CC Minutes 4-24-06
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Thank you. If there are no questions for Mr. Sticha, is there,
thank you very much for your presentation. I'll ask the council if they have any comments or
discussion. Either on the process taken by the staff or the recommendation.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
accept a contract with Americana Community Bank for a three year banking services
contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN &
COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO
PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT -OF - WAY; SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AL TERA TIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Chris Moehrl
Kevin Clark
Shawn Siders
Tom Whitlock
Steve Thatcher
Jeff Fox
Rick Dorsey
Westwood Professional Services
Town and Country Homes
Town and Country Homes
Damon Farber Associates
Thatcher Engineering
5270 Howards Point Road
1551 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. At your April 10th meeting you tabled this item for three specific
issues. The park design, looking at architecture and then road access to the north of this
property. The subject site, off the new 212 access would also be off the proposed frontage road.
Again to summarize, the project itself is 146 townhouse units. I'm not going to go through a lot
of the details. I want to kind of just focus on the issues that were... The park area, on the site,
this park area was enhanced. Includes the totlot and the developer will work to make that a
neighborhood totlot. The architecture itself, there's a narrative in the staff report from the
applicant itself. Talking about that. I do have all the colorings but I'll let them maybe go
through that in a little bit more detail. And then the last issue was the road access itself.
Included in your packet was a letter from the property owner to the north, which the staff also
8
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
commented on, and there's some other additional information that was, appeared at your April
10th meeting which the staff, the City Engineer and I and, had addressed previously. Included in
your packet we showed you how the road stubbing from the north, to the north can tie in. The
complexity ofthis is that we know this property's in flux and we don't know exactly where the
road's going to land, but we do believe that there's adequate access on a subsequent road on that
north side that could tie into that. In addition they will be grading, there's a comment about the 9
foot change in grade. There's a, I know an anomaly that will more than likely be graded to
accommodate any further development, so this specific questions on, the comments on that, the
City Engineer or myself will be happy to go through those but again a lot of that information was
raised at the Planning Commission which we had addressed, and also at the last meeting. I know
it was additional new information. Going back to the south, we reiterate anything from the
engineer, it's really not designed to go underneath that road. It was never accommodated and
MnDot.. .plan, I think there's some confusion on that but we really believe that the best
alternative for the city for long term maintenance and access would be studying that property to
the north, and you know can we stop short of that and provide an access where appropriate on
the property to the north. So with that I'll let the applicant maybe go through a little bit on the
architecture, unless you have questions on those other two issues.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just Kate have one question, if you can clarify. You touched on it
briefly but it went by me but, access and MnDot and permission for them to do that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, maybe I'll let Paul.
Paul Oehme: Thank you. On the, working with MnDot on this issue, we, MnDot is still working
on their mitigation plan and I know that they are working with, we're working with them on
establishing mitigation areas to accommodate their needs, and I know the developer is in that
loop too. He'd have to take on that responsibility of paying for mitigation and the. ..that goes
along with that, but you know we're still in the design phase of any mitigation that would take
place. MnDot still has not agreed to any wetland mitigation off their premise. Off their site.
They're still looking at the site as their main mitigation area for the 212 corridor for their, for the
Type 6 and 7 wetland credits. So we're still in the process, I mean it's one of the conditions that
we have with our, with this development is for the applicant to mitigate those wetland credits
to.. .go ahead with the road access. But at this time no decision has been made.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just add too a little bit. We have identified a site. We have spoken to
MnDot about that site. The developer is working to see if that site works so in working with the
wetland specialist at MnDot, they're aware of it. They've been working through our wetland
specialist Lori Haak to work through that so there is contemplated site. There is a methodology.
It just has to be worked through the process, which is standard when we do projects like this and
we put a condition on that they have to meet all the requirements, and it is a condition of
approval that they have to get all the permitting stuff done, but we are in negotiations. We have
identified a site and understand the process as the developer has met with them too to understand
the process so it's more than just we left it out there. You know we wouldn't have put it out
there unless we explored that as an opportunity so we have found a viable solution and so we
believe it's.
9
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Are you talking about to the north or to the south?
Kate Aanenson: To the north. The wetland. To the north I'm talking about.
Councilman Lundquist: ...this developer's property, how that's going to work?
Kate Aanenson: It's not a wetland yet. There is a question in their report that we're impacting a
wetland. There isn't a wetland there. It's a replacement wetland. There isn't a wetland there. It
was a replacement wetland that MnDot was going to use. Instead of replacing all that, we're
going to replace some of that in a different site.
Mayor Furlong: So the property is part of the right-of-way that MnDot acquired.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And they were going to use that to mitigate some of their other wetland
requirements as a part of the 212 project?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: If this road goes through there, then MnDot will have, the developer will have
to re-mitigate it at another location.
Kate Aanenson: Well they won't re-mitigate it but they'd find another location for, that doesn't
get mitigated there. It'd just be relocated. Relocate the site.
Councilman Lundquist: Can you show me where we're talking about?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: MnDot needs all the property to meet it's mitigation requirements, is that
correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So if this isn't allowed, if MnDot can't mitigate here, then it's got to be
replaced elsewhere.
Kate Aanenson: This property is owned by MnDot. What they want to do is replace the
wetland. There isn't a wetland.. . replace the wetland. What we're saying is that that portion of
the replacement is going to go somewhere else.
Councilman Lundquist: All that stuff in the green. Where does MnDot's property?
Kate Aanenson: This is MnDot's property.
10
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: In the green there?
Todd Gerhardt: That triangle.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So worst case scenario, say they don't want to do that.
Kate Aanenson: Well as I say, we've had those discussions already. We wouldn't put it out
there unless it was a viable option. I mean this is what held up the project before because we
couldn't go underneath the creek. That wasn't a viable option so we had to find another one so
the prudent or the way to make it happen was to put the wetland, that portion of replacement
wetland.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I know. I know.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, at somewhere else. So we've identified a site. We've still.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well on the site or somewhere?
Kate Aanenson: In the city. It's a Type 6-7 wetland which is unique so we found another site in
the city.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So it has been found?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. And they're...and we've had the negotiation that identified where that is
and we're working on that so.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to Councilwoman Tjornhom's question. If for some reason it falls
through, it's a condition right now, staff has recommended as a condition so they'd have to come
back if they're not able to fill that condition.
Kate Aanenson: That's right. That's right.
Mayor Furlong: They'd have to come back.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And then we look at other alternatives.
Kate Aanenson: That's right.
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Okay. Other questions for staff at this point.
If not, would the applicant, good evening.
Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong, council members. My name is Shawn Siders. I'm
with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company and with me this evening is Kevin
Clark, our Vice President of Land Development and Chris Moehrl, our project engineer with
11
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Westwood Professional Services. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Fox and Mr.
Dorsey for including us in their efforts to identify potential alternative secondary access points
for the Creekside community. We met with Mr. Fox and Mr. Dorsey to review their proposed
alternatives and we concur with city staff that the original plans that were presented to you this
evening that provide the secondary access through the MnDot property is the appropriate
location due to it's limited impact on the overall site. Since our discussion with you 2 weeks ago
we have revised the plan for the open space bound by private street D, and have included a totlot
in that area. Ms. Aanenson pointed it out. The totlot will be accessed via a trail connection
through here. We'll also install park benches and trash receptacle. We've also maintained a
little bit of green space for passive and active recreation space to provide additional opportunities
to the residents. Finally I'd like to confirm our commitment to the Premiere and Concord
product lines that are proposed for this site. We have reviewed a number of housing alternatives
for this area, and these two products that are being presented to you for this community provide
the greatest opportunity to create an exclusive community that is tucked into this natural setting
with houses that do include upgraded architectural features. Provides necessary infrastructure.
Allows us to partner with the city to upgrade Lyman A venue while creating home ownership
opportunities that are available to a larger segment of the Chanhassen community. We're proud
of our collaborative efforts, our collaborative partnership with the City of Chanhassen to ensure
that Liberty at Creekside is a long term success for the city, as well as Town and Country
Homes. I'd like to thank you this evening to discuss these plans with you and I look forward to
any questions you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Siders?
Councilman Peterson: A couple, and Town and Country one has been characterized, are there
any Concord units there?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Councilman Peterson: And if so, how many? And same for the Premiere, if you could share.
Shawn Siders: The 62 Premiere units around the perimeter of the property and there are
approximately 144 of the Concord units integrated throughout the community.
Councilman Peterson: There's two different numbers that I've seen in the packet. Phase II or
Town and Country II has either 142 or 138. Which of the two is it?
Shawn Siders: It's 146 units actually. It's 98 Premiere units and 48 Concord units.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you want to go into some detail about how some of the
architecture has changed from our last meeting?
Shawn Siders: Sure.
12
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I mean I have it here on my screen but I'd rather just see it.
Shawn Siders: Understood. We have not altered the architecture from the Liberty at Bluff Creek
community. What we have done, if you'll recall we worked with the city to develop a color
matrix that would include five colors that would be dispersed throughout the Liberty on Bluff
Creek community. What we have done as a result of Planning Commission and our discussions
with the City Council on April 10th is, we've actually developed a sixth color scheme for the
Liberty at Creekside community and what we have proposed is that 3 of the color schemes would
be dedicated to the Premiere units, which are located around the perimeter of the property.
These are the Premiere units are located around the perimeter of the property. And 3 of the color
schemes will be dedicated to the Concord units that are here within the middle. There's only 6
of those buildings so we thought to really add 6 colors to those 6 units would almost make it look
like a checker board if you will. So we have dedicated you know where we proposed, we
dedicated 3 colors to each one which will add some distinction to the overall color selection of
Creekside community. However distinguishing from the Liberty at Bluff Creek community in
addition to the site, which makes a pretty distinct community from Bluff Creek.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Siders, one of the reasons you mentioned that you selected the two housing
designs was because of the topography.
Shawn Siders: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: If I understood you correctly. I guess one of the questions I have, all the
pictures we've been looking at from the top and I know in the plan there was one side view, but
help me understand and maybe you could give just the overall site picture up there Nann. For
those properties, the topography basically falls off, or declines from the top to the bottom of the
picture, is that correct?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Water runs downhill. Towards the creek. What is the view of those units in the
top? What are they, are they going to be looking over the tops of the building to the south or are
they going to be looking at the roof lines? What are they going to be seeing?
Shawn Siders: We actually have a rendering prepared. This would be starting on the north.
These would be the Premiere units on the north.
Mayor Furlong: And this is how the site would be graded?
Shawn Siders: Yes. So this would basically be your view from north to south so each unit, this
northern most Premiere unit, these would be on a similar grade with the Premiere units which are
on the opposite side of the street, and then you would start stepping down so this street would be
you know on a nearly even grade, and then we would make the next step down to the Concord
units here in the middle. And then we would make the next step down to the Premiere units
overlooking the creek.
13
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what's the elevation of the highway through that area, do we know?
Paul Oehme: Of?
Mayor Furlong: 212. Do we know? Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you show me where the retaining wall is going to be in that
elevation?
Shawn Siders: Where the retaining wall?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Where in the plan or where in that elevation?
Shawn Siders: It might be easier to show you an overall plan. There's actually a tiered retaining
wall system here on the north. There's a retaining wall here. A retaining wall here. And then a
retaining wall here on the bottom which holds up the street and then also accommodates the
installation of this trail.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Is that going to have an impact on trees?
Shawn Siders: Nothing that's identified within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So there will
certainly be some trees that will be impacted but they will not be trees that are you know marked
within that delineated area.
Councilman Peterson: One of the questions kind of keying in on what you were offering, maybe
you can put back the overall development of number 1 and number 2. Both Bluff Creek and
Creekside. One of the things that was voiced in the last meeting, which I diligently watched on
television because I wasn't here, was that the back of the buildings and I'm curious as to, as you
look at that design and the perimeter of the site, what role, I mean how much of that will you be
able to see as you're driving by on whatever road we're going to have, whether that's 212 or the
funnel roads to it?
Shawn Siders: The view from 212?
Councilman Peterson: Well from 212 or the other roads that are going to access the site. I'm
just trying to get a sense as to whether or not we should be concerned with the rear sides of the
buildings around the perimeter.
Shawn Siders: I do not know the views from 212. Perhaps Mr. Moehrl may have a better
indication of that. How this project will look from the Peterson parcel, which you'll have in
front of you later this evening is, this is the Peterson development here and this is the Liberty at
Creekside development here, so we have approximately 600 feet of separation with extensive
landscaping providing that transition between those two developments and then these units, the
Concord units within the middle were located in part to help break up the views of the rears of
those Premiere units as well. And in addition, and this is also true at Liberty at Bluff Creek, as
14
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
we had introduced a very color and some additional depth to the rear of the Premiere units, is to
break up the monotony of the rear of the unit.
Councilman Peterson: Can you put back the map we used to go through the, and the walkouts,
yeah. The map we used earlier that showed a wetland. That showed the whole area. The one
you had Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Oh this one?
Councilman Peterson: Yes. I'm just trying to get a sense as you're likely to see the backs of
some of those.
Kate Aanenson: There also needs to be noise attenuation too but they're not sure on exact, and
that's one of the conditions too is how that... wall. There may be a wall along there too. So what
you're looking at on the back. Some of these are also going to be the walkouts so you'll actually
have an additional, that's showing on grade. The backs of these as you look across. This will be
a restoration area. Open space...and then these will be the walkouts. Then these will be the
side...
Councilman Peterson: So you aren't apt to see, what's going to go on the east side of the
project? What units?
Shawn Siders: These?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Shawn Siders: The Premiere.
Councilman Peterson: The ones around the totlot are which ones?
Shawn Siders: Those are Premieres as well sir.
Kate Aanenson: Want to see the picture, yeah.
Councilman Peterson: And you're likely to see that from 212. I mean logic would say that
you're likely to see it pretty dramatically.
Kate Aanenson: Again depending on where that noise wall ends up. You know you're going to
see it going northbound. Going southbound maybe not.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: This is a quick question. You talk about a noise wall. Who's
responsible for.
Kate Aanenson: The applicant is. They have to demonstrate that they meet the PCA standards.
Just a comment on that too. Depending on what happens on the north side...and again they don't
know what's going to happen here, but that's also going to be...
15
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Is that Creekside property directly to the north of the, up into the white?
Up to the white?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: It's the Fox family property directly north.
Councilman Peterson: Immediately to the north, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: You have the trees that are on that, on the, immediately to the north.
Shawn Siders: And I'll also point out there will be a wetland here and there also will be some
perimeter landscaping going on along the edge of the property as well.
Mayor Furlong: What's the nature of that landscaping?
Shawn Siders: Trees and shrubs.
Mayor Furlong: Overstory trees?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And then whatever we need for that noise mitigation. Whatever
that ends up being to meet whatever those standards. They'd have to demonstrate, that's also
one of the conditions. Again all that would come back for us.
Mayor Furlong: Just, while we're on the noise issue, I think we brought this up at the last
meeting, that condition number 1 under the preliminary plat.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Did we add in any language there that they would not only identify for
implement appropriate noise? I don't see it in the packet, but that might just have been.
Kate Aanenson: It's on page 17, B(1). Is that the one you're talking about?
Mayor Furlong: Page 17, B(1).
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The applicant prepare a noise analysis, right. So these are all the
things that we require for it to come back for final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Right, and I guess the issue there was, the analysis would identify, they're
required to prepare a noise analysis and to implement.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I'm sorry, that should have been put in there. To PCA standards.
16
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: To PCA standards? Okay. Sorry for the tangent. Other questions right now?
Kate Aanenson: Like I'm saying, it may end up being a physical wall that would certainly
reduce your visual.
Mayor Furlong: Another question, and I was looking through the staff report here and perhaps
you can direct me. The net density of this development, we have 146 units, is that correct? Of
the, and as we look at that other smaller picture, there is the, the area to the south. The Bluff
Creek. The smaller picture of the site plan. There. Yeah. Did we do an analysis? Did staff do
an analysis with regard to what was buildable down there without mitigation of wetlands or
what?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that was an area that's in the overlay district that we identified for
preservation. If you look in the staff report, it talks about the impervious surface at 30%.
Mayor Furlong: Where is that in the report? Do you know what page number?
Kate Aanenson: I do have it marked, hang on.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, keep going.
Kate Aanenson: That's alright. It's on page 5. It says the entire development, including the
public and private streets may not exceed 30%. The individual lots will be over the 30%, so one
of the tools that we employ in order to preserve the zone, to give some value of the overlay
district and just creating that overlay district to give it some value. The value is they get to use
that. Preserve it but they get to use it towards their impervious. So that's the trade off. We
compress that but they get to use it towards their impervious.
Councilman Lundquist: Density transfer?
Kate Aanenson: Well, in this case they're under the density. It's effectively that but actually the
density on this, this is the one piece we clearly guided straight medium density because of the
topographic behind lot, we gave that one, the only piece that's high density without a dual. And
they're actually under for a 4.78 is guided for up to 8 units an acre, so they didn't maximize,
going back to what your point Councilman Lundquist, they didn't maximize that density transfer.
But what they are able to capitalize on is the, be able to use that impervious area down below.
There's the two wetland replacements that are kind of in the light green there, and then what we
wanted to do following the plans of the Bluff Creek Overlay District was to revegetate that using
native species so it creates that open space. So as you drive, that's one of the things that we're
trying to capture as you drive through looking at that green space, the view that you get when
you go back to the original, we first had the very first kind of vision of the community, when we
used Bill Morrish at the University of Minnesota. That's when we came up with these rooms.
We kind of wanted to create these corridors so when you look up here you're going to actually
have a corridor going through this property, the Peterson going all the way up the creek, so that's
that corridor that will be replanting. So they got to compress the density. They picked a product
17
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
that they couldn't maximize, going up to 8 units an acre. But they were able to spread the
impervious over that part.
Mayor Furlong: So when you say it's part of the impervious, in the area, if we look at it north of
the trail, the impervious surface coverage there may exceed what they're allowed.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: But when you look at the entire parcel, they're within the limitations. Okay.
And in the plan, just to be clear. The water, there's storm ponds I see on this site as well.
Kate Aanenson: There's one there, and the wetland replacement...there's two wetland
replacements. And that's actually, they're re-establishing the old farmstead that was kind of a
gravel mine so actually re-establishing that whole area. Taking out kind of what's been
degregated and restoring that, which was also one of the goals of the overlay district. And
making that a nice view looking in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point for staff or the applicant?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I at some point though still really want to be sold on the access points
for this property so when I do vote I feel like every stone was untumed and we figured out the
right thing to do.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think Paul's prepared to go through all those if you wanted him to.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sure that's what Mr. Fox wants to comment on as well so.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: So I'm willing to wait but I'm just saying that I hope that.
Mayor Furlong: That's an issue, absolutely. Okay. Mr. Siders, thank you. Thank you very
much for your comments.
Shawn Siders: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: At this point we will accept public comment so Mr. Fox, you indicated or your
representati ve.
Steve Thatcher: Hi. I'm Steve Thatcher with Thatcher Engineering and this is Tom Whitlock
with Damon Farber. We represent the Fox properties and we're here to ask you to, allow us to
work with you and we consider the north access. We're thinking that, based on your permission,
we have available the southeast access has some advantages. The advantage that I want to talk
about briefly are as follows. Item number 1 is, the southeast access provides access to a lot of
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the future pedestrian trail in the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. It also connects to Pioneer Trail, thus providing access between the development and
south which would be more convenient for residents, reduce congestion on the north, east, west
collector street on the north side of the development. Reduce gas issues by residents that want to
18
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
drive to the south and improve emergency vehicle access from the south. The next one I want to
talk about item 4. With you know the MnDot plans, they talk about and show that they're going
to be excavating the soft soil underneath the southeast access road. Most of it anyway as part of
the 212 corridor. This will reduce cost to build the southeast access road. We've also reviewed
the MnDot soil borings to see if there's a method for constructing the southeast access over that,
and yet although soil may remain.. . as required for 1 to 2 foot of slick granular material on their
local city roads. Geogrid, the geo composite can help with that filling across. Item number 6 is
that there's advantages, there's no impact to forestry there, going to the southeast. And item
number 7, no one would maybe have to pay for removing the driveway access from the Bluff
Creek district. It may be desirable to do that at a future date. The MnDot plan dated 4/7/06
shows a cross section of the driveway reconstruction of about a 4 If2 foot high fill, 50 foot wide
underneath the westbound 212 bridge, and it drops to about 2 Y2 foot high with 30 feet wide on
the eastbound 212 bridge in that area. Based on the information we have available to us, on the
north access, there's a couple items that we'd like to discuss. Disadvantages that we see, the
information we have is that the road will be a barrier between the wetland and forest preserve.
Although there may be a wetland in there now, there will be a wetland in the future to the east.
The forest preserve is to the west of this access road, and this will limit flexibility of providing
use of these two natural resources, and will revive wildlife habitat and increase quantity intensity
of surface runoff to that wetland. Item number 4 is that that north access road appears to be over
approximately .4 acres of the Bluff Creek Overlay District up in that area. Next item I have is
item 5. It talks about the road, it appears it will cross a waterway flowing from the northwest
part of the Bluff Creek district across down into the wetland that would be made. This may need
to be preserved. It's within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, and that must be
carefully analyzed. The road may interrupt the ground water flow associated with this waterway,
the wetland which could negatively impact the wetland. Item 6 I have is if the only access roads
are to the north, there'll be no access to the south for the residents of the development. This
causes additional traffic congestion on the roads to the north, inconvenience and increased gas
usage for residents to the south. A quick rough estimate is that the road to the north, going
through the Fox property, an estimated traffic generation for some of the Fox property, that road
on the Fox property becoming a collector street, based on the Metropolitan Council's
transportation policy threshold for a collector of 1,000 vehicles per day. That would increase
cost on the Fox property. With those items, you know our opinion is that we'd like to work with
the staff and the city to analyze these options further. We think that the south access to Pioneer
Trail has minimal environmental impacts, less cost and greater convenience to the residents.
North access would have greater environmental impact and greater cost and less convenience to
the residents, especially those that want to go to the south. And therefore we would recommend
further consideration of that southeast access road. Any questions?
Councilman Peterson: I'm going to be visual tonight so pull out the map laying there again and
point out.
Steve Thatcher: Sure.
Councilman Peterson: So if you would just point out where you're recommending, both for the
people here and at home.
19
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Steve Thatcher: On this drawing, 212 is the gold line there. Land to the south is there.. . Lyman
Boulevard is there. Bluff Creek blue in here... This is on the west side map... The access, one
access for sure to the northwest, which is the yellow line goes through the site like this. The
north access would be along... up through and into this road in here. You know the Fox property
is here, and up in here. We visualize this coming underneath the bridge, following whatever is
most logical corridor down here to connect to Pioneer Trail. The yellow line shows it right about
there.
Councilman Lundquist: Where's the gravel, his gravel driveway now?
Steve Thatcher: It's right in that location. This black line, it's right there right now. I don't
know if there's an exact location to the south or will come... where would you connect that. We
know there is a plan that seems to show a connection to the south to a cul-de-sac. Connection
from the north to Pioneer Trail which is seen as a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe the question Mr. Oehme, maybe some comments if you would in terms
of, I don't know if your presentation's done or not but I don't want to cut you off.
Steve Thatcher: That's it, no. Just open for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Sure. I guess some comments on what we're looking at here and what we've
heard.
Paul Oehme: Well as you probably have heard from Ms. Aanenson, staff does not agree with
that alignment for several reasons. One of the items that Mr. Thatcher brought up was access for
emergency vehicles to the south there for pedestrian. There's going to be, we're envisioning a
10 foot wide trail along that corridor there which would adequately address safety issues for
emergency vehicles to get back there if any event were to occur. The issue in terms of
separating, getting back to the north access, by separating the forest area on top of the hill from
the wetland issue. You know the design that we would envision for that north corridor would
address both the ground water and the, any natural drainage flows. Potentially a culvert between
the two areas. We would not envision any significant ground water issues because of the
pavement section would only be limited by probably 2 to 3 feet worth of structural material.
Depending upon how that design is made, you know would that road potentially sit on top of the
existing grade? Depending upon how that grade is brought up to the, potentially to the Fox
property. So those are some of the issues to that effect. Bringing the road down to the south,
getting back to that point, yeah there is, in the AUAR we had envisioned a cul-de-sac off of
Pioneer Trail to address the future development in the 2010 area, development area. That
currently is zoned I believe industrial or commercial application. What we're talking about here
is bringing residential units, residential traffic through an industrial park. Staff did not envision
that as a good practice.
Councilman Peterson: Where's that?
Paul Oehme: The specific triangle of land? What the AUAR had shown was, this road actually
going away but that location here would be a small cul-de-sac to facilitate the development of the
20
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Laurent property and the Peterson property for potential industrial use, so to bring in residential
traffic to a more of a commercial area, we don't see as a benefit. The AUAR also addresses this
property as in the traffic analysis and we had always envisioned that traffic to be brought back to
the collector roadway. The east/west collector roadway and the traffic. In this development you
know can definitely, the east/west collector roadway can definitely support that type of
additional traffic so, we don't see that there is any traffic issues related to bring that, this
development traffic to the east/west collector roadway. It gives us, in bringing two access points
will mitigate some of the traffic you know through the Fox property and basically along the
corridor so stacking along at one access point during peak periods would be somewhat limited as
well, so we think there's advantages to bringing the roadway to the north.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor? Paul, isn't the key point on trying to bring the road underneath
312,312 is under construction today and that bridge section that goes through there is not
designed for a road to go underneath there at this point.
Paul Oehme: Right. This is a picture, that's today of the bridge that's currently being
constructed. It's not a typical bridge per se with wing walls. This is a land bridge. There's
actually another several sections of this bridge, and MnDot in it's analysis or it's, when it was
going through the design of this bridge, it always, they envisioned this as a bebo section or
regular bridge girder section, but when they did the soil analysis here I think the peat in this area
is somewhere between 50 and 60 feet deep, so they elected to actually drive piles to support the
bridge and lengthen the bridge to approximately 400 feet. So they are, in this corridor alone that
we know that there is significant soil issues that MnDot is actually spending a lot of money
addressing that in terms of building a bridge instead of actually filling this area in with soil and
so, that's, MnDot never had envisioned this corridor to be brought in to have a roadway. A local
roadway brought in at this location for residential use.
Todd Gerhardt: So from where the potential road bed would be to the bottom girder of the
bridge probably would not meet MnDot specifications for a roadway to go underneath there.
Paul Oehme: I don't know that at this time. I don't know what the height is between the actual
road grade. Potentially they like to be in the bottom of the girders for the 212 bridge but.
Steve Thatcher: I've got the, I didn't mean to interrupt. I do have the cross section there for the
bridge in that area. I know the height that they're proposing but I don't know what's the
minimum standard for that. What they've got is, this is the cross section at the westbound lane
and it shows the bridge from there to there, the bottom of the girders there. They show the
driveway up to here. From the ground to the bottom of the girder, that's 20 feet of vertical space
from the ground. And you show their sub-cutting there. Underneath where that driveway, sub-
cut shows 25 feet in that spot. That's the dark hatch area there. So there's 20 feet of space
between the ground and the bottom girder.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, and then the other part of not meeting the specification is putting a road
that close to a creek bed. And so it was never designed to have a road go underneath that bridge.
21
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'djust like to add to that one point as far as the AUAR. You know we
try to, I mentioned this last, 2 weeks ago is that we try to minimize creek crossing and we
provided one creek crossing in there for that specific reason, and if we talk about permitting
required to go to the north, replacing a wetland that's not there yet, as opposed to getting
permitting and go back and amend the AUAR because it was never approved in the AUAR. Go
back and amend the AUAR to see if we can get permits to cross the creek and the cost which we,
as Paul indicated, the soil corrections are huge there. Then there's a long term maintenance
when you're building on poor soils like that. We think it's much more prudent to take the road
to the north where the risk is much less. And a better way to service.
Paul Oehme: Another item too to bring the road to the south Mayor and council. Right now
MnDot has acquired a driveway access for the Jeurissen property. I believe, I don't know, I
think it's between 20 and 30 feet wide, in order for a road, a public road to be built at that
location to typical right-of-way width to 60 feet per our standards. That's not adequate at this
time. What MnDot has acquired, the applicant would have to purchase additional right-of-way
from third party properties out there, and we don't know if that would be feasible at this time to
make that, to have that right-of-way acquired.
Mayor Furlong: What's happening to that, what are MnDot's plans with regard to that driveway
access? You say that it literally is a driveway right now coming off from Pioneer Trail.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Access the property... the creek. You said it's 20 feet wide?
Paul Oehme: I think it's 25 feet wide. Maybe 30 feet wide as the most. The right-of-way that
they have acquired for that driveway.
Mayor Furlong: But from a width standpoint it's not, it doesn't meet our standard.
Paul Oehme: It doesn't meet our standard anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Public street. What is going to become of that current driveway and who's
responsible for doing something with it?
Paul Oehme: Well it's MnDot's property and they're responsible for the maintenance of it. I
would envision that MnDot would consider that a remnant right-of-way after the property has
been sold to the developer and that driveway is no longer in use, the collar would be eliminated
there on that crossing,there. Bluff Creek. As part of the project, I would imagine so.
Councilman Lundquist: They've got to leave it in there now to have access to that property.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Until something else.
22
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Paul Oehme: Until something else, and that access is no longer necessary, sure.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Councilman Peterson: How many homes would it, what's the trigger point from only needing
one access versus having two?
Paul Oehme: The council just passed a cul-de-sac limiting, limiting our cul-de-sac lengths to
800 feet. So we're trying to limit our cul-de-sac length, both as a utility issue and a safety issue
in terms of an emergency vehicle accesses. We try to limit properties to potentially about 15-16
units at the max, and that's typically about how many units you can support off of an 800 foot
cul-de-sac single family. And we're talking 140 units. 46 units here.
Councilman Lundquist: If I go back to the road, if you put the map of the, yeah. Here's what
I'm struggling with. I mean I understand Paul and Kate where you're coming from. You're
talking about the potential, if we go to the south that we're going through some commercial
industrial land, and you know we've talked off and on at this point about the Fox properties
ending up in some kind of an industrial or commercial you know potential, don't know what's
going to end up there but it's quite likely that if something in that could go in there. Regardless
of whether we go to the north or the south, there's wetland/ground water type issues, whatever
that might be. You know there is, you know I think there's some potential struggles there with
the width of the road and some of that thing, but at this point I look at that as really the only
thing that's really standing there because either way, as I'm looking at it, unless I'm wrong, that I
think we're going to end up going through commercial retail or industrial of one kind or another,
no matter which way we go, and there's going to be some wetland and water, ground water
issues regardless of which way we go. Now we don't have to cross the creek if we go to the
south. There's some issues with the bridge if we go to the south, but the way I'm looking at it,
unless I missed something, I think those other two issues we're going to have regardless of
which way.
Kate Aanenson: But the soils is a huge issue too, you know.
Councilman Lundquist: Well because you've got to go across the creek there.
Paul Oehme: We're just looking at current zoning. We know that the zoning to the south along
Pioneer Trail is more commercial industrial. To the north, right now that's more residential.
Councilman Lundquist: Well there isn't any zoning to the sout~, right? Because it's just guided.
Paul Oehme: Well it's just guided.
Mayor Furlong: The triangle piece.
Kate Aanenson: So is the other piece is just guided also to the north. It's guided residential.
Councilman Lundquist: So we can do anything we want with that.
23
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right.
Councilman Lundquist: Going forward. Okay. So are there other pieces? As I'm looking, you
know that may be over simplifying it by saying you know I think we've got the same issues
going north or south. There may be a degree of difficulty with the soils and the right-of-way and
some of that going to the south, but.
Kate Aanenson: Well the degree of difficulty is also you have to go back and amend the AUAR,
so that could be a year or two. You know I don't know, they may never get that permit. That's
a, maybe the City Attorney can address that but you have to go back and amend that, so I'm not
sure. The other one, there isn't the soil. It's a long term maintenance. Those kind of issues too.
Paul Oehme: And there's long term maintenance involved too for the city's perspective.
Another creek crossing means another bridge or another structure for the city to maintain. The
staff had always envisioned too the watermain looping of this area. If we go to the south, that's a
different zone. We can't really loop the water in this area basically we're stop at a long dead end
unless we get an easement to the north. To loop that watermain back up to the east/west
collector roadway. So in terms of long term maintenance, I think the length of the roadway too
is a little bit longer as we go to the south.
Councilman Lundquist: So do we have a picture of what the AUAR showed roads in this area?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I don't have it with me this time but it shows the two cul-de-sacs on the
Laurent property. Stopping short of the creek, yeah. Cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: They're short cul-de-sacs Councilman Lundquist. The one comes from
Pioneer, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: One comes off of Powers and one comes off of...stop short of the creek. That's
what we envisioned...
Councilman Lundquist: Room for access to the Jeurissen property.
Kate Aanenson: This direction and that direction.
Councilman Lundquist: So on our AUAR it showed.
Kate Aanenson: It didn't show those specific parcels being tied in, nor did it show the specific
parcels on, just they showed the north side on Lyman Boulevard, it showed one access point
besides the senior Degler piece. We showed that ring road tying, winding to Audubon. We also
showed another connection that needed to be.
Councilman Lundquist: Like that little, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
24
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: So why is an amendment to the ADAR required if we never showed.
Kate Aanenson: Because you're crossing the creek. That was an environmental, that also got
approved by the PCA, the DNR, the watershed district. All those agencies that have jurisdiction
because all those agencies commented on the original one, so that would be a significant change
that would have to go back and amend the ADAR.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Let's say, just for grins we decided to go back through that
process and those agencies that comment on that decide they don't want to allow that access
then, then our choice would be to give it one access or go back to the north then? Is that?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct, yep.
Councilman Lundquist: .. .happens? Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Has there ever been a community in the area that's had that many homes
with one access?
Tom Whitlock: I believe Bearpath is a loop system with one access point.
Councilman Lundquist: Not including their emergency back roads.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, go ahead. Questions still.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Explain to me again why we can't take that cul-de-sac and, and not
make it a cul-de-sac but make it a road or another access point.
Kate Aanenson: Which cul-de-sac?
Councilman Peterson: That's not a cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That's what I'm saying.
Kate Aanenson: You mean that would cross the creek or?
Mayor Furlong: The one that they've shown there.
Councilman Lundquist: You run one big loop through and service them both from.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Steve Thatcher: We looked at that. This is the north side of the Creekside development. This is
the proposed connection north through the Fox property. And this is their northern road that
ends in a cul-de-sac today. So we studied to see if you could make that loop back to the north,
and this does show a connection that we follow the city's grades and connect to the proposed
25
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
dead end driveway here and it will loop back to that north access point. That does require about
a third of an acre of encroachment into that Bluff Creek tree preservation area, which is actually
less than what's proposed on the north. Right now the north loop shows about .4 acres of
encroachment into that.
Kate Aanenson: That also has a substantial retaining wall of about 800 feet, which we may want
terraced because it's so tall, so I'm not sure that that's feasible. And the other problem with that.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. No, the significant retaining wall along this whole side here. It's pretty
high. Typically when they're that tall, we like to terrace them so they're not that tall and so
again... This is also tying into a private street. A public street tying into a private street...
Steve Thatcher: Yeah, that's true. There's a double wall showing on the north, on the whole
north side of this development today.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but I'm talking about the other wall too. There'll be a new other wall.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Clark?
Kevin Clark: Commissioner, Councilman Lundquist. Another issue regarding the south access
is that, by bringing a full right-of-way through there, will certainly convert those, what are
proposed as private drives into public right-of-way and so then that will wipe out whatever
number of units as you come up into that totlot area that we've just got done focusing on. And
then. I just think it'd be a tremendous hurdle for the city to ask us to build 1,500 foot long, zero
loaded street through an area that's identified as being basically bottomless. Building a road
that's built to float, that's going to be maintained by the city. Those are always dangerous words
for a street. And I think that there'd be a tremendous economic hardship to think about making
that a second access.
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this point? Gentlemen, thank you. Appreciate
your thoughts and comments. Okay. Better looking council chambers.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I have one more. I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Gentlemen, please.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When this project was designed and laid out, was there any other
way it could have been designed and laid out so that we wouldn't be talking about this tonight?
Or no matter what's coming in.
26
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Right, even with single family homes, again we have that long street. Even if it
was single family homes, even if it was commercial. I mean it's topographically separated from
another piece.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: So we'd still be talking about...
Kate Aanenson: Correct. As we do with every parcel that comes in, it's angst on every project
that we do, and that's our job is to make sure that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together and we
provide adequate access to adjoining parcels. Some pieces are easier because it just a natural fit.
Other pieces it's more a challenge, even when we tell people a connection's being made. It still
can be a challenge so you know.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay? Very good, thank you. Any other follow-up questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: I guess the only other question I had, and we briefly talked about the
possibility of this loop without a secondary access point. I guess I'd like to focus on that a little
bit more so we have a better understanding of the difficulties in that.
Kate Aanenson: Having both streets come up at the same point?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It's a huge retaining wall. You're getting back to the same point, you're wiping
out some of the, Paul put his comments. Do you want to go back over your comments that we
commented on.
Mayor Furlong: Are you saying, Councilman Peterson, the loop that they showed right at the
very end there?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: That smaller one. No, not that one. That one right there.
Mayor Furlong: The little one on the table?
Councilman Lundquist: That one right there. Now if you zoom in on that. I think what Craig's
talking about is you take that cul-de-sac is there and you tie it into, no. Just go straight to the
east.
Kate Aanenson: Go straight through the comer of the Fox piece.
Councilman Lundquist: No, no. Oh west. Straight to the west. Straight to the west. There you
go.
Mayor Furlong: Isn't that just a cul-de-sac?
27
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And you've got just one big loop which you're all getting stuck on that.
Paul Oehme: I think the grades are, is that what you were asking?
Councilman Peterson: This one doesn't have a loop. I'm saying if you created a loop, how
much of an issue.
Kate Aanenson: Well it's a huge drop in grade.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh is it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: It wouldn't meet city standard.
Councilman Peterson: That's your retaining wall issue.
Councilman Lundquist: Ah.
Kate Aanenson: The change in grade is too significant. You wouldn't be able. They were going
to the next level.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Go ahead.
Chris Moehrl: My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood Professional Services. This is just a
copy of the plan that we had received. I looked at it really quickly and this here is just kind of a
grade limit line. I think what Kate was alluding to is that you'd actually be removing more trees
than what we're looking at there. Another issue that I'm seeing that has been brought up too is
right here down on the comer. When we extend this road further to the northwest, this unit here
actually will have to rotate. Move a little bit to the southwest. We already have a retaining wall
there now so we're already fighting some grade issues. A rough scale maybe it was 20-30 feet
and that could add another 10 feet or even longer, so that's another issue that I see. I think on
this private road here, it looks like about 7%...
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay,
anything else before we.
Councilman Lundquist: Quick question on the park. This is probably something that we'll talk
about on the next item as well. Putting an access, the park on the east side of the Peterson parcel.
You know in the potential of even putting a small access across that creek to get to that. Do you
know Todd or Paul or Kate, anybody, what's the, so if we go back to the big map. No the other
one. There you go. So the yellow piece that's on the west side of the Peterson property, if you
took that and moved it over to the east comer, yeah. Up by the creek up there somewhere, so
that you could potentially come across the, you know put a wooden bridge so to speak over the
creek there for bikes and pedestrians. What's the elevation change from the, from the Town and
Country piece up into that northeast comer of the Peterson piece?
28
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Todd Hoffman: What's the elevation change between here and here?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: You need just probably another difficult section of trail that would cross
wetlands, bridging the creek, either through a culvert or a bridge. And then come back up into
the other development. This is also the preferred location for the park. Services.
Councilman Lundquist: Those other 650 units.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, and it just works out well. The planning buffer between the two different
types of uses. Fits in nicely to the road plan. You put it down here, on the lower side, it is
separated from the rest of the development and it really starts to isolate it down into the creek
area.
Kate Aanenson: That other, on this end too is the steeper part too. Being a walkout going this
way so... You could make the creek crossing but you're on the flat. It's probably the flattest
portion of the area. The Peterson property.
Councilman Lundquist: And so your trail would end up being the switch back and all kinds of.
Kate Aanenson: Not only the trail but the park would be.
Todd Hoffman: The park itself is a fairly flat location here with a playground and an open field.
It's got good public visibility on the main road which is a good thing for a public park. You
stick it back into the back side of a development, it's more difficult for the rest of the community
to locate, find, visualize.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Thanks Todd. Mr. Clark, what was the size, approximately size
of that totlot? Mr. Siders, either.
Shawn Siders: Totlot area is actually 45 by 45, so that includes a foul zone that's required to.
Councilman Lundquist: The whole green space.
Shawn Siders: Dh, the whole area is.
Councilman Lundquist: Closer to a half an acre or an acre?
Todd Hoffman: Half.
Councilman Lundquist: That's close enough. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this point? Some may come up in our discussion
and comments. If not, let's try to move along and get people's thoughts. On what we saw
29
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
different from last time or other comments that we've heard this evening in terms of road
alignments, as well as other. Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that I've got some challenges and I'll try to articulate
those as best I can. And I'll speak in macro terms first of all. The 2005 MUSA gave us as a city
an opportunity to really form what is essentially the most significant part of our city. And to
design that with an AUAR and Planning Commissions and staff and councils. And you know I
think what I have tried, kind of set as my standard is, you can use a lot of different adjectives but
probably distinction is one that comes forth the best for me, and distinction isn't about quality.
It's about uniqueness and providing something to our city that is unique and provides, whether
it's architectural style or life cycle living. Single level living. It's a combination of everything
so I use the word distinction with quite a bit of thought. On Bluff Creek I articulated some of my
architectural standards, designs that I didn't think brought that much distinction to our
community and again I'm questioning the quality. I'm questioning the distinctiveness of the
product that they're using, along with scope of the project. You know so on Bluff Creek I was
concerned about the scope and the distinctiveness of some of the products they're putting in
there. And now I'm presented with another development in Creekside that is essentially more of
the same. And hence there's a conflict that I have trying to figure out how to deal with that.
And in another macro sense I'm a little bit concerned about the 2005 MUSA because we're
putting in a lot of density. You are taking out some industrial and...replace that industrial yet
and our density numbers, I guess are becoming more dense than I had originally pictured as I
pictured the area for 2005 MUSA. We've got the Fox and Dorsey property that we've danced
around whether or not that's going to be single family. We don't know that yet but if it's not,
then all of a sudden you've got the 2005 MUSA area with a great number of high density
complexes, and even the single family are going to be pretty small lots from what I'm
understanding. And that is of some concern to me. I don't think that's what our residents
wanted was a lot of high density as a balance there, and I'll certainly look forward to other
councilors opinions so. Again, I'm concerned that we're in many ways maybe moving too fast
and I'm not saying stop the developments but on this one particularly I'm saying it, seeing it as
being more of the same. And that concerns me as I don't think it is bringing the distinction that
we need to for the community. And maybe my standards are too high. I don't think so but that's
kind of where they're sitting. So in a general sense I'm probably not for the property, for the
development only because I'd like more variety. That's putting it simply. And I think we can
get more variety. That being said, the totlot specifically, and I will address the whole package
here, I think is something that I think that area should be left to that individual community. I
don't think we need to dictate that we need a totlot in there. I know it was discussed last time
and I wasn't here to voice my opinion on it but I think that's something that that area can be left
for a totlot, and if that development wants it, they can put that in. If the development does go
through. As it relates to the road. I can't see any, going south just doesn't make sense from
what I'm listening to and heard both sides. The cost structure and the maintenance, you know it
doesn't seem feasible to go anywhere but north. And to work with the Fox's to find the best
place north to go seems the only viable alternative so. So essentially I've voiced my opinion on
the project itself, that I'm not for it but should it go through, those are my opinions on the other
ancillary aspects of it.
30
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I guess in terms of questioning, getting back to your comments
Councilman Peterson on the distinction of design as you mentioned. You know when you see it
perhaps the answer, but what are you looking for from a.
Councilman Peterson: Well again I think it's not so much what I'm looking for. I don't want so
much of the same. You know we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of units that are
essentially very similar, if not the same. You've got 146 Premiere in this development, and is it
135 of the Premiere's in the other? It's just a lot of the same. And you know when I drive
through communities, ourselves included, you want to see variety. And you're going to have
separation here but not a great deal. And we are going to see, likely see the backs of these,
which you guys talked about at the last meeting that doesn't bring architectural interest. They
are, color isn't going to create a lot of distinction from my perspective. And or at least I haven't
seen it used successfully. You need architectural lines that change the articulation in the rears of
those buildings. And I don't know if that answers your question there or riot but.
Mayor Furlong: No, I guess that helps. Thank you. Other thoughts, comments. Councilwoman
Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I always have to go after he has a wonderful speech about what he's.
You know I guess I wish I could just say ditto from what I said last time. I feel like I was
disappointed when I opened my packet and saw it kind of looked the way it was last time. It just
kind of mirrors what they have across the street, or the road and I was thinking that, gosh you
know, you've got this beautiful piece of property and there's so much you could do with it to
make it a distinctive place to live or a distinctive place in Chanhassen instead of just bringing
what you already have over to the other side of the development and so I was disappointed that
not much had changed with that and you know changing color palettes on buildings is a start but
I don't know if it was enough for, to win me over as far as this project. And as I said before, I'm
not necessarily against the density of it because it was zoned for that density, and so I feel
comfortable where the project will come in. Maybe with just a little more thought or a little
more creativity or something as to what it would be used for. I like the life cycling. I'm not
quite sure if I'm sold on that. The totlot was a start, even though I don't really encourage totlots
on private developments but it seemed with it's location and the young families that would be
moving in there, it just seemed practical at the time. The road was a big issue for me. I think I
feel comfortable with following staffs recommendations only because you know, I don't want to
have to build a floating road under a bridge that the city has to maintain and has to really take
care of for years and years to come so, I would follow staff's recommendation for the road if it
would come to that kind of, where it was going to pass and we had to make a decision so, I guess
I just am kind of echoing what I said last time. I don't have much else to say.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Well overall thoughts I think are in line with Mr. Peterson and Mrs.
Tjomhom that I mentioned at the last meeting that I'm still getting, I think I'm still getting my
arms around having 600 townhouses, or 600 units out there. Even that's a lot and you know part
of it is, maybe I'm going through the shock and awe of that change in that stuff. That piece of
land might be, but even in light of that, there's still, there's just so much about this development
31
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
that just doesn't feel right to me. The road thing, I think you know I can't argue with the
previous comments about challenges on the soils out there. Putting a road under a bridge.
Whether or not, you know I think there's still a lot of questions there and I fear that we may have
already missed the boat on the southern access with MnDot putting a major highway and a
bridge through there that may be a moot point now but it doesn't mean there aren't some other
alternatives there. I mentioned last time about the park issue. Again, challenging from a
perspective of topography and other parts there. I still from a practical standpoint doubt very
much that residents on a, you know when you send your kids, when they come home from
school and you send them out to play at dinner time, that they're going to go to the park that's on
the west side of the Peterson parcel. It's just too hard to get there. It's too hard for those you
know 6 to 12 year old kids that are going to get there. Now, a half acre totlot is a place to play,
and I would reiterate my concern that I don't know that, I don't have a good solution or
suggestion for a solution in that, but it's a concern of mine that the residents there, you know
they're not all going to be residents that have children of that age. Obviously there'll no doubt
be a mix but I'm not sure that we're servicing the needs of those residents there with that current
layout so. There's just, there's a lot of things about this that concern me. The zoning is there.
Or that the guiding for that is there. You know the density I think can be viewed as a win, that
we could have had up to 8 there that we have a reduction so I think that's a win, but as Mr.
Peterson said, just because it's a win on the number doesn't mean it's a win on what they look
like and appear like. Understand the topography and the use of those units fits in well with the
topography there. But that doesn't mean that there's not something else out there architecturally
as well that would capture the same so. I just, at this point I think I'm not comfortable enough
with the overall, you know there's not probably one issue that's a deal breaker for me but I'm not
comfortable that as a complete package that we've got the best thing that we can possibly have
right now. That we've got a little bit more work to do to go back and see what else we can get
on it.
Mayor Furlong: When we talked about this last week we talked some about architectural design,
not to the level that Councilman Peterson brought forth this evening, but we did talk about that
and we talked about the park and the road access. I think those were kind of the three main
issues. As I look at those issues, in no particular order, probably one of the biggest issues in
terms of points of contention is the road alignment. First of all I think the question is do we want
to have more than one access into the neighborhood, and I think the answer there is yes. That's
from a designing city's best practice standpoint, that's a critical component for safety and quality
of life, so the real question is north or south. We talked about density and density transfers and
the desire to preserve the Bluff Creek corridor and some of that, well that was the reason on the
first Town and Country development that caused the actual density within the area where there is
development to exceed the medium density because we were protecting natural resources. So if
we're going to be doing that, I don't want to start adding crossings to the creek or whether it's
trails or roads or those types of things. That would defeat the purpose for what we've already
done. So the, you know I think while there were issues raised that with the southern road access,
or access to the south to this neighborhood, you know is crossing the Bluff Creek the same in
terms of an impact as an additional wetland mitigation that isn't a wetland right now but you
know would have to be mitigated elsewhere to meet MnDot's standards somewhere else along
the corridor. I know from a hierarchy standpoint those are two different things. Is there
mitigation? Sure. But two different levels. The zoning to the south, it's an industrial versus
32
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
commercial. What's been discussed to the north right now which is zoned or guided for low
density residential. It was more of a mixed use commercial which is much more of a lifestyle
issue than, or access through that to this neighborhood versus coming up through the south
through an industrial park. It's a different feel. Are they different zonings? Yes, but I think in
terms of complimentary, what's currently guided or what's being discussed to the north is much
more complimentary to here than what's being discussed to the south. The costs I think are the
other aspect there. This is part of the give and take that comes in. There's no perfect second
access to this property so what we have to do is pick the best one and everything I've heard
tonight, I don't know what else we can hear but there's nothing that's compelled me to say that
the north is not the best of the alternatives. My thoughts there. With regard to the park. We
talked about that last time. I think, you know my thoughts are very much along with what
Councilman Peterson expressed tonight. I'm glad that we asked the developer to go look for you
know, can you do something there, but I think that leaving it up to the residents, if they, after
they move in, if the association wants to put something in, we know it will fit. If that becomes
an issue to them. I think as people look at these homes, as anyone in any city is looking to buy a
home, there are trade off's between the amenities of not only the physical structure of the house
but also with the amenities surrounding it and if an association totlot is important to somebody,
and that's high on their list, there are other developments in the city that have those. The one
right across the creek. Town and Country's Liberty at Bluff Creek does so, so somebody might
be more inclined to buy over there if that was an important amenity, but the fact is we know that
something will fit if the residents want to, and I think to Councilman Peterson's point, that's
where I think we stay there. So as I hear conversations tonight, I mean the, we're pretty close on
the park. I think you've heard my sentiment. I think we know that that's an option. Let's just
not make it a condition of the approval. The road alignment, you know to Councilwoman
Tjornhom's comment, we keep asking but it seems that supporting staff's position there is the
best of the alternatives. It may not be perfect for everybody but that's the best. The real issue
gets back to Councilman Peterson's question of distinction of design, if we use his terms, and I
guess they are. I would ask is that something from the applicant, are there, you know to me what
I'm hearing Councilman Peterson, don't let me put words in your mouth but it's not choices of
colors. But it's the style of the houses, is that?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. You're looking at two communities that are within hundreds of
feet of each other, but they are different communities but they're the same buildings. And with
one of the styles, the Concord I articulated on the initial phase that that was a nice urban feel.
Creative, contemporary and current design, and the Premiere just lacked both on the front side
and the rear enough character that I thought brought distinctiveness to the development.
Mayor Furlong: And again, don't want to put words in your mouth. You're not saying, instead
of these two from across the creek, pick two more from across the creek. You're looking for
distinction per se. Uniqueness.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, just because of it's sheer size. You know hundreds of units and
then to drive, like you say, across the creek and seeing more of the same thing, that's a huge
portion of our community from percentage wise of the same kind of style, and I think offering
our residents a more distinctive variety is I think an asset.
33
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I guess Mr. Siders, I'd ask you, is that, based on what you've heard this
evening, are there other potential designs that might be available? Given the topography and the
other conditions.
Kevin Clark: Well going back to our original submittal when we had primarily just, it was more
homogenous. Where we had all the townhomes and where that grew out of our understanding
that this is kind of an enclave really. Where this site is, at the time really was a protected area.
We though that that was a better fitting for that, to have, create that kind of area for that product
which fit into the site very well. And I think personally I don't know if we're getting enough
credit for the advances that we have put forth. Over the last 3 years, when we first came in, we
had two products for Liberty at Bluff Creek. We since elevated that architecture to 4 different
products. We've changed the elevation. Added materials. I guess I'm wondering when does it
stop. You know we've added brick. We've added four elevations to the Premiere. We've put
different architecture on the rears. At some point you know there has to be a balance there. Now
I understand what you're saying about the units. When we move from the Bluff Creek
neighborhood into Creekside, we have some, the Premiere units, 62 of those, around the
perimeter of that neighborhood and that's why we felt it's inappropriate from both a community
standpoint and a density standpoint, we are investing oh probably upwards of $5-$7 million
dollars on a model center out there currently under construction, as a marketing effort to make
this a successful project. I mean everything that we're doing and working with you on is to
make this a successful project. For yourselves. For the city and so that this community doesn't
sit there and linger, and by doing that we make the investment to do that. To do that you have to
support it. You can't just build you know 5 of this and 5 of that and then expect the project to
have any legs. I mean you build a model center. You invest in the model. The architecture, so
that was our impetus to really then moving that into that other neighborhood. Hearing from you
collectively, and the Planning Commission and such, we'd like some more adversity. We said
well that's fine. That makes sense, so we moved and brought the other product up there in a
smaller contingent but to break that up, as you mentioned, more of an urban flare. Get some
views onto that public street. Change the geometry of the site by turning the buildings. Working
with that within the context of the topography, and we thought we did a fairly decent job of
doing that and meeting those requirements. I guess a long winded answer to the question is, can
something else be done? Can we go out and re-engineer and bring in a new product? That's a
real hurdle when you talk about new architecture. New design and then coming up there for you
know, what would then be maybe a small nucleus for the effort to do that, and it's a big
undertaking when you do anything like that. Stepping back a little bit, you know we looked at a
variety of products. A conversation earlier was, what's the limit on the cul-de-sac because when
we started looking at what would be some other alternatives here to address access. To address
grades. We went back and did numerous iterations looking at single family. Looking at
different products. Looking at how we could get other products into that area. Frankly, single
family is just, that's a tremendous hurdle. I mean we'd be really selling you a story if we
thought we could convert that right now to single family and really make a go of it in the market.
And even in the market 3 to 6 months from now, or past. It just, it would be certainly maybe be
distinctive. It would probably be the homes that would show up in Distinctive Home magazine,
because they'd all have to be at least a million dollar homes, and that's not the market that we
think that this area can support. I don't know if we can come back with more architecture. I
guess as oppose to getting denied, we'd certainly take the opportunity to look at it, but I can't
34
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
promise you that I'm going to be able to come back here and say hey, we've got a new product.
What do you think?
Councilman Peterson: And you were speaking more to me than anybody else, so I guess I'll
respond. I think that really what I'm talking about is degree. You know I approved the last
project and I supported it. I think we have a better product from what the Planning Commission
and you and council had. I'm essentially talking about numbers and if you were coming in front
of us with 1,200 units tonight, you'd probably get more push back. I mean in my..! think we've
got enough of the kinds of products you've got with the 600 in the other area.
Kevin Clark: That's a misnomer. We don't have 600 in the other.
Councilman Peterson: Well I was.
Kevin Clark: 440. 444.
Councilman Peterson: Well, 450 versus the 146 so. To that end, I'm just struggling with the
numbers.
Kevin Clark: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: So you know, and I support the numbers with the design differences
we've had, I've had the discussion with you before so. But again I think that's where my point
is. There is a number from the size of it, the development that's going to get pushed back from
staff and you weren't at staff s push back. You happen to be at mine. Now whether or not it's
the rest of the council's, I can't speak so.
Kevin Clark: Sure. It's kind of you know, that's a conundrum that you individually have to
work with but I guess we've met that density requirement. I mean I think coming into this, back
when, this area was guided for these densities. I mean if some of these things were out there as
were taken into effect when the AUAR study was done. When you looked at capacity for other
improvements that you were planning on. What you thought your tax revenues would be.
Infrastructure. Viability. Assessment levels. All those things were important to do that and I
think when we look at Liberty at Bluff Creek, where are we at? 4.52 or somewhere in there as
far as net density as opposed to you know 4 to 8, so we've been very sensitive along with you
and listen to you on that throughout this discourse. But some of the comments I've heard
tonight, we're kind of, we're caught up in that more internal wrestling match, and I don't know.
It is what it is but it's kind of an unfair collective.
Councilman Lundquist: We did take some of the, we did take some of the, on the original
project, we did take some of the industrial out of that when we approved that. The Liberty at
Bluff Creek so there was, I mean you're on point where you say that you have the low end of the
density here but as we look at that site as a whole, they have deviated from some of the guiding
on that by taking some of that industrial out, so we are, you know there's some things that have
changed there as well as we look at the site as a whole but, you're certainly on point where
you're at the low end of the density.
35
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Kevin Clark: So that made, I think made Bluff Creek more of a challenge because that was an
undefined situation you left yourselves with. Really, that we all were trying to deal with is that
we left, there were more options there than maybe would have been ideal.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Mr. Clark, in terms of giving you credit. Perhaps we haven't
expressed it publicly so I'll do it now, and with Liberty at Bluff Creek there were some very
good strides made there through the process that resulted in the approval at the time.
Kevin Clark: Sure, and we're grateful and excited about, you know what we're doing out there
right now.
Mayor Furlong: And color palette was part of that but the other thing were some new design.
New product designs that came in there that were not originally part of it. And as I drive around
the Twin Cities area, or travel to other parts of the country, there are some places where you can
go to where you drive by beige box after beige box after beige box that are all just lined up, and
we don't have that there so I think from what was accomplished at Bluff Creek, I think we did
make some great strides there in terms of the number of different housing products and
introducing some of the new products that weren't originally designed, and I guess all I'm
hearing here is, is you know can we do some of that rather than just taking the extension of the
existing products there and transferring them over here. Tell me if I'm wrong. The other issues
that we've talked about, the park. The road. Are we generally coming to agreement on that as a
council? Councilwoman Tjomhom, again you were a little hesitant here but again talking about
the product or the, following up on Councilman Peterson's comments there. In terms of the
road, you said the road to the north made sense to you and you know, the park is like it, but at
least it's an option.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would say, you know as a, none of those are really deal
breakers for me. Do I like the road alignment? You know no, but does it work? Is it an option?
You know of all the options, then yeah. Is the open area/totlot/whatever you know you want to
call it ideal? No, but is it, would it work? Yeah. But there's nothing compelling me as I look at
this thing as a whole to put those issues aside and say it's worth accepting those less than ideal
conditions to go ahead and get it. Where there's some, something compelling me about the
development to say that I really want these style of houses or this product or this market that isn't
currently served in our residents somehow, some way. Something different about that. I could,
the road and the park thing wouldn't be the detriment to me. But when I look at it as a whole,
there's something missing there that isn't jumping off the page saying, I want this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Well and I guess to your comment, I guess what I think, to try
to keep it going but also to give some good direction there, what we're looking for. The
comments have been made tonight. It would seem to me that we should probably take another
look at the housing products, or ask you to do that and have you come back with what options
might be available, and the pros and cons then of those options. Is that a fair?
Councilman Peterson: From my perspective, yeah, certainly.
36
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it's very fair. I think you're a very talented developer and I
think that there has to be more than 4 townhouses that can be built out in Chanhassen. I'm sure
you could find 2 more that are just as good, if not better. As far as design standards are
concerned.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments?
Kevin Clark: No, I think I understand and we'll take 2 weeks to take a look at it.
Mayor Furlong: See what can happen.
Roger Knutson: In order to make this work we'll need an extension on the time lines.
Kevin Clark: I think we have through the 8th, correct?
Roger Knutson: Right, but that won't work for us because if we're going to go in a different
direction, we have to start that process tonight. In other words, we need more time if you want to
actively consider something.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: So you're saying from a staff perspective we need more time?
Roger Knutson: If you're going to go with findings different than what the Planning
Commission has put in front of you, in other words if you're going to want findings for denial,
you'd have to order them prepared tonight so we could have them at your next meeting.
Councilman Lundquist: I didn't hear us say findings for denial.
Todd Gerhardt: But you're going to table now.
Mayor Furlong: I know but... the 8th is our next meeting so. Is that something to do whatever
our city attorney would like to do.
Kevin Clark: This is deja vu.
Roger Knutson: Yes, we've done that before haven't we.
Todd Gerhardt: Like I told Justin earlier, it's just like home so.
Kevin Clark: What I've done is just amended the date.
Roger Knutson: To what?
Kevin Clark: May 22nd.
37
City Council Meeting - April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: That would be our second council meeting from now. Just for clarification, if
we took action at that meeting, would that extension still be okay?
Roger Knutson: That will work.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Is there a motion to table?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to table.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
table action on Liberty at Creekside, Planning Case No. 05-24. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PIONNER PASS. 1600 PIONEER TRAIL. APPLICANT SEVER PETERSON:
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICEIINDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-
LOW DENSITY (APPROXlMA TEL Y 43 ACRES); REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM
DENSITY DISTRICT (RLM); PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIONEER PLASS
CREA TING 82 LOTS. 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT -OF- WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS
(APPROIXMA TEL Y 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A
VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE; AND WETLAND
AL TERA TION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS AT
FUTURE HIGHWAY 312.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Joel Cooper
John Chadwick
Paul Bilotta
JRH Inc.
J. Edwin Chadwick LLC
HMI Development
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This project before you tonight,
Pioneer Pass is located also in the 2005 MUSA area. It will gain it's access off the new frontage
road, then also off of Pioneer Trail. This request involves a couple of actions, most specifically
land use amendment from residential medium density or office industrial to low density. Of
approximately 43 acres. It also includes the rezoning to RLM and we'll spend a little bit of time
going through that zoning district itself. Also preliminary plat and a conditional use for the work
38