The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Minutes 5-8-06 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 21. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.rn. on Saturday and Sunday. The sale of seasonal merchandise consisting of pumpkin and Christmas tree sales shall be permitted from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 22. Exterior light sources shall be shielded. 23. No outside speaker system shall be allowed. 24. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service. An annual review shall be made to determine compliance with the attached conditions. 25. The applicant shall work with staff to develop signage that will comply with city ordinances. 26. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways at Highways 101 and 212. 27. No equipment or vehicles shall be stored on the site with the exception of employee vehicles and equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery. 28. No outside storage of equipment and materials unrelated to the nursery business shall be permitted. 29. Storage structures shall not be used for retail purposes. A portion of the proposed storage structure may be allocated as office space to service wholesale customers. Storage of equipment and materials is permitted in these buildings. 30. No grading of the property shall be permitted unless a grading permit is obtained from the City. 31. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in examining the possibility of relocating the access point on TH 212 further to the west and providing a deceleration lane along westbound TH 212 in conjunction with the Highway 212 improvements. 32. A1lloading or unloading should be done on site and not blocking either Highway 212 or 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. THE PRESERVE. 1630 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD-R: SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES INTO 156 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER LOTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CROSSING BLUFF CREEK: AND VARIANCES. 21 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Public Present: Name Address Jeff Fox Rick Dorsey Marcy Hillerman Gayle & Lois Degler Justin Larson Allan Klugman Cory Meyer Dan Herbst Dan Cook 5270 Howards Point Road 1551 Lyman Boulevard 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie 1630 Lyman Boulevard Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services 7640 Crimson Bay 7697 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant, Pemtom is requesting to rezone a property that's been zoned A2 to PUD- R. For the approval of 155 lots and 15 outlots. They also approved a conditional use permit to work within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations of the flood plain. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project on April 18th, 2006 and did recommend 5-0 to approve the plat. There's quite a few things approved in the attachment, but what I'd first like to do is, instead of going back through some of the comments is to talk about the zone. How the zone got picked and how we came to the staff recommending approval of this project. Subject site. Just south of Lyman on the Degler property. The entire property as stated in the staff report, approximately 80 acres. And looking at the entire 2005 MUSA, and what has been approved to date. I did include in your packet a summary of what we put in the AUAR and what's been built to date. Just kind of to kind of tie that all back together, so we anticipated approximately 1,500 units and if this project was to be approved with 155, we'd be at approximately 800 units. So there was still over 700 units left available for the development of the two remaining parcels. The other parcels in the area that are not guided residential would be the Degler property and then included in the AU AR was some of the Laurent property. So in looking at this and looking at the whole 2005, the goal from the beginning was to try to preserve the creek corridor. That was the overriding planning principle was to preserve all this green space, and do something different that we hadn't used in the past in the city to preserve creek space. So looking at the land uses that, other developments that had come in already and trying to come up with something, a different style of housing. The developer went with the smaller lot. So with that, the challenge then was to, how to make that work and you know we looked at twin homes. Fourplexes and tried to accommodate something different on the site. Ended up with this single family lot size. And it's different application. Outlined in your staff report, just take a minute to take a look at, if it' s possible, because it is zoned low density, medium density. Low density. There are several zoning options that could be applied to the property. One being the 15,000 square foot lot. A very traditional subdivision lot. PUD-R single family and that we have also in the city. 15,000 square foot average. Excuse me, 15,000 square foot average. Yeah, average. 11,000 would be the smallest. We have some subdivisions that use that.. . most recently seen on the Sever Peterson property. Again that's a 9,000 square foot single family home, or 72 for twin. R-4 which would allow the 15,000 square foot single family or a 10,000 for twin. The R-8 which would be a medium density, 7,500 square foot twin home or 5,000 for a townhouse, so that would be another appropriate zoning. Or the 22 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 PUD detached, which is what this project came where there's no minimum. So if you look at the average lot size that we put in your staff report, just under 8,000. The smallest lot being in there just shy of7,000. You see that they're really far within the range of some of these other medium density zoning, so again you've got that choice. So again trying to find a different type of housing product meeting a different nitch if you look through the comprehensive plan, in looking at the different zoning options and now I'm on page 3 of the staff report. Talking about the zoning. What they propose on development compatible with the surrounding land uses. Again this property is similarly zoned, or excuse me, similarly guided with the property immediately to the west and the southwest. This would be the different zoning. The buffer, transition buffer you have for the industrial is the creek bed itself and that expanse across the creek. So with that, you know when we looked at providing again diversity for housing and, again I'm on the top of page 4 now just talking about the fact that we're trying to preserve that creek corridor. Rather than letting the lots go right up to the creek floor, we backed those off. Provided additional buffers outside the overlay district and putting that forward. So with that, this is actually north. I don't know if that's more helpful. With that we worked on putting together a plan, and there's actually a lot of iterations to this plan in itself. One in the fact that because it's a PUD-R, and now I'm on page 5 of the staff report going through. Put in here all the design standards or the requirements or code for 0, or excuse me. For a small lot, subdivision. Now this again is the first application. While we've had this in our code, the 1991 code was approved, we haven't applied this yet. We have used, and I included in your packet, out on North Bay, which was a Rottlund project. The lot sizes and in there they averaged 3,500 and the difference between this project and the North Bay project is, those units don't really have a yard. It's all common space. They have the property that their house sits on but there's not the common space. Then the next iteration of that was Walnut Grove. Again another Rottlund project. That's been well received, where they did the two different sizes with smaller lots. Again those are a little bit bigger but again they don't have individual lots where the house sits on the, the property rights fit along the house. There's not the, everything else is really common. So this takes it to a different level where we have a smaller lot but you actually have a back yard, and talk about that. So with this project you have a 2 car, with the option for a third stacked in, and a side yard, but you have a bigger lot. You do have your own space to put additions on. Now in the PUD itself, and again I'm on the bottom of page 5 for the setbacks or the setbacks from Lyman. Also from the eastern property line and then you've got a letter that says it meets a 100 foot, these are similarly guided properties, so the setback only needs to be 50 feet, but they're the same ultimate guiding. Not current zoning, so it does meet city code. So then the question was... taken from your comments on the RLM and what was 5, excuse me, yeah the 5 and 10 to get the setbacks. They've also taken the corner lots and provided an opportunity for the side loaded garage. So there is room for expansion on these lots which is different than the ones in the Rottlund project where you probably wouldn't see any additions... opportunity for some porch or deck or even an opportunity for a swing set or those sort of things in your back yard. There's enough impervious surface. Again with this type of lot capitalizes on this project is that it takes the opportunity of the impervious surface outside of the Bluff Creek Overlay zone so you can balance that across the whole project, so that's the application of the PUD and what we said when we did the Bluff Creek Overlay District is we would apply that as a tool, so what that does is allow for the smaller lots to use those areas that are left in common open space to increase the impervious. So with the setbacks, the only other challenge is on the front yard and the side yard to get that look from the street, and the street profile itself, there are public streets just to get the access via the 23 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 collector boulevard. We hopefully we're going to bid here shortly, and then this is a public street so this would be a typical 60 foot right-of-way and then this is also a public street. The sidewalks will go along both sides of the public street and they're looping. All these sidewalks that are shown on this one, I think there's a little bit of excess sidewalk. We do have an improved modified sidewalk plan. We thought it was a little too intense. One of the other issues that came up at the Planning Commission and I know we discussed earlier at a work session on another topic is, when you have public space and you have a private space, excuse me. A private street getting access through a public trail, so we want to make sure that we work that out with the association, the covenants and that sort of thing so we do allow, especially for the high school, that there's an opportunity if people want to go through that neighborhood to provide that access. Mayor Furlong: Could you clarify that again? That issue. Where it... Kate Aanenson: Well really, we're going to have a structure coming across the creek. Mayor Furlong: A trail crossing? Kate Aanenson: A trail crossing, right. So if you wanted to get somewhere else on the site and this, and some of this is coming through a portion onto a private street, that these would be public trails to allow people to get through to public access, so we're working through that in their covenants that we'll review and we want to make sure that that's something that wouldn't be amended in the covenants. It'd be a condition of approval. That it's just be in the homeowners association covenants that they would ultimately someday in the future eliminate... cluster that. Mayor Furlong: So are those part of the conditions of approval or is it part of the. .. Kate Aanenson: Yes. It's part of the conditions. Mayor Furlong: You have it in the conditions. One of the conditions. Kate Aanenson: ... there's a couple oflittle.. . like that and we want to make sure that we understand what the homeowner's association covenants and Planning Commission had a good discussion on and that's fencing. You know one of the things where you've got those small lots, that we don't have a lot of fencing... what does that do? Certainly when you have a private lot, maybe have a dog, there may be opportunities for that so that's something we want to give some careful consideration to too and so they're working on that. How they want to address that. Whether they're more opaque type fencing or especially when you.. .just important to look at the fencing and certainly people that have to walk. . . take that opportunity also to see that. So those are some of the things that we're looking at. As I mentioned the public streets are all 60 feet right-of-way with a 32 foot pavement width of 31. The private streets will actually be a 40 foot right-of-way and 28 feet paved. This is again the first application of this type. Use of a private street at this width. It does allow on street parking. Again that was one of the considerations of working with the developer. We worked the city engineer and myself worked a lot of different zones trying to figure a looping system where we had a public street that was a continuous loop 24 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 but that gives us in there for snow plowing and it gives a way in, a way out. And with that you go off the private streets, which would allow at that width. And then we also looked at spacing, kind of city wide we looked at the spacing. The feel. The closeness and the feel. Certainly they're going to be closer side by side but we looked at the other projects that we had in the city that have those narrow lot lines and we wanted to get a sense from the street, so one of the discussions that we had is that we wanted to have, again there is now with the PUD it's kind of contractual. We have gone as close as 20. We didn't want to do that. We're actually at 25 feet from the garage. That was a requirement they all be 20 feet. The only place there'd be 20 is if it's a corner lot. The other corner where you don't have a garage would be 20. But that gives plenty of depth for parking and then also you would have... As I indicated a third car garage... So with that, some of the things that we worked out. There is a trail. The park commission did review this project. One of the things that they recommended was that this play area be larger and there were two lots shown on there. The other thing that we're talking about is, there's 5 lots up in this area, so it's really topographically separated from the plat where they have some nice views. It's really not part of the association. Kind of a different feel. This road also goes into the industrial park. We don't want to kind of be just a hanging neighborhood that may not... so we are working with them. The park commission recommended a trail head. One of the things the city engineer was looking at too was additional storm water pond that could be... benefit. So this is Audubon, so this would be that pond coming out and that would provide some additional storage for.. . of Lyman. So the issue there, which hasn't been completely resolved is obviously they'd like to get those plats and legitimate lots is kind of working out some of the compensation for eliminating these lots so that's still in discussion and we haven't resolved that yet and that would be something that we work out between now and final plat. The Planning Commission also discussed at their meeting, because of the garage, we talked about the feel from the street, that they were pleased with their looks and I'll let them go through all the different iterations of their architecture that was arrived with each product there's different views. But they wanted to make sure that the garages were all, not just the standard flat garage but it has an architectural relief to them, windows and those sort of things so they were high standard because it was a big presence out on the street, and to accommodate that. There are some steep areas that would require retaining walls, and most specifically in this area. Shown on the project is also some storm water ponding. There's also some wetland replacement that they are providing. The applicant is providing for wetland replacement for the Bluff Creek Boulevard and then just providing outside for, that would be actually the wetland that's going to be right in the middle of the round about between Sever Peterson's property and Town and Country piece. So with that I'll just take a minute and I did get, just want to comment that, and I'll let the city engineer talk specifically about some of the engineering comments... I'm on page 2. There was a question regarding the 100 foot buffer. Again when we saw these properties had a similar land use, so therefore it doesn't require a 100 foot buffer. Mayor Furlong: Eventual land use. Kate Aanenson: Pardon me? Mayor Furlong: Eventual land use? 25 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Now what they're zoned today, right and if it was to be anything besides low or medium on the property to the west, you'd have to go through a land use amendment which would have to be approved by the City Council. Mayor Furlong: Property to the east. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, to the east. Property to the east, yeah. So right now we also have medium and low, so it's similar. So you want to go to a higher use. Commercial industrial, or go to a lower use, large lot and that would still... The cul-de-sac lane. This would be the end of the cul-de-sac lane... Also talks about on page 3 that, I'm not trying to answer that but that's if, it makes this property unbuildable if this project's approved, again there's somewhat of a guided zone. I'm not sure whether that comment is true. They both had the same opportunity to come in at a similar, or higher. Again I went through all the zoning options that I presented to you. It could be something more vertical. They could do something clustered. There's a lot of zoning options for the Dorsey piece. So with that I'd like maybe Paul to take a few minutes to maybe go through the road issue, but I just did want to comment there was a couple corrections. I'll just go through this quickly. On page 23 of your staff report, this is the end of the conditions. Just for clarification. Number 60. It says depicted as Lot 1. It should says Lots 1 through 5, Block 5 and that's this area up in here that we're talking about. We're talking about the trail head. I'm not sorry, they're not on the screen. That's this area up in here where we're talking about where the trail head is. And then number 63 should be Outlots A, B, L and it should be N, not H. Yeah, because H is a private park and we don't want to take ownership of a private park. So with that you have our findings of fact included and all the conditions. Otherwise I'll turn it over to Paul. Paul Oehme: Thanks Kate. Mayor, City Council members. In review of the development we do have one cul-de-sac, I think it's to the 700-800 foot long cul-de-sac. We do have public streets that are 60 feet wide. 31 foot road width. 60 foot right-of-way and then on some private streets as well, but I guess for access purposes and for traffic access and routes, I think I'd like to turn it over to the developer and maybe if he could just give a brief synopsis of his plans, and we had also talked about some potential impacts with other access points, specifically by Lyman. Maybe if we could have the applicant address some of those internal ones, I could hit the access points on Lyman a little bit later after he brings up his issues I think internally. Mayor Furlong: Alright, any questions for staff at this point? There may be some. There may be some later. Councilman Lundquist: I think I'll wait until the presentation. Mayor Furlong: Alright, any questions at this time? If not we'll reserve the right to ask more questions later. At this point the applicant is here I know. Good evening. Dan Herbst: Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, professional staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen representing Pemtom. Also wanted to introduce some other people here this evening. I think you probably know Gayle and Lois Degler. The owners of the property are here this evening. We seldom can get Gayle's 26 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 father here. Any time there's a Twins game on, we kind oflose him... On Gayle's left is Lois and on Lois' left is Justin Larson. Planner, engineer with Westwood Professional Services. On Justin's left, I'd like for Allan Klugman to come up a little later and speak. Allan's a professional traffic engineer who represents both public and private interests throughout the state. On AI's left is Cory Meyer who is a landscape architect and planner with Westwood Professional Services. And behind him is Dan Cook, my partner and also on Dan's left is Brian Sullivan from the Ryland Group so if you have any specific questions on the home cost points, market, he'll be happy to come up and answer them. Anyway we want to thank you very much. You know more so than I do, this has been a long process for all of us. I think it was in 2003 that you approved the AU AR but before that I know you put tons of time into the comprehensive plan. Authorizing the AU AR. Going through the whole process and your staff has done a wonderful job on making it a lot easier for our type of people, the development community to come in and have you prepare all that work for us ahead of time. Transportation, wetlands. The Bluff Creek corridor and all the things that you spent considerable time and money on that process. It was deliberate. It was open. It was diligent and I commend you for all the work and your staff! know has done a wonderful job. Along with that we have had discussions with the Degler family. Dan and I probably going back over 15 years. Kind of watching this process and what makes the best sense for this piece of land, as to what else was evolving in the, so our vision for the property basically took in all the elements of your AUAR. Topography, the land, the wishes of the Degler's and then we also took a look at the marketplace and Chanhassen has got some wonderful estate type developments. Many executive type neighborhoods that we did with Lake Harrison and Settlers W est. You also have a full mix of townhomes and detached homes with common lots. And you have coming on, as we were watching carefully, a lot of new townhome products that Town and Country and others are bringing on the marketplace. So looking at all the elements of the land we wanted to do something unique. We wanted to do something that's not been offered in Chanhassen before. Many of you have been out to Hennepin Village. We are doing a number of mixed products out there but our single family lots out there are substantially smaller, in fact 50% less and we were targeting a certain type of buyer in that entire mix, and probably when you watch the Planning Commission presentation and look at some of our notes from the Planning Commission meetings, that was, that Hennepin Village really evolved about from the Mayor, who's deceased. Mayor Harris coming to me and saying, Dan. We know you can go out there and do a Settlers Ridge or. . . and make the same amount of money but we have about 11,000 more jobs in Eden Prairie than we have households and we want you to target for that working person. Not affordability, although we have 8 affordable housing units in there, and so we cut our lot size down to 4,000 so we have 5 different products out there. But we wanted to introduce to Chanhassen something very unique. So we doubled that lot size. Brian went to the drawing board. He came up with a housing product that solves the lot problem with townhouses and smaller single family homes and is adding their own yard. Adding some additional storage in the garage. If they want to they can actually have a 3 car garage, and I'll let Brian cover that if you want. So that's kind of was our vision for the property, and as you know you have your bluff overlay. You've got wetlands on the site. Topography and the trees, and I don't know, the more you want to take time to study this site, I think the more you'll appreciate the site itself. After you include your rights-of-way, your public streets, excluding our private streets, and you look at the bluff overlay. Bluff Creek overlay, almost 50% of the land will end up being in the public domain when that is all done, and that's extremely unique. Not only for the City to have, but for the residents to have. So I always, when 27 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 I drove over the hill and I looked at that property and I said something special has to be done here, so we didn't push the limit and try to maximize density with townhouses, which would be permitted under your guide plan. Your comprehensive plan. We wanted to do something different with our cluster housing plan. We wanted to do something different with a type of product that is unique to Chanhassen, and if you want to we can spend some time with Cory Meyer who worked very carefully with all of your staff and if you want him to spend 5 or 10 minutes, Cory's a planner and landscape architect. I'd like him to talk briefly about how he worked very carefully with your staff to come up with the plan that we have, and we're planning for. A couple of interesting items that I want to talk about relates to some comments I received bye-mail from Mr. Dorsey. In my 36 years in this business, this is the first time I've had a neighbor, after we were already down the road with a plan, come to us and come to you with an idea to actually change our plan without having a plan himself. And I will have had, we've worked well with neighbors in the past. We have a wonderful history of doing that. This kind of put us in a different position so I didn't want to stand up and defend that. I took all of his comments and I handed them off to the entire staff at Westwood and I told you I wanted to look at this from traffic. I want you to look at sight distance. I want you to look at our plan and I want Al Klugman, as soon as Cory Meyer is through answering any questions you have on how our plan evolved, to address I believe all the issues that are in the Dorsey memo to you and to me. Another interesting thing in the memo I think talking about not paying our fair share of fees, and I am a strong proponent of that. I always believe, as I told you before and anytime I've come before you, I'm never looking for a subsidy. We want to do the right thing or we want to be an asset to the community. Now if you look at what this site is generating, and I won't go in detail but just the fees and assessments, our fees, there's over $3 million dollars in fees that are going to be paid to the city to pay for the streets. To pay for their SWMP fees. The MUSA AU AR. . . and also $900,000 in park fees. In addition to this traffic will generate, using today's dollars which will increase.. . about a million, $100,00 and $300,000 in additional building fees so our total is about $4,200,000 in fees. If you want to put that on a per lot basis, that's almost $27,000 per lot that each one of these owners are taking back in the form of paying for their own streets and paying for the park and paying for all the requirements that you have to work through to approve this project and approve these building permits. Further, the site has a number of private streets and those private streets will not be the responsibility of the city to maintain. So in addition to all of the cost added benefits of this site, all the private streets will be maintained by the homeowners and association with added savings for the city. So unless you have any questions I would like to have Cory Meyer come up and briefly talk about the planning process and then I'd like Allan Klugman to address the specific issues ofMr. Dorsey. Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point? Dan Herbst: Okay, thank you. Cory Meyer: Good evening Mayor, members of the council. My name's Cory Meyer, as Dan alluded to. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a landscape architect and planner and I worked diligently with staff and Pemtom and Ryland to put together this plan. And what I want to take the opportunity tonight is to just touch on a couple of key design elements of the plan. First, the main two elements are issues I want to talk about is how this type of development pattern is suited specifically for this type of site. And then two, how this 28 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 development pattern is going to create a unique neighborhood for the city. So first off, how is this development pattern specifically tailored for this site. What we've done, as Kate mentioned is we've taken a modified type cluster approach where we've taken a normal single family house, which would in other parts of the city typically be on a lot that's about twice the size. What we've done is we've taken that excess lot size, if you will. Taken it. Shrunken it down and placed it in common areas associated with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. What we were tempted to do is basically minimize the development footprint as much as possible. What minimizing the development footprint allows us to do is again preserve key areas associated for Bluff Creek Overlay District. Some additional wetland areas that are found on site. Some wooded areas. Just generally the natural environment kind of benefits as a whole specifically on this site by doing the cluster type approach. Tied in with the cluster type of approach is how we treat the roadways. We have private and public streets. Emphasizing the connectivity of them. We don't want to create dead end's more so than necessary. That things logically flow. You've got a sense of people visiting a neighborhood and a unique sense of how to navigate through the neighborhood. Things are laid out logically. Using public and private streets also allows the, our development to kind of flow better with the land and we're able to adapt better to the topography that's found on the site. How this development pattern is also specifically tailored for this site. As was mentioned, the city regional trail that's going to follow along the Bluff Creek Overlay District. What we've taken that opportunity to do is to bring the sense of a walkable community to this project. Where we've provided connections down to that trail. It's a unique opportunity that we want these future residents to take advantage of. And I also talked about the preservation of the wetlands and the wooded areas on the site. Again minimizing the development footprint allows us the opportunity to avoid those key environmental areas. So in the second part of that is how is this development pattern going to create a unique neighborhood for the city? As Dan talked about, we feel that the site of this topography and this character, that single family homes are the best fit for that. They evolved, are easily adaptable to the topography that's found on the site. We can also achieve, by doing the cluster approach, we achieve the density goals of the city without necessarily needing townhomes. So we made a strong effort in how we layout the site to utilize it's character to the maximum. If you were to overlay the topography on our project, how the street pattern is laid out relates exceptionally well to the topography. The roads follow that. We've tried to maximize the number of homes that back out to the open space and embrace it, and where that's not the ability for those homes to back out to the open space, we've again created that walkable community so there's strong pedestrian connections so even people on the inside are easily and, easily adaptable to get down to the trail. As Dan mentioned, 50% of the site is in some sort of a public open space. That's a strong proponent of a cluster type of approach. Again minimizing the development footprint for houses to dedicate the amount of land area. So I guess in summary again, just to touch on those two key points that this development is tailored for this site. The environmental preservation. How we laid out the homes and the streets was done with careful attention to the land. This development is going to be unique neighborhood for the city. Given that the city's going to meet their density goals. They're going to gain single family households. The city's going to achieve the preservation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District which is so strongly in your comprehensive plan. And the future residents we believe are going to appreciate the sense of place that we're creating here. That this is a totally unique neighborhood and are going to be able to enjoy with thoughtful consideration how we've gone through tonight. So with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Klugman, unless you have any questions for me. 29 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point? And I don't know if this would be a question for you from a planning or streets, but just a question I guess with regard to some of the private streets. It seems that most of them of them have a hammer head or some sort of turn around except is it Street F. And I was curious, I know we've had an issue in the past and these are not as small as some of the private driveways we have but nonetheless being able to have a service vehicle or other vehicle turn around without pulling into somebody's driveway. Was there a reason that's omitted or is that something that could be added easily enough? Cory Meyer: We have turn around's located on this street, this street and this. I guess this is the one you're referencing? Mayor Furlong: Yep. Cory Meyer: I guess in my opinion, that would be not that dissimilar from a typical dead end townhome type common driveway that I think there's like a magic number out there like 150 feet that a fire hose will extend to. So our thought is that, what we could do is just, that the fire truck could basically be at that intersection and still give, service the home at the end of that street. Mayor Furlong: And part of it' s for convenience of the residents and also on Street J there's even less of a distance and you put a hammer head up there. Cory Meyer: We can look into that. If there's, what we're trying to do is work with the topography as much as possible. We can look into that issue. Mayor Furlong: See council's been presented with issues in past situations in the past so. So let's take a look at that and correct it. Cory Meyer: We'll take a look at it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Probably just a little one. There may be other questions but as long as you're talking about layout I thought I'd bring it up now. Any other questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: One of the questions that I've got on the Bluff Creek Overlay District, when you articulated and we've got about 50% open space on the site. When you use 50%, are you using the buildable site or the whole land in itself? Cory Meyer: The whole land of itself. I mean if you look at our entire project is 80 acres approximately. Whether it's buildable or not, but at the end of the day the residents that are living there aren't going to really know if it' s buildable or not. They're just going to know it's open space, and enjoy it as such so, that's our, how we like to phrase that as, it's open space. Kate Aanenson: It's probably closer to 15 acres that would be buildable. 30 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Councilman Peterson: So that being said, walk me through, just point it out on that map or another one, inside the buildable part of the site, and give me some sense as to what you've left open. Cory Meyer: I don't know if it shows up very well on the camera here but what you'll see, the white dashed lines here are the Bluff Creek, the primary district for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So there's a maximum area, I think the exact number that escapes me right now but in all this area, outside this area is essentially outside of the Bluff Creek Overlay District that a normal development would likely utilize more than what we've found here with the cluster type approach. Councilman Peterson: ... the first dashed one. You lost me when you said, alright. Between there and there? Cory Meyer: I mean you have all this green area. Basically where the trail goes through, they're putting the city regional trail and then our developable area for the most part. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Cory Meyer: And Kate might have the exact number. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, it's closer to like 15 to 17 acres. Again the tool to, and go back to how we acquire within the Bluff Creek Overlay District is allowing you to transfer it out. Otherwise, so if you look at. These are, the houses in yellow are all the lots that abut a private street. It's just shy of 50%. And from what I showed him here... but this darker black line is actually the creek itself. So the... but the overlay district is actually... so with this big gap that cuts through here, that's.. . And this other areas are topographically separated.. .Does that answer your question? Cory Meyer: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Parking. On the private streets. In this condition I didn't see anything. I'm assuming it remains as no parking on those. Kate Aanenson: No. You can't park on those. Another example where we have parking on private streets would be Villages on the Pond. Those are all private streets. And at one of our first meetings with the city engineer was what we were going to require for. . . on street parking. Now as I mentioned before, the public streets are the 60 foot wide with a 30 foot, and those will have the high back curb. And the distinction on the private streets, they'll have 28 foot wide of pavement width, even though 40 foot right-of-way and they'll have the surmountable curb, and that will allow parking at 28 foot. The city engineer recommended that that would be permissible for on street parking. Councilman Labatt: On one side of the road or both sides or how are we going to? 31 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Kate Aanenson: That's kind of how we do it now. If you have 2 people parking on a 31, it can be a problem, depending on the size of the vehicle, so I mean most people use good judgment on that but school buses trying to get by, that may be an issue but in evaluating this, the city engineer recommended that that would be adequate. Again that's how we looked at some of those. Councilman Lundquist: Paul, do we have streets existing, public streets that are 20. Didn't we just go from the standard changed a couple years ago from 28 to 30? I remember from Highover, didn't we have something, I think the streets up there are 28 or yeah, something. Paul Oehme: There are streets in the city that are 28 feet, public streets. Parking on both sides. An example of a street that we just reconstructed, just off Laredo. That street is 28 feet wide too. We had to shrink those streets down to compromise with the residents out there to get a good product so. Councilman Lundquist: So when we talk about private streets, I mean I'm envisioning some of our town house things where we've got the narrower, okay. So this is. Paul Oehme: Typically those other developments, the townhouse units are 20 feet or 24 feet wide. Not the 28 that we're recommending. Kate Aanenson: Let me just add a clarification. In the PUD itself, in the parking section, when you do in the R-8 zone, it does require a wider street. If this was, back to your question for the townhouse, just like Paul indicated, the ordinance does allow you to go smaller. Typically that's what we see because we don't allow parking. Because we do allow parking, we're forcing them to do a wider pavement. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Yep, that's fine. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Okay. Cory Meyer: I'll turn it over to Al Klugman who will address some of the issues that they have with the Dorsey memo. Allan Klugman: Good evening. Again my name is Allan Klugman. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered civil engineer. Within the civil engineering I mainly work in the transportation area. In addition to being a registered engineer I'm a certified traffic operations engineer so kind of my specialty. One of the things that we did hear, and I hope this will show up. As Dan mentioned, we did receive a sketch from the Dorsey people, and although it was a very rough sketch, we felt that we would give it the serious... and try to respond and see what it would do to our site, and I believe...great detail went through some of the issues that quickly... what I'd like to do tonight is go through that memo. Certainly not word for word but on many of the key points I'd like to.. .the way I understand it. Although you can certainly draw a line on a piece of paper and say that's the road, I think when we look at it in any degree as we can, we see in a hurry there's numerous causes... impacts on the site, and both Dan said in the introduction and I think Cory in his detailed comments, we really put a lot of work into this. 32 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Coming up with the street lay that fits this site and fits the topography, and I think you'll see in a hurry that trying to comment on the plan that the Dorsey people put forward, it just... So I'm just going to cut right to some of the points and if you have any detail questions. I'm going to be rather brief... We labeled them, the points with letters to just kind of highlight what we're talking about. And just right off the bat we looked at, when we looked at the proposed north/south road, this east line here, right, it's a very difficult intersection we labeled point A. . . . boulevard at about a 45 degree angle instead of a perpendicular intersection we could establish with to the east with a regular alignment there, so right off the bat you see some problems. In addition... site layout in the business district... Just kind of going along the lines there, we then get to the point where introducing, or trying to introduce a road like this immediately gives us some double loaded houses with streets on both sides, which is really not what we're trying to achieve. And then we get into, and again I'm just going to keep talking quickly here. We get into some issues that you know upon careful look just come up right away that doesn't show up... There's significant wetland issues that would arise from this location. Point C here, there's wetland on this site that's shown right through there. D represents the intersection of the north/south connector proposed with this street. You have wetland and I don't even think that that intersection could be built so, it's just, it's not something that's practical at all. And then among the other things that this would do too, is it would impact the private park that we have showing as Point E, which would be the extension in this area. And then maybe a bigger point, stepping back a bit, it just takes away from the entire concept for development of clustering the houses. Reducing the impervious surface and the whole character of this development that we've been looking at. And then kind of going along even into the development, when we get away from some of those specific things and start looking at the lay of the land and the topography, those type of lots and it's a little bit away from my. . . traffic engineering to site layout, but when we get into what we're labeling... G, the houses are well suited to be walkout lots would just be lost with this type of plan, so you can see kind of the domino effect. . . all the care and planning that went into creating this special site would just be taken away in a hurry. Finally as we looked to what would happen if we tried to accommodate a road like that as it's shown. As a connector road with the higher volumes, it's a little bit different design standards. It seems more... those issues caused by the wider road and design standards. And then finally moving up mostly north of this site. By introducing the roads here, you're then left with... at that intersection that's very well spacing... do some more intersections than we'd like to see. It also takes away from our ability to do the type of housing Cory was talking about with the garages and driveways to the side, so it wouldn't be appropriate for this character. So again, taken away from the character and the site plan. And then finally I guess one more technical detail that wasn't addressed in the Dorsey memo. The touch down point for this is probably about the exact wrong place of where you want to put that due to the grade differential to lining it and the amount offill it would need to accommodate that road so.. .it goes on to say that, there's many, many points that on a very, you know very initial look at that, many things jump up and say that road isn't going to work there. It doesn't fit at all with the character of the development, and we just thought we'd start by... Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Paul, did you want to make, did you say you wanted to talk about some city perspective now? Do you want to do that now? 33 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think I emailed out Westwood's background last weekend on the layout that Allan just talked about. One other item that, in terms of access to, yes I think that access point right on the property line between Dorsey and Degler's is approximately about 1,200 feet away from Audubon and that is approximately a quarter mile spacing that the county potentially could allow. But in my estimation that's not a good location for an access, a collector road access. Potentially 1,800 units, 1,800 trips on this roadway winding at that particular location is approximately at a 5% grade. And with a turn lane at that location, could potentially have problems in wet and snowy conditions. Stop conditions. The future roadway, Lyman Boulevard is, will be at 50 miles per hour design speed so coming down a hill at a 5% grade could potentially be concern for the residents accessing at this particular location so. The other issues with that access point, I think I'll just leave them go for now. I can answer, stand for any questions too that you might have about the access or traffic in general for this development but. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I mean the underlying question here is where should the north/south connection be between the east/west collector and Lyman Boulevard, so I think we've heard from the developer how that would affect their development, but I think from the city standpoint, you know. Paul Oehme: Well it potentially could work there I guess but it's not the preferred location in my estimation. We had Mr. Dorsey and I did have a conversation a week ago or so, 2 weeks ago now, about potential other locations and what I got out of that conversation was, and from a staff perspective, there is another location for that north collector. Mayor Furlong: There is or is not? Paul Oehme: There is. And that would be at Sunset Trail. T'ing in at that location. From a traffic perspective, you always want to limit and consolidate access points. That allows us to do that tight T'ing at an access point. You know I did have a site visit out there. Took a look at it, and then I did have, and we did, the city did spend some time and some funds looking at that intersection too from a sight distance perspective to what we could, with the improvements to Lyman Boulevard, make a quality intersection function with improvements to Lyman Boulevard to meet that sight distance requirements. We do have Lyman Boulevard and we are continuing to work with the county on upgrading that section of roadway so, so we do have in our CIP I think for 2009. Mayor Furlong: In terms of matching up, Audubon comes down from the north. That's not at the eastern property line of this development? It's shown on the west? Paul Oehme: That is on the west side, yeah. Audubon is on the west. Mayor Furlong: To get to that line we'd have to cross the creek if we were coming up on this side. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: You have a picture? 34 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Paul Oehme: This is a drawing showing the traffic where the roadway alignment is, was proposed in AU AR back in 2003. The access point that you were referring to Mayor was at Audubon and it has always been envisioned that to serve the property west would T into Audubon at that location and a wrap around to Lakeview Drive there so. You know all the other access points to in this area are T'ing into other roadway, residential roadway or collector roadways to the east, or to the west we are, the east/west collector road, we'll be tying into Butternut to the west or you know we'll be tying into Powers Boulevard in the off ramp to 212 and to the south. That road will now tie into Bluff Creek Drive, T'ing into the south there, so all the roads we're proposing right now would be tying into. Kate Aanenson: I just want to clarify too, because it's difficult to show but there is a creek, the creek and we looked. . . so that's why this road has to stay on this side of the creek. Mayor Furlong: Show where the creek is. Todd Gerhardt: Why don't you show this map that shows the details. The fourth page in in the report. Mayor Furlong: We need about 3 more maps. Kate Aanenson: It doesn't show the road on it but this is the creek. So what they're showing is stopping short, so here's Audubon. So you have to stay on this side of the creek. This is where the lift station is. It's just on the east side of the creek so, what we're trying to avoid, because we talked about all the projects in here, is minimize creek crossings. That's been the goal. So we have... with the boulevard. The other point I wanted to make when we talked about similar densities, you know the AUAR recommended this and this, a connection point on Lyman. One additional connection point, so the other thing is we don't know what's happening on the property, these two properties, so for example if it came in low density, then we would re- evaluate. Maybe there doesn't need to be a connection if it comes in low density. If there's a request to do something different, higher density, then we'd have to evaluate that but right now, based on the fact that it was intended to show maximum development, that's what was built under the maximum for the lower end of the density and that's something that we would certainly evaluate and maybe similar to this one, that that connection would need to be made. But since we don't have a plan in front of us, we can't make that... but we would certainly look at it. Again... using the traditional single family subdivision for example. If it went less than that, as I indicated before, it'd have to come back for a comp plan amendment. Mayor Furlong: When we were working through the AUAR, if! recall, there were a few things that were established when we approved that, and one of those were the touch down points or the intersections for the east/west collector. Both on Audubon and on Powers Boulevard. Was there a similar type of texture in terms of where the alignment to the east/west collector on the north or Pioneer Trail to the east/west collector? 35 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Right, I mean you saw this connection but as we saw when Pioneer Pass came in, it moved. They worked it into their development to provide access. They built, that's a minor collector. 80 foot wide. They're building that then as a part of development. Mayor Furlong: But that moved and. Kate Aanenson: Yes it did, yeah. To work in the development. Mayor Furlong: And to align with Bluff Creek Drive. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, to change again so there's that flexibility so again we can look at that too if it came in on the low end of the density. Paul Oehme: And just for the record Mayor, council. Zach did look at the access point at Sunset Trail too and basically this is the access point that the Degler site is right here. And the east property line to the Degler's is currently right there. You know to provide proper profile for sight distances at a 50 miles per hour road, the access point at Sunset Trail would have to be lowered approximately about a foot, so it's not a big impact to the roadway or to the connections to the south to make that, to make that intersection function properly. Councilman Lundquist: How far is it Paul from Sunset to what will be Powers extension? Paul Oehme: 1,250 feet. Not quite. Mayor Furlong: And what's your standard of what you're looking for, for a minimum? Paul Oehme: 1,200. Mayor Furlong: It's 1,200? Okay. Councilman Peterson: Go back to the previous map if you would Paul. Do we remember what the rationale was for that placement where it is now? Paul Oehme: You know the AU AR I believe it just stated that there should be an access point from Powers Boulevard over to Audubon. I think just kind of picked halfway inbetween. I don't think there was really any significant. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the design speed, as Paul indicated before. Lyman's going to be faster than the Bluff Creek Boulevard, so they wanted to get those spacings between, kind of more equal distance because of the speed and the volume on Lyman so. With those traffic counts. Councilman Peterson: Is the, and I don't recall. The Plowshares development that's going in just about north of where that road is now. That will or will not have access to Lyman. Kate Aanenson: Will not. 36 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Councilman Peterson: So that's going through the Lake Susan Hills? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Osprey Lane. Paul Oehme: Yep, and stubbing a street to the east. Kate Aanenson: Providing a stub street to the property to the west of that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Appreciate the information. Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Herbst. Dan Herbst: If you would like any questions directed to the Ryland Group as to product type, target market, floor plan, I'll bring Brian Sullivan to the podium. Mayor Furlong: I think so. Brian Sullivan: Hi, I'm Brian Sullivan. I'm with Ryland Homes. We're thrilled and excited to be here. Ryland Homes has been in the Twin Cities market for about 10 years now and to my knowledge we haven't been in your fair city, so we're very excited about that. We've been working with Dan and his group for quite a while on the concept plan that we've come up with here and the concept plan and home style we're proposing here is something that we've been on for about a year now with the type of homes that we're proposing here. What we've been doing is, through our market research and realizing where land prices are and what people want and what people don't want, we see that there's a shift in the market a little bit. And one of the things that we realized is that everyone wants a 3 car garage. And then we go to the city people, like talking with Kate and Kate looks at a 3 car garage as across the front of the house and she goes, that doesn't look very good. Just having 3 car garage, 3 car garage, 3 car garage, all down the street here, so we started you know... so what we started doing as we're thinking about this issue as to how best present our homes to the city, how to have the direct land cost continuing to escalate and how to best address and some internal, some issues that people have on the interior of the homes. We started re-thinking our product mix a little bit. What we did is we came up with this cluster home here that has been redefined on the inside. One of the things to mainly address issues with the city was how do we. . . the appearance of our homes from the street as you're going through the neighborhoods, and what we did is, we designed a home that has a 3 car garage but the, from the front side of it, it looks like a 2 car garage. What we've done is we've stacked one of the garage stalls behind the other and what we've learned from our, kind of market research is that people want the third stall but they don't need to use it every day. They use it for storing their bicycles and their toys and the boat. The summer car. It may be a summer car.. . winter car so it's not something that you need to have every day, that third stall, garage doors open up to another bay. So when we came across that realization we were like well geez, we can go with a little bit narrower house, which means we have a little bit narrower lot, which means we can pay. . . and see if we can come up with what is a fairly nice, nice looking subdivision here. And if you look at it, it's kind of a typical streetscape here. You can see what 37 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 we've done is we have about 8, we have 8 floor plans. Eight home styles that we're, 8 floor plans we're proposing here and each of those floor plans has 4 or 5, 3, 4, or 5 different elevations on the front of them. Some of them have brick on them. Some of them have stone on them. Some have just a porch out front. Some are prairie style... there's lots of different options so as home buyers come through, they can... here this may be close to what you're thinking about here and we have a floor plan that goes inside that and... offering to the home buyer and have a very unique... The other thing that we've done is if you look at the corner, corner lots here. We've designed a house that's been designed for a corner lot there and, what it is, it's a, the garage on that is around, off around the back side of it there. So the garages are side loaded off the corner of the street there. What that does is it just helps, it also diminish the number of, the number of garage doors that are on the street there also. And if you go through our development here you'll see a fair number of corners there that we can use to put these on. We also have some of these other homes with the 2 car garages, will also fit on these garage corners because we have some setback issues we need to work with so there are, there is an option that will be.. . garage doors facing the front. So that's kind of how we designed the homes there. We started looking at this, at how we can, we're looking at narrow lots. Somebody said well how do we get the narrow lots to work, and we ended up designing houses specifically for the narrower lots. It's not like we're trying to squeeze a bigger house onto a smaller lot... trying to get the site plan to work here and help with.. . real unique neighborhood. As far as price point here, we're probably in the low, or actually I should say high $300's. Low $400's is kind of the base, starting point. Then they'll go up to 5-6. Maybe 6 when people start loading them up with sun porches and marble in kitchens and stainless steel amenities and things that people like to have so. We're kind of in the middle of things there and looking for a nice market segment. Sever Peterson's property to the south of us, he's got the large lots that are more of an executive style home. Town and Country stuff which is the lower level home for multi-family type of product. We're looking at something that's kind of in between the two... Not the real pricey guys. We're not the real cheap guys as far as the type of homes. .. So that's what we have, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Peterson: Do you have any sense of how many different color palettes you're going to use when you drive through the neighborhood and is it going to be half a dozen or. . . Brian Sullivan: There are probably about half a dozen different color palettes there. A lot of the color will come from when people put brick and stone on the front of their house there. The siding tends to be in the earth tone colors. We've gone a little deeper on which way we call it deeper colors back there so we'll have some contrast between our lighter color and darker colors. See them popping out more as you go through here. One of the comments the Planning Commission had was about garage doors and the whole issue of whether or not they, were they going to be flat or.. .one in the illustration here with, I had to go back and say no. We're showing raised panel doors here and plain doors with windows. Basically all of the garage doors, they have the texture of some paneling to them, and then as an option to kind of look at the elevation to go with some of the garage doors and windows... so that will also be a, one of the components. 38 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: And I guess following up on the question of color, and looking at this picture here which I think is up on the table. And it's hard to differentiate the, I mean there are two that are the darker brown, and then the others look to be grayer or some sort of tan or something. Is there, are there more differentiating colors than what we're seeing on this plan? Brian Sullivan: ...that's probably a pretty close representation of what will be out there as far as colors. We're looking at, I'm trying to get some, there are some darker blues and there's some kind of reddish colors that we're looking at introducing here and I don't think you see those up there. There's also some greens also. But. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for Mr. Sullivan? No? Very good, thank you. Councilman Peterson: Probably just one of staff as we're talking about garage doors. I know that staff is a proponent of adding character to the garage doors. Can we put in the approval that a certain. . . Kate Aanenson: Sure, and I think we want to follow up with some color too. A percentage of. We're comfortable with the mix we've got and looked at the... but I think it's always better to be more restrictive so I think that would be when they come back for final plat that we ask for a color palette and that certain percentage. I think Planning Commission struggled with that too. And the standard one, when we do townhouse projects, we always ask for and it's our opinion that those add better value in a townhouse project. If this is a single family, typically we don't. All that's required, but I think it's fair because it's the PUD to ask. . . Mayor Furlong: I agree. I think asking for more on the colors. I guess my question is when do we do that? Can we defer that. . . Kate Aanenson: We can put in a condition then it comes back at final plat. That they show you the color palette. Mayor Furlong: That they work with staff. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And then we could stick with the same, I think he's clarified that he has at least 4 colors and I think what we want to see is we're kind of moving right now towards the deeper colors to the lighter and I think that's. . . want to see the deeper greens and the... more of a golden color. It's just deeper, richer colors. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think it's variety as much as picking colors but okay. So that's something we can include. To work with you to. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions at this point? Okay, Mr. Herbst, is that it from your side? Dan Herbst: We want to thank you. 39 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, any follow up questions at this point for staff? If not, Mr. Dorsey requested to address the council and I'd certainly be interested in hearing his comments at this time. Rick Dorsey: Mayor, members of the council. I appreciate the time to speak with you this evening. My primary concerns, as you all know, have dealt with transportation. Access to the area. It's been a big part of it. The plan that's put forth, and can you zoom in on that please a little bit for me. Little more. The whole area here is what should be looked at. We're not looking at just one individual point. Concern with traffic flow. Mitigation of traffic on the eastern end of the property is something I've talked about numerous times. And while I haven't met with Mr. Herbst other than when I was notified his plan was going to come in front of the city, I've been very vocal in front of the council and I think you would go and find out the information as far as my concerns with that. The proposed alternative road that just showed up here this last week. I haven't seen this before. But I have looked at the option. Comes right across through the middle of my property. It will be a collector road. Last meeting at the Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission said it wouldn't be acceptable for a collector road to go through the middle of the Pemtom property when it was brought up as an option over there. Likewise my property is zoned, or not zoned but guided similarly. I would expect that it wouldn't be acceptable to come through the middle of my property either. In addition to that, there will have to be, because there's not adequate road services provided in the plan for the Pemtom property, they have one access point at this time on the east/west collector with a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac. The way around that is if a temporary access point through my property. Somewhere about this point so you'd have to put another equivalent of a connector road coming across there to connect up with the connector. This doesn't really leave me with very desirable area ofland to work with. For anybody who'd want to be a resident in this property. In the future and as far as having flexibility to design and plan building around collector roads, like I say. Planning Commission as well as staff made note of it. It isn't acceptable in any other project so, you know similarly I'd expect the same thing. Now traditionally, well before I go to traditionally. Let's go back to, this was planned for the east/west collector that the staff supported. The City Council approved final plan for back in August of2005. Note the north collector's location. Is on the Pemtom project property. So it has moved since that point in time. No discussion had with myself whatsoever from the developer. When I found out about the possible move of it, about late October, early November, I discussed it with Paul and said that wasn't what we were anticipating, nor anything to the desire of what we might have. Now back at that time, why there's a problem today with the access point onto Lyman if at that point in time there wasn't a problem with it. In doing a little bit of research here, as far as distances. From the standpoint of location to nearest intersection, Paul had mentioned about 1,200 feet. I went out and measured it out. It was 1,185. And this one up here is actually 1,150, depending on at what point you stop at on a curve point there. They're similar distances. So the distance of, to one intersection or the other doesn't have an impact on the location. Now, the concern that I would have from looking at the whole picture, if! go back to this drawing here is, from the internal standpoint, the traffic, the location that's most central to the whole 2005 service area is right here. With that being the center point of the development, it would encourage mitigation of traffic because people coming out here, they're actually closer to Audubon than they are to Powers, which would encourage those going to Highway 5 to consider 40 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Audubon as an alternative. Likewise if they're going to downtown Chanhassen, they wouldn't have to put all the pressure on this intersection over here. This particular drawing here, coming out here, is only 1,200 feet from this intersection. This will be probably the busiest intersection outside of those on Highway 5 in the city. To try to mitigate some traffic away from that intersection would be prudent I would believe. From the standpoint of internally to my property there's also natural features there that provide limitations as far as future development. This is a fairly steep hillside along this side with low ground in here. The area along the road here is actually an embankment coming down onto my property which limits the access point to probably only this location as well. The one that's on, if it wasn't down here. As well the pond that's right here, from the house there's actually a hill. There's no land. There's probably about 25-30 feet maybe right down by the wet ground, so there's really nothing between here and here that's any further useable, so you'd have a little pocket here and two little pieces here that are of significance with this option. And it's not that something couldn't be built there but from the standpoint of a collector, you're not going to be able to build houses and have them back out of their driveways onto it. You're going to have to figure out another configuration. From the standpoint as well, while I don't purport to be an engineer, I trust that engineers have talents and skills and creativity and could come up, they can come up with a solution for darn near anything if you put the challenge to them, and enough money. And my drawing that I provided Paul with and he forwarded across was conceptual. And the idea there was to say how can we look at another alternative that keeps the bulk of this land here. The Fox and Dorsey parcels open and flexible so that development can happen. The idea, the exact locations matching up to those on the Pemtom plan, you know that is not necessarily what I was suggesting. I'm not sure actually how he's going to build those going down the hill here without some sort of major grading or retaining wall, but I'm sure it can be done. In any case the idea there was to utilize the collector as a buffer between properties. Very common. You have different types of usages and with different types of usages, you create senses of neighborhoods for those developments that are built. The issue of, the other issue that's there is in not having it here you preclude the opportunity for potentially, and while it's not part of the AUAR, a second intersection up at this point to provide access to the Fox property which is virtually landlocked at this point because they have a small segment right here that's a possibility. The rest of Lyman is not a possibility. All the way down Powers is not a possibility to get into their property, and if you come across, let's see. As you come across what was proposed for the east/west collector, the soonest intersection you could create coming off of Powers in this property is right about here which this is a wetland or proposed, considered to be a wetland. It hasn't been delineated yet. Providing very difficult access to that property. So precluding that one forces one here. So then where does the traffic go from the Fox property as well. Some of it maybe can come out this way. I have a significant asset sitting on the top of that hill, as many of you know. It's significant and it's something that I don't say that we're just going to give up. I would say that there's a good chance, depending on what goes on with the rest of the area around me, still single family could be an option. And with single family that could be 1 to 4 units an acre. 1 to 4 units per acre is different intensity. I've got use on this site and I don't know what it's going to be. It may be that. It may be higher. I don't know. There's no plan in place at this point. I'm at least 6 years out because of it being in the ag preserve. So in any case I would like to have opportunities. There's, it's reasonable to be able to put such a road along the property line. With the plan that's proposed by Pemtom today, I can't even put a road adjacent to my property line because the houses are backed up against it with a road on the other side of them, which would make 2 roads 41 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 on either side of those properties. So this is kind of a one sided situation right here. I believe precedent was set in dealing with Sever Peterson's property and Town and Country property when they originally had the road coming across Sever Peterson's property and put it across the two properties and split it down the middle. Splitting it down the middle does two things. It shares the amount of land that either party has to give up, and both parties will benefit from that road. It also shares the cost of that road, which probably will be in excess of a million dollars. So from the standpoint of in the future a road being needed, certainly if! never develop my property there'd be a problem with the Pemtom property. They're under serviced with roads. And so there would be a requirement or need for them to have some sort of access to another collector road. The opportunity is there to provide it. I'm not here to try and hold up their project but I do think it's fair and reasonable, ifhe was on the other side of the table, he'd be right here saying the same things I am to you, that fair and reasonable would be splitting it down the middle and both parties would benefit and both parties can contribute to it. One other note here, I also went and measured off on Powers Boulevard just to have an idea of distances between intersections and if you go up to the street here, starting up here at the, I believe it's Lake Drive West. From this point here to this point here at Lake Susan Hills is 960 feet. To go from that point to Powers Court is 800 feet. And then 1,160 between these two, so on country roads it's not unprecedented to have smaller segments between them. It's maybe what we would like to see is larger. Quarter mile is actually 1,320 feet so neither of the locations on Lyman would meet that criteria. The other issue that was there when I was looking at it and researched this was that sight distances are an issue today. Right now the first sight distance coming down is at that point, so from a standpoint of safety issues, that's the first point where you could put a road. Perhaps Lyman will get re-graded or rebuilt. It's been on the plans I believe since the 90's. Early 90's. Hasn't been built yet. I anticipate it probably will be built sooner than later but at the same time if! get to the table in 6 years and it's not built, what does that mean? There's no access point to Lyman Boulevard for me because I can't meet the state guidelines. Without rebuilding Lyman Boulevard. So in fairness, and I've heard that said many a times and I do believe that that would be the intention of all involved would be to look at it and say, from the benefit of the whole community, bring the traffic up to this point to help mitigate the traffic going through these neighborhoods would be something that should be certainly considered. To look at the area around this area here and trying to get some of the traffic away from it, and make sure it's not just instantly going to be a problem would be to look to again centralize it over here. So that's what I have to say right now. Again, I would look to the council to look at it fairly and I guess there's one other item dealing with ordinances. Again difference of opinion perhaps but the way the ordinance reads is if one property has a higher, intense use than another, and I have two dual guided uses. While they're the same, this property selected the higher usage. I still have dual guidance. It could be the lower. It could be my decision. Could be the city's decision. I don't know that. In any case I feel that my property should be protected to provide that. One other quick issue dealing with the buffer there, or the road being there. It does provide an ability for somebody to enter into one neighborhood or the other and have monuments and knowledge you're going into a different neighborhood. And as well, in the interim, until my property is developed, it is agricultural. There will be agricultural equipment operating on it. Chemicals being sprayed. Fertilizer being put on the ground, and a buffer of a road would certainly keep children from going across and into the field like it's their back yard. So those are the points of concern I have at this time. Any questions, I'd be happy to answer. 42 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Dorsey? No? Okay, thank you. Comment for staff or, follow up comments. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. Just a couple real quick points here. We are trying to allow, the most flexibility in these designs. It's just hard to plan for flexibility when there's no design that we have in front of us, and we don't know exactly what to plan for. Let's see. Actually the north collector roadway that we had you know shown on this drawing here, again it's only approximation or it's our best stab at what potentially could develop. I think Mr. Fox or Mr. Dorsey had indicated an access point close to this location so we just kind of put something in there so. You know it's all flexible. We're not saying this is where it needed to go. We're recommending putting it there. I mean we're allowing that to be dealt with in the future and to have the property owners, the developers look at where a road potentially could best serve their development. The information that we had received from the Degler's and the Fox's. Mayor Furlong: Dorsey's. Paul Oehme: Dorsey's, I'm sorry. Had, you know this is one of the concepts that we had received and you know the access point that we had shown here before with the north collector roadway access from the adjacent property owner here, plus the access point someplace at Sunset Trail too so. We're trying to look at all these access points. Where do we tie these developments in that are being proposed at this time, plus try to plan for the future so we're, you know from a staffs perspective, we're trying to do our best and try to see what, plan for the future and try to accommodate the property owners and developer's wishes on how they think they can best develop their property. Let's see, one last point again with the, I'm showing on this drawing here. You know putting the north collector roadway where Mr. Dorsey had preferred it to go would go, is again it's at a 5% grade. I think from a staff s perspective and the traveling public you know, turn lanes on collector roadways at 5% grade, left turn lanes, it's not. You know there's other locations for those type of access points. Those are the type of access points that we should look at alternatively from steep grades like that, just from a safety perspective. Councilman Peterson: So 5% grade would be pre, pre Lyman reconstruction? Paul Oehme: Pre and post. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, what did you say? Pre? Paul Oehme: Pre and post. What we had looked at was sight lines at Sunset Trail and down to Powers Boulevard and where it potentially could tie into existing grades too. You don't want to, try to keep the grades at where they are because it just drives up the cost to change the grades. Todd Gerhardt: How much would you have to cut down from the hill if you were to try to eliminate the 5%? Paul Oehme: Significantly. 43 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: I mean can you point on there where you'd have to. Paul Oehme: Well, you know the existing grade is 5% right there. I mean I don't know what the magic number is to put in the access point there. 3% maybe that's the recommended grade for a 50 miles per hour collector roadway for turn lane. I don't know, it would be significant to make that access point work. Another issue that Mr. Dorsey had brought up too again was, maybe just going back to this map real quick. Putting an access point here would encourage more traffic to go up Audubon Road. Audubon right now is a city owned collector roadway. Powers Boulevard is a collector roadway. Four lane divided. That's where you know in staffs recommendation, that's where the traffic should be going out on the city collector roadway. Those are. Kate Aanenson: I just had one other thing to add, because I want to go back to the land use issue, and that's again we indicated if that came in, we believe we've interpreted the code correctly, as far as the buffer because it's similarly guided. Again if we would evaluate the same thing and Mr. Dorsey came in with a less intense and again the AU AR made assumptions based on the higher end because we use the most amount. We evaluate that and maybe a street wouldn't need to be connected to Lyman if they chose to go with the low end, and that's a possibility and we'd certainly evaluate that. So that connection wouldn't need to be made. Councilman Lundquist: Paul, Kate, ifI heard you correctly before. Is it an accurate statement that the impact of the Pemtom development on the property to the east is a connection to public street. Whatever that one is coming across there, and then the east/west collector that goes through. Mayor Furlong: East/west collector, yeah. IfI'm not mistaken, that is on the Fox family property. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. West, okay. But the property to the east of this development, and so really the east/west is our deal. That's the city driven so the public street going across there, connecting to the east from the Pemtom development. Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about this one? Councilman Lundquist: That one right there, yep. And then everything else to the east is essentially up to grabs, depending upon what happens. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate, ifI heard you before, depending on what goes on that property to the east, we may not ever have to make a connection to Lyman if it didn't want it or depending on what the use or what that ended up being. So is that? Kate Aanenson: That's fair. Councilman Lundquist: Fair that that could be anything? 44 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Well right now it's guided low or medium and if it was to come in something large lot estates, it's not guided for that. You'd have to do a land use amendment. Right now if it came in with low or medium, that's consistent with the comprehensive plan. If it came in for commercial, industrial, that again would take a land use amendment. At those two options, commercial industrial, they're probably more than confidently require that that connection be made. If it was to come in consistent with the comprehensive plan, low density, say single family lots, more than likely you could make the internal loops. You'd still. . . all the access, because the volume wouldn't be so great on this street. It'd all be... Councilman Lundquist: When we talked about the AUAR, did we talk about how many connections it was going to be to Lyman? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the one additional one besides. Councilman Lundquist: Besides that little loop street there. Kate Aanenson: This one here that... that ties back down. And then there's another connection in the AUAR that shows it approximately, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so if in the future that one didn't happen, what would be the consequence there? Kate Aanenson: Well the AU AR said, based on traffic modeling, if you went underneath that model, which is what he's saying it may be a possibility, then we would evaluate that. More than likely it wouldn't be anything. Mayor Furlong: Would we have to redo the AUAR, amend that? Kate Aanenson: As long as we stay under the model. You know as we look at that, I'm pretty confident based upon the future of single family home. If you look at what we've got with 5 units an acre here. We've got 155. Similarly number you'd probably be way under that. Maybe 80 lots. I can't imagine that... Councilman Peterson: Well that's one of the issues we talked about at Town and Country Phase II is that, some of us, if not most of us were concerned about the intensity or density of all. . . so I think we've already proven that we're already going over our number of density. So I think if we do less, I don't think that's going to be an issue. Kate Aanenson: Right, yeah. Councilman Lundquist: So then back to, so really the impact on this project to the property, well for that matter to the west and to the east is one residential street. Kate Aanenson: Correct. 45 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: We've got the part of that loop that will go from Audubon going to the west. And you've got this public street to be determined name going to the east. And those are the two connections and other than that the roadway's unaffected. Kate Aanenson: Correct. I just feel compelled to say something else for the record and that's, you know because when the city initiated the McComb study to look at, to be proactive, and the one thing we did learn in that, and I just want to put this on the record, is that if a lifestyle center, some additional commercial wants to go here, that developer is going to want that access. We feel it's prudent that we provide that opportunity on this site... We're trying to give them the flexibility. Councilman Lundquist: I want to make sure that we're not spending our whole evening talking about what might be on property to the west or the east with regard to this. My concern is, what's the you know, I don't want to hamper the property to the west or to the east for some future, and I think that by essentially putting one connection in each one, that's about as minimum, I mean zero is the only other choice, which doesn't seem likely that you're not going to connect them somehow, so to have one property, I just want to make sure that's just to clarify that. Okay. And then one other about the, I think what is Mr. and Mrs. Degler's driveway now, that, where that is a hammer handle down there. That not being a connection point just because it's too close to Audubon. Is that what the driver is there? Paul Oehme: Right, and it's a private street proposed. Councilman Lundquist: Ah yeah, okay. But primarily that one, I mean we can make it 3 feet wider but that would be it's just too close to Audubon, is that why you chose to have a hammer head there? Paul Oehme: Too close to Audubon and it's not recommended. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Just one clarifying question with regard to and I may have the applicant come back up. There was the issue, or Ms. Aanenson. We talked about setbacks. You made mention in your report that it's 25 feet setback from the right- of-way. Whether it's private right-of-way with a 40 or a public of 60. Kate Aanenson: Yeah it's the garage side. Mayor Furlong: On the garage side. Except for the corners where it's 25 and 20. Kate Aanenson: And 20. 20 would be the non-garage side. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Because it gets very punitive when you've got that small a lot. It basically would eliminate that lot. 46 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question then is, as I thought and maybe this is a question then for the applicant. It sounds like some of the property, some of the corner lots were going to have a side garage. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: As opposed to the front. So are we going to see a differential between on that corner lot with that house 5 feet out in front... Kate Aanenson: That's what he indicated we're trying to work through those to see how that, there will be some differentiation on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, which is usually along the... okay but then the front of that house would be 20 which would be 5 feet closer at a corner than all the other homes on the street. Is that what we want? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Well, I think you know we're going to have to look at that carefully. Where those placements are and that's what I think what Brian was talking about too. Is how to address that because we want to encourage that, the side loaded, so looking at those lots, it's always our goal, the goal here is try to limit on this street here, try to get those interior streets. So we've shown those driveways that have access onto the public street, there's opportunity to the corner. Mayor Furlong: And maybe that's going, first of all how many are we talking about and second, you know I kind oflike the idea of a side access as well, but I'm not. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I know what you're saying. There could be one house that's sitting closer. Mayor Furlong: And it's right at the corner. Where you going to have naturally more traffic, more cars. Kate Aanenson: Well and I think too, the design speed on these streets, because that was one of the things that we, you know you looked at too. It's a quite neighborhood. So you don't have long stretches where you can pick up the speed. I'm not sure how many exactly we have for the corner lots. Brian Sullivan: It's like 16 or 20 or somewhere in that range. Mayor Furlong: So about 10%. Little over. About 10%. Kate Aanenson: I understand what you're saying and we can look at that to see how we can work those through. 47 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Brian Sullivan: We're on this main road here. You know we have like a corner lot like right here. These corner lots, you're not going to have the corner house on those because we're going to have, these are going to be more a traditional road because they're going to want to have a 3 car garage. This kind of the main road into our development here so you don't want to have a lot of 3 car garages on the main drive as we. Mayor Furlong: So you're saying that would be an example where you would have the side garage? Brian Sullivan: Where I would not have the side garage. Because the 3. Mayor Furlong: Oh, that lot facing towards the. Brian Sullivan: Yeah, 3 garage doors would be facing toward the street. I wouldn't want that there so, there will be situations mainly along this road. These corner lots along the main road that I don't, that we won't, we might want to have the, I wouldn't want to have the corner house on those lots there. Mayor Furlong: Are any of those then, are any of those situations where the, it's on a private street that it's going to be the 20 foot setback? Brian Sullivan: Yeah, on a private street the front of the house would be 20 feet. Mayor Furlong: From the 40 foot right-of-way? Brian Sullivan: From the 40 foot right-of-way. And with your garage on a corner would be the 25 feet. 25 feet. 25 feet from the right-of-way. Kate Aanenson: That was I believe one of the drawings in the perspective that showed the corner. I believe this one with the private street... Brian Sullivan: This right here would show what the. Kate Aanenson: So that would be the side loaded on the private. But what you're missing in context is I'm pushing forward on the other one. I think that's something that maybe we can... and then when it comes back for final plat, you can see how that. I understand... one sticking out there. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I just want to clarify because I understand the concept but what does that mean when we apply it is what I'm trying to get my arms around. Kate Aanenson: Right... along the street. Mayor Furlong: So we'll take a look at that. Kate Aanenson: Yep. 48 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Alright. Impervious surface coverage. Overall it's limited to 30. We're taking advantage of the open space in the Bluff Creek corridor as part of that 30, and if! read the data information correctly, it said 27 is the current coverage ratio. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: On the lots themselves, did that calculation include that 600 square foot... Kate Aanenson: That's a good question. I'm sorry I missed that when I gave my presentation but we tried to come up, and that's something else we wanted in the homeowners covenants because if everybody maximized their lot, which we don't anticipate, but what we want to come up with and I put this in the staff report. We looked at there's approximately 600 square feet so if everybody used that 600 square feet we'll still be under it. It appears so. If they want to put, what we're asking them to put, also I talked about fences. Dog houses. We also want that to put, go into their association rules and. Councilman Labatt: And covenants? Kate Aanenson: Well restrictions too, that there's a certain percentage that they can maximize. Mayor Furlong: And I guess that's it. If 600 square feet for each of the homeowners is allowable and they still meet the overall coverage. Kate Aanenson: Yes, we believe that's kind of what we did for the math. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Obviously we want to avoid is variance requests on impervious surface because it's smaller lots to begin with. So is there, how are we going to deal with that? Is there a limit on a lot itself? Kate Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. The 600 per lot basis. Mayor Furlong: Is going to be the implied. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Mayor Furlong: Additional amount. So some of the footprints of the homes are different, are they not? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. So not everybody's going put a deck on right away. Everybody's not going to have a dog run, those sort of things, so we'll have to evaluate that. What we've asked them to do is kind of come back with that minutia and we kind of worked that into the system so there's kind of a set rule that, how much square footage you can add on. To stay within that percentage. 49 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Without adding complexity, I think we should try to take a look at that now so that we have those rules there, and if it's in there. . . Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I did review that in the staff report but we're asking them to put that also in their bylaws and we'll put that in as a condition of approval so it's quantitative and prescriptive so people know what they're buying into. How much they have for additional yard space. Mayor Furlong: Another work with staff condition. Very good. Those are my questions. Any other questions at this point? Councilman Labatt: I've got one. Kate, the parking on the private streets. These are 28 foot wide streets. Kate Aanenson: Paved, yeah. Councilman Labatt: 28. And if a neighbor has a party, and they have 20 people over and they all come 2 per car, so we've got 10 cars parked out there. If they park on both sides of the road you're telling me that we can still get a vehicle through there? Paul Oehme: Yes. I mean you can't go in two directions but in one direction you'll be able to. Councilman Labatt: What is they park in both directions, then there's no way for an ambulance or a fire truck or a car to get through. Paul Oehme: You can get one through but not two. Yeah, you can get one through. Councilman Labatt: They can get one car through but if they park on both sides of the road. Mayor Furlong: If they get 8 feet to a car. Paul Oehme: Yeah, 8 foot to a car approximately, 10, 11 to 12 feet for a drive aisle. Todd Gerhardt: Parking stall's 9 by 18. Paul Oehme: Yeah, so 9, 18, so 10 feet. Councilman Labatt: So we're okay with that? Paul Oehme: 28 feet is a standard in some communities too for public streets. We happen to be 3 1 feet. Mayor Furlong: Now our public streets in this development will be subject to the same no parking rules. Paul Oehme: That's correct, right. 50 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Councilman Labatt: But the private streets aren't. Kate Aanenson: That's something we may want to look at. Councilman Labatt: What's to say if there's a problem here and there's private streets. Enforcement wise there's no, we have no stake. There's nobody that can go on there and ticket the cars and tow them other than the homeowners association. Mayor Furlong: Well and I guess the question is, what do we do elsewhere in the city? Councilman Labatt: I think we have a private, now don't get me wrong. I like what I see. I'm just. Mayor Furlong: It's something to look into. Councilman Labatt: This is only preliminary right? Kate Aanenson: Yes, and again some of the stuff we put in that we need to look at for the next level that we talk about are some of those details. Councilman Labatt: Okay, can you look at it? Kate Aanenson: Yep. I think that's a good point, yeah. And again, that's going to be the association that's going to plow those streets but they're also going to want to get people off so they can get to their houses but we can put a time period that they get it plowed and all those sort of things. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then my only other comment is, I'm with you Brian on your thinking on this. That it's a great subdivision. It looks like. It's laid out nice. It does a nice job to preserve things. At the same we should think what's the entrance to the east. And I look at going back to what we went through last year with Yoberry Farms where we had Longacres coming in and Highover coming down and they both had touchdown spots so we had to maneuver things and I mean we're not reinventing the wheel here. Councilman Lundquist: This is longer than my cul-de-sac. Councilman Labatt: So those are my comments. You know, it's, the parking thing I wanted to talk about and. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts, comments. Councilman Lundquist: Todd, you've been over there all night. How about approximate distance from let's say the middle of the development which is about where the totlot is to the park that's down on Peterson's project. 51 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Todd Hoffman: Approximately half a mile. Councilman Lundquist: You wouldn't happen to have a map, somebody wouldn't happen to have map that shows the whole area. There you go. It's the yellow area. Okay. Todd Hoffman: This would be the public park and approximately half of the Preserve development is within the one half mile service area to that location. Councilman Lundquist: And then the other half will be to the school when the school gets built. Todd Hoffman: To the school or utilizing the association facility. Councilman Lundquist: And then we have a trail connection from this development down to the park there? Todd Hoffman: Yeah, you'll either take the street trails or the creek trail, and then down to the park. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And are you guys getting nervous as we continue to put these private parks in there, that we're going to be in a Johnson situation someday where the hoa's are going to get tired of taking care of them and we're going to have to absorb them? Todd Hoffman: That has occurred on occasion. Not in the recent past but there's a couple parks in the city that have been that way. This small a size, probably something that we wouldn't consider taking over at a future date. Mayor Furlong: Something we probably would not take? Todd Hoffman: Would not. They would have to go ahead and resolve that conflict internally. If it ever arises. Mayor Furlong: I am responsible for the weeds. Councilman Lundquist: And mulch too. Councilman Labatt: And mulch inspector. Mayor Furlong: That's right. Okay. Other thoughts or comments on the overall development. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I think as Mr. Herbst stated, that it's been a process as we go through and it's been, you know each one of these has it's unique issues and because they're developing kind of one at a time, rather than all together and things have gone, that there's always going to be some conflicts and some other things going on, but either with not knowing exactly what's going to happen to the east or to the west. We've talked a lot about you know Mr. Dorsey has done a nice job of presenting his issues and obviously we've been talking about a lot of that and 52 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mr. Fox to the east. You know to the west we've got a property to be developed eventually as well too, that we've got to be cognizant of, so I'm looking at that also. And as Mr. Labatt said before, I think we've done a good job there of trying to minimize those physical constraints of, because obviously to the east and to the west now, if we approve this layout, then that is a touch down point that will have to be matched regardless of what that development looks like. But in terms of restriction, that's about it right now and I think Mr. Dorsey makes some fine points of you know possibilities and potentials but right now, we did the Peterson and Town and Country piece on the property line because we knew that Peterson was there. We saw the preliminaries. We had the design. We had a chance to look at that, and you know not knowing what's going to happen on that east property, I'm not comfortable saying let's put a road anywhere on that east regardless of what happens there now because I wouldn't be comfortable putting it on the property line now because that may not only affect the Pemtom but it might affect what goes on to the east in the future as well, not knowing that, so I think I'd just as soon minimize the impacts to the east and the west, which this does with that one physical point there, and look at that. I'm glad to see the, something other than a townhouse. I mean these are still houses on a small lot but it preserves a lot of stuff so that's good to see and you know this is an area, it's still going to be very nice when we get down with all that open space so, I like that as well, and I like the difference in architecture too. It's also nice to see some break up there rather than boxes where we change a few small things here and there so, I'm with Councilman Peterson and Mayor on let's look at some, you know when we get further into the details on some of the color stuff and some of the you know, those architectural things to preserve that, but I'm confident that Mr. Herbst will do, and Ryland will do a good job there. Dan's got a good track record. I'm sure he wants to preserve that so, overall I think I'm in favor. I'm glad that, I think we've gotten to this stage on one of these where we might get it through on the first time instead of having it come back in 2 or 3 weeks and go after it again so. Not without issues certainly, and as we go forward with the rest of these, to the east and west, no doubt we will have similar issues going along with it. Hopefully I think we're kind oflearning as we go what to watch out for and what to look out for so, there will be things coming up obviously to the east and west. We'll deal with them when they get there but again this one, about all we can do to minimize the impact on the surrounding properties, so I'm comfortable at the stage we're at. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: I don't have much to disagree with Councilman Lundquist's perspective. I think that my adjective was the what ifs. We're dealing with what ifs tonight and there's a point where you just can't, you have to make a decision, and there are so many what if s on the east side yet that for us to step back and say we have to leave everything to the east and you know, or let me put it differently. For us to decide, I came in tonight thinking well we have to decide where the north/south goes and I was uncomfortable with that, and clearly what I've heard tonight is we don't have to, nor should we. There's an inference now that there's a plausible space connecting to Sunset. I'm not at all convinced that's the right place to put it, but I don't have to make that decision tonight. And to that end, if the north/south collector I think will be back on another night deciding where that would go, if it goes, and I think that is better left for another night. To build that south, you know I'll rewind a bit. Again I am concerned about density. I think this is, what makes me feel about this site is, you know it is somewhat unique to the area and it's not a huge development. It's not 500 of these, and that makes me feel 53 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 a lot better in the size and scope of it. And I think if we address some of the minor things that we already talked about on some of the architectural and colors and that, that will relieve many of my concerns so I'm comfortable moving forward with this, being sensitive to the issues already discussed so. With that said I'd look for other comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else? Councilman Labatt: Well I said mine. I just would agree with Brian and Craig with their comments and it is a nice development and it's, I think it's, it's going to be a nice addition to our city in the south end. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I won't repeat the comments made. I concur generally with those of councilman, all of them. Councilman Lundquist, Labatt and Peterson. And I will say that when I was first presented or saw this development a number of weeks ago, maybe even months ago now, I guess what I would best describe my reaction is guarded. It was not something from a density standpoint. Mr. Gerhardt's nodding his head up and down. We've had more than one conversation on this as we try to understand what's really being proposed here, and in looking at and listening and taking into account, not only the presentation tonight but what occurred at the Planning Commission. This is something that I've gained good comfort with. I think there's issues. We've talked about them tonight and setbacks, densities. Those are things that we talk about all throughout this area. But in terms of the product that is being proposed here, it is unique. I like uniqueness from a standpoint that it's not more of the same, and I think that's where this council struggled a little bit recently, and but doing something different is helpful and it makes it easier in the end to be able to move forward with it. I think that the layout here, in terms of the roads, Councilman Lundquist I think said it best. The points at which this development is touching other neighboring properties, we have one point I think with each of the neighboring properties, but for the Peterson property to the south, and that point on the east is clearly to be able to gain access to the Jeurissen property I believe it is over there. But a minimal impact but nonetheless something that this city has done many times over the years. Recently with Plowshares that was mentioned up to the north. We did it with Plowshares development on the old Mancino property. In fact it was a development that went through with the extension of Lake Lucy Road. Manchester ifI'm not mistaken, that was stubbed up to that property that then created that connection. That was something that the developer had to deal with and they connected it and having driven through that connection the other day, just to see how things were going, it flows. So it's something that happens. I think running a road along the entire border, Councilman Lundquist I think said it best, would be more restrictive to the development to the east than a single road going in. And for reasons stated tonight here by the staff, in terms of where the best place is, we don't have to decide tonight but I can understand why there are arguments that say the best place is not at this development here so. I'm comfortable moving forward with trying to create a long list of work with staffs that we can enclose in here and to make sure we're all comfortable with that and get that included at this time. But I'm confident based upon the experience that we've had with Mr. Herbst and Pemtom that that can be a long list but it's nothing on there that's generally not be accomplished and so that provides some trust and confidence there. That these issues, minor in the overall picture, can still be addressed. So I'm comfortable with moving forward tonight, as we put something together and I think that this will be a unique development. It's a nice neighborhood within our city, to compliment the other 54 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 developments that we've already approved and those that we will likely see going forward. Any other comments or discussion? The motion I believe starts on. Councilman Lundquist: 46. Mayor Furlong: Page 46 and just for clarification here, there's a couple of items, and Ms. Aanenson, to make sure I get these correctly. The motion, or condition number 60 should include Lots 1 through 5, not just Lot 1. Kate Aanenson: I'd like to get some clarification on 60, 61 and 62. And that's the park commission's recommendation and we have in our condition of approval, 31 that says that we work with the staff to discuss eliminating 1 to 2. I think there's concurrence on that but we're negotiating on those outlots 1 through 5. Mayor Furlong: So we want to keep, so you're saying that there's some conflict with those? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, because the other one says they're eliminated and you know, so if you eliminate it, then we've kind of... Mayor Furlong: 31 provides better. Kate Aanenson: Right, so I think 31 works better, right. Mayor Furlong: So what do we have to do? Which one is that? Kate Aanenson: I think right now, if we just take 60, 61 and 62, and 63. Let's see. Those are just recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Do you believe that they're covered already... Kate Aanenson: They are covered. We already have full park and trail fees in there already, and then clearly if we want to leave in 63, because we do want those conveyed as public property, and that would be A, B, Land N, those outlots. We would want those conveyed as. Mayor Furlong: So strike H and insert N. Kate Aanenson: Yep. And then if we just put 60. Mayor Furlong: So you're saying 60, 61 and 62 are already covered in the other conditions? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think we should just strike those out because they conflict with our ability to negotiate to get that. 61? Todd Hoffman: The trail. Kate Aanenson: Oh, the trail construction, I'm sorry. 61 is probably not. 55 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: 61 is. Kate Aanenson: Yep, so you want it in, correct. Councilman Lundquist: So you want 60 and 62 out. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. And that gives us the ability to negotiate with the developer right now. And then just one other point of clarification. Just so, the things that you wanted us to add and this may be 64. Maybe you were just going to do this Mayor, but what I've got from my notes is attention to the garage facades, including percentage of windows with color palettes, a minimum of four, that they come back with those. That we discuss private street, parking, maintenance and parking. Mayor Furlong: And winter parking? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, winter parking. Areas of future buildable area. That those be covered in, not only covenants but in the development standards itself. And then setbacks on the corner lots. And then the hammer head at Outlot, or the end of street. Mayor Furlong: Yes, and I just had turn around on all private streets... Kate Aanenson: That's fine, then we've got it covered. Mayor Furlong: Whatever the, yep. Kate Aanenson: Is that what you had? Mayor Furlong: That was my list. Anybody else have anything to add to that? That would be condition. Councilman Lundquist: 64. Councilman Peterson: But we're deleting, this would be. Councilman Lundquist: It still has to be 64. Todd Gerhardt: It doesn't have to be. Mayor Furlong: We can do anything, right Roger? Roger Knutson: That's right Mayor. Todd Gerhardt: Not that it would be successful. 56 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 Mayor Furlong: That's out of order. Let's move forward now with the motion. Would somebody like to state a motion please. Councilman Labatt: Mayor I would recommend that we approve the rezoning of the land within the plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate, A2, subject to the following plans dated 3-17- 06, and the conditions 1 through 64 with deletion of 60 and 62. And 63 should be amended to changing the H to N. 64 will be the motion or the condition that Kate just stated with the list of to do's. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor? That also includes approval of the conditional use permit? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Roger Knutson: And adopting the findings of fact as presented by the Planning Commission as your own findings. Councilman Labatt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Questions or clarifications. Hearing none, let's proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the Rezoning of 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 of the final plat, the applicant must provide documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard meets Carver County's requirement. 57 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 4. The grading plan must identify the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain. 5. Due to the anticipated timing of the 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. 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 1 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. All buildings must be demolished before the second phase. 14. The final grading plan must show the top and bottom of wall elevations. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. The plan must be revised to show an 18-inch diameter watermain on the south side of Lyman Boulevard to the east property line. 18. The developer's engineer must submit a separate cost estimate for the watermain oversizing along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat submittals. 19. 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. 20. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan. 21. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed and abandoned during site grading and utility installation. 58 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 22. The developer must pay $15,776 in cash with the final plat for the pro-rated cost for the preparation of the 2005 MUSA AUAR. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee, which must be paid in cash with the final plat. 27. 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. 28. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable. 29. 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. 30. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the public. 31. The applicant will work with staff to discuss eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, and Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. 32. The applicant shall revise the plan design to ensure adequate hydrology for Wetland 4 in the post-development condition. 33. 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. 34. 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. 59 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 35. 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 of the 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. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. The EOF path for Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a more direct EOF route from Pond 1 to Wetland 4. 39. 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. 40. The outfall from Pond 3 shall not outlet upslope of the proposed trail. 41. 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. 42. Pond 5 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it. 43. 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. 44. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 1 0: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter 60 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 45. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 46. The applicant shall be proactive in addressing potential run-on problems in the vicinity of the extreme southeast corner 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. 47. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time offinal plat recording, is $242,760. 48. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek 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. 49. The applicant shall demonstrate that the outlet pipe installation and elevation will not impact the wetland. 50. If recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission, park fees shall be paid as per City ordinance at the rate of final platting. 51. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 52. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 53. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 54. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas. 55. 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. 56. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City. 57. A conservation easement shall be recorded over Outlot A. 61 City Council Meeting - May 8, 2006 58. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines to demarcate the primary zone. 59. 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 used for the restoration." 60. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the "Bluff Creek Trail." All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 61. Outlots A, B, Land N be conveyed to the city as public property by warranty deed. 62. The following items are to be addressed at final plat: . Attention to garage door facades including n percent of doors with windows . Color palate ( 4 minimum) . Private streets and sidewalks, . Percentage of future boilable area, . Setbacks on corner lots . Turnarounds at the end of private streets. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong: It was good to see library hours being expanded. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: They're open now I believe on Sundays as well. Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: They're open and more stable hours on the rest of the days of the week too so, that's good. Also good to use the usage. Any other discussion on the correspondence packet? If 62