The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Minutes 3-21-06 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 O. PUBLIC HEARING: LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-: SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 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 Kevin Clark Chris Moehrl Jeff Fox Bruce Jeurissen Nancy Worm Jim Benshoof Rick Dorsey Town and Country Homes Town and Country Homes Westwood Professional Services 5270 Howards Point Road Belle Plain Belle Plain Wenck Associates 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. Ifwe 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 of98 of these units as Bob indicated around the perimeter of the development. These units are 3 levels ofliving 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 fa<;ade 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 fa<;ade 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 L yman 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 fa<;ade 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 fa<;ade 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 ofyucky 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 ofMnDot 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. Ifwe 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 ofChanhassen 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 staffwant 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 1Iz 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 anyone 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 proj ect 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: W ell 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! 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 fa<;ade 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: Ifwe can find something specific that can be added, that'd be good but without it. Aanenson: Not everyone 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 fa<;ade 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, ifI'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 Rezoning of 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 O. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for 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 rip rap 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 Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 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-BluffCreek 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. 3 7. 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 O. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 146 townhouses, plans prepared by Westwood 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, Xce1 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. 12. Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - March 21, 2006 McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit for 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 o. Sacchet: Thank you very much. We wish you luck. So the idea is that this will be looked at before it goes to council. It goes to council on April 10th 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 (APPROXIMA TEL Y 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 FORPUBLCI 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 AL TERA TION 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