Loading...
CC Minutes 4-10-06 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 12. Energy dissipation shall be provided at all discharge points from dewatering pumps. Waters receiving dewatering discharges should be large enough to handle the volume and velocity of the water. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering, impacts below the OHW of Rice Marsh Lake), Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. 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 4 to 0. LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes Robert Nordby Town and Country Homes Bruce Jeurissen 1500 Pioneer Trail Kate Aanenson: The subject site located north of Pioneer Trail. West of the future Powers Boulevard. Oh, I need to use this so, if you don’t mind. And Town and Country Homes is the applicant. This request is for 146 town home units and this item did appear before the Planning st Commission on March 21. Actually it appeared numerous months before that but there was a lot of work that needed to be done before we actually, were able to process the application. At the Planning Commission meeting, while they did vote 5-0 there were two main issues that they discussed. One was the access to the site. The two way access points, and the architecture. Existing site conditions, if you look at the property, the Jeurissen property has an existing driveway to the site that serves the homestead and that driveway shows up in this area, and that driveway is part of the MnDot agreement. It’s allowed to maintain the use as a single driveway is typical. Once the use has changed and higher use is developed, it is the intent of that driveway to go away. The Planning Commission, this is the subject site again right here, and the issue that has come up on this property, it’s providing a two way access and I want to spend a little bit of time on that issue in itself and go back and tie it back into the AUAR before we start talking 13 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 about the project itself. And that would be, when we looked at the AUAR, this is a couple years old already. We spent a lot of time talking about this area’s unique development and how the roads will be put in place. …this again is the 2005 MUSA area which would be Lyman Boulevard on the north, the future Powers Boulevard, 212 on the south, Pioneer Trail and then the terminus on the west would be Audubon Road. So in looking at the…and applying the Bluff Creek Overlay District, the goal was to minimize the creek crossing. I don’t know if you, if you look at the trail that comes through there, that will also go unimpeded, the trail that follows the creek itself. But we looked at the main collector road, which you are based on approval to tonight, and then how these other roads would be development driven as they come in. This road right here has shift the location a little bit. You’ll be seeing that shortly with the Pioneer Pass project. That went to the Planning Commission last week. And then the rest of those are development driven. There is a significant portion of this, these two cul-de-sacs, I’m sorry. I’m zipping back and forth. These two cul-de-sacs right here, when we originally did the plan I think MnDot saw it desirous to connect those two roads and we argued that because of the significant wetland impacts here and crossing of the creek. Again to go over the plan to minimize the environmental impacts so and listen to the AUAR comments, they agreed that it didn’t make sense to cross the creek. So how does that tie into the subject site here? We believe there’s an alternative site location to provide two way access out onto the subject site. And that is, currently there’s access coming from the west and then to the MnDot portion. There is a condition of approval in the staff report that we have to work through that. Do we have it all resolved? No. So we’re working in good faith with MnDot, the applicant and the City as a partner to resolve that, and that’s addressed in a condition which I handed to you that’s been modified in the staff report. Subject to meeting the plat’s, their attorney this morning talking about some of the issues that they may have regarding that. But there was, the staff looked at a lot of different alterations or alternatives is the word I want to use for providing two access. So if you look at this site itself and the challenging topography, this site that Town and Country has, the Jeurissen piece I showed you that originally is very challenging, both from the topography. The changing grades. On the bottom portion we’re recreating some natural features there with the Liberty project that Town and Country has. The two projects are tied together. The Town and Country will be replaced and enhancing wetlands on this bottom portion. We also located the trail along here to give nice visibility and then unimpeded that trail will go underneath 212. Again the road that’s, the existing driveway that is there is used as a driveway. For that to become a road the bridge is going over that portion of the road because of the poor soils. We do not think it makes sense for the environmental impact and just for the poor soils that it’s not the prudent way to go. And the impacts on the north side is, right now MnDot is putting some wetland replacement. We can find an alternative site for that wetland replacement and still make the project, so they’re not impacting wetlands. We’re putting replaced wetlands, a portion of those somewhere else. We did look at, there was a suggestion of moving this project back. This area is steep and also taking it to portions of the Fox family parcel where there’s significant trees and also some grade challenges, so we believe the location as identified here, with the condition of approval that they have to work that out, and I’ve given you that modified language. That as that road comes through that the elevation as it terminates towards the Fox family parcel, that elevation itself, the right-of-way would be fixed. Would work to their advantage so that they can tie into that road wherever they see fit on their development pattern. Certainly understand that this is a concern for them, that they don’t want the road connected but it’s the staff’s opinion that environmentally and for good planning purposes connecting that, it makes the most sense. So 14 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 what are the two issues that the Planning Commission spent some time with, and I’ll go now and talk a little bit about the site itself and the architecture. If you have any questions on that part. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, maybe we can, since that was an important issue that came up at the public hearing at the Planning Commission. Some quick questions, I guess with regard to the proposed condition number 48 here, requiring the developer to contact the Fox family to coordinate the elevation. Are we requiring an agreement on that or is it let’s, you know let’s not forget them? Let’s work with them and to try to find the best. Kate Aanenson: Try to find the best. Mayor Furlong: The best that works for all. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And again, the idea of this road, I know there were options brought up at the Planning Commission as far as a loop system, but my sense is that was a single, single point. Basically what you’re saying is, if we want more than one access to this neighborhood, this is the one that really is a viable alternative. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And I know there’s opinions to the contrary of what you know, maybe what MnDot may have said in misunderstandings but in our conversation with them, again in good faith we’re all going in the same direction to resolve this, and there’s, if it doesn’t get resolved, if it can’t be worked this way, which we believe it can, but if it can’t, then it would have to come back before you because that’s all set in place. Again just to be clear, there’s wetland impacts on the south. There is no wetland impacts on the north. Okay. They want to replace some wetlands and we’re saying you can replace them somewhere else in the city and we’re working with MnDot to accomplish that. Mayor Furlong: And then this would be mitigated then within the City of Chanhassen then? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and we’ve identified a site, and they’re working on, the applicant is. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: So that’s in progress, and that’s the part I’m talking about in good faith. Everybody’s probably in that direction. And we’ve had conversations with the MnDot folks, not only Jon Chiglo but the people that are working with the wetland replacement. Mayor Furlong: And they’re working with the city and looking at possibilities there as well? 15 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, let’s move on. We may have other, or do you have a question? Councilman Lundquist: On that road, road piece as long as we’re on that. Kate, can you put up that AUAR road layout or whatever, that one. So I mean granted this is just a major collector road and all of that on there, but as, when we looked at this piece, what was the vision for where this particular piece of property we’re talking about tonight would tie into, I mean as I looked at that piece, obviously one of them can go to that road that was approved last week, or that we’re getting ready, that east/west collector. Then that’s the one to the west. Then if you take that other one to the north or the east or wherever, where would that tie into? Kate Aanenson: It would come across here and then it would, wherever it works best on the Fox family parcel, whether that road swung to the east, to the west. However reflects well with that. However their development pattern works out. That’s why we’re saying we’ll work with the elevation. They want to stop it short until they get that figured out. That we would work with them to provide. Councilman Lundquist: But then it would tie back into the, excuse me, back into the east/west collector somewhere? Or tie directly into Powers or? Kate Aanenson: No. It would more than likely, they’ve got a development plans and different access that there would probably be some other road system in place that would tie that, tie into some other road system here. Provide access to all these parcels. There’ll be another local street, somewhere in that area that would tie into. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, if I may add. This map shows where the major collector roads are and whenever you develop an area, you want secondary access points on either developments internally and that’s what Ms. Aanenson’s talking about here is a secondary access to the Town and Country development in this area. Councilman Lundquist: And the other thing we’d be fighting is with 212 coming through there, it’s pretty tough to get across. Kate Aanenson: We just don’t think it’s really not. Councilman Lundquist: You’ll have to build a bridge across 212. Kate Aanenson: The soils are really poor, that’s why 212’s being bridged across that whole section. Councilman Lundquist: Right so. Kate Aanenson: And then there’s wetland impacts. 16 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Right. Kate Aanenson: The other way the impacts are just finding other places that segment of right-of- way to replace a wetland, and that’s not there yet. We’re not impacting wetlands just to put it somewhere else in the city that we’ve identified. Councilman Lundquist: Regardless of the soil and the wetland impact on that piece, I’m just trying to get my hands around when 212 is, I mean it might as well be the Great Wall of China because you’re not going to go, I mean you’re not going to take a local collector street and build a bridge over it. Todd Gerhardt: You’re not going to go over it and you’re not going to go under it. Councilman Lundquist: So I mean that pretty much forces you to go west and north. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Todd Gerhardt: Gotta go north. Kate Aanenson: From my understanding the ambiguity came in place is that there was a requirement to keep the driveway in place as long as the home was there. Which is a standard requirement for MnDot, yeah. So, but this change, correct. They have to maintain access, yep. Councilman Lundquist: Understand. Kate Aanenson: So some things on this, you know for example this one has changed a little bit, the location of it but those are still identified as the main connection points. The rest of them are all feeders internally. As you’ve seen, there’s other streets that would be on Pioneer Pass, as they will on the preserve, as they are on Town and Country, the looping streets that you looked at. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: But again to Councilman Lundquist’s point, if south and east isn’t possible because of the 212, north and west are the options, but west is more wetland. That’s where the creek goes in that area correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So it’s really… Kate Aanenson: Right, and just going straight south, I mean it’s challenging even to get the trail in there and that’s where we’re re-establishing, it was just a nice vista looking across that open space so. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. 17 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Kate Aanenson: So now we’ll talk about the project itself. So as I mentioned this project came in actually quite a few months ago and we spent some time working on it. I know the concern was duplicating a similar product and we actually had them work on several iterations of different types of product. Different, single family. Zero lot line. They went through a lot of different iterations and I’ll let them go through how they ended up landing on this particular design itself. But there is again some topography challenges which led to the form of those projects itself, and one as you can see there’s a significant retaining wall along the back. Another retaining wall here…and try to loop that street back. And there’s some other retaining walls through the site itself, so that was on the first part of the challenge is trying to get a footprint without excessive grading. Working with that. …and what products worked on that itself so they have the product that is the biggest problem and it’s not even close to what’s on the picture but they’ll show that…power point that the colors are a little different, but that’s their biggest product. And then the other one is the one that’s the single loaded. Again opportunities to catch the views. And this one the Planning Commission spent some time on. Let me back up a little bit what we’re talking about. The topography, we’re starting at 940. Dropping down to 860 and then you’re back on the bottom of the creek and then back up so you can see the challenge with the topography and the grading and putting a footprint on there. So this product also affords some interesting views looking across that perspective. So one of the things that we worked on is trying to reorient some of the units to get some different view perspectives, so the Planning Commission had a discussion of how similar is this to the other product, and again I’ll let them go through. They’ve attached a letter and go through that and that will be some of their presentation. But they also worked at providing some different coloring on the backs of the, this is the larger unit. Not the ones with the garage in the back. The ones with the garage are, garages in the back are the highly articulated. They have the windows and the shed roof over the garage door. The windows on the garage doors itself so they’re highly articulated. Just as we approved on the other product. So they introduced another color and again I’ll let them go through that, unless there’s anything. It’s again 134 units. It is guided medium density. When we looked at this overall AUAR area, this area kind of has the, it’s kind of a different combination. It’s back behind the trees. While it does have visibility from 212, you’ve got the significant amount of trees blocking that. It has to cut across another property which has to get access via the Pioneer Pass subdivision to get access to that, and then that would tie into the collector road, so it’s somewhat isolated in it’s location. So again we’ve got the color palettes here similar again with the addition of one of the colors to what you had seen before. Unless there’s specific questions on the design itself, or the land use, architecture, I’ll be happy to answer those. Otherwise the Planning Commission did recommend approval with the change. Again I did hand out to you the modification to number 48. We are recommending approval with the findings of fact that are attached in the staff report. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff at this time? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what’s the density of this site? Kate Aanenson: The net density is under 5. It’s 4.78 and actually it’s guided for 8. So the challenge was. 18 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: 4 to 8 is what the medium density? Kate Aanenson: Well actually 8. Actually it’s the only piece that’s really, that’s only guided pure medium out there, and…medium was it’s location. Kind of topographically isolated. Right, so the underneath, it is 4 to 8 but it’s still on the lower end of that so. Councilman Lundquist: So then that’s that site and then approximately how much of the total site versus what the piece they’re developing, minus the trees and wetland? Kate Aanenson: Well the gross density, or the gross acreage, there’s only 6 acres that would be taken out. For not developing. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And what’s the total site? Kate Aanenson: 36. So they’re developing on 30. Councilman Lundquist: 36, okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Kate on 48. How far apart are the two properties as far as elevation? Are we talking a couple feet? What do we have to worry about here forecasting a problem with. Kate Aanenson: I’ll let maybe the City Engineer answer that question. Councilman Labatt: The elevation of the street. Paul Oehme: Well to minimize cost you typically try to maintain elevations at their current you know topography so when we looked at the cross section, looked at the profiles through this area, I think Town and Country did put a plan together showing how it could tie into the existing topography that’s out there right now. You know it’s, I don’t think it’s a matter of maybe a couple feel, if that. It all depends upon how potentially if the Fox development comes in, if it comes in, how that could potentially tie in in the future. We’re just trying to give the Fox property an opportunity to comment on how that elevation potentially could tie into the development. That’s all we were after there. Councilman Labatt: So is it safe to say that we’re only looking at, well I shouldn’t say only but I mean approximately 2 feet or so. Paul Oehme: You know based on preliminary analysis I would venture to say it’s only a couple feet. Kate Aanenson: Again part of the challenge on this is, they would like to consider another land use so we’re making a decision based on what we know today. As the City Engineer’s indicated, if it’s a big box, it may require more grading and so we’re trying not to let something out. Give 19 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 them the flexibility if they’ve got some idea of a benchmark that we’d be willing to have this applicant to work with them. And stopping short or something like that. Mayor Furlong: I guess to follow up on Councilman Labatt’s question. The grades to the north, the topography to the north of this site on the Fox family property. How steep or shallow are those grades? Is it shallow enough that with typical grading that a city street would be able to get put in within our ordinance requirements? Paul Oehme: Yes. When we looked at a plan profile I believe the profile showed about a 5% grade. It wasn’t anything too significant. As you move farther to the west of this property and the tree line, those are the grades that we try to avoid. Those are 20% grades. 3 to 1 slopes in most of that area so we’re trying to avoid that by pushing the road farther to the east. Mayor Furlong: So by pushing it to the east we avoid the situation where we’re putting in a future connection that’s going to hit a too steep of a grade. Paul Oehme: …retaining walls and all the infrastructure and costs associated with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the balance is how east you have to go before you reach those proper grades on the north side? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Question with regard to condition number 1 under the preliminary plat. Ms. Aanenson, it speaks to noise being generated from new Highway 212. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question there is, the statement says the analysis will identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes. I guess two questions. One is, is by who standards? I’m wondering if we qualify to include MnDot standards, since I believe that is what the standards are along current corridor for existing homes. Maybe their standards at the time of final plat in case that comes up and does this require that mitigation to take place on the part of the applicant would be the second question. Kate Aanenson: Yes. If they do, if there’s noise there and the AUAR identified those properties that are closer to the 212 that would have noise, similar to we did that on Arboretum Village on Pulte Homes as mitigated by putting in air conditioning units so you don’t have to have windows open. Some of those sort of things and type of construction, so they would give us the noise study and based on that would provide mitigation measures for that. Mayor Furlong: And I guess that’s the second part. This condition says it’s to identify appropriate noise measures to meet the standard for residential homes. First question is who’s standards? Second is, where’s the second part that says. Kate Aanenson: Identify and comply with. 20 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Comply or city requirement I guess. Maybe it’s a question of some wording so that the condition is not just to identify what needs to be done but the condition requires it to be done. Let’s implement it yet. Paul Oehme: This item referred MnDot that they used on 212 was a federal highway standard so that potentially could be implemented in this situation. Mayor Furlong: So whatever that standard is, because that is a standard that existing residents are receiving and one that I think we should require new developers to provide as well. Kate Aanenson: Can I ask if that’s adequate then, implementation for the highway centers? Mayor Furlong: The analysis will identify proper mitigation measures. Kate Aanenson: And implementation of those measures. Mayor Furlong: And implementation of those measures and the standards would be federal Mr. Oehme, Federal Highway. Paul Oehme: Federal Highway Administration. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s PCA standards. Roger Knutson: There’s a State Noise Standard as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you’ll get all that in there and make sure we’ve got it in the right order by the time we get to that. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is going the other direction I guess but in looking at this development, it’s 147 units. Kind of sandwiched inbetween busy road. I’m surprised that the Planning Commissioners, someone didn’t bring up, and I know, I’m not one that likes to force parks on developers. There is no like even totlot or anything like that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there is a couple of open spaces in there and I’ll let them go through that when they make their presentation and talk about that. There is a couple of open spaces, and the trail that gets you over to the park on Pioneer Pass. We do have a 8 acre park on the Pioneer Pass, but there are some open area spaces. Some gathering places and I’ll let them talk about that and how they located those. Councilwoman Tjornhom: …if I’m a young mom and I’ve got to get my child, I’m not going to take them across 212 in my stroller. Kate Aanenson: Good question. Todd Gerhardt: You can always take the creek. 21 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Boat… Any other questions for staff at this time? Sounds like we have some for the applicant or we’re waiting for their presentation. So at this point I would invite the applicant to come forward. Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. My name is Shawn Siders with Town and Country Homes. We’re a K. Hovnanian Company. With me this evening is Kevin Clark, our Vice President of Land Development, as well as Robert Nordby, one of our project managers. We’re pleased to be here this evening seeking approval of the Liberty at Creekside preliminary plat. The plans that you have in front of you this evening represent a collaborative effort that represent the hard effort, hard work efforts of the Planning Commission, city staff and the parks board. Their hard work and shared vision have helped us to refine these plans to what you have in front of you this evening. With that, I would like to discuss the unique features of this site and I’ve identified 8 of those features within the development that I would like to review with you in greater detail this evening. Those are how the site design takes advantage of the nature features. The expanded homesite offering. The very building layout. Open space within the private street D. Additional site parking. Retaining walls minimized. The trail alignment…preliminary plat plan that we have just kind of evolved over the last few months based on our discussions with staff and Planning Commission and the parks board. As you can see the units are situated to take advantage of the natural grades as Ms. Aanenson pointed out. We have preserved the southern open space and that will be enhanced with the wetland mitigation area as well as the revegetation plan for the farmed area. If you recall Liberty on Bluff Creek, we were able to preserve the open space on the north and south ends of the development with the housing units tucked in between those two open spaces. With this development we’ve actually been able to incorporate the home sites within the natural features of the site which will enhance the views to each of the homeowners. We have tiered the neighborhood, as Ms. Aanenson showed on that illustration from north to south so that each home will have a view of the open space. And the community is tucked into the natural setting and is surrounded on 3 sides by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. When we originally presented this plan to the Planning Commission in August we proposed the development of a homogenous community with a single home product. Since that time we have introduced a second housing unit which is actually within the middle of the development along public street A. The home sites around the perimeter of the development which are larger units which are the Premiere units have been strategically located actually so we can take better advantage of the natural grades while trying to minimize retaining walls and overall disturbance within the site. We’ve also varied the building layout. We have situated the home sites to offer views of the open space. We have varied the layout of the buildings so that we can enhance the views of the streetscape and a good example of that is actually right here in the middle of public street A where we have rotated those Concord units 90 degrees to offer enhanced views to those particular homeowners, but also to break up the monotony of the street design of the street. We’ve also created additional parking on the site. In total we’re providing 661 parking spaces, 292 of those will be contained within the garages. 292 will be driveway spaces. There are 21 visitor spaces with 11 parking spaces and I apologize it’s hard to see. Right here within public street, private street D, and then there’s also an additional 10 visitor parking spaces within private street C. There’s 22 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 room within the public street there to accommodate 56 on street parking spaces, and the city code requires that we provide 292 parking spaces, so we have a surplus actually of 369 parking spaces on the site. We’ve also worked awfully diligently to reduce the, to minimize to the extent possible the height of the retaining walls on the site. Since we first presented these plans to the Planning Commission in August we’ve actually we’ve been able to reduce the height of the retaining walls by a third. Of course we do understand that retaining walls that are over 4 feet in height do need to be designed by a structural engineer and approved by the building official and we have no problem complying with that. The trail configuration is another, was another collaborative effort with ourselves, the park board, as well as Mr. Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation. We worked hard to identify this trail configuration through the south of the development, overlooking the natural features which we are enhancing. We understand that the trail was a major component of the Bluff Creek trail network and you will note as well that the trail does not propose any creek crossings, which as Ms. Aanenson pointed out is a major consideration of the AUAR. We also worked with the city to identify the preferred location for site access. Of course the primary site access will be off of Bluff Creek Boulevard, which is the proposed east/west collector road. We’re working with the city to obtain the necessary right-of- way through the Degler and Peterson parcels. We also, we have to thank Ms. Haak and Ms. Aanenson for their diligence in helping us find the secondary, the appropriate secondary access point through the MnDot property and we are prepared to work with MnDot as well as the City to proceed with those plans to construct the secondary access through the MnDot parcel and of course we have no problems with complying with condition 48 which is to keep, to work with the Fox property and to keep them informed as we evolve through the planning process and through the permitting process with MnDot. During our discussion with the Planning Commission we were challenged by them to create a unique identity for Liberty at Creekside through the use of colors and an iteration of the color scheme that we proposed for Liberty on Bluff Creek. With that challenge we actually went back and have added a sixth color scheme to the Liberty at Creekside collection but the sixth color scheme will be unique to Liberty at Creekside, and because the number of units of course is certainly smaller, or there’s not as many, we would propose that we dedicate 3 color schemes to the Premiere units, which are around the perimeter of the development, and 3 color schemes will be dedicated to the Concord units so we really feel that we have met that challenge that the Planning Commission, we’re proud that we could work with the city to enhance the site. Each color scheme also has a unique brick or stone with it, and I apologize. I don’t have the stone with me this evening. We have to get revised boards and we’ll provide to the city once we get to the building permit process, but the brick and stone as well as the applications of the color treatments throughout each building really creates a sense of place and insures that there’s no monotonous feel to the community. Next I’d like to talk a little bit about our housing collection that we are proposing on this site. The first is a Premiere unit which is our traditional townhome. We are proposing 98 units to be located around the perimeter of the development to take advantage of the natural grades that are offered to us. These homes do offer 3 levels of living space. There is an option for a master suite within these units as well which of course do offer an additional life cycle housing opportunity to the current and future residents. These range in square footage from 1,500 to 2,400 finished square feet. As you can see there’s a 2 car front loaded garage and the price point is $275,000 to $300,000. As you can see we have introduced a secondary color to the rear of the Premiere units so that, to address the concerns that were previously discussed by the Planning Commission as well as the City Council for going forward through the planning process of Liberty on Bluff 23 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Creek. The second collection was the Concord collection which is our urban row home. We propose development of 48 of these units within the interior of the development. These also offer 3 levels of living space. These range in square footage from 1,700 to 2,400 square feet. These have a 2 car rear loaded tuck under garage. There’s a raised deck overlooking the common areas and these will range in price from $230,000 to $250,000. We would enhance the architectural features of the Concord units as well by implementing additional stone and brick veneer. Also offering shakes to really enhance the overall architecture of what is typical of these types of units in other communities. And then that’s the end of my presentation, if we can switch to the display here. Okay, there were some questions regarding the views of the Liberty Creekside community from the Peterson parcel once it’s fully developed, and this view actually is taken as a snapshot at the closest location between the two developments. This area here represents approximately 600 feet of distance between the two developments. As you can see it will be heavily landscaped so that there would not be much of a view between the two communities. We really feel that this is a nice transition between the single family residential neighborhood, planned for the Peterson parcel, and our more dense townhome development on the Jeurissen parcel. Finally with respect to during the review process we met with city management and city staff and we discussed the need to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Based on the plans presented to you tonight we understand that the city needs to upgrade Lyman Avenue and we’re prepared to share in the costs to upgrade Lyman Avenue and with that we support that and we look forward to partnering with the city, just like we did on the collector road as well as the other improvements like the trail…to make the improvements for the area. With that I’d like to thank city staff for their strong support during the evolution of these plans. Without them, without their assistance we certainly wouldn’t have been here this evening. I’d like to thank you for your previous support on Liberty on Bluff Creek, as well as hope for your support this evening for the approval at Creekside plans and I’d be happy to take any questions you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the applicant, Mr. Siders. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Siders, the two types of, or titles of units that you have in there, as I’m going back to the previous Liberty at Bluff Creek. Are those two types of units included in that development? Shawn Siders: Yes sir they are. Actually the Premiere units, which are these right here, are what we’re proposing… Those are actually the least used in the Liberty on Bluff Creek because we were actually only proposing to develop 62 of those on Liberty on Bluff Creek, so the reason we selected these two units is they are more of, two of our more popular units so we would like to hold out with you know Liberty on Bluff Creek going into Liberty at Creekside, so from a business perspective, because the Premiere units specifically, we don’t have as many units on Liberty on Bluff Creek and they are our more popular units. We would like to go into Creekside so that they will really support one another and not…to the home buyers. Councilman Lundquist: And then the other one, the Concord, is that right? Shawn Siders: Yes sir. Councilman Lundquist: Is that one, do we have that in the other one as well? 24 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Shawn Siders: Yes sir. We have 146 units. Councilman Lundquist: Then, so what you’re proposing with these two, are these the, well I guess I’ll call them the Chanhassen version of these two with the upgraded architecture and we worked really hard on that other one to kind of minimize that barracks and hotel look to them. Shawn Siders: Well we certainly have upgraded our architecture that we do not have in other communities, yes. Councilman Lundquist: And it’s identical to or same concept. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, actually there’s just one more differentiation and that would be the color on the back. Shawn Siders: Yes, that’s correct. Kate Aanenson: And then again on the back of the, I’m not sure what, is that, remember I talked about the back. Yeah, they’re very articulated in the back with the shed roof over the garage. Other shutters and that I think was a big change from what we saw in other communities. We need to have a color drawing on the back. I have a reduction here but, to us we felt that was equally important. I think the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that the perspectives were equal on all sides and that’s what they spent some time discussing too. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And I guess just to clarify Councilman Lundquist if I understand your question. You’re saying that the architectural and color schemes are the, at the same level as Liberty at Bluff Creek or changed with the. Kate Aanenson: Plus one, yeah. Shawn Siders: They are certainly elevated and use differently, if I may interrupt. I apologize. So they’d be, introduce the additional color as well as we have, because there’s fewer numbers of units we would propose that we designate certain color schemes to those specific units just to create a different sense, you know in addition to the other overall site characteristics that we’ve tried to integrate within the development. Mayor Furlong: Wasn’t that done as well, the color schemes were assigned to certain units in the Liberty on Bluff Creek as well, or no? Kate Aanenson: They’re just taking a little bit different design of that. When it comes back for final plat you’ll see that it’s like a story book with a color palette picked out for each unit so there’s no similar colors next to each other. But what he’s calling out is, with the product to be certain colors limited. 25 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Shawn Siders: To the Premiere and to the Concord, yes. Kate Aanenson: 3 and 3, plus a different veneers, brick, stone and then the shutters and some of the additional articulation. Mayor Furlong: And are those changes from Liberty at Bluff Creek? Shawn Siders: Yes. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say no but. Kevin Clark: Kevin Clark, Town and Country Homes. I think Mayor to answer your question, I think what we were going to do and how we’ve laid out Liberty at Bluff Creek is that we would alter, alternate the colors throughout the different home styles using all the palettes as opposed to what we think would be appropriate here would be to designate 3 of each of the palettes to a specific home style, and then have the differentiation along those home styles. So we’re at more of a quilt kind of scenario at Bluff Creek. Here we’ll designate or what we’re proposing to do is designate a specific. Councilman Lundquist: More like stripes instead of a quilt. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Kevin Clark: Well, okay. We just throw out a little differentiation that way rather than having it, because it’s smaller, rather than having it go jump from building to building, to alternate it by product. Kate Aanenson: Right, and not quite as busy maybe. It’s a little bit smaller, little bit quainter. Kevin Clark: Because the other site is, understand it’s much larger and it has more, it has four unique areas to it. Rather than having a larger sampling of colors in those seemed appropriate. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions. Please, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright, to start out, what is the…brick and stone that’s being used? Shawn Siders: Excuse me, can you repeat the question? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Percentage of brick and stone being used in the front. Do you have a formula for that? Shawn Siders: It varies but it’s at a minimum of 25% by city code. But in some, for instance like on this particular unit if we can go to the overhead. Okay, this actually has an expansion of the brick or stone veneer up to you know three-fourths of the unit and I apologize, it’s not very distinguishable here but, there is brick and stone there that… 26 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: So you say veneer, so it’s not real brick or stone. Kevin Clark: No, it’s real brick. It’s not thin brick. It’s real brick. It’s just that… Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: There’s a framed wall behind it. Kevin Clark: Correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The price points of this compared to Bluff Creek, are they the same? Shawn Siders: Very similar. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Higher? Lower? Shawn Siders: Depending on the homes, they’re probably a little slightly higher than Liberty at Bluff Creek. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, and that’s just because of the location? Shawn Siders: Just location. The cost of the development. This is…as Kate pointed out…cost in development is in addition to that building. It is a fairly unique view within this whole AUAR area just because of what we’ve been able to accomplish with on the site. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then getting back to the architecture. I’m struggling with the back of these units. Kind of monotonous feel to it. What did we do, and I don’t see copies of the back of what happened at Bluff Creek with the architecture. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, some of those had, actually had patios or decks off the back, depending on. Shawn Siders: This is depending on the deck. Some of them are walkouts. Some of them are look outs so it depends on how the specific unit is treated and how we can take advantage of grades or not take advantage of grades certainly has an affect on how the backs of the units were created. Kate Aanenson: And I was going to say, it’s not a smooth back. It is, it’s hard to see in the drawing but it’s articulated so there’s movement in the back so there’s shadowing. Mayor Furlong: The roof line is probably your best way to see that with the interior, the two interior units seem to be, I assume they’re recessed as opposed to just stopping the roof shorter. Straight wall. Try not to assume up here. Kate Aanenson: Yes. And you can see on the end units there’s shutters on the backs of those, and those are the little things that add the additional articulation so. 27 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And I guess just to clarify then to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question, how is this different because this was an issue that we brought up at Bluff Creek as well. The view of the back and how is this different from what we did there? Or is it the same? Kate Aanenson: I think it’s the same. It ended up the same but what we did is we got the articulation, we put the shutters on. We did those little things so you don’t look at the bland and I kind of compared it to a lot of other you know houses where they put brick on the front and kind of the back tends to be maybe not as spiced up, if I can use that word. Mayor Furlong: Forgotten. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So I think we did, and again some of those on Liberty had decks off the back so, depending on the grade, so they’re not all the same. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And will these have decks off the back? Shawn Siders: Some will where the opportunity exists you know from the certain grades… Kate Aanenson: Probably be an option. Shawn Siders: …patios and here again you can’t see it very well but there is a patio coming out of the screened door on those units. Kevin Clark: The area that…for walkouts, that whole perimeter to the east, those will all have 3 story back with decks. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And Bluff Creek, as I recall, I thought we had a little bit of discussion about affordable housing in there in that. Will this have any of that? Shawn Siders: …good time to bring the discussion up. We understand the need for affordable housing, although because…high development costs, I mean we do not have a partnership with NHFA nor the Met Council with which can support that so we certainly understand the need for affordable housing, but it will not have a component of that in that, by our own doing I guess. If somebody wanted to you know work with NHFA as a first time home buyer with…so if they’re able to work through their letters and put that together, you know we’re not going to not allow this to happen I guess. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, what was that price point on the Concord? Shawn Siders: 230 to 250. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so we’re close. I mean it’s, for what the Met Council standard is now and that’s the goal we’re setting so there might be something depending on, at a first time buyer. 28 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 They may come in just at market rate, depending on the ad that they put in. The additional features. You might just get some that come in at market rate and that’s how we looked at Liberty at Bluff Creek. If someone would come in, some of those interior units, the smaller ones would come in at that price point for market rate so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And if I could follow up on that a little further. With regard to those price points, is it, is that the range in which all the units will be sold or is that the, you drive by and you say as low as and you see a number on the sign for some development so I guess my question is, with the different options. You had A, B, C, D for some of the units, and others, in all those options, they would sell within those price ranges or would there be more? Shawn Siders: Some of them would certainly take the prices a little bit higher depending on the types of upgrades but that, the units we presented this evening certainly represents a very well collective use of features. You know if somebody would want to add…but I can’t stand here and tell you for sure that if we added every single unit to a home that, you know to the Premiere home overlooking the creek, that may not escalate above the 300 price point. Mayor Furlong: And as you operate, how do you determine which features go into a home? Is that the choice of the first buyer or is that, do you pre-determine features that will be in which unit? Shawn Siders: It’s depending on how the homes are built. If we’re specifying…then the features will be pre-determined. However if there’s some…where a buyer gets in previous to us actually coming out of the ground with it, then they’ll be able to designate which features they will and won’t want. Mayor Furlong: How do you anticipate this development developing with those two options? Shawn Siders: I would say that this feeding into Liberty at Bluff Creek, buyers will probably have more options on this because we do have Liberty at Bluff Creek that we can model obviously, and certainly have them…or a whole set of units that we would need models on just because the sales operation will actually have…Liberty at Bluff Creek and we’re proposing to put in an excess of a million dollar sales center in addition to all the modes so that this will feed right from that. Mayor Furlong: So you have, I’m sorry Mr. Clark. Kevin Clark: I was just going to expand on your earlier questions. These really are the...for the different square footages but the Premiere with that…maxing it out with options you’ll be upwards of 4, close to 5 on some sections considering it will be a year, year and a half down. Mayor Furlong: But that would be at the home buyer’s desire. 29 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Kevin Clark: It’s probably more, it will be less, or it will be less specifying the townhome units than they will be others, just from the nature of construction style. There’s more flexibility… Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, jump in. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a couple more questions and just to clarify. You probably said it Kate and I, or it was in my packet. The open space, is that dedicated? Kate Aanenson: No, it’s private. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So that can be developed at some point in time? Kate Aanenson: No. When we approved the PUD, one of the conditions is we approved the site plan as shown. They’d have to come back because you’re approving the number of units. They can’t add additional units unless they came back and rezoned the property because what you’re approving is that specific plan. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Go ahead. Shawn Siders: I was going to say, and I apologize…this is the open space that we’re proposing to dedicate and you can see the trail configuration going through there. It will be, we plan on keeping that open and installing you know a small shelter…just to give it additional. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, that brings me back to like I said, I really, I’m not one to make a developer, or request a developer to put in a totlot or something but the uniqueness of this location and the fact that I think this will house some growing families, and you know let’s bring us a totlot or something like that. Is there a spot for that? Shawn Siders: This spot would certainly be tied with the trail configuration going through it. But we’re estimating that the… The reason I guess we all collectively selected to configure that trail there is because we are right next to the Peterson development which they will have a large park incorporated into their site. So I would look, say it would be difficult to incorporate a totlot into this community. You know we do have the park dedication fee that of course we are paying into per unit so I guess that was our rationale with city staff and parks board. We would pay those fees to support the park on the Peterson parcel, and then to do some minor things as the grades allow to enhance the open space on the site. Kate Aanenson: We can look at that between now and final plat because one of the other things that we talked about is, there’s an opportunity as that trail comes up and touches the road, maybe you can point to that Shawn. On the trail. Further over. That trail as it comes up. In here. There’s opportunities to do some benches and some of those sort of things just to overtake the view and some of those and so we’d be happy to look at that between now and final plat. Incorporation of some of those. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think I’m done for now. 30 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions? I guess we’ve gone through them. Just some questions to follow up to some of the issues that were important while we were looking at Liberty at Bluff Creek, and that was parking. You made mention of that with a number of sites. I guess if you could help explain, how dispersed are those extra parking sites? And the ones on the private road, those are actually parking spaces off the road. Now the other issue, I’ll just lay a bunch of things out there and you guys can reply. Ms. Aanenson, when we were looking at Liberty at Bluff Creek we talked about the depth of the driveway to ensure that. Kate Aanenson: That’s now their standard for depth. We’ve given them a new standard. Mayor Furlong: We’ve got a new standard so… Kate Aanenson: We’ve got a much better project, and certainly with the larger units there’s, you’ve got that larger driveway as opposed to a single and with their garage in the back, those tend to be the ones that need the most guest parking. There is guest parking on the north side, and then down, as Shawn indicated, in the park area there. And I think that’s. Mayor Furlong: And that’s pretty typical city street, the public street that starts, runs all the way through and up? So it’d be part of the on street parking along there? Kate Aanenson: The public street, correct. Mayor Furlong: It’s subject to everyone else’s limitation, right? I guess are we counting those parking stalls so the public street is. Kate Aanenson: No, no. That’s different than what we did on Liberty. That would be different. When we provided, let them do on street parking because there was again a different product mix in there and trying to get that parking closer to those products that, you wouldn’t want to maybe park in the back. You’d want to go park in the front and ring the doorbell so. Mayor Furlong: So we’re not counting any of the public streets available parking? Kate Aanenson: No we’re not. Mayor Furlong: In the parking count. Okay. Alright. Thank you. And I guess that’s all the questions I had. Any other questions for the applicant then? Okay. Very good, thank you. Appreciate it. I guess at this time I would ask if there are any other questions or follow up questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate can you put up that map of the whole area? The aerial. Kate Aanenson: This colored one? Councilman Lundquist: There you go. So you know what, that AUAR, the black and white one might be, there you go. That one right on top. Yeah. So the existing Liberty at Bluff Creek is 31 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 right there along Audubon and then the Peterson property is inbetween. And Peterson property, the proposal is to put single family homes. Kate Aanenson: Right… Councilman Lundquist: Homes in there. Then we go back to townhouses. Kate Aanenson: Right, and this looks… Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then there’s Dorsey and Fox’s right there. Okay. Okay. So do you like that flow of townhouses, single family back to townhouse? Kate Aanenson: …so this would be, this is the subject site right here… This is the subject site that we’re talking about. So this is the piece, sorry. This is the Fox family parcel piece. This is the trees we’re talking about. So tying in, so this is the Peterson and I think Mr. Siders indicated there’s a separation between those two projects. And that’s where we’re working with the topography. Providing those natural separations. Enhancing the wetland down here. And then we’ve got the wetland, the creek corridor through here. There’s a physical separation between those projects. This shows the park on this side right here. Another transition between the medium density to more low density, and the road provides that transition. And then this project, the Preserve which is going to Planning Commission is coming in a little bit smaller single family lot. More a Ryland Homes is proposing that project. Averaging about 8,000 square foot on the lots there so, so the goal was to provide a variety of housing types based on what’s happening in the neighborhood. We’ve got that. Councilman Lundquist: So where’s the nearest accessible park from Creekside? Kate Aanenson: From this one? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: This is the park that’s serving the majority of the area. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Could there be another park somewhere else on the site? Councilman Lundquist: So how do they get there? Do they have to go up to the street and down and back? Kate Aanenson: Well there’s a, they would get through this trail that we just talked about. This trail that tied back down to this trail going through. Councilman Lundquist: So is there a trail across the creek then? Kate Aanenson: Well to get onto this one. To get up and then over, right. Or come back down. 32 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Right, so you’ve got to go up to the street and then over and back down again. Kate Aanenson: Yep, yep. Yep. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And this project will also come in with a small park in there for that development too, but for the neighborhood park, this is the site. Councilman Labatt: Brian, can I piggy back on a question? Kate, help me through this, on Brian’s point. How do we connect Longacres to Vasserman Ridge? Where we cross Bluff Creek there. Was there just a culvert there? Was the creek not as wide? You know where the trail goes out to the end of Bent Bow Trail. Kate Aanenson: I don’t think there’s a culvert. Todd Hoffman: There’s a culvert crossing there. An old farm crossing. Councilman Labatt: And nothing like that is doable down here to make it easier where you have the trail going along the perimeter here and then connecting the two with a path similar to. Todd Hoffman: Councilman Labatt, when staff has been anticipating these pedestrian routes for some time and the challenge going from this site to this site is really the grades and the extent of the wetlands that are down here. It’s a steep valley to get down and come back up the other side. And so we planned the crossing at the street to allow the two neighborhoods to connect. And then you could go south as well out of the development, and then cross under and come back up this direction if you’d like. So both access to public spaces such as the park, but then also how do people go for walks or a run from that particular development? Their neighborhood and then get around and back into their neighborhood. So we did look at that. In fact we looked at taking the trail that is a part of this, the subdivision you’re looking at tonight and taking it across the creek into the natural area to take advantage of those natural spaces other than crossing it again but those creek crossings get very difficult and difficult to manage. The one in Longacres was there in place as a field road and we just took advantage of it and put the trail across and the grades are much lower there. Councilman Lundquist: So if I’m in the middle of, if I’m in the middle of Creekside and I take the trail either way, north or south, how far do I have to walk to get to the park? Todd Hoffman: Approximately half a mile. Todd Gerhardt: Would future owners of these properties have a relationship in using the recreational facilities at Liberty at Bluff Creek development? 33 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Shawn Siders: Excuse me, thank you Mr. Gerhardt. We had not anticipated that simply because to have a single homeowners association to manage two communities that are physically separated, it’s not impossible but it certainly adds a level of complexity that the homeowners aren’t traditionally, homeowners and lenders aren’t traditionally interested in involving themselves with you know, to say if somebody’s a friend of you know there’s 2 kids that are friends within each perspective development and you know the Creekside resident goes and takes a swim at Bluff Creek, I don’t think that we’re going to be checking identification cards that closely to throw them out. At least I won’t be. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions here? You want to start with comments? Thoughts. Councilman Labatt: Well I think Brian and I have both have concerns here. Maybe Bethany too. With the lack of a park or the lack of a creek crossing. Todd Hoffman. That park over on the Peterson property, the city park there. What amenities is that going to have at it? Todd Hoffman: It’s a 4 acre site. It will have a playground, parking lot, half court basketball and an open green field. And then trail connection. Mayor Furlong: This is a neighborhood park. How does our comprehensive plan dictate what area a neighborhood park should serve? I guess that’s part of what we’re looking at here. What’s the service area? Todd Hoffman: Half mile reach. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So in this case it’s an up and back down but it’s the same as someone being further north and coming straight down. Or with out other neighborhood parks around the city, same type of reach. Todd Gerhardt: …comparison would be the North Lotus Park. I don’t believe there’s a totlot in the Near Mountain development. Any individual in that one has got to be pushing 300 units that would be in that development. Everybody’s got to come down to Pleasant View to get on the trail and go to the North Lotus Park. Same thing with Fox Hollow. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I think the difference is, is this is a townhouse development so, I mean you’re talking about a neighborhood and a park and I bet every other person has a swing set in their back yard or something like that and I don’t think, you know these people aren’t going to have the liberty to just put up a Rainbow set in their back yard. Councilman Lundquist: No pun intended. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No pun intended. So I think that’s probably the difference that I feel they’re a little bit different. Todd Hoffman: I’ve not studied with the applicant or without the applicant the area that is in that little green space, and perhaps they can revisit that. That’s probably the best opportunity. 34 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Neighborhood visits, park visits, there are going to be days when people would take that walk but the majority of park visits are much shorter than that and they could just walk down to the end of their block and even on a small playground, socialize with some of their neighbors. Take their children down there. That would be a highly attractive amenity within the neighborhood, so perhaps we should just ask the applicant to relook at that one more time. Councilman Labatt: Kate, how big is that area in that turn around? How big an area are we talking? Kate Aanenson: I don’t know if I have that off the top of my head. Shawn Siders: Quarter, maybe a third of an acre. Kate Aanenson: A typical lot size. A standard, a little bit bigger than a standard lot. Kevin Clark: I think just going back to what we’ve looked at, progressing through the planning of this, we looked at this as a more passive setting with the elevations Kate referred to the opportunity along. One of the things we talked about when we were working with Todd and the parks commission was the trail location. We talked quite a bit about the trail crossings and feasibility of that and I don’t really think the graphic is exaggerating but the flood plain down there, the width from bank to bank or how that tributary runs, this would make crossing it very challenging as far as maintenance and also access because of how quickly it drops down and then back up. So this area here, as a retaining wall all along this street, in order to facilitate certainly the street construction, but also to protect this area and this bluff. I guess from a developer’s standpoint, the things that we’re conscious of and Rob here, our project manager is going to be even more conscious of is just the whole stormwater management piece. I mean it’s really concentrated on, if you go back 3 years, how much we’ve focused on protecting the bluff. How much time we’ve taken to have setbacks and prime area and secondary, that we’ve really focused a lot of energy on that, so working through this trail piece was also a compliment to how we saw the site which was more from a viewpoint shed and we talked about benches up on this area here and creating an area, kind of a rest area I guess when you come up off the trail with what we envision was you know a lean-to or gazebo, some kind of effect like that where you come through this kind of a back to setting place where you come and have a picnic or rest in the shade. Things like that. But if the goal to provide a play area in each of these separate kind of communities, I wouldn’t say it’s something we couldn’t look at it commissioner, councilmen. But it was our initial objective to have this be more of a passive area. And maybe if it’s an offset between having that be passive and convert that to a small play facility, that’s possible too but we’re also conscious that we have a full public right-of-way coming into this with circulation around it, and then parking there so while it’s I think sufficient size to accommodate some, it’s probably not going to be a big grand totlot area but there certainly could be some provisions for that so I think that there’s places where we can meet on that. It depends on which side you want to land on heavier. Most passive setting or more an active play space. So it certainly is open. Councilman Labatt: Another question for Todd Hoffman. Todd, the small little park on Stone Creek Circle East, you know up in Stone Creek off of Galpin. Where the little playground is there off the little circle and we’ve got a Circle East and Circle West. 35 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Todd Hoffman: Stone Creek, yep. Councilman Labatt: How big is that? Todd Hoffman: How big is that park? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. The little totlot play area. Todd Hoffman: Very small. The actual park size with all the creek is about 9 acres, but the totlot area is just. Councilman Labatt: I was just talking the you know as you’re coming down the road and take the right hand to go into the cul-de-sac there’s a little park right there that seems to adequately service that area of Stone Creek. Todd Hoffman: All of that would fit in here. Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions or thoughts? We seem to be focusing on park issues. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: Well, that’s why we raise questions so. Councilman Labatt, thoughts. Comments. Councilman Labatt: Well I’m going to take the park issue instead of the site real quick. I want to go back to number 48. And like the addition of the wording, but I think prior to final approval the developer must contact the Fox family to coordinate the elevation of the northern street connection at their property line. I can see this dancing back and forth like a ping pong match here. And I think that we need to word it differently where you know who has the final say? If it’s Town and Country goes to the Fox’s and say well our elevation is 978.4 for example, and Fox says well that ain’t going to work for me. I need 981. You know I don’t want to get into this match back and forth about who has the final say so somebody’s got to have the final say. Whether it’s the city or whether it’s Town and Country. But I don’t think that the Fox should have a veto power or be able to hold Town and Country, hold up their projects so I think we need to fix that verbiage in there. Kate Aanenson: Can I ask the City Attorney if he has some alternate. Roger Knutson: Mayor, I certainly…no one has, no private citizen can have a veto power over someone else’s decisions on how they’re developing their property. That’s reserved for the council. That’s certainly your prerogative. I think the intention here is that they’re supposed to coordinate, discuss with the Fox’s and try to work something out. Not that they necessarily will 36 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 but they should try in good faith to do that. If they can’t reach an agreement, then it comes back for you to make a decision. Todd Gerhardt: I think you could add language to this number here. This recommendation to include that a decision be made prior to final plat and if the decision isn’t made by final plat between the two parties, then you know as Roger has said, City Council has the ultimate decision in deciding where exactly that elevation should be. Councilman Lundquist: Well that’s the way it’s worded right now though. Essentially. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: That condition does not connotate or require that an approval has to be made by the Fox property. All it says if they have to contact them. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: I think we understand the intentions but right now the way it’s worded is, I mean you know, if they can’t come back with an agreement, it’s up to us anyway. Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Kate Aanenson: And I just want to make clear for the record, this got put in there based on our meeting, the City Engineer and myself today and we want to have good faith that we’re trying to work together on this so that’s why it was put in there. That we’re trying to work to get the best location, if it can be resolved. Anticipating what the future development plans would be. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay? Let’s keep it moving. In terms of overall thoughts for the development. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I guess a couple of concerns that I have. One is the park. The problem is, what I struggle with is I don’t think I have a good solution because I’m not a fan of private totlots. Try to avoid them like the plague, but I think it’s not the greatest set up. If I’m a young family trying to get into Chanhassen and I want to come in and buy a $230,000 townhome, I don’t know that I want to send my kids up a trail to a major collector street, across the creek there, and then back across somewhere. I mean I understand, absolutely understand that crossing that creek and all the slopes and that stuff is not practical and wouldn’t encourage that so I guess that’s what I struggle with. It’s a long ways to that park and so that’s a problem. But I, you know there’s an issue there that I think we need to figure out and we need to solve because we’ve got to provide an amenity somehow because there’s going to be kids in that neighborhood and I think it’s just, in my opinion, too far to go to send them over to that proposed park. The route that it has to go. So that’s a concern. Other concern is that, I guess I never envisioned when we looked at this that we’re going to have, I mean we’re talking about, what have we got? 600 units. How many units do we got in the Liberty at Bluff Creek Kate? 400? Kate Aanenson: 444. 37 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so we’ve got you know 600 townhouses located right there. It’s a lot of townhouses in an area. Understand land prices are what they are. We’ve got a major highway going through there. Nobody’s going to want to build a million and a half dollar house on that, and you couldn’t afford to anyway with the price of land, so understand there’s some challenges there. I’m just trying to get my arms around having 600 townhouses in that area. And then the other thing with the road connection to the Fox property is, I guess I would like to see, I know that Mr. Fox and Mr. Dorsey have some proposals and other things. I guess I would just like to see if there’s a way to look at some of the preliminaries and see if it even matches up at all. I understand their’s may be a long ways off and not suggesting that we hold Town and Country hostage for another person’s development but I would like to see just some you know, are we even in the ballpark for elevations. For locations. For I mean if they have a proposal that says it’s here and these guys are over here, and we’re a quarter mile apart, I mean that’s something that maybe we can look at. I’m not saying that that means that we’re going to say no to Town and Country or whatever. You know he who gets there first I guess wins ultimately generally, but I’d just like to see that and take a look at it and see if we’re even in the ballpark there. On that, and I guess so those are the biggest things I have now. You know overall I’m glad that the developer kind of learned from the previous grueling process on Liberty at Bluff Creek to incorporate that architecture and those things. I mean that makes the process a lot smoother and that so I’m glad to see that. I think that’s definitely a positive. Another, I don’t want to start from scratch on this thing necessarily but I guess I’d like, I would have liked to have seen something other than the four types of units that we had over there just again as a mix. I understand we’re doing some things with the architecture and colors and things but, and you know creating something from scratch obviously is not in their portfolios as a challenge but you know whether or not that ultimately makes a difference to me, I guess I haven’t decided yet. But overall I think there’s enough things to be done here with some things I’d like to look at that I’m not sure I’m ready to proceed tonight and might suggest that we wait a couple of weeks to look at some of the alternatives. Check out some of the things with where it meets up and see if there’s any other suggestions and things that we can look at with the park access or something like that, that would go that way so that’s just my thoughts. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well for once I’m not opposed to it. Primarily because we don’t have to change the rezoning. I think for me that was, that’s a big deal. That we’re not you know having to find a new replacement for industrial, office industrial somewhere else. This was kind of you know planned as always to be medium density, am I correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Good, good. So I’m not off on that. But I think I was hoping for more variety. I’m not against townhouses. I’m not against the development at all. I just would like to see development that doesn’t mirror the last development. You know it’s, I don’t know if I drive into one development, then I go to the next one, I think I’d kind of feel like well, where am I? Am I at Creekside or am I at Bluff Creek? I can’t tell the difference, and so I just think we probably need to push a little bit more on the architecture and the variety of the design of this 38 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 development. And I also feel with the road issue, I really want to be fair to the Fox’s on all of this because even though Town and Country is there first, you know they still have a lot at stake also so I want to make sure that we really look through everything with a fine tooth comb. Go over all the options and make sure we can come up with something that is okay with the city, with the Fox’s and with Town and Country so we all feel good about it, if it’s possible. I think you need to at least keep trying with that. And so I too am not ready to approve it but that’s not saying that I’m going to not approve it in the future once some of these details get ironed out. And the park I guess since I’m the one that brought it up. But I just feel that we should probably investigate that a little bit more. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: How far are we on our time Kate? Mayor Furlong: May something I thought I saw. th Roger Knutson: May 8. Councilman Labatt: So do we have one more meeting or two? Councilman Lundquist: One more. Councilman Labatt: Well I guess that you know, the first thing we’ve got to look at is, it was talked about earlier. I don’t disagree with either one of you two on your comments and barring a little bit more time here trying to work a couple of these things out and that’s the way we’re all leaning here tonight. I think it’s a good project. Number one I think that you look at the net density of 4.7 units per acre when it’s guided for 8, and we have open space and bluffs to worry about and they’ve protected them. I think they heard our comments about the park and we need to investigate putting some sort of park on that island in the cul-de-sac at the end. You know I had private parks in my neighborhoods in Chanhassen here and in city parks so I go back and forth. I’m not going to write off a private park there. The architecture on the back of the buildings was talked about. How do you break it up a little bit? I’m not sure. I know we talked about it earlier Bethany and where you incorporate different siding or the colors in the recessed areas are nice but somehow we’ve just kind of got to break that up so, I hope in the next 2 weeks here, or 4 weeks or whatever it’s going to come back to the developable, look at our suggestions tonight and make some tweaks if they can. Overall I think it’s a good project for our future residents. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. You know my thoughts are similar to those expressed I guess in terms of starting general. I think overall this process has been easier because of the work that we’ve done mutually over the last few months and years, especially starting with Liberty at Bluff Creek. To that end I think that while there’s some expression here of things that have been desired, I also appreciate that generally the opinions have been there. It’s a good project and it sounds like we’re close but we need to do a little bit more and that’s what I’m hearing tonight and I think, I appreciate the comments Mr. Siders and Mr. Clark made that suggested that they’re willing to look at some of these things so I appreciate their willingness to do that. The park 39 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 amenities, you know understand the issues there that have been expressed tonight. Let’s see what you can come back with because we’re not looking for a second neighborhood park on this site. I don’t think anybody’s, so it’s not that we’re looking for there, and I know that there might be some things to do and still provide perhaps a combination of the passive and the small recreation, at least for small children which I think was expressed earlier this evening. The number of units, I think Councilman Labatt raised up the density issue and it’s a lot of units across this area but I think in part, at least in this case, a lot of the units, you know from a density standpoint, but we’re also working with and maintaining in terms of the density and the proximity of the units is the Bluff Creek corridor that runs through the middle of this entire AUAR area and because of that, while the units are there, they’re being pushed together if you will from a density standpoint. The, so I think it’s something that we’re getting our arms around. I agree with you on that. I think a little more time to just make sure we’re comfortable with that. Wouldn’t hurt since it looks like there’s some other things to look at as well. The street connection, we talked a little bit about that. That was addressed well I think at the Planning Commission. Those issues were raised during the public hearing and the first question we have to ask ourselves as a city is, do we want one or more access points to a neighborhood and I think clearly the answer is more than one is what we want from a safety standpoint. For flow of traffic that’s necessary so then what are the viable alternatives? I think the options raised…make it the best alternative. I’m pleased to see the expansion of condition number 48 to include the property owners to the north. I think that’s important. That was mentioned tonight a few times on other items and we need to do that and look for ways that we can accommodate their needs. At the same time we have tried and I know it’s been mentioned before but we’ve tried to allow property owners to set the pace of development in this area rather than forcing development, so I wouldn’t want this street connection to force the timing of the development, nor would I, so that there’s agreement there on the property to the north. Nor would I want this development to be held up until the other property owners are ready but working together in good faith to try to find a solution I think is something that is important. That, as I understand it does not have to be completed in the next two weeks… Kate Aanenson: Thank you. That’s the plans because that’s why we put in the motion at the time of final plat because that may be a month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months out and. Mayor Furlong: Whatever that timing is. That’s not something that we’re expecting them to meet in the next 2 weeks to come up with… Kate Aanenson: That was going to be the concern I would raise. Councilman Lundquist: To clarify I would like to see how the concepts match up. I’m not saying it has to be set in stone in 2 weeks when it comes back. Understand. I’m just, right now I don’t have a clue what this stuff to the north looks like and if we’re even within a half a mile of each other of, you know understand there’s a lot of things and so just show me a picture. Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s fair and I appreciate you clarifying because we want to make sure that we’ve got something that’s manageable within the timeframe here so, but it is an important part. I think we need multiple connections to this neighborhood. The north is the obvious, best solution to meet that need and what we want to do is give consideration to the 40 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 property owner to the north and what their desires are so, so getting more information on that is appropriate. And with regard to the architectural standards, I think we didn’t have a lot of talk on that tonight. Councilwoman Tjornhom, you brought that up in large part because of the effort we put in on Liberty at Bluff Creek and so, you know we view these that the last was the minimum standard. The last project was the minimum standards so how can we do better at things that I think this council and even I can see with this applicant have been working towards so we can look at that. So I guess at this point, given those comments, it’s clear to me that taking a few more weeks to work together to try to address some of these issues to see what we can makes some sense. I want to make sure that the staff and the applicant have everything we’re looking for given the timeframe and out of fairness to them so is there anything that somebody hasn’t mentioned that they’re interested in commenting on? Whether it’s the wording of some of the conditions. You know there’s a lot of things that we could go back and try to fix and tweak but as well as spend some time on these particular 4 or 5 areas that we talked about. Councilman Lundquist: Do you feel like you have some… Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Sufficient direction. Mr. Clark, you had a question or comment? Kevin Clark: Certainly want to have the opportunity to go and look at these things. I just want to shape the discussion moving forward in regards to the connection, and I think by default what we’ve already talked about is in regards to creek crossings or north, south, east, west. We’ve kind of shaped the location so while I know it wasn’t facetious, there’s certainly not…and I guess what I want to do is show just to shape the argument coming forward is, the area where the street is going through is, we’re coming off of this high area down to this low area so already this road is maintaining a grade that’s existing and we’re working to stay away from the Bluff Creek wooded area so, the area we’re talking about, well I’m not quite sure because we haven’t had this discussion with the Fox’s or their representative. I’m not sure, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room one way or the other because we either go into the area that MnDot’s trying to preserve in additional wetland for the road construction, or if we go the other direction we’re into the trees and into the grading the street up into the grade so I think it’s more of just an elevation place, and some of those things are more predicated on just what’s the right storm water layout and that’s really where we would let our engineers talk through that. And I don’t know from our timing, certainly we’re working through this, we’d be prepared you know moving forward to have our engineering done. I’m not sure that’s really where the Fox’s would be with their plans as far as any, I mean they don’t even have a, they’re not, and that’s nothing against them but from a concept, you know what the use is and how that might work, I think what we would be doing is we would certainly communicate to them where we, from an engineering standpoint, where it makes sense to put that road and then maybe it’s a matter of a half a foot. Councilman Lundquist: Well and I don’t, I don’t disagree Mr. Clark with anything you said but the key point for me in what you just did say is we haven’t had that discussion yet, and that’s the key point for me is, is I mean you know I agree that there isn’t probably a lot of options there. You know you’re working with the highway on one side, the bluff and trees on one side and you know monster wetland that we’re going to try to skirt the edge of or something, so I wouldn’t be 41 City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006 shocked if it came back in exactly the same location. But the, I wouldn’t be shocked if it was somewhere else either I guess but, I think the key point for me is that, when you said we haven’t had that discussion yet. That’s the piece that I want to see to occur before we come back in a couple weeks. Kevin Clark: Understood, and not to be argumentative but I’m not sure they have an engineering plan for me to match up to… Councilman Lundquist: And it may be just a concept plan, that’s fine. So we’ll work with the information that we have and we’ll go from there. That’s all we can do. And another key point, clarification again is, it’s not my intention to hold back your project based on whether or not they have engineering level drawings yet or not. It’s you know, I just want to see, I want to see how the color pens match up on the paper is all at this point. Kevin Clark: Understood. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything else at this point or questions or clarification or. Kate Aanenson: I’ve got it. Mayor Furlong: You’ve got it? Kate Aanenson: I’ve got it. Direction. Mayor Furlong: I’m glad somebody has it. Very good. Is there any other discussion? If not, is there a motion to table? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table item 5 for further clarification and some more details. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made to table and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table Planning Case #05-24, Liberty at Creekside for further clarification and details. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, LOT 2, BLOCK 2 CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, APPLICANT EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING SETBACK AT THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING. 42