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