Loading...
PC Minutes 4-18-06 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Undestad moved, Papke seconded to appoint Jerry McDonald as Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. McDonald: I will accept the office of Chair for the next year. The next order is the election of a Vice Chair. Do I hear nominations for a Vice Chair? Keefe: I will nominate Kurt Papke. Undestad: Second. McDonald: Any other nominations or discussion? Okay, hearing none. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded to appoint Kurt Papke as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o. McDonald: Kurt, welcome to the position. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING: THE PRESERVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD-R: SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES INTO 256 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER LOTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR CROSSING BLUFF CREEK: AND VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1630 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY. PLANNING CASE NO. 06-14. Public Present: Name Address Dan Cook Cory Meyer Brian Sullivan Dan Herbst Justin Larson Rick Dorsey Jim Benshoof C & G St. Martin Mrs. Dean Degler Gayle & Lois Degler Eden Prairie 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie 7640 Crimson Bay 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie 1551 Lyman Boulevard Wenck Associates, Maple Plain 9231 Audubon Road 9111 Audubon Road 1630 Lyman Boulevard Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: And with that, any questions for staff? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Papke: I guess I'll start. First of all, on page, I just have a question. A clarification question. On page 6 ofthe staff report, the second paragraph under subdivision review you state that Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 will be eliminated. Should that be, is that Block II? Aanenson: Yes, that should be Block 11, thank you. Papke: Okay. It was inconsistent throughout. I just want to make sure I got that right. The other set you're talking about are Block 1, Lots 1 through 5, which is down along Street M. Now if, now this street currently goes, would go to nowhere in essence ifthis moves forward? Aanenson: Well our concern with that is, obviously there is some value attached to that but it ties into industrial park, so for planning purposes you have a neighborhood, it has interesting views. Looking towards the creek, but we've also guided that property for industrial so you have all that industrial traffic. We talked about that loop road that would tie from here into Audubon. I'm just not sure that's the best place for a neighborhood, so we'd like to be able to work with the applicant and find some way to remove those lots. Papke: So if we do indeed, we move those lots, I would take it we would remove the, what was we called it, the eyebrow that goes in there? Aanenson: Yeah. Yes, because ultimately this street needs to provide access to the industrial park. Papke: Right. Aanenson: That was part of the AUAR and that would be privately built. That's approximately the touch down point which was one of the issues that was in the letter about spacing and all that but from a planning perspective that eyebrow, those lots kind of sitting there, while they have good views, they're not really a part ofthe neighborhood. The association and we think it'd be better to put the pond, the trail head and some of those other features there and again it comes down to economics. Papke: Okay. A question on condition 30. You state that sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the public. I'm not quite sure what that means. Aanenson: Actually Alyson caught that and we were wondering ifit's a homeowners association with private streets, if someone was on the trail and wanted to cut through this project to get to another project, could they say these are private sidewalks because ofthe private street. Papke: Okay. Aanenson: So that's where that condition came up. Fauske: Correct. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Papke: You also are recommending elimination of some of the streets that are on the, could you go over which of the, I'm sorry. Some of the sidewalks, recommended sidewalks. Could you delineate the ones that you're talking about taking out because I'm not quite sure I followed from the staff report. Fauske: What we were looking at Commissioner Papke was, to take a good look at pedestrian connections through the neighborhood and if there was a need to provide sidewalks on both sides. In just looking at some ofthese streets where for instance, I apologize I didn't have that marked.. .necessary to have a sidewalk on both sides. It was just simply a recommendation that we came through for purposes of the city, when we look at 30 years down the road or so, if there's sidewalk damage, do we want twice as much sidewalk to have to come in and repair blocks so that was simply a recommendation. Papke: So it was mostly on the north/south connectors where you wouldn't expect a lot of through pedestrian traffic, was that the basic idea? Fauske: Correct. We still wanted to provide pedestrian access but take a good look at, do we expect the volume of pedestrian traffic that would warrant sidewalk on both sides. Papke: Okay, thanks. I had a question on condition number 36. Where we're looking there for the details ofthe proposed crossing and I couldn't quite tell from the wording ofthe condition exactly where you were proposing that that would go. I can see from the preliminary plat where it's currently laid out so where are you proposing to move it to? Aanenson: Well I think that's something that the Park and Rec Director and the Water Resource Coordinator would like to look at where the best location is for that, to minimize the impact. Do we tie that in, because right now, if you can shoot back to that. Right now I'm not sure we need this segment right through here. I think we would just take the trail across the creek and then if this road remains in place, tie it back into that road. What we're trying to figure out, if you get to the school, there'll probably be a trail on the north side of Lyman to get over. If you look at that whole trail along the Bluff Creek Boulevard, that would be the only at grade crossing. Otherwise everything else is going to be under the.. . structure. Papke: Right. Aanenson: All the way down the project so that's pretty exciting. Papke: Yeah it is. Aanenson: The problem is, is trying to make this work so I think we want to spend some time with them. That's Phase II, to get that, the best location. Least environmental impact and then if we can get it, I'm not sure the grades will work but we want to explore that. I know the Park Director, because that would be the only at grade crossing. Papke: Okay, thank you. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Sure. Got a couple questions. In regards to the PUD, you've got a 15 foot setback total. There's 15 feet between buildings, is that what is it total? Aanenson: Correct. Correct. That's correct. Keefe: And then it would be 15 feet in the back? Aanenson: Right. So it'd be. Keefe: So it'd be a total of30 in the back on double loaded? Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: And just, you know just for my curiosity. I mean is 15 feet, I mean between buildings enough for fire and? Aanenson: Well that's the minimum. If you look again at this, we're showing the building envelope. I mean right now, this is another, I believe that scales off about 30 feet, so it's substantially. What that allows you is room to put structures within that. The house wouldn't be back that far but that would allow you that building pad area to put a swing set in. Accessory structure. Keefe: On the side though, if you have a total of 15. Aanenson: 15, yeah we had that in other subdivisions in the city. Yes. Other PUD's. Keefe: Alright. And then the back yard is enough then to accommodate decks in size so that people can put a deck on. Aanenson: There's two projects that are similar to this that have that setback. One would be North Bay, which is off of Lyman Boulevard towards the city limits of Eden Prairie. In the Chanhassen city limits and the other would be Walnut Grove. And that also has the smaller lot with the smaller side yard setbacks. Keefe: Okay. So this isn't really a new precedent thing? Aanenson: No, it was a little bit different. It wasn't the PUD-R but we've done those before. Keefe: Okay. Can you speak a little bit to the water I guess on page, I was a little confused, when you look on page 9. Particularly where it says the EOF pad is not acceptable, and then. Aanenson: Is that this one Alyson? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Keefe: And it also talks about what pond 4. It's just sort of an overall, just sort of an overall concern I had is, an overall concern I had was whether the, you know trying to protect Bluff Creek and improve the water quality and we're putting in a fair amount ofhardscape right next to it. Is the water that we're going to be now forcing to Bluff Creek, if that's what we're doing, you know part of it's running away maybe but then part of it's running into Bluff Creek. Is it being, is it going to be improved or is it going to be worst or what are we doing to Bluff Creek? Aanenson: Sure. Let me just take the first part of it and they can talk about the ponding. The emergency overflow and what we've learned historically in the last few rain events is, and this is one of those two houses eliminated. This is the emergency overflow of this wetland so we've got a shot for that to go through without hitting those high rises through somebody's, where it hits the curb and goes over into somebody's house so that's a shot. As far as the ponding and Bluff Creek. Fauske: What we look to do with new developments is certainly still provide the hydrology to sensitive areas like the Bluff Creek. But what they're showing here and the footprint has changed a little, somewhat but basically what we're looking at is getting some ponding areas in through here to provide some treatment before it discharges. The developer has submitted planning calculations so we'll be going through that to make sure that they meet the criteria that we have for water quality as it exits the plan and also as far as water quantity and, quantity and the volume. And the discharge rate, the velocity. Keefe: And then if you create that pond there, does it impact the houses directly to the east of that? You know in terms of, you know because I think I saw something in here where it said . . .relative to the height of the building. Fauske: Our ordinance requires that there's 3 feet separation from the 100 year high water level of the ponds in this area. This is the lowest, lower basement elevation that he is, and I'm not sure if that answers your question. Keefe: So it'd be, so what you're saying is the design ofthat pond would need to be 3 feet below the foundation of those houses? Fauske: Right. And I believe they meet that criteria. I think what you might be thinking of is that the current flood plains built through these lots and our comment was just kind of a housekeeping item as far as we can't ask for approval oflots that are in a current flood plain. The applicant is sending a letter of map amendment out to take and change those flood plain lines, and therefore they can final plat those lots. Keefe: Okay so, and when we give preliminary plat, do we include them then? It's sort of pending. Aanenson: That's correct. With conditions of approval and then it's not their intent to plat that portion right now anyways. The first thing would be.. .so that would give them time to work through that so what we're saying, even if they did final plat it, we'd have them put it in outlot 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 status. I think that was Alyson's recommendation. So they can't have a buildable status until they get that map amendment. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Towards the south end ofthe property, you know how do we calculate bluffs because I was looking at the bluff calculations that were given to us and I think there was like a 25%, 25 dot something and then I was looking, it didn't really measure from the top of, and you know I don't know. Aanenson: It has to meet that 30% rise from the fall and it has to meet those criteria, even ifit's 29% then it wouldn't meet that so. Keefe: So the city's comfortable that there isn't a bluffthere? Aanenson: Correct. It's steep... Keefe: Do we go out and measure that? Aanenson: They provide the calculations to show us and we scale it, yeah. Keefe: Okay, and we're comfortable. Aanenson: And actually we've got pretty good contours that we just got in recently, of all these shot. Keefe: And then just in regards to retaining walls on the west side. There aren't any on the west side or there are because it looks like they're fairly steep. Aanenson: There will be some, yeah and there was a comment in there they have to be engineered. We haven't seen exactly how they're going to place those on there, and the size. They may be able to comment on that but there will be some. Keefe: Alright. Oh, just in regards to the lots on the south end, on the south side of the collector. I mean are we going to extend paths down there? Is there any way to connect them? Is there going to be an interchange? Aanenson: Yeah, there will be the sidewalk along this and then this street actually is the one that ties down to the Creekside development. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: So they'll all tie back and then there's sidewalk and trail along the Bluff Creek Boulevard also to allow access to that. And actually when you get down here, Paul may be able to explain that better but Kimley-Hom is, I know the Park Director wanted to make sure, if you wanted to get on the trail at that point, so there's a sidewalk going down, steps going down to access the trail at that point, so these people here, you would have to go back to try to catch it. You can catch it here at this point so there are steps going down. And then that's a bebo 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 structure that would go underneath Bluff Creek Boulevard. And then there's one further down as you get towards the 212 crossing, another bebo structure to go underneath it. Keefe: Okay. So it doesn't appear on, at least the one document I'm looking at now and in the future there's a plan. Aanenson: Correct. I believe that the Bluff Creek Boulevard plan shows that. It's got a ring wall showing the bebo structure and the stairs. Keefe: And let me maybe rephrase it. I think the City's requesting that the developer create the path that's on here and they would be reimbursed. Is that what I read? Aanenson: This trail? Keefe: Yes. Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: Right, but the one south of the collector. Aanenson: That's still on their property, yes. Yes, that would still be to the terminus oftheir property, correct. Keefe: Okay. Alright. And then just one last question. The private street on the north and, it looks like, I don't know what you call that ending. We don't have any access to Lyman there? Aanenson: No. No. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: No, and that was one ofthe areas, the comment is I think Alyson alluded to, this plan because we had some additional changes we want to make so this plan is a little bit different than what we wrote our report on. Actually the project... to the north, there was some additional ponding and it's some of those ponds we've done, the general layout's the same. It just slid a little bit to the north so that's where some ofthose ponds went from what you saw. Keefe: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, the land that's been set aside for the playground in the park area, you know what is that in relation to the council's guidelines for setting aside you know recreational area for the size of the development? Aanenson: Sure. Again the Park and Rec Director hasn't had this item go to the Park and Rec Commission yet, but he has recommended approval of, based on the fact that, his 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 recommendation was this be the park and this be the trail head so two components so I can't speak to that. I haven't seen that report but I know he is recommending approval of the private park and not a public park with this project, and the trail. So as far as the relationship between the acreage, I haven't seen that part ofthe report. Dillon: Okay. Aanenson: But that will be forwarded to the City Council, that recommendation. Dillon: Alright. And when is the, there's a little descriptions ofthe homes that are contemplated for this area but what is the price range of the house? Aanenson: I'll let them go through that with their presentation. That's a good question. Dillon: Alright. That's all I have for now. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: No. McDonald: I guess I have just one question. I'm a little confused about a couple things about the hard surface coverage. Okay, this is 30% and it's averaged over the entire site and we admit that some lots are going to exceed that. What are we going to do down the road if they come back in and we're looking at decks. We're looking at, they want to add onto the back ofthe house. Are we setting ourselves up for a condition of, you know now we're looking at variances? Aanenson: Yep, that's a good question and that's a concern that we had too and one of the conditions that we have in here is that they work through their homeowners association and put what things they can and can't do in there. What we did just on a gross calculation is figured there was probably about 600 to 800 square foot of additional useable area in their back yard, but what we'll ask the applicant to do is to give that a definitive number and then put that in a development contract so homeowners know how much expansion area they would have on a lot. McDonald: Okay because I would think one of the things that's going to happen, a lot of people are going to want to put three season porches. Aanenson: Absolutely, and they've already accommodated that. I don't see that as a problem. It's when you go beyond that, if they wanted to do a Sport Court or you know some ofthose sort of things. So yeah again, we did put that condition in here. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. At this time, if the applicant is present and would care to get up and make a presentation. Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Dan Herbst at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen. I'm with the Pemtom Land Company. Want to congratulate 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 our two new members to the Planning Commission tonight. When I moved to Chanhassen in ' 69 and I sat in your seat. We were down here with kerosene lights and there were only 48 stars on the Flag. I think you're going to learn a lot from this process. I was also, when I moved to Chanhassen, entered into the land development business and it was really good for me to sit in your chair and learn their side of it and also listen to the public side. It was a very helpful experience for me for the rest of my career. And I'm sure you are quite proud of this city, as I am. When we moved out here, we had a couple of body shops. A couple saloons. A couple churches. We had to do all of our grocery shopping at a Red Owl store at 7 and 101 and all our clothes shopping in Southdale, and Chanhassen is really the envy of a lot of the communities in the Twin Cities now. I did a lot of development in Bloomington. They never could define their downtown. Richfield had the same issue. Eden Prairie still has the same issue with no downtown, and to be able to have a downtown city with all of the accommodations we have here now is a dream come true for all of us and commissioners that have come after me and the staff that works so hard, I think you've done a wonderful job. Really have a quality city here. Let me explain and introduce some of the folks who are with here this evening. They have done most of the heavy lifting on this. On your immediate left here is Dan Cook, my partner at Pemtom. To his left is Cory Meyer. He's a professional landscape planner and architect with Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Brian Sullivan with the Ryland Group. A group that I'm very honored to be associated with for a number of years. Very high quality, publicly held company that has a great, does great things all over this country. And behind Cory in the matching yellow tie that I have here is Justin Larson who's an engineer with Westwood Professional Services, and it's great at this point in my career to be surrounded by such talented people. They worked very hard on this site and other sites that they've worked on. And have done most of the heavy lifting on this. And speaking of heavy lifting, I think your staff needs to be given a great deal of credit. I don't know if some of you have been involved but this whole process of this area of town was so open. So deliberate. So professional. Going through the comp plan amendment. Going through the ADAR. Studying all the implications. Environmental. Traffic. Everything. And at that time, and I think it was most or all of the land owners out there were very excited about this process because they're sitting there for years and years and years without public services and sitting on land that they were not able to exit at the time, and now what the city's work has done, and it's been wonderful work. It's pretty rare in our community to come in, on this large a tract ofland, and see all the work that's been done ahead oftime. So anyway, I would basically just give you a little background of our thoughts on this property and then I'd like to have Cory Meyer, who's gone through this planning process with your staff, to come up and speak to you for a few minutes and then Brian Sullivan of Ryland to talk to you about what Ryland's thoughts are and how they did the things. And then if you have any specific engineering questions, Justin Larson can answer them for you. But the piece of land is, has created a great deal of excitement for us. You know it has all of the elements that we'd like to be involved with. Beautiful rolling land. Some trees on it. Beautiful creek valley. And as I kept my eye on this property and worked with the Degler family for the last possibly over 15 years. Every time I came over that hill and looked down on this property, I said something special has to be done here. And then as your planning process evolved with townhomes being on the Town and Country site and upper bracket single family being on the Sever Peterson site, and a lot of upper bracket single family homes north of Highway 5, it seemed like what this community was missing was a unique product, and that is a clustered single family home that doesn't exist in the community that caters to a specific market. It's not 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 going to be like my Lake Harrison project. Building 800 to a million and a half dollar houses, but much more affordable. Much more maintainable type of home, and when we put that product together and spent all the time with your staff and our planners, a lot has gone into this in the last few months and I picked the product as the more you study this, you'll see the product and the land plan and the thought process as we got into it. Working with your collector roads and your utility systems, has really turned out to be a great concept and a great housing project for this area. So with that in mind I'll have Cory Meyer come up and he's the one who prepared the book that you've probably gone through and have him go through this thought process on our plans and then have Brian Sullivan come up and talk about the housing product. Any questions at this point? McDonald: Anybody have any questions? I have one question. Would you explain what is a clustered home development. I haven't heard that before with anyone else. Dan Herbst: You know basically you look at a standard single family plat. They're standard lots. Pretty well laid out in grid pattern, and very conventional looking versus taking a smaller lot. Trying to put a house on it. Working around the topography and putting the housing on the most developable portion of the land and leaving the rest of the land as open space, as is occurring here. And I'd like to go through some ofthe open space numbers with you afterwards, as well as some issues we have with the resolutions that are in your deal so hopefully I can have an opportunity to come back up and address the resolution after your public hearing process, before you make your motion. If you allow me that opportunity. McDonald: We have no problem with hearing any of that and I thank you for your answers. So whoever's next. Cory Meyer: Good evening. My name's Cory Meyer. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a landscape architect and planner and have the privileges of working with Dan and the Ryland Group on this project. You stole my thunder a little bit when you asked the question about the cluster because I was going to get into that a little bit. I still will. I just wanted to briefly touch on a couple ofthe key, a couple aspects of the design and kind ofthe thought process of how we went about. Two of the key elements that I kind of want to talk about would be, first how this type of development pattern is tailored for this site. And the second would be, how this development pattern is going to create a unique neighborhood for the city. First how this development pattern is tailored for this site. As it relates to the cluster type of question, what we're trying to do on this is overall minimize or decrease the overall development footprint, if you will. We're taking the normal size homes that would be constructed elsewhere in the city and put it on a little bit smaller of a lot that allows us to take that lot area, the excess lot area if you will and put it into common open space for civic enjoyment. For public use. This is kind of a modified cluster approach. That allows us also, it has some benefits to doing that. It allows us to provide for greater preservation of sensitive environmental areas. In this case the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Bluff Creek Overlay District is noted in the city's zoning ordinance and there is a number of design issues that the city would like to see associated with how development treats the Bluff Creek Overlay District. And there's actually a pay in your booklet that kind of addresses some of those, and I won't really get into that a lot but essentially what it talks about, you know I'll just throw out a couple ofthem really quickly, to promote innovative 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 development techniques such as cluster development and open space subdivisions, and to encourage a development pattern that allows people and nature to mix, as well as encourage cost effective site development, reduce infrastructure, engineering and construction costs, etc.. So that's kind of the gist of why we did this. The site is very special and begs for a different type of development pattern to happen on it, hence the idea of clustering. Tied in with the cluster type of approach is how we treat the circulation systems. As Kate talked about, there's a combination of private and public roadways on this site, and that allows us a little bit more flexibility on how we can handle topography and basically preserve as much of the site as possible with grading efforts and the utility and infrastructure development. Part of the other reason, how this project is tailored for the site. Again in association with the Bluff Creek Overlay District there's a regional trail that's obviously going to be planned and we have the great opportunity to be able to construct connections to that system that allow these people to interact with the whole Bluff Creek Overlay District as a whole. One other key aspect of the cluster type approach is that it allows not only the preservation of Bluff Creek Overlay District but also the other environmental areas, and let me get to the next page here. There are some wetland areas that are found on the site that we are avoiding and preserving. There are some wooded areas along side of the creek area that as well will be preserved and incorporated into the open space system. So the second kind of component of what I want to talk about tonight is how this development pattern is going to create a unique neighborhood for the city. As Dan alluded to, single family homes are essentially more or better suited to this site than what a townhome type development would be. Clustering these single family homes on a smaller lots, creating more open space, allows the city to achieve it's density goals and that doesn't necessarily have to mean townhomes, so as we're proposing here. We've put forth a strong effort to maximize or utilize the site character by maximizing the amount of homes that basically abut and take advantage of those open space views. And internally where there is not the opportunity to utilize the Bluff Creek Overlay District, we've provided these pedestrian connections throughout that would link again to that overall trail system, as well link to these internal private areas that we're developing that Kate talked about with the totlot, the park shelter, some open play area to throw a Frisbee or play football with your kids. Over 50% of the site is going to be dedicated as public open space in one form or another and that's another component of what the cluster type of approach allows us to do. That's a phenomenal number, 50%. And it's a pleasure to be involved in a project that takes such great pains to preserve that site character. In addition there we have extensive landscape plantings that are going to offer beauty. They offer buffering or screening, and eventually they're going to add value to the whole neighborhood as a whole, so I guess to summarize, again development is tailored to the site. Environmental, it's given that we're preserving the environment as much as possible. Weare providing a smaller development footprint. We~ve carefully designed the layout of the streets and the homes with attention to topography and what the land tells us that it wants to do. And this development also, secondly will be a unique, wonderful addition to the city of Chanhassen, given that the city will meet it's density goals. The city will gain single family households. The city will preserve the Bluff Creek Overlay District. And that the future residents of The Preserve will appreciate the sense of place that we're creating here. And with that I'll turn this to Brian Sullivan with Ryland to talk about the home style that those future residents will be building. Keefe: Can I ask a question before you sit down? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Cory Meyer: Sure. Keefe: In the absence of our former Chair Uli I'm going to take up one thing that we was so fond of which is preserving trees, and one of the things I was looking at in regards to your tree preservation plan, you know on the north end of this property there are a lot of bur oaks that you identified as specimen trees, and there a couple that don't even, don't appear like they're within, there will be houses on. Not granted it may be some grading issues. Is that why they're going to be removed? Cory Meyer: Correct, correct. Keefe: Is there any way to save a couple ofthese? For instance there's one that's a 59 inch diameter that isn't in a lot. It's actually off, you know. Cory Meyer: Right. No, and that's a good point because we've, you know we've taken our best approach or best stab at saving as many of the trees as possible. And you know working with staff we've massaged the site plan and some things have changed since that grading plan has been done, and I guess what I'll tell you is that we're going to take another stab at trying to save as many of those trees as possible. You know those big bur oaks, they are specimen trees and they're lifetime trees I guess, so it's not in our business to create white oak lumber, but we want to do what's the best for those trees. Keefe: Yeah, I think we'd like to see, instead of having a 4 inch diameter tree out in front of a building, we'd love to have at least a couple of those. I mean those trees are so big that, I mean they'll impact the entire area. You know just a few ofthem would so it'd be nice to see at least a couple of them preserved on that north end so. Cory Meyer: Well we will make every effort to try to accommodate that. Keefe: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Commissioner Dillon also has a question and we'll get to Commissioner Papke. Dillon: With the cluster home concept you've got all the, is the idea like to have side lots so that people won't put up fences in the back yard? Kind of keep it that open because if you get all fences in there, there goes your open space idea. Cory Meyer: Actually Brian with Ryland Homes will probably be able to answer that a little bit better but that's a very good point and I guess I would defer to Brian to address how they handle that with their HOA documents. McDonald: Commissioner Papke. Papke: Lyman is going to become a very major thoroughfare with the 212 intersection up on 101 up there. Can you describe a little bit some of the noise mitigation efforts you're going to 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 put into place for the north side there along Lyman Boulevard to try to keep that from being uninhabitable. Cory Meyer: Right, good points. You know on some of the previous plans that we've had, as Kate alluded to, we had some additional ponding area that was going to be located along Lyman. Subsequently that changed a little bit and those homes have actually pushed a little bit closer to Lyman. Now I'm not saying they're right up against Lyman there. There's a significant buffer and I think the number is 60 to 80 feet of buffer I want to say. The exact number escapes me right now but we will be supplementing, you know we're doing heavy buffer plantings along there. The topography is such that a significant berm of enough magnitude to accomplish any noise mitigation is probably not going to be, unfortunately be possible to do, just given the vertical relationship to Lyman. So we're going to have to kind of rely as much as we can on the landscaping to do that and we've shown a significant effort to plant heavy in the evergreens as well we've, we have a significant buffer from that roadway as well. Aanenson: Commissioner Papke I just wanted to add, the city ordinance does require that there be some sort of streetscape requirement. For example on the landscaping plan for buffer, it's clearly defined. I think that's a challenge that we have to work to the developer with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard, that we provide something, so we'll work, certainly work on that. McDonald: Any other questions? Cory Meyer: Thank you. Brian Sullivan: Good evening. I'm Brian Sullivan with Ryland Homes. I'm the Land Resources Department there, and what I do is I work on finding the projects. Helping to get them approved through the city staff and through the councils. As you mayor may not know, Ryland Homes, we are a national home builder. We came to the Twin Cities about 10 years ago and in the first year I think we built 5 homes and now through working diligently with cities and getting to know the marketplace better, we're up to about 650 homes is what we sold last year, and so it makes us in the top 5. One of the top 5 home builders as far as volume goes in the Twin Cities here. And that I think says a lot to our President of our company who's been here since the very beginning, and his commitment to trying to provide to the home buyer out here a product that they want and the challenge has always been, working with the home buyers that there's desires and needs and what they want is always continuously changing. And what we've been doing is on this project here and some ofthe other projects is we're seeing a desire and a need from the home buying market, that they still wanted single family homes but there's not as big of a desire for a larger lot, and that plays in real nicely with this clustered development that we're trying to provide here. But then as we're looking over the clustered concept here, it became apparent that we can't just smack our typical home on with a 3 car garage and extended you know, you can't put on a real wide home on there, so what we started to do, and we started looking at our marketing analysis a little bit more. We realized that one of the things that we do when we're developing our home styles here is, there's a demand for a 3 car garage but you don't necessarily need to have access to all 3 stalls at the same time here, so what we've done is taken the 3 car garage and we've shrunk it down with a 1 car garage stall behind the other one, and what that's done is taken, where you normally see 3 garage doors out on the front side of a 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 house and we've put in 2 garage doors. What that does is it creates a more attractive streetscape so you don't have a streetscape that has a lot of garage doors marching down the street here. We think that's a real attractive thing. The other thing that we've done is, as far as trying to develop this cluster development here is we've taken the comer lots and what we can do with comer lots to try and help, also help out with that streetscape. So what we've done is we've developed a home style that has a side loaded garage, and if you look at the streetscape section that we did. If you look at the streetscape section that we've done here, you'll see that whenever there's a comer lot here, what we'll be providing is the option for a garage that doesn't face the front street. The garage is actually, the driveway is actually around the comer ofthe building there, and that again just helps to eliminate this monotony of having garages going down the street here. So what I guess I'm trying to say is I know we've come up with this cluster development but you can't just take cluster development and draw in smaller lots. You have to think about what the house is going to be too. You have to design the house to fit the lot so. So we worked a lot with Cory and Westwood and we worked a lot with our architecture department back and forth on exactly what type of house and how the house is going to fit on this lot and how that all will tie into what the market wants us to provide. So we've worked on, we've worked very diligently to make sure that the home style that we're providing out here are going to be something that's going to be very marketable and providing a nice nitch for us between the kind of high end stuff and the multi family stuff here. So what you see is, as you move forward, each ofthese home styles are showing, I think we have 8 different home styles and they'll have, each home style will have 3 or 4 different elevations to it. So some will have brick on them. Some will have gables. Some have hip roofs. There's a lot of different variety within each floor plan and we allow people to pick out, you know a list of what they want as far as elevation and the floor plan that goes with that. And we think that will create a very unique and a very desirable neighborhood as you're driving through it and something that will have lasting value for many years to come. One of the questions was what the price of the homes are. We think these will probably start out around the $350,000 range. $350,000 to $400,000 and they'll go up to $500,000, $600,000, $700,000. Depending on what people put inside the homes. They have options for you know, you can have unfinished basement. They have options for bonus rooms. They have three season porches off the back. Master bedrooms. You can get granite counter tops. Stainless steel. Vinyl. There's a range of materials that go inside so people can go for a base home ifthey want, or they can go with some of the deluxe options and so we're trying to provide to a real wide market range in there, and we think we'll see a lot of families move in here. We'll see some people that move in here, they may be at a point where their kids are starting to get to the point where they're moving out of the household. They want a little bit smaller yard. But they still, they're still not afraid of having steps. Go up and down steps. You'll see some of that in here. It's probably not geared towards empty nesters or seniors but we'll see a nice, mainly families that move into this development here. The size of the homes will be from 2,200 square feet for one of our smaller ones, up to 3,300 square feet and then there's options of finishing basements and adding bonus rooms. You can go over 4,000 square feet as far as the inside ofthe home here that people could purchase. And we're very excited about coming to Chanhassen. To our knowledge we haven't done anything in Chanhassen and we think this is an exciting community to be in. A very well laid out community. Something that's got a lot of offer and with that I've leave it open to any questions you might have. McDonald: Anyone have any questions? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Papke: I've got a couple. First of all I appreciate the attention that you're putting on the garages because that's obviously with the narrow lots, that's really going to be key. The design ofthe garages there because we're going to see so much ofthem. One of our questions I have is on your streetscape here you do show some mirror images, whereas on your elevations, all the garages are on the right hand side of the drawings. So, and this is important from a variety aspect. If every single house has the garage on the right hand side, you know it looks very uniform. Is the streetscape accurate in that you plan to offer kind of mirror images of some of these or. Brian Sullivan: The image is, all the units can be flipped. They can be flipped over. It's more of a function of grading of how the street grades and so if you have a high point in the street, the garage is normally on the higher, and the street's going down this way. The garage is on the higher side ofthe lot, and so the garages will be on that side ofthe lot. And then when the street starts to go up again, they'll flip over the other way so it's really a function of grading. The image here that shows kind of a, you know the artist rendering. . . Papke: Okay. I was trying was trying to make sure that that, you know that that was an option and that we would have that ability to have a little bit more variety by doing the mirror imaging of some of these. Brian Sullivan: That will be an option. Papke: Okay. Aanenson: Let me just add just to make sure. Engineering did add a condition that the finish floor elevation be put on those so we would look at that as a part of it too so we'd have some idea where all those are going. Papke: You'll have some idea of the distribution... Aanenson: Right. Right, that they're not all the same. We want... Papke: Okay. Have you built a lot ofthese before where you have the double deep garage? I'm sorry I sold my boat. You know I would have gone out and bought one of these houses so I could back in my boat without unhitching the trailer. Brian Sullivan: We are just starting to build these right now. If you go to our site in Eden Prairie, Hennepin Village, it's near the airport there. There's a model there that has this style home there so you can see what the garage looks like. Papke: And you're getting good acceptance on that design? Brian Sullivan: We're doing very well there so, we're excited about doing this and we think we have hopefully a little nitch for us, and if it's successful it won't be a little nitch because I think other home builders will be kind of. . . 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Papke: So other than the, I take it the last one we have on the elevation sheet here, is it the Union? That's the only one that has the side loaded garage? All the other ones appear to have the garage thrust forward. Is that, and then that again is going make more uniform look. Everything's got, you know you're going to see more garage with all ofthe garages projecting forward from the homes. Is that, you know is that your final answer? Is that how it's going to. be? Brian Sullivan: What we're proposing right now is the Union and what we have, we're working on another floorplan for the Union so it may not be available at first phase that we're going through but it will become available as we move through the site more so. Papke: So beside the Union that's going to be the only one that does not have a thrust forward garage? Is that correct? Brian Sullivan: Yeah, some of these, yeah that is correct, yes. Papke: Okay. I'm sorry to keep harping on the garages but I think that's really going to be tremendously important here. A lot of your elevation drawings show windows in the garage doors, which is very nice. Because the quality of the garage door on a development like this where you see so much ofthe garages is really going to be key. If you go through some ofthe less elegantly designed neighborhoods in Chanhassen you'll see a lot of very crummy looking garage doors that sometimes don't last very well. Do you feel this is indicative ofthe kind of thing, you know is this for show here or do you really expect many of the garage doors to have windows on them because the windows really break up the visual flatness of a garage door. I think they're going to be tremendously important. Brian Sullivan: The windows are offered as a. Papke: Extra cost option? Brian Sullivan: Yeah. Papke: So we probably won't see a lot of them. Brian Sullivan: As you get into the higher price point you'll see more and more of those show up, so on the base model I wouldn't say, I would say you probably won't see a lot of them but as you more forward you would. Papke: Okay. Aanenson: But let me just add. It is a PUD and I think you raised a good point and whether or not they have windows or not, that they're still a textured garage as opposed to, that does make an architectural statement so I think that's something that we probably would want to, whether it has windows or not but just that it's not a smooth face. . . 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Brian Sullivan: We can, I can make a commitment to some sort of textured garage look, ifthat's what. Papke: Raised panels or something. Keefe: I just have a quick question. Since I think your whole development is 155 units or something. What do you project is kind ofthe build out on this site from a timing perspective? Brian Sullivan: Generally we figure a home a week. Is what we'll be projecting so that's 3 years. Keefe: 3 years? Thank you. McDonald: Questions? Dillon: Well just to kind of get back to the open space and you know bylaws and fences and is it going to be open or is it going, are fences going to make good neighbors or you know what is the plan? Brian Sullivan: You know I hadn't really thought much about it until it was just brought up here before. What we've done in our other communities in Eden Prairie that we haven't restricted fencing in the development there, but it is, as I'm kind ofthinking through in my head here, there may be, there will be a need for some people to have a fence, for whatever reason. To corral the kids or you know whatever. But there may be a way of just having, instead of all 6 foot board on board fence that wraps around, what we can do is through HOA documents we can make sure that it adds character to it and that they're approved by the homeowners association. And maybe there's a height limit. I don't want to say 4 feet, but I think 6 feet is maybe too high but maybe there's somewhere inbetween there there's a median that would work so we don't have this kind of barricaded blocked in back yard so. That's kind of what I'm thinking right now. So I think you've brought up a very good plan and we need to work our way through that. Undestad: Just had one question on here. The closest to this is that your Eden Prairie project, is that right? Brian Sullivan: Yes it is. Undestad: You've not done anything in Chaska or out in this side? Brian Sullivan: No. Not with this particular home. Undestad: So the same Eden Prairie project is the same housing design and style as this? Brian Sullivan: Yeah, very similar. Undestad: Is the price point in there too? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Brian Sullivan: The price point in Eden Prairie is a higher price point. Undestad: And when did you start that one? Brian Sullivan: We just broke ground, we started selling in January I think. February. Undestad: How many have you sold over there? Brian Sullivan: Six. Undestad: That's all I have. McDonald: I guess I've got a question about the garage too. You kind of answered one part of it. I wasn't understanding this 3 car garage but it's a 2 car garage stacked. How exactly is that going to work? I mean I'm just asking, I'm curious about this because I haven't seen this any place else and I think Kurt brought up a good point. Yeah, if you've got a boat, this is probably going to be great for you know those types of things. But is that one of the, I'm wondering the second half, does that take out part of the living space in the back of the house or? Brian Sullivan: It juts back behind the garage stall there and what we've done is we've had to redesign all of our floorplans to make sure we have an adequate amount of living space. The smallest homes that we're providing there is a 2,200 square foot home and it will go up to a 3,300 square feet for the first and second floor, as far as, you know you finish offthe basement if they want and add porches on the back and what not so, what we've done is kind of squished the front side of the house there and pushed that third stall back behind the second stall there. We've found that, we think that's going to be a real nice addition there. For me having a 2 stall garage and the second stall, it just holds bicycles in the summer and the winter time I hang everything up and I try to get my other car in there and you have to fight the snowblower and all that stuff to get it out, and what we think is, and what our research is starting to show is that that third stall, everybody wants a third stall. But the reality of it is, it's really used a lot for storage. Or they might have a summer car. I little MG that they keep in there and they'll switch them around. Keep the snowmobiles in there or the boat or whatever. That's really what it's directly behind the one stall. McDonald: Okay. Well, and then that kinds ofleads to my next question about you know you're talking about the square footage that's available. You're going from 2,200 to 3,600 square feet. These are going on very small lots you know in comparison to what a typical home with that kind of square footage would have, and my earlier question about the hard surface coverage, how are we going to maintain that in the future individuals don't come back because they want to add a three season porch or they want to add a Sport Court or they want to add who knows what into the back yard and suddenly there isn't any allowance for that, and I would think again because this is an average over the site, there's going to be some of these lots that are going to far exceed the 30%. How are we going to control that? What are you all going to do to help us control that? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Brian Sullivan: I think Kate kind of a solution, and I haven't gone through all the calculations but I think what I heard her say is that there's about 600 to 800 feet of overage, of excess room on each lot that can be used for additional, a deck or patio, or the Sport Court. What we'll do in the HOA documents, we'll have that, we'll have a condition in there, or it will be part ofthe document that you can only expand another, whatever that number is. McDonald: So basically the footprint ofthe house is the same no matter what the square footage is? Brian Sullivan: No. Some of the houses are deeper. McDonald: Okay, they're a little bit deeper. And at that point that's going to, they either have to go on a larger lot or that's going to cut into the allowable expansion that is built in. Would that be a fair statement? Aanenson: Again, what we were trying to do on this is to look at again, you're balancing the whole site. Is to make some generalized assumptions. Again some ofthose lots are 15. The average is so some of those bigger houses will go on those lots. So to say everybody's stuck at a certain number, so what we'd like to do, just looking at it again in a gross figure, we came up maybe 600 to 800 square foot that somebody could have. So we want to just build it in there. And it's really just to put the homeowners on notice that there's an expectation of, here's how much at a minimum or maximum that you can expect to add on, and that would accommodate a deck. Pretty much the normal things. If someone wanted to put a swimming pool in, those are things that may not fit on the smaller lot so again it's just kind of up front, just like we talk about fences and some of those other things that we may not want to have in there and that's what we said as a condition of approval that we would work through those issues. McDonald: Okay, well I guess that's where I'm getting at because we really haven't done that on any of the other neighborhoods that I'm aware of and that has been a big problem. Aanenson: Right, well actually in some of the other developments that we have right now, they're maximized for the permits. On the wider houses. Actually there's much more flexibility on this lot as it's coming in today as some ofthe ones that we recently approved, the large lot subdivisions up on the Galpin area. Even on Trails End. Those are all coming in at 24% and they're maxed at 25. That's where you saw the last one that came in. They had to drop 2 lots so actually this one's coming in because of the size ofthe home. It's actually coming in with built in flexibility of going, having extra footprint to add on so. McDonald: But as part of the process, the homeowner is going to be put on notice, either through covenants within the, I guess the neighborhood covenants for homeowners association or as part of the building process. I'm just looking, how are people going to know so that they don't come back here and act surprised whenever we start turning down things. And if you can't do it, that's fine. I mean I'm asking something of you that we haven't really asked of anyone else but I'm just exploring a couple of things. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Brian Sullivan: Well and I'll stumble through this a little bit here too, as we discussed. I think we can do something in the HOA documents that they'll have to read and sign and, but that's not going to stop somebody from coming in, you know. McDonald: That's true. Brian Sullivan: I've been in this long enough and.. .there's still going to be a few that will complain about but we can do that and I'll have to talk to our legal department but sometimes we can do a disclosure that says this house or on this lot, there's this much developable area. And you can't, you know you can't extend beyond that as far as. McDonald: Okay, that's fair. All I'm looking for is something to put people on notice. You know these are certain restrictions that go with all ofthis and that's fine. The fact that you're willing to discuss it is all I'm asking for. Aanenson: Chairman McDonald, can I just add one other point on that? And that is that, you can ask Josh because he reviews all the subdivisions. All the home plats that come in. Actually the challenge is, it's not just on this development and every development trying to maximize them so, I think for us, just on the face of what we kind of feel like people know they're buying into smaller lots so as a part of, there's an expectation that you're not going to be able to maximize. Where people buy the traditional single family lot, their expectation is they can do a pool and a Sport Court and they don't realize that their house is already at the maximum so that conversation tends to be a little bit different. So we're hoping again with the disclosure, that some ofthat, that the buyer knows that they're buying a different type oflo1. McDonald: I guess what I would say to that is, where the former chairman was concerned about trees and preservation of that, I'm concerned about this whole thing about the percentage of hardscape because that's the biggest problem that we end up facing so I think any developer that comes up here, I'm going to be asking that question. And that's just the thing that I think we need to focus on because I don't like telling people they have to tear down garages or tear up Sport Courts but, the rules are what the rules are so okay. Enough said of that. Papke: I had one more question if you don't mind. The brochures that you gave us show us all the front elevations of your homes but nothing from the rear and the side. But from what I can tell you have very few windows on the side of these buildings. Is that a correct assumption that there'll be very few windows inbetween buildings? Brian Sullivan: What we're going to try to do, and you'll see more windows on one side than on the other and because the homes are 15 feet apart, we don't want this perception of people looking into each other's bedrooms so what you'll see if there'll be more windows on one side than on the other and that's just a part of our designing these because we realize there's that type of issue there. Papke: Okay. Do we have any idea how, what percentage of these are going to be walkouts, lookouts and that kind of stuff yet? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Brian Sullivan: I can point to on the map what I know are going to be walkouts right now. Basically everything along the perimeter here. These are all going to be walkouts. Papke: Because of the down grade towards the creek? Brian Sullivan: Yah, because of the down grade towards the creek. I believe there's some of the homes that are in this area here are walkouts. And then some of the interior sites, they're a combination walkout, lookouts and ramblers. I think we had a group that came up here. I think these are half rambler and halflookouts right through here, so mainly around the perimeter are the walkout lots. And the rest are lookouts and ramblers as we go through there. And we're still, we just met with the engineers I believe last week and we're just tweaking that whole percentage here so we're still working our way through that to see where it all goes. McDonald: Anyone else have any further questions? Whoever's next from the applicant. Are you all finished? Well at this point this is a public meeting so what I would do is open up the podium to anyone wishing to make a comment. Please step up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments to the commissioners. Jim Benshoof: Good evening Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission. My name is Jim Benshoof. Traffic engineer with the firm of Wenck Associates. I'm here this evening on behalf of the Fox and Dorsey families to address the question of how does this development plan before you tonight relate to their properties, which are just to the east of this subject development. And there is just one item that I consider to be relevant to be important for your consideration in terms of the relationship between this development plan and the properties to the east. Mainly dealing with the city's planned north/south connector roadway. Your roadway that would connect south from Lyman to the planned east/west collector roadway. And I have addressed that subject in a, I think in a 4 'l1 page memo that I believe all of you received so I will not sort of comb over every detail but I would like to summarize key findings referring to one particular exhibit, if that can be. Very good, thank you. Okay. We have here you know the site, The Preserve site outlined in yellow. The blue to the top side to side is Lyman. And the blue extending north is Audubon Road and then Sunset Trail, with Powers Boulevard and the future interchange with 212 over here to the right, and then of course this dark set oflines is the city's planned east/west collector roadway. The north/south connector you know has been envisioned through the city's AUAR planning, you know again to extend between the east/west collector and Lyman. Somewhere through this area. And I'll acknowledge right up front that from our knowledge I mean the city has not approved any specific alignment. That that's still a matter of flexibility and subject to further determination. What I'd like to draw your attention to the blue dashed line which appears on one of the more recent drawings as an option for alignment prepared by your engineering consultant to Kimley-Hom you know firm for the AUAR study. This is from one of their drawings. And I want to point out to you I mean why I think it has been shown this way. Why there is substantial logic to this sort of alignment. As you know it would intersect Lyman just about halfway between Audubon and Sunset Trail and that has significance in terms of I guess complying as best possible with the County's standards for spacing of intersections. The County standard is one quarter mile and this falls a little bit short both from Audubon and from Sunset Trail, but you can see if it were shifted substantially east or west it would fall short shorter if you will of the guideline relative to one of those two streets. Another I think reason of 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 logic as to why the Kimley-Horn drawing has been drawn in this manner is that this location provides satisfactory sight distance, both to the east and west on Lyman Boulevard. We performed detailed measurements of available sight distance along Lyman and found that any location between the east Preserve property line and the creek, you know provides satisfactory sight distance conforming with typical County guidelines, both to the east and west on Lyman. As one moves east from the east Preserve property line, the sight distance falls short of the guidelines and I'm sure you're familiar as you move east the sight distance becomes restricted to and from the east due to the hill on Lyman that crests near Sunset Trail. So that's a second reason I think why I guess this drawing has been prepared as it has showing the north/south connector at that location. Another point I'd like to draw your attention to, that is because it's one we would just raise for your consideration. Not something that to my knowledge the Kimley-Horn firm has raised, but about, up on Lyman somewhere in this vicinity, in terms of providing a direct sort of connection with the access road serving the proposed Liberty at Creekside you know development such that motorists say leaving that development who want to go to Lyman would be able to directly cross the east/west collector and then proceed north to Lyman. There is I think a benefit for considering that sort of intersection orientation. McDonald: Excuse me, could I interrupt you for just a second. I guess I'm confused as to how does this impact the plan that's currently before us, if you could get to that. Jim Benshoof: That's next Mr. Chairman, good question and the point being, the plan before you makes no provision for the north/south collector within the property boundary. No provision whatsoever. And further, well in any event the outcome of that, should that be approved, would be to eliminate any possibility of the north/south connector being in this sort of alignment. It leaves available only some form of alignment to the east across the Dorsey property to the east undefined. Where that might be. Locations that would pose some issues with the County's spacing standards for intersections. That would pose some issues relative to sight distance. On the subject of sight distance I'll acknowledge that the City and County with reconstruction of Lyman are intending to re-grade the roadway to lower the hill and I'll acknowledge that and agree that that would yield some sight distance improvements, but yet it's unclear. You know the extent to which those improvements would be gained and the extent of which there would be locations available to the east where there would be adequate sight distance. So that's the point Mr. Chairman. Is to the effect relative to the properties to the east, and thus my suggestion that to take action on the plan tonight would preclude a number of the options for north/south connector without having a clear vision of how would that connector be accomplished in a manner to satisfy needs of the city and serve the purposes ofthe adjacent property owners, but it's just, it's premature for you to take that action now without having a clear vision as to how well that connector be accomplished in the future. So the suggestion simply then is that to hold off on action on eliminating the alternative such as has been drawn by your engineering consultant and undertake further study to seek to establish you know a clear and effective vision of how that north/south connector can best be accomplished. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to make a comment? Oehme: Thank you commissioners. The drawing that Mr. Benshoofhas shown you was one concept that staffhad looked at back in 2005. I think this drawing is dated approximately 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 August of last year, and the east/west collector roadway and the connection points have always been a moving target. We changed the alignment ofthe east/west collector literally, I don't know probably half a dozen times if not more. Working with property owners. We moved connection points several times to address connections to their developments and address the traffic flows. The drawing that is shown here is not workable. The grades in this area approximately where the touch down point is to Lyman Boulevard in relation to the existing grades is anywhere between 8 and 10 feet of difference. In order to facilitate and construct this roadway as shown, you know you'd have to grade into Mr. Dorsey's property to the east. His property is currently in ag preserve, thus we cannot do that at this time. So basically this connection point is not doable at this time, plus the separations between Audubon and that north collector road too. I think it is a little bit closer than a quarter mile as well. Let's see. On the sight distance again, Mr. Benshoof addressed that a little bit. The City and the County are working on improvements to the Lyman Boulevard. You know we had it in our current capital improvement plan for 2008, or 2009 I believe to upgrade this section of roadway. At that time we'll definitely look at sight distance improvements and future, potentially future connections. Mr. Dorsey's piece is currently in the ag preserve. His property will not be developed until 2011 so that gives us ample time to look at where those connection points will be in working with the property owner to make that connection work the best. This is a drawing that was included in the AUAR that was approved by all the environmental and governing agencies, city, county. Watershed and such, and at that time you know we had looked at a connection point for the north collector roadway here. Just east ofthe current development that you're considering for tonight. So there are different, there are other areas and other connection points along Lyman Boulevard that we will be looking at in the future to make that north collector roadway facilitate a good location I guess I should say. Another item that Mr. Benshoofhad mentioned back in his drawing was the connection to Liberty at Creekside. Making that a through movement. You know that was one of the items that we had looked at in this process through the MUSA. Under the current plan for Liberty at Bluff Creek there are two connections. One currently, the main connection going to the west and then potentially, and then another connection point on the east side to make a flow of traffic to the east. So did try to disperse that by traffic and help the traffic flow in that area. The properties to the east, the Dorsey's and the Fox's, Kate help me out. It's more of an intense development. Higher density potentially and potentially rezoning to more commercial and higher density units as well. North collector roadways or collector roadways, you want to put those in areas that will generate the most traffic and it's staffs opinion that that north collector roadway does not fit for the lower density, thus 5 units per acre development that we're considering here tonight. So, and I believe that the City does have a clear vision in what we want in this area and how those connection points will be made and how the traffic flow should be handled. So if the commission has any other questions regarding that issue, 1'd be willing to address. McDonald: Thank you very much. Rick Dorsey: Chairman, commissioners. My name is Rick Dorsey. I own the property to the east of this property. A couple different points 1'd like to make, just to make the information correct. In that the properties in the ag preserve doesn't preclude grading on the property. We cannot build a road on it nor can we be assessed for that, but grading would be considered a conservation issue for soil erosion, water control, that kind of thing. I mean it does not preclude 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 it. Point number one. Number two, I would really like to ask the question of why this alignment has been changed. Paul talked about way back in the beginning another alignment, that extra alignment, if you read the AUAR eliminated these roads completely other than a point somewhere between Audubon and Sunset Trail. So that's somewhat of a moot point. Back in August staff supported and presented to the City Council a plan for the east/west collector road which incorporated points of connectivity so that plans could be drawn up. I believe $360,000 is approved by City Council to work on those plans, and suddenly it's changed. I'd like to ask the question why it can't stay where it was originally set and have that answered. Not why it can go onto my property but why can it not stay where years were spent, 2 years were spent trying to put together plans and decided on by approved basically by all the property owners, or somewhat mutually agreed upon so that plan would have been gone forward. From the standpoint of location of it, our position would be is that we would want it on the property line to provide an extra buffer because there will in fact be different uses of the properties. The suggestion that our's might be higher density, we don't know that yet. Perhaps it will. Right at this point in time, if you're familiar with the property, we have a big home sitting on the property. At one point in time we thought the whole neighborhood would be that way. Wodds changed to that option that probably unlikely to happen. So we are pursuing different ideas and we're trying to keep the options flexible and open. We would prefer to see the need for traffic to be managed in the area there from the standpoint of the whole community. When our property comes out of the ag preserve in 2011, there's no guarantee that our property will develop immediately. Could be immediately. Could be 10 years from then. We don't know that. So the question would be, from a standpoint of this development, as well as a cul-de-sac going in that goes within a couple hundred feet of Lyman Boulevard but doesn't touch. It's longer than ordinances allow. I know it's being looked at as a temporary cul-de-sac. Something that you have to talk about what is temporary. Is that a year from now? 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I looked at ideas and I've talked with Pemtom people about other options to put it on the property line. There certainly are other options. I've even drawn up myselfwhere it can be lot neutral and be done. In that respect should there be a concern about putting it in today. It could go in today on the Degler property. Or the Pemtom property. There's options that can be talked about still. McDonald: Mr. Dorsey, I understand your problem. I've been to a number of these meetings. Okay, this is the Planning Commission. We are here for a particular plan. You're not here to look at where this road should go. That is beyond our capability. Rick Dorsey: No, it is. I don't believe that's the case. The Planning Commission's job in part is to mitigate traffic. It's to take and make sure intersections are created in places that create, are safe for pedestrians, for people. It's to protect my property as well next to that property. So I'm trying to bring out the facts so that you can be able to make a good decision in that you don't know the property as well as I do. I know you've been to several meetings, and I appreciate that, and I want to ask the question. If this plan is approved and this alignment is no longer an option, where is that north collector going to go? I don't know. I haven't been told by staff. That's what planning is about and we would like to know the answer to that. We cannot just put it on Lyman Boulevard at any point. So that is what we would like to have is time to sit down and go over that information and make those determinations so that those are known and that there's facts to support them and they're safe. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 McDonald: Okay, well in order to give you an answer I will look to staff and my impression is that City Council directed you to look at this road. To come back with recommendations. Is that true? Aanenson: Well let me answer this first. To know what that road's going to do, it depends on what his development plan is. Just as everybody else that brought in development plans. As Mr. Peterson, Sever Peterson brought in a development plan. We figured out the alignment on that road. We said that road needs to be 80 foot wide cross section and he worked it into his development plan, so we're offering Mr. Dorsey the same flexibility. He comes in with a plan and we'll figure out where the road goes. What Mr. Oehme had said, we're working with Carver County to work on the elevation ofthe road and some range of tie in's to give him to put in the plan. We're affording him the opportunity to put it where it works best for his development. Rick Dorsey: What we agreed to was what was done in August and that's my question. Why has it changed. I don't like coming to all these meetings. I've got better things to do. When something is put in place, that's where you expect. I would like to suggest, no different than on Sever Peterson's property where it went along the property line. That's the norm of development so that there aren't. Aanenson: What we're talking about is this road right here? Rick Dorsey: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the. Aanenson: He had to build that 80 foot right-of-way. Rick Dorsey: I'm not talking about who had to build it Kate. I'm talking about when you go down a property line and you're splitting a property so that development can occur on either side and the road can become a buffer between two different uses. Aanenson: I know you're not talking about the other road but the other road affected this development too. McDonald: Okay. This is not a debate about this road and we're not going to get into a debate about this road. We are looking at a piece of property where we have been given a plan. We have been given the specifications and it's up to us to improve this plan. We do not look at the macro planning that you're asking us to look at. I do not have input on these roads. We depend upon city staff. They will bring these plans to us and we will try to fit them in with what the development and what the rules and regulations are. A debate at this time on where this collector road goes does not serve us with the agenda we have for this piece of property. If it can go on the border, that's fine. There is room to put it there. Ifit needs to go up on the other side, it will be accommodated, but staff has been given the task of finding out where this road goes because it does impact your development. We recognize that, but at the same time you cannot hold hostage developers who come into us and then we have to table their plans until we can come up with something everybody can agree upon. It's not going to happen. This is being developed piecemeal. That's the way most development occurs. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Rick Dorsey: Mr. Chairman I would like then to refer specifically to what the Planning Commission should be looking at. One is buffer yards, which is letter M in Section 20 dash I believe 57. And that says that the comprehensive plan establishes requirements for a buffer yard when you have different land types and uses. I right now have rural residential estate guidance and zoning until it is changed, so they'd want to look at buffering it. One buffer would be a road between the properties. That's what we would look at as another possibility to do that. The other is mitigation of traffic. Where is that traffic going to go in the future? That is an issue. It's going to come right from their plan, they have one exit onto one end and they certainly could connect up to Lyman Boulevard now. That's an option. We should be looking at what's there today, not what may be there in the future. I'll leave it at that. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment on this development? Okay, seeing no one else step forward I will close the public meeting and I will bring it back up to the commissioners for discussion. We'll start with Mark. Undestad: I think the applicant's done a nice job. I like the design of the layout. The issue with the road access on there again, I mean it's just as Jerry stated here, as each development comes through and as it works. I guess I really can't see bringing traffic off of Lyman Boulevard through a residential neighborhood. I access off of Lyman Boulevard every day and every day it gets harder and harder to get in and out of there. To bring traffic through a development like this, it doesn't make sense on Lyman Boulevard myself. Overall I think the project's nice. I like the design. The variety. The layout. I would have a question going back to that little northwest parcel down there. The 4 or 5 lots back there, if the applicant has looked at anything else on there yet but besides from that, I like it. McDonald: Comments. Dillon; Yeah, I'm kind of relatively new to this whole thing so I'm still kind of processing all this but I would agree that I like the concept. I think the target market is probably pretty well served by this type, price point of housing and all that and so I think all that makes sense. In terms ofthe road discussion, it's kind of unique but I don't see how anybody is getting painted into any comers with the way it's laid out here. There would seem to be flexibility and options for the future so I would, I think this looks fine. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I think the combination ofPemtom and Westwood is a great combination. We've had them here before and I think they do a really nice job. Some of the best developments, best thought out developments come before us from that team and we appreciate you putting all your effort into the development and the work that you do. I'm in support of this. One thing I would like to add is something in regards to addressing the trees on the north end and have you guys taken a hard look at that? Aanenson: I'm sorry, the? Keefe: The trees on the northeast. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 McDonald: Kurt. Papke: I think there are some, you know we should carefully think about, or at least try to have a vision for how this does blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Dorsey brings up some valid thought points that we do have rural residential to the east. We also have some rural residential right across Lyman Boulevard on the other side. There's some large lots on the other side, so I think we do have to be mindful of how this fits in, which is one ofthe reasons why I was so insistent on some of the architectural variety because you know having lots of this magnitude right next door or across the street from you know 2 ~ acre or larger lots is something you have to think about. But I think the developers have done a great job of trying to maximize the utility ofthis wonderful piece of property here so I think overall it's very carefully considered. I still have a little bit of lingering concerns about some of the architectural variety. You know we went on at length about the garaging and so forth but I think if we can make sure that we don't see rows of garages when we drive up Lyman Boulevard here, I think we'll be in pretty good shape. McDonald: Well I guess I would second your comments about that. I mean that's been one of the things that I was on Liberty at Creekside about was that I don't want to create these neighborhoods where they're basically row houses or you know after about 15-20 years everybody just, to heck with it and everything gets run down because you can't take any pride in your home. I do like the plan. I'm really kind of, I would have never thought about a double stacked garage so I mean that's an interesting product that I'm sure will help on this piece ofland and it is a unique property. I like that idea. I'm also as I said, I would be concerned about the architecture and I would have enough faith in the developer at this point that you've heard what our concerns are there and the thing that we try to get at as far as making neighborhoods distinctive and making them look like something individuals can take pride in and the fact that it is their individual home and it looks as much. So you've heard our comments about that and our concerns and I will say that as you go up to City Council I think you will hear that again. So just be mindful ofthat. Other than that, one thing that I guess we didn't do, there's the lots in that northern comer, I'm not sure if the applicant wanted to speak to that again or not, but never really got a chance so I'm not sure what your position is there. I understand what staff has said and it makes sense to me and if you have, I guess an objection to that, I would like to know about it because otherwise I'm in favor of what staff has said and you know what they're saying is, take out that section. So I would offer you the opportunity to address that particular issue. Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Thank you giving us a very thoughtful and long process here and I appreciate it. The issues that you have all addressed, we want to tackle. The lot coverage is extremely important to us, and I know it's important to the Chairman and all of you and we're going to work on that. The tree issue, as Cory mentioned, we're going to go and look at grading. There's some marvelous oaks out there and we want to see what we can do to save some ofthose. Fencing, our company wrote some of the first covenants back in the 60's against fencing and I gave my anti-fence speech over at the City of Stillwater.. .by the Planning Commission and it was doing our Legends Project on Long Lake with Ryland Homes, doing traditional homes, and they insisted that we put picket fence in on our traditional homes over there so, but I agree with you. Fencing can give you that Richfield, St. Louis Park look that we 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 want to limit so we're going to take a look at that. Now in a typical custom project that our company does, we basically disallow fences. But there are limitations, sometimes with children and sometimes with special situations with ponding behind houses and that type of stuff where we have committed but sometimes it's part ofthe architecture and I know Ryland will take a look at that and we'll get back to the staff with some specific provisions on fencing in the covenants. And the last thought was the garage doors is extremely important to me too so we're going to have to take a hard look at how we can soften that. On the issue that I wanted to talk to you about is basically one of economics. This is a very unique site and the clustering we've talked about, just to give you some background. The land mass is 79.8 acres in total. 33.8 acres of that is going to be a public permanent open space. 11.2 acres of that we're dedicating to the city for rights-of-way for the collector road and for the public streets. So that's 45 acres out of 79, or 56% of the site that's going to be given to the public domain, and in market value that is over $7 million dollars worth ofland. So what does that mean? That means the rest ofthese lots have to absorb that $7 million dollars. Ifwe take out 5 lots out of the project down here and 2 lots up there, we're taking a million dollars worth oflots out ofthis neighborhood. It doesn't come out ofthe land owner's pocket. It doesn't come out of us low life developer's pocket. The city fees all stay the same and the builders try to make his normal market. So who pays for that? Every lot in this neighborhood would go up $7,000. Every house proportionally, a house usually has a 4 to 1 ratio oflot to house price, is going to go up $28,000. And when I saw in your chair it was really important to me, because the economics and the consumer, the consumer ends up paying everything in this process. And every city that I'm working with now, they're going back to me and they're saying Dan, if you've been to Hennepin Village, I had that all laid out for upper bracket houses. Now Mayor Veres, who's now deceased, came to me and she said Dan. We have 11,000 more jobs in Eden Prairie than we have households. Would you put some work force housing on here? If you do that, we'll raise your density, which they did from 500 homes on that site to almost 800. We brought the price of all those homes down in Eden Prairie on a very nice site overlooking the river. So if we take out the 5 lots here, which is part of our plan. I believe it was guided residential, we lose $750,000 that's got to be absorbed someplace else. There is a potential chance in the future with a market study going on, and I don't know ifit's a long shot or a short shot. Kate can talk about that, that maybe some of the Degler West property could have some residential uses and this would tie in with that. We do not want to and we cannot afford to lose those 5 lots. The other 2 lots up in the open space area, we do want to allow that private park area to open up some more so we need to figure out, with your help, how we can keep 155 lots on this site. Otherwise the consumer is going to have the ramifications that I just mentioned to you. And everything is very costly in this business. We are going to pay at the time of plat, almost $900,000 to you in cash park fees. So to say I'd like a trail head and parking here, and at the same time you're extracting $900,000 from the site, there's something unfair about that you know. If the park is a half a mile down the way and you're asking us to pay park fees, and you're asking us to give to the public domain $7 million dollars of our land of 45 acres, I'm asking you to help us. We've got to come to a fair resolution. We need those 7 lots to make this neighborhood work. And if you want to be sensitive about what the consumer's going to have to pay here. So it's very important to us to maintain those lots. A couple other items in your resolution I just want to mention to you, just to tweak a little bit is item 5. When you're looking at that. We would just like that language changed. Sometime this FEMA process can be quite long. Ifwe're allowed to plat the property, but if there's still FEMA approval pending, if 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 we could not issue building permits. If you could amend that item 5 in the resolution. Kate can see if that can work. Aanenson: That's not acceptable to us because we can't approve a lot that may not be buildable, so we'd have to wait. So I don't see how we can do that. Dan Herbst: But sometimes this FEMA process can take months and months and months. Aanenson: That's correct. Our recommendation would be that if you get preliminary plat status, that has time for you. It gives you a year's standing and you can come back and ask for additional time but I wouldn't in good conscience approve a lot that may not get altered and would have to be removed. Dan Herbst: But that's not a risk the city runs. It's a risk we run having a lot that. Aanenson: There's also a risk the city runs. I'll put your recommendation in, if you want to, and we'd certainly have the city attorney review it before it goes to council. McDonald: That's fine. Aanenson: Yep. Dan Herbst: Okay, the other item is 13. We'd like, since we're doing the project in phases, we would not want to grade and demolish all the buildings in the first phase. We'll be starting the phase off your collector road and won't be getting to where the buildings are probably until our second or third phase so if we could have you amend that provision so. Aanenson: That's fine. Dan Herbst: Okay. And then the critical one to us is, I think it's item 31. If you take those 7 lots out, you have all the ramifications I just brought to you and it makes it a very difficult project for us to do economically and... McDonald: Is this something that should be negotiated with staff? Aanenson: This is something that I made that clear at the beginning and I certainly appreciate Mr. Herbst. We know that there's an economic value but from the beginning when we worked on this project, I just want to make clear, we're talking about open space. You can't build in the creek. It always get thrown into the density but you can't build in the creek, so there's some value when we talk, it's a little inflated so we have to keep that in mind. Obviously we recognize, and I said at the beginning, there is value in those 3 lots, or 5 lots on that north side. We recognize that. Whether or not this property gets zoned to the other, on the other side, I don't know. You know we agree there's some economic value and that's why we say we'd like to work that out. You can give your recommendation or hold it in abeyance but I think that's something we still want to work out with them. There's not only the economic value, but we also, there's a lift station there that we think long term might be a negative impact to those 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 homes too, and that's a concern for us. That becomes a city issue so we thought by... we have to obviously come to a reasonable solution there for economics so putting the ponding there. Putting the trail head provides an opportunity to not put houses in there, in a sub situation. Sub par situation and make them, I don't know if we can make them totally whole, but try to make them whole on the value of those lots and we'd like to still continue that discussion. Dan Herbst: Appreciate that discussion. Again I would still like to consider you to keeping those lots there on a, leaving on a conditional basis in the event the land is changed. Lift stations are behind multi million dollar houses on Lake Minnetonka. They're all around Lake Minnewashta. They're not a negative. They can be landscaped and screened, and that's, those 5 lots are very, very important to us so. McDonald: Okay, then let me ask you this. You're okay with eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11. Dan Herbst: As long as we can pick those up someplace else in the project. What I'm trying to save is 155 homes. McDonald: Okay. And what you want us to maybe soften up in our language is Lots 1 through 5 and what I'm hearing from staff is that they're willing to continue a dialogue there to try to reach some kind of agreement. Dan Herbst: Sounds good. McDonald: Okay, so what we can do is we can take out Lots 1 and 5 and put those as being still under discussion. Okay. Is that it then? Dan Herbst: Thank you very much. McDonald: Okay. And I will finish up my comments. I think one of the things I would ask of staff is that, as this goes to the City Council, if you would prepare something to address the road issue for City Council so that this total package is looked at with that also. And with that I will bring it back to the commission for any further comments or look for a motion. Papke: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the land within the plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate A2, to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval ofa Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations within the flood plain; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for The Preserve creating 155 lots, 15 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 3-17-06 subject to conditions 1 through 59 striking condition number 13 and adding condition 60. That the developer shall work with staff to develop architectural variety or texture for the garage doors, whether windows or other type of architectural variety. Keefe: Friendly amendment. 61. Developer will reconsider their tree preservation plan in an attempt to save significant trees currently slated for removal. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 Papke: Accepted. McDonald: Okay, is that acceptable? Okay. Any other comments. Okay, well the Chair has one, because we just went through this with amendments number 31 for Lots 1 through 5. Make the change that we discussed there. That those lots are still under discussion. Keefe: Do you want to amend that to just, developer will work with staff regarding. McDonald: Yeah, I would accept an amendment saying that, so okay. So yeah, we will do that. The other ones you talked about 5. We're not going to change. 13 we did address so I think we've got everything covered. Any other comments or any other amendments anyone wants to add? Okay, seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Keefe: We need a second. McDonald: Oh, I thought we had a second. Keefe: Second. McDonald: Sorry. Getting a little bit ahead. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning the land within the Plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations within the flood plain; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for "The Preserve" creating 155 lots, 15 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 3-17-06 subject to the following conditions: 1. The drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of Lift Station #24 must be vacated and filed upon final approval of the final plat. 2. The "Existing Conditions" plan must be revised to show the drainage and utility easement that was granted to the City and contain trunk sanitary sewer and watermain. 3. Prior to City Council consideration ofthe final plat, the applicant must provide documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard meets Carver County's requirement. 4. The grading plan must identify the existing and proposed 1 DO-year floodplain. 5. Due to the anticipated timing ofthe final plat with respect to the timing of formal approvals from FEMA, the proposed lots that are within the current floodplain may be preliminary platted subject to FEMA approval of the LOMR. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 6. Any grading within the floodplain will require a Conditional Use Permit. 7. Catch basins on each side of all public streets must be no more than 300 feet apart. 8. The proposed outlet for Wetland A must lie along the edge of the wetland. 9. The storm sewer from Pond I must outlet to the wetland north of Pond 2 in order to maintain hydrology to the wetland. 10. Storm sewer within Street J must be rerouted through the sideyards within Block 3 and outlet to Pond 2. 11. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals. 12. The legend on the final grading plan must identify the lowest floor elevation. 13. The final grading plan must show the top and bottom of wall elevations. 14. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller requires a building permit and must be designed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 15. The developer must work with staff to find the preferred sanitary sewer alignment west of Block 3 prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. 16. The plan must be revised to show an 18-inch diameter watermain on the south side of Lyman Boulevard to the east property line. 17. The developer's engineer must submit a separate cost estimate for the watermain oversizing along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat submittals. 18. To the maximum extent practicable, the trail along the east side of Bluff Creek must be within close proximity of the manholes for the existing trunk sanitary sewer. 19. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan. 20. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed and abandoned during site grading and utility installation. 21. The developer must pay $14,365.00 in cash with the final plat for the pro-rated cost for the preparation of the 2005 MUSA AUAR. 22. The outstanding assessments - $310,999.03 for 2005 MUSA roads and water, and $162,976.08 for Highway 101/Lyman Boulevard/Highway 312/Highway 212 must be paid with the final plat or reassessed to the lots and outlots for future development. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 23. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees. 24. The City will construct Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements to serve the development in conjunction with public improvement project No. 06-05. The property within the plat will be specially assessed for this project. 25. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee, which must be paid in cash with the final plat. 26. Streets F and K must extend past Lot 6, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 17, respectively to provide adequate space for a vehicle to back out of the driveway and turn into the street. 27. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable. 28. The sidewalk along the north side of Street H between Street A and Street I, and along the north side of Street E must be eliminated. 29. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the public. 30. The applicant will work with staff to discuss eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, and Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. 31. The applicant shall revise the plan design to ensure adequate hydrology for Wetland 4 in the post-development condition. 32. If the applicant wishes to pursue an exemption for impact to Wetland A, the applicant shall furnish information to substantiate the exemption request. The applicant is advised that, even if impacts would be exempt from WCA, they may not be exempt from the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. 33. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands and 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 shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 34. All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Bluff Creek. 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 ofthe setback from the primary corridor. The 50-foot setback, primary corridor boundary, 40-foot structure setback and 20-foot grading setback shall be shown on the plans. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 35. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed trail crossing of Bluff Creek. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits shall be obtained for all creek crossings. In addition, the trail alignment shall be revised to cross Bluff Creek in the same location as the sanitary sewer crossing. Immediately south of the creek crossing, the trail intersection shall be redesigned to avoid impact to the trees. 36. The plans shall be revised to provide a lower EOF for Wetland A and a path to the west for excess water that will not threaten proposed structures. 37. The EOF path for Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a more direct EOF route from Pond 1 to Wetland 4. 38. The proposed sanitary sewer and storm sewer outlet in the vicinity of Pond 2 shall be revised to ensure: 1. The runoff from the outlet will not compromise the integrity of the sanitary sewer; and 2. The sanitary sewer is not located below the normal water level (NWL) of Pond 2. 39. The outfall from Pond 3 shall not outlet upslope ofthe proposed trail. 40. The applicant shall clarify the avoidance of the drainageway to be preserved during the construction of Pond 4 and, if possible, redesign the pond to provide additional storage and treatment in lieu of avoiding the drainageway. 41. Pond 5 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it. 42. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 43. 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 10:1 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. 44. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 45. The applicant shall be proactive in addressing potential run-on problems in the vicinity ofthe extreme southeast comer of the property. This would potentially involve vertically tracking equipment up and down the graded faces of the slope to increase roughness and prevent rilling. Similar practices shall be used behind the homes along the central part of Outlot A. 46. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $242,760. 47. 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 Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 48. The applicant shall demonstrate that the outlet pipe installation and elevation will not impact the wetland. 49. If recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission, park fees shall be paid as per City ordinance at the rate of final platting. 50. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 51. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 52. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 53. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas. 54. Buffer plantings shall be installed along the east property line in the rear yards of Lots 7 through 16, Block 3 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 10. 55. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City. 56. A conservation easement shall be recorded over Outlot A. 57. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines to demarcate the primary zone. 58. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of any areas of grading within Outlot A. The plan shall incorporate native plants and be consistent with the City's Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention should be paid to areas with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). Staff recommends that the Hill Prairie planting list be 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 2006 used for the restoration." 59. The developer shall work with staffto develop architectural variety or texture for the garage doors, whether windows or other type of architectural variety. 60. Developer will reconsider their tree preservation plan in an attempt to save significant trees currently slated for removal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o. PUBLIC HEARING: GREEN GARDENS: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT #96-2 FOR EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE/RET AIL NURSERY USE. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) DISTRICT AT 850 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. PLANNING CASE 06-15. Public Present: Name Address Keith Werner Corey Truebenbach Skip Cook . 850 Flying Cloud Drive 404 Synchove Street, Jordan 850 Flying Cloud Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Who would like to start? Keefe: I'll go first. Just a quick question Josh in regards to, you know it says in the fall of '04 and '05, staff conducted an inspection and found this non-compliance. How do we get from there to here? Did anything happen between the time that those? Metzer: It was basically trying to figure out which route they wanted to go. Whether or not they wanted to go through the process of amending the IUP or whether or not they had the ability to make these changes that they were proposing, or whether or not they had the ability to change it back to comply with the original IUP. What happened was, between the time that the original IUP was adopted in 1996, it had changed operators, tenants and in that the idea and the conditions of approval, what was considered complying and not complying kind of got lost. Aanenson: Different proprietors probably of what was permitted. Metzer: Right, and so over time it was just kind of a back track if you will to what is complying and what's not. Keefe: Is it your sense then that the applicant will be able to make the improvements that are. 37