a divided boulevard. A landscaped boulevard. To that
round about where you’re going to head north. Come down into the lowlands or into the creek
bed. As you come back out, you’ll have to take a right turn to head now southeast into this
neighborhood. They’re going to be separated by what, shy of a quarter of a mile. As you come
out of one into the other. This neighborhood elevated further away and sheltered really by the
existing topography. I don’t see a continuum of the two neighborhoods, although I respectfully
understand what you’re saying and if you’re saying, can you, are you going to be able to, with
what we’ve proposed here tonight, walk in and say I don’t see that at the other neighborhood.
49
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
No, we haven’t achieved that goal, if that’s your goal. That’s not going to be the case. We are
proposing the same, two of the products that are going to be built in the Liberty on Bluff Creek
neighborhood. What we do offer is that we’ve done the best job we can over the last year,
considering that when we were here last was in August, so in the…working up to there and then
working through the design issues. Working through all the other more let’s say structural issues
to make it a viable project. Working with the city along with our commitment to the assessments
on the collector road, to the ever evolving design of the collector road. To additional
requirements that we’ve been, that have been proposed to us that we’ve agreed to, so I think we,
along with the city, and along with yourselves, as this project has evolved, have made
commitments but can everything change? I think that’s when Mr. Dorsey got up and we talked
about a number of things. It’s interesting the evolution. One of the first meetings we had, and
we’ve had many, and there’s always been opportunity for contact. He’s right, we’ve never
directly called him but we’ve always been available. We’ve had numerous hallway meetings.
Numerous meetings that were called here. Always available for contact if there was an issue that
needed to be discussed, but I think one of the earliest projects, other than us, Town and Country
getting involved with the Bernardi’s, really started at the Fox property with U.S. Homes back at
the onset of this when they were looking at different things, so it’s interesting. I only bring that
up from an evolutionary standpoint, that everybody’s been working on it and we’ve been making
progress and staying into the program to make this thing happen. I guess my point was, at one of
the earlier meetings someone said well can somebody general contract this? Is there a possibility
for somebody to maybe you know, take this whole thing on? And we all kind of looked at each
other and said you know boy, that’d be nice but we understand reality again that none of us
really operate in that environment. That world doesn’t exist, so the challenges are that we work
our best plan. We represent ourselves honestly and with integrity. We work towards that
common goal, and we deal with the pinch points as they come. That happened to us when the
collector road morphed. It was initially going across the Peterson property, and then it was
decided that it needed to kind of split the baby and go directly north and that modified the whole
plan of Liberty on Bluff Creek. I think there have been a number of those things that have
occurred throughout the process. Big portion of that was architecture. Architecture. Colors.
Highlights on the buildings. Orientation. Anti-monotony. And I think we’ve done a serious and
concerted job to meet those obligations. Can we maybe meet them all at every point? No, and I
guess that’s what I want to honestly represent to you tonight, that maybe that’s something that
Commissioner McDonald we’re not going to be able to completely handle for you this evening.
McDonald: Well I appreciate your honesty, and again as I said, I appreciate the fact of your
willingness to work with staff. At this point it doesn’t do any good I guess to try to give staff
leverage for something they evidently don’t want.
Aanenson: No. If you direct us to try to do that, we can do that. I’m not saying that. If you
want us to do that, to try to get different products. I think it’s not with the staff. It’s the
developer saying, he’s unwilling to change and we had that. We went through the different
versions, so I guess the question is really back to the developer if they want to…
Sacchet: I’m still not clear. I mean you’re not asking for a different product are you Jerry?
McDonald: No. I’m just asking for a different look.
50
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Undestad: That would be a different product.
Aanenson: It’d be a different product.
Kevin Clark: If you’re asking me to create new elevations, that’s what I’m saying I’m not
willing to do. I’m not willing to go out and redesign the product again.
Keefe: And commission another architect and…
Kevin Clark: No. I just can’t do that. It just doesn’t support that.
Aanenson: …Liberty project and with the intent that that would be the next…
Keefe: A lot of money to do that.
McDonald: No, I’m not asking you to do that.
Kevin Clark: Well I guess that’s…exactly what you are asking because maybe we’re, this is a
faux disagreement because we really don’t disagree.
McDonald: I guess you know one of the problems is that’s always difficult about this is, when
we receive things and we have meetings, I mean I would love to have more time to discuss
things, and again it could be that I am just not interpreting what I’m seeing correctly. I will give
you that, and you’re right. Maybe we don’t, do not have a disagreement. I guess that’s, and
you’re right, at this point you can’t convince me one way or the other, and I’m not going to
convince you, but I’m not going to ask you to redesign, and if that’s what I’m doing, then of
course I’m not going to ask to table it and direct staff to go back to you and do that because
that’s not the point of this so.
Undestad: Yeah, if you can do it with colors.
McDonald: Yeah, I’m perfectly fine with colors. I’m just looking at something that is unique.
That’s all I’m asking for and it’s not, I’m not asking for big changes or you know big changes in
the elevation or, I mean we did this before with, you came at Liberty at Bluff Creek. I think you
had two color schemes and staff asked for more. You provided that. You know, that’s all I’m
asking for is something small. I’m not asking for you to redesign new elevations or anything
such as that. I’m perfectly happy with a little bit different color scheme.
Kevin Clark: To supplement the ones we have so that we can get a greater diversity of that.
McDonald: If that’s something that both staff and you feel that you can work with and give it a
good effort, then I don’t see any point in holding anything up.
Kevin Clark: Okay, thank you.
51
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
McDonald: Thank you.
Sacchet: Yeah, I’d like to push our discussion this side a little bit. I think we got good input
from here. Let’s here a little bit more from you guys.
Larson: I sort of scribbled something here on the back. It’s a very minor change, and how do I
do this? Can I show these? I mean I don’t know how to go about this but, really basically what I
did with my pen is I made, rather than the siding all going sideways like this.
Kevin Clark: Do you want me to put it up here?
Larson: No, because it’s ugly. Just minor. It’s not a huge deal. It could be the same color or
slightly different or just even taking the siding, rather than going straight across, have this one be
straight. That way, you know. Just minor so it breaks it up.
Sacchet: What Debbie is explaining, just so everybody’s with us is like we’re looking at the
back elevation of the, what’s that one called? The Concord. The back of the Concord, which is
really a pretty bland view. And what she’s suggesting is that we have some color variation
between one or two unit groupings, possibly texture, where the siding, the slats do the different
direction, just to give it a little bit of distinction, so it doesn’t just look like this row of chicken
coops.
Larson: It would not be a change of materials other than a color or a slight difference in how
it’s, I don’t know.
Aanenson: I’m not opposed to that but I think the back of the building has the least amount of
visibility.
Kevin Clark: Yeah, we’ve put all our architecture on the front.
Aanenson: Especially in this location.
Kevin Clark: We put all the stone and brick on the full front. On the sides.
Sacchet: You don’t see much of the back.
Kevin Clark: You don’t see the back. These are just like your homes. If you go out and look at,
go out and stand in the back yard, look at your own home. You don’t have shutters. You have
one color. I mean the majority of the houses.
Larson: The back of my home is beautiful.
Kevin Clark: I can imagine.
Larson: It is.
52
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Kevin Clark: But the back of the house, the walkout, the rear part of the house is not where you
put the architecture. You’re putting the architecture in the look.
Larson; I’m not saying change the architecture.
Kevin Clark: No, well it’s all, I guess I include that.
Sacchet: It’s part of the architecture.
Kevin Clark: Yeah, it’s part of it. It’s something that we’re now, yeah on these planes here
where we’re, you’re trying to match of different sides.
Larson: I’m not even saying it has to be siding. I was just saying like, if you even had a slight
variation in color, it gives a little dimension. I don’t know, but… I don’t care.
McDonald: Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: Jerry.
McDonald: Would you be willing to accept, I mean you know he’s assured me that he’s willing
to work with staff. They’ll come up if there’s something that can be done, they’ll work through
it. They’ve made the commitment to do something to add some diversity, whether it’s color or
you know some things such as that. Is that good enough do you think to go ahead and go
forward with this? The biggest thing.
Larson: Yeah.
Sacchet: It’s not a need to hold it up.
Larson: Of course. I think it’s reasonable to go forward but I’m just saying you know, I mean
everything that I put out there, which is really not a dollar difference. It’s just a mind set of how
you want it to look, and it’s my mind set versus your’s, and I understand that but I’m not the only
one that thinks it’s boring, as you heard. That’s all, and I don’t want you to have to go to any
more expense. I really don’t because I think all and all you’ve done a nice job.
Sacchet: And you focused on the front elevation which is understandable you know.
Larson: But you know, I mean are you assuming that these people are never going to go in their
back yards and look back?
Sacchet: Oh, which one is mine?
Larson: Yeah. I don’t know, I spend an awful lot of time in my back yard but, that’s because I
have a beautiful back side to my house.
53
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Kevin Clark: It’s a balancing act, I’m not going to deny that. You’re working with putting the
investment where the investment is recognized and where people will appreciate it on the…that’s
really observed from yourself if you drive through the neighborhood a year or two from now,
you’re going to look at how the neighborhood looks. The streetscape and the massing. And how
the colors work together and I guess respectfully commissioners, we rely on design,
architectural…
Larson: I’m a designer so don’t pull that on me.
Kevin Clark: But we’re also sensitive to the market though.
Larson: That’s why I’m trying to…
Sacchet: Yes, and just to respect your point I mean, and as I said before, we’re not trying to
prescribe what you have to do. That’s your business. But on the other hand we’re in a position,
we have a responsibility that, and certainly Jerry expressed it very clearly, there’s something that
we’d like to see go a little further. So the whole point of the discussion is to try to define what
exactly is it because you’ve done a lot. I mean we’ve acknowledged that. We commend you for
that. And so the purpose of this discussion is to get a little more clarity. What is possible,
because there’s a question. You did a lot already so what more can be done. Now, we came to
one possibility, we’ll do something on the back. Now we could obviously debate the values of
that. I think we’re pretty close in agreement that we feel this is not a reason to hold you up, but
that we put this as work with staff. That it only makes sense if we have some vision with it.
Kevin Clark: Right.
Sacchet: I mean if it’s, it’s still a bit fuzzy exactly what more can be done.
Kevin Clark: I think that’s a reasonable assignment because I guess being prescriptive from your
viewpoint is potentially restrictive or counter intuitive to maybe what we’re jointly trying to
achieve.
McDonald: Yeah, it’s putting us in the role of a designer which we don’t want to be, and all
we’re telling you is you know, it’s like, it doesn’t quite look right. Not sure why but do
something because you’re the expert, you know.
Kevin Clark: Well give us a chance and we’ll have a look.
McDonald: Okay, and I’m willing to accept your word and commitment that you’ll work with
staff and we’ll give them direction that, to work with you and you know try to do something to
fine tune. That’s all we’re asking.
Kevin Clark: Understood.
Undestad: Asking for different paint colors or…
54
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
McDonald: Yeah, even that. Yeah, something as simple as that would probably alleviate any
concern I guess.
Sacchet: Couple additional color schemes. I mean what fits?
Kevin Clark: We’ll have a few options. We can look at that and see how best you know. I think
we want to look at it and say, which one do we achieve the highest and best goal with.
McDonald: Of course. I mean that’s why, I can’t give you a detail.
Sacchet: That’s not our role.
McDonald: That’s right and I don’t want to give you but you guys are pushing me for details but
no, that’s not it.
Sacchet: As long as we have clarity a little bit and I think we discussed it about as far as we can.
McDonald: I think we’re done. It’s time to vote then.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Very lively discussion. We haven’t had one of those in
a while.
Larson: Oh yeah, because you were in Switzerland.
Sacchet: Oh I missed a couple, alright. I remember talking about angles of gables and stuff.
Alright, are we ready to make a motion?
McDonald: I’m ready.
Sacchet: You are ready to make a motion.
McDonald: I make a motion Mr. Chairman that the staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the following four motions. And adopt the attached findings of fact and
recommendation and it would be A and B, and then 1 through.
Sacchet: A, B, C and D?
McDonald: Yeah, 1 through 51 and then C, yeah. A, B, C and D.
Sacchet: With all conditions.
McDonald: With all conditions and attachments, plus I’d like to add one more that the developer
and staff work together on color schemes.
Sacchet: Does that go with which one?
55
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
McDonald: C(12). C(12). That staff work with the developer on, how do I want to phrase this?
Color schemes?
Aanenson: Well I wrote down materials and colors, and diversity.
McDonald: What she said, that’s good.
Sacchet: Materials, colors and diversity. Distinction. Add distinction. So there’s a motion. Is
there a second?
Undestad: Second.
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the Rezoningof the property located within the Liberty at Creekside
development with the exception of Outlot A and the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary
Zone, from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential
(PUD - R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve thePreliminary Platfor Liberty at Creekside, plans prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, subject
to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet
noise standards for residential homes.
2.The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval
.
3.The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
4.The developer shall designate Common Lots 13 and 18 as Outlots.
5.The developer shall establish a separate outlot(s) for the land within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District primary zone.
6.Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a
conservation easement shall be established over said outlot(s).
7.The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be complete within one year of the
authorized fill on Liberty on Bluff Creek.
56
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
8.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty
on Bluff Creek.
9.Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. 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. All structures shall
maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
10.Due to a secondary access through the MnDOT right-of-way (ROW) to the north in the
northeast portion of the property, the applicant will be responsible for creating or securing
sufficient wetland mitigation for MnDOT that will meet all conditions imposed on MnDOT
and will be responsible for any and all fees associated with the redesign of the wetland
mitigation areas in MnDOT ROW. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the wetland
mitigation plan has been received and approved by the City and MnDOT.
11.The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a
rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition,
all structures shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall
occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top
of a bluff).
12.All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. No
alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor.
13.The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the farmed area south of Bluff Creek
that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural
Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention shall be paid to areas with steep
slopes (greater than 3:1).
14.Alterations appear to be proposed within a mapped FEMA unnumbered A Zone (100-year
floodplain). In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for
alterations within the floodplain.
15.A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the development
and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit.
16.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the proposed pond. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included the plan.
57
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
17.The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all erosion
controls and restoration practices.
18.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
19.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
20.The applicant shall provide details for curbside inlet control. Wimco-type inlet controls shall
be used and installed within 24 hours of installation.
21.Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls may include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary
mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
22.The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion berms
or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet is needed.
The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. A detail for the
temporary pond outlet shall be included in the plans. Additional temporary sediment basins
may be needed or an alternate location may be needed depending upon site conditions during
rough grading.
23.The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be turned to the southeast to align with
the creek.
24.Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is needed and
should be shown on the plan.
25.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $266,850.
58
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
26.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
27.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
28.Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both
wetland mitigation areas.
29.A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area. This
will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either side of
the access lane. After construction, the access lane shall be restored according to the
‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’.
30.A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
31.No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
32.The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated 9/29/05
for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
33.The applicant shall submit a full sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with final
plat submittal.
34.A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
35.The developer shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval
in lieu of parkland dedication.
36.The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required
of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and
Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The
trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and constructed to meet all
City specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction
materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon
completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs
for the construction materials utilized in its construction.
37.The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection to the Bluff Creek trail through private
street B.
59
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
38.The developer must coordinate the location and elevation of the western street connection
with the Pioneer Pass (Peterson Property) and Degler property developments to the west and
northwest.
39.The height and length of retaining walls must be reduced to the maximum extent possible.
40.The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
41.A building permit is required for any retaining walls four feet high or taller. These walls
must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
42.The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the grading plan.
43.Typical sections for each housing style must be shown on the final grading plan.
44.The final grading plan must be 50 scale so that staff can complete a full review of the
proposed grading.
45.The developer must verify the invert elevation of the sanitary sewer connection that will be
constructed with the 2005 MUSA Improvement Project.
46.The development may not proceed until the Phase II 2005 MUSA utility extension project
has been awarded.
47.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges and the SAC charge
at the time of building permit. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00/unit for sanitary
sewer and $4,078.00/unit for watermain. The SAC charge is $1,625.00/unit. 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.
48.The northern access (currently shown to the Fox property) must be shifted to the east to the
MNDOT right-of-way parcel.
49.The Arterial Collector Fee shall be paid with the final plat. The 2006 fee is
$2,400/developable acre.
50.The final plans must show the new orientation for Lots 13 and 14, Block 2.
51.The site plan and final grading plan must identify the proposed 10-foot wide bituminous trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the Site Planfor 146 townhouses, plans prepared byWestwood
60
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval.
3.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
4.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
5.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
6.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4.
7.A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
8.Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
9.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.
10.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
11.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the private streets. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of sign. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy #06-1991.
Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity.
12.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
61
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve Conditional Use Permitfor alterations within the flood plain and
development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated 9/29/05
for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
2.The applicant shall submit a full-sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with final
plat submittal.
3.The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or concurrent
with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project.
4.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty
on Bluff Creek.
5.Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. 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. All structures shall
maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. We wish you luck. So the idea is that this will be looked at
th
before it goes to council. It goes to council on April 10 depending on where we are with those
issues, and I believe our discussion bore out the issues pretty well how we feel about this.
PIONEER PASS: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, RLM (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
PRELIMINARY PLAT (PIONEER PASS) CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLCI STREETS (APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES);
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
PRIMARY ZONE; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING
AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER
TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL) AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-09, APPLICANT D.R. HORTON.
62
Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006
Sacchet: The applicant has requested this be tabled, so I’d like to ask for a motion to table the
Pioneer Pass land use amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variance
and wetland alteration permit.
McDonald: I will make such a.
th
Generous: To April 4.
thth
Sacchet: To April 4. It will be tabled til April 4.
th
McDonald: I make a motion Mr. Chairman that we table until April 4 the proposal for Pioneer
Pass which is a request for a comprehensive plan land use amendment from residential medium
density and office industrial to residential low density.
Sacchet: And everything else that goes with that.
McDonald: And everything else that goes with it.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
McDonald moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Pioneer
Pass to the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 2006. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 21, 2006 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
63