CC 2005 02 14
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman
Peterson, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Roger
Knutson, Matt Saam and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Steve Lillehaug Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to everybody here this evening and
those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. Like to start this evening’s meeting,
first of all I’ll ask if there’s, members of the council if there’s any modifications or amendment
to the agenda. If not, the agenda that was published will be followed this evening. Without
objection. I’d like to start by extending an invitation to all the residents and business owners to a
th
open house this coming Thursday the 17. As part of our city’s ongoing public safety review
th
process we’re holding a public safety open house again this Thursday the 17 from 7:00 to 5:00
p.m. in the evening at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. This is an opportunity for residents
and businesses to receive information about the services that the city provides as well as provide
their ideas and suggestions on how we can improve the public safety services. There won’t be
any formal presentations. It’s a true open house. Come and go as you please. Ask questions.
Gain information. We will have representatives from the Carver County Sheriff’s Office, our
fire department, state patrol, Chanhassen Crime Prevention will be there as well to answer
questions and provide information, so I invite everybody to come down to Chanhassen
th
Recreation Center on Thursday, this coming Thursday the 17 from 5:00 to 7:00 and help us
improve our already good quality of public safety services. Move on to the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
?
Work Session Minutes dated January 24, 2005
?
Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 24, 2005
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
?
Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated December
14, 2004
?
Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January
25, 2005
?
Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 18, 2005
?
Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 1, 2005
Resolution#2005-12:
b. Accept Public Storm Sewer Improvements in Villages on the
th
Ponds 7 Addition, Project 02-12.
rd
Resolution#2005-13:
c. Accept Public Utility Improvements in Vasserman Ridge 3
Addition, Project 04-04.
Resolution#2005-14:
e. Order 2005 MUSA Improvements to be built in conjunction with
TH 212, Project 04-05.
Resolution#2005-15:
f. Approval of 2004 Fund Transfer Modifications.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
TH
PUBLIC HEARING ON WEST 86 STREET WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS,
PROJECT 04-18.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This item again is a public hearing for
th
trunk watermain improvements from West 86 Street to Lakeview Road. As you are aware
improvements for 212 are anticipated to begin in early this summer. Improvements to 212/312
include installation of watermain, watermain connections to existing trunk mains in the 101 area.
In addition existing watermain may be needed to be lowered and relocated in conjunction with
that project as well. Also with the other utilities and grading work taking place in the area of
disruption of water services is likely in the southeast part of town. Property owners in North Bay
and specifically in Springfield Drive, the development currently are only served by one trunk
watermain. I can show you that on this drawing here. This is a drawing showing the Springfield
neighborhood and North Bay is situated here. Currently the city’s watermain comes down 101
and then on Lyman to service those developments. Properties, let’s see, in all of the water
serviced in this area is, there’s 304 properties that are serviced on this one trunk main. What the
project that we’re talking about here tonight is proposed to dilute the system and have another
th
connection point from 86 Street over to Lakeview Road. A looping system is always
recommended to prevent major water service disruption that we could anticipate happening in
connection with the 212 project. And provides for better fire flow protection and helps circulate
the water as well better, for better water quality. Staff’s proposing a 12 inch trunk main from
th
West 86 again to Lakeview Drive to minimize potential disruption to these developments. To
the existing property owners. The 12 inch watermain is part of the city’s water master plan and
was planned to be constructed in part when development in this area takes place. Staff has
2
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
discussed with the property owners along this proposed corridor of installing the watermain prior
to their development and they are willing to work with us on that issue. The property owners
have currently signed an assessment waiver as well for the installation of that. Of this project.
th
And that agreement was brought before you in January, the 24 of this year. The project cost,
total project cost is $224,600 and of that we’re looking at almost $60,000 being assessed back to
the benefiting property owners, and that assessment again was for the portion that would be
anticipated in the new development which would run, the new watermain would run between the
property line and then on a new east/west public roadway when that development is finally built.
th
The schedule for the project as it moves forward is to approve plans and specs on February 28.
And opening and awarding a contract in March and start construction in April and have the
construction completed before the 212 project sometime in May so. At this time I stand for
questions and I request that a public hearing be opened at the same.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No? Seeing none, we’ll open the public
hearing. Invite all interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter.
Anybody interested in discussing it? If not, without objection we’ll close the public hearing and
bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion? Seems pretty straight forward to
everyone. Very good. Is there a motion? Isn’t there an action required? Requested action.
Paul Oehme: No. We’re just opening.
Todd Gerhardt: Taking comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you Paul. With that, unless there’s any further action
on that item, we’ll move on with our agenda.
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION
(WITH VARIANCES); LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER
DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL; YOBERRY FARM, APPLICANT:
YOBERRY FARMS, LLC, DAVID HURRELL & KAREN WEATHERS, PLANNING
CASE NO. 04-43.
Public Present:
Name Address
Penny Bursch-Johnson 6951 Highover Drive
Candice & Mike McGraw 2446 Highover Trail
Ray Allstadt 2423 Highover Trail
Jacqie Daugherty 2423 Highover Trail
Uli Sacchet 7053 Highover Court South
Michael Horn 7024 Highover Court South
Jon Steele 6941 Highover Court North
John Graham 6935 Highover Drive
Bob Krueger 2350 Hunter Drive
3
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Daryl McLinden 7321 Hillsdale Court
th
Chuck Alcon 6138 76 Lane, Greenfield
th
Bill Coffman 600 W. 78 Street
Steve Johnston 510 1st Avenue North, Minneapolis 55403
Tom Stokes 4052 Oakland Street, St. Bonifacius
Jesse Larson 3440 Hennepin, Minneapolis
Travis Sprague 6888 Highover Drive
Timothy Block 6903 Highover Drive
Joe Thull 6872 Highover Drive
Susan Schneider 6872 Highover Drive
Mary & Dave Haworth 6818 Highover Drive
Todd Michels 2436 Highover Trail
Rodd & Parks Wagner 6915 Highover Drive
Greg & Linda Twedt 6999 Highover Drive
Philip Haarstad 7066 Harrison Hill Trail
David & Lauren Damman 6934 Highover Drive
Adam Lurie 6926 Highover Court North
Jeff Tritoh 2313 Hunter Drive
Mark Zaebst 2325 Hunter Drive
Leslie Witterschein 7150 Harrison Hill Trail
Jennifer & Michael Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail
Thomas Hirsch 2290 Longacres Drive
Michael McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive
Lisa Hokkanen 2456 Hunter Drive
Ping Chung 7000 Highover Drive
Tim McCerio 165 Ponderosa Drive
Angela Lurie 6926 Highover Court North
Jo Mueller 2579 Longacres Drive
Larry Lovig 2475 Gunflint Court
Mark Brown 7210 Gunflint Trail
Stacey Riecks 7256 Gunflint Trail
Bill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive
Jon Grubb 6989 Highover Court North
Larry Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive
Susan Lombardo 7278 Fawn Hill Road
Dan Hanson 2390 Longacres Drive
Kathy Koscak 2351 Hunter Drive
Lori Dinnis 2362 Hunter Drive
Scott & Greer Hussey 2235 Longacres Drive
Dale Mueller 2529 Longacres Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I’d like to break this presentation into two components. One to
kind of review the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and it’s role that it plays in the
development and then move specifically into the subdivision of the project before you tonight,
Yoberry Farms. The comprehensive plan that was developed and, that was in place as the
majority of the property developed between Galpin and Highways 41 and the northern boundary
4
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
to the city down Highway 5 was put in place in 1991. At that time the comprehensive plan
recommended you know the guiding of this area and that was predominantly low density. So the
land use, first component of the comprehensive plan speaks to the fact that there is guiding for
the piece of property and then the tool to implement how that property is specifically laid out is
the city’s zoning ordinance. Not all property develops at the same time and I’ll kind of go
through that scenario in this area, depending on willingness of sellers and that sort of thing so
unfortunately sequentially property doesn’t fall into a certain pattern. It moves when the market
brings it on. The city does have a management tool. I know one of the issues that was brought
up at the Planning Commission was, you know this seems like it’s sprawl. It’s infill
development but I just want to comment another section of the comprehensive plan, and that’s
our MUSA staging area. Again the area that we’re talking about here was put in place in 1991.
Most of the development that occurred in that. The next area that we brought in was the 2005
MUSA which has pretty much been developed, Westwood Church, Pulte Homes, that area at the
intersection of 5 and 41. And the next area that we’re working on is the 2005 and that relates to
the development of the 212, so we do have an orderly staging plan and that ties back into the
city’s ability to provide sewer, water and infrastructure and our financial responsibilities for
investment that we make. So this to us is land that’s development ripe because the infrastructure
is in place. Another element to the comprehensive plan is the housing element and the housing
element speaks to the fact that there should be opportunities for all different types of residents.
Housing for residents. This is reflected in housing choices in the city. We have townhouses.
We have apartments. So whether it’s rent or owner occupied, or even whether or not you want to
live in an association where it has certain restrictions, you want that type of control on you so
there’s different housing types that we look at when we’re reviewing projects. The natural
resources is a lot of the reason that people move to the city of Chanhassen which we certainly
regard the protection of trees, wetland preservation and certainly topography. Back in 1991 we
only looked at areas down along the river bluff for bluff protection and we moved that to the
entire city. Anything over 30 percent so we’ve actually moved further and been more restrictive
of protection of some of those sloped areas. Parks and open space, the city’s comprehensive plan
directs the development of parks by size, type, location, population. Again the city cannot
require a private park or extraction but we do look at, a typical subdivision the recommendation
goes to the park commission and they make a recommendation, and I’ll just take a minute to kind
of go through the park plan for this area, or approximately in the same scale. Maybe we can
zoom in in this area right here. This is Sugarbush Park, which is just south of the Woods.
Hunter Drive. That’s the immediate park for that area. There’s another park that was taken with
the Pulte Homes. There will be a park. It’s right now it’s just vacant. It hasn’t been designed
for a park yet, but one of the requests was that a private, a public park or a private park be put in
that area. The City cannot request on a typical subdivision a private park. This applicant has
chosen not to pursue that. That’s a choice that he’s made, a housing choice that they’ve made.
And looking at a park in the, in the area, we know there’s another piece of property coming in
immediately to the north and I’ll speak to that again in a minute. But that’s kind of where we’d
be looking for an additional parkland property. So being consistent again with the
comprehensive plan, it ties back into that we’re following that. Then another component of the
comprehensive plan is the transportation element. Again in 1991 the transportation element
recommended three minor collectors between Galpin Boulevard and 41. That would be Lake
Lucy. This one wasn’t named. It was just shown which is now actually called Longacres Drive.
That was shown as another collector in that approximate location, and then the third one is what
5
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
th
is now called West 78. Street capacity on a local street is 1,000 vehicles. On a collector it’s
1,000 to 15,000 so when we do the comprehensive plan and do traffic modeling and look at
traffic zones, looking at what we need for service in that area, three minor collectors were
determined to be adequate to serve. But the goal is to tie a local street into a minor collector so
looking at the land use that was recommended, low density, it was determined that those three
collectors would provide adequate access to the development of that site. Also I want to point
out, typically on a minor collector that we place sidewalks or trails. On Lake Lucy there is a
trail. That also is a reason to get up, looking at that, to get up to the school. There’s a sidewalk
th
on Longacres and then there’s a trail on West 78. So in looking at how this area kind of came
together, the tool that implemented the comprehensive plan is the zoning ordinance so each of
these developments as they occurred are driven by factors such as wetlands, trees. The wetlands,
there’s the setback requirements plus there’s the wetland conservation act that has to be
permitted. Trees, if you, every subdivision cuts down trees but there’s a requirement if it’s
excessive then you’re penalized for that. Slopes as I mentioned earlier, there’s a requirement on
building on over 30 percent. Then the other critical issue is access and location. So if I can just
kind of talk a minute about again what happened in this area and how we ended up this hole or
donut. Maybe I can start with the first subdivision to be built in this area was actually
Longacres. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? And Longacres had 112 lots. Was built in 4
phases. That actually had a lot of topography in that area. Rolling topography and 24 acres of
wetland. Longacres on this site. Then in 1993 also following that was the Woods at Longacres.
Again 134 lots and that was built in 5 phases. That had a little bit more severe topography and
also had significant amount of wetlands. So with that development, this road was built. With
these two developments we had our first minor collector in that area. Following that we had
Brenden Pond which built this segment of the collector road, Lake Lucy. That had 21 lots. That
also had some steep slopes and some wetland. Woodridge Heights, the Centex development
attached to that had 46 lots. And that completed the connection of that minor collector road.
Then we had Forest Meadows, which is 19 lots which is a separate subdivision that can only be
accessed. A separate subdivision not part of the Longacres. That can only be accessed via the
Longacres neighborhood. Then finally we had Highover. That couldn’t have been built until
that collector road was built because that’s how they get their access via that collector road, and
that had 54 lots. Well within that there was some other pieces that still left holes. Recently the
council has approved 43 lots on the Pinehurst. Can you zoom in on that a little bit Nann? On the
Pinehurst. And that we provided a stub street via the Woodridge Heights so they got access. We
also stubbed it into the Crestview subdivision. Also this, the Carlson property will be coming
forward. We’re working with that developer right now. If that gets executed. We did provide a
stub street again through Woodridge Heights and it will also tie into Highover. That is the only
way you know to provide adequate access. Again it’s the city’s job to make sure we don’t land
lock a piece of property, whether through providing sewer, water and streets. A lot of that timing
falls into place when you look at subdivisions, if we can look even at Ashling Meadows. These
subdivisions came in pretty close together. Two separate developers. Lundgren Brothers and a
private developer on this side. This developer couldn’t go until the second phase of Ashling
Meadows, until the sewer and water came over. While he had the street connections, they
needed the utilities. Two separate developments but need access together. Both of these
subdivisions also were provided access to the property to the south, which could be land locked
because there’s no access along Galpin Boulevard. So the metaphor that we like to use is kind of
connecting all those little puzzle pieces and make sure they all fit. That’s our job to make sure
6
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
somebody’s not land locked and derived of their rights to develop. In addition there’s other
subdivisions immediate in the area that we’ve tied together. Windmill Run with Walnut Grove.
This street also connected back up when those subdivisions came forward. So with that kind of
context of, we ended up with a hole right here that was not ready for development. Three
underlying property owners that weren’t ready to move forward. When Longacres came in, we
provided a stub street to here, based on the fact that you can get to this collector and based on the
fact that you could get to this collector here. When Highover came in we originally tried to get
the connection at this point here, but you can see there’s an extensive wetland and it’s very steep,
so the road got moved over here. We knew based on the state requirements access control points
on 41, we could end the slope. It’s very steep right there. We could not get another connection
down onto 41 so at that time we identified those and posted those streets as to be future
connections. So with that they ended up with the framework to go through the subdivision. So
now I’ll move to, if there’s any questions on that I’ll move to the subdivision itself.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this time?
Kate Aanenson: So this went to the Planning Commission twice. The public hearing was re-
opened at the second meeting so there’s a significant amount of testimony. On your cover sheet
it mentions that the motion at the Planning Commission was 4 to 2. It was 3 to 2 to deny the
subdivision. Just want to clarify that. Again the subdivision includes 35.79 acres. It includes 57
single family homes and 8 outlots. The average lot size is 18,962. Again this subdivision in lot
size, square footage, the proposed homes is very consistent to what’s in the existing
neighborhood. It does meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as lot width,
depth, etc. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in 3 additions. Again there’s 3
underlying properties. Again this required assembling. We talked about timing. It’s difficult to
get, truly to get a lot yield that works to get, the better lot yield is to work with the 3 underlying
property owners instead of one going at a time and then it kind of constrains the layout. So
working with the developer over the last 6 months, we’ve made a lot of changes. He’s made
some improvements. Dropped some lots. Worked through some tough tweaking issues but we
believe again that it’s a well conceived layout. There was a couple issues I wanted to point out.
One, there’s an area here in your staff report it talks about a 25 foot wide strip of land that upon
the survey they found kind of a no man’s land. So what the applicant did is split that 25 feet. 12
feet he gave to the 3 property owners to the north and kept the other 12 feet as a part of the plat
and kind of split the difference. Again for the rezoning, this does need a rezoning. The 2020
land use plan designates this as low density. While it’s currently guided differently, it is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Therefore the staff, and it does have utilities. Therefore
the staff is recommending approval to be consistent with the land use plan. I did want to take a
minute to talk about a trail issue. One of the things we’ve worked out in the last couple weeks,
the Park and Rec Director has been working with Carver County who is petitioning for an
underpass under Highway 41 and just last week we did meet with the developer so this didn’t
appear at the Planning Commission but we are recommending a trail that will go along 41 to get
to the underpass to go underneath 41 to get you to the regional park. And that proposed trail is
on the north end, just one lot in from the Highover Drive and that would be platted in an outlot,
and that would give access up 41 to the trail and then the trail would continue on the other side of
41 to get you to the regional park. One of the other issues that came up was the cul-de-sac, but
before I talk about that I just want to again maybe talk a little bit about how the subdivision got
7
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
laid out. Again we had the touch down point at Longacres and we had the touch down point at
Highover. Those are the two connections that needed to be made. This is the highest point in
the area. In order again, what we always try to do is minimize or maintain existing topography
so the roads switch back around that high point and kind of made a circuitous turn back to get up
to that street. Again providing two cul-de-sacs on the extension of that. That’s the main layout.
We looked at a lot of different iterations of this again as I mentioned over the last 6 months but
we believe that this is the best layout for the site, so with that I’ll discuss the cul-de-sac that is of
concern in this area. These are in your staff report. There’s three different options. Option A,
which is what the applicant is proposing today and the plat you see underneath this is, he’s
moved the cul-de-sac over. Reduced or removed the retaining wall, and to save additional trees
and there is a separate within the project. If we can zoom in on this a little bit. There’s a cross
section showing existing house, retaining wall, the tree. This is the project boundary, then
there’s 13 feet of buffer and additional 15 feet before you hit the street right-of-way so that
would relate to, this would be that 13 feet in here. If that makes sense.
Councilman Peterson: Kate, what’s the distance between that back of the house and the front of
the street, approximately there?
Kate Aanenson: The back of the house? 28 plus 37 plus 75 plus 13. Plus 15.
Todd Gerhardt: 130.
Kate Aanenson: Approximately. 130 feet. So that was the option that we felt was best, and I’ll
go through the other ones. This was asked by the Planning Commission. Again this is variance
free with the public street. The other option was to look at a private street which did require a
variance to do a private street. Four homes off of a private street. Because the bubble that’s
required for the end of the cul-de-sac, it forced this lot to be a little bit bigger to make the, so you
really didn’t pick up any additional separation here in order to make this lot big enough to meet
the minimum requirements by making that a private street. And then the other option would
have been to put the street next to the wetland. In doing that, that’s the least desirable option in
the staff’s mind. It does require that the calculations are 10 foot, 10 foot, 8, 9, 10. A huge
retaining wall plus you’d have to put fill in to kind of balance that back out. Again one of the
goals that we looked at, as I explained in all these projects which has a lot of rolling topography,
is to work with the landform on that and we believe the superior way to minimize that retaining
wall along the wetland, extensive retaining wall is to put the road on the high side. And then it
puts these houses will be sitting up looking this way, so you actually have greater separation. So
those are the three options that. I believe I addressed the park issue, the 41 issue. The state is
recommending the no connection there. Again that was addressed several times at the Planning
Commission. All the lots again do meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance so with
that, because it does meet all the requirements of the city’s zoning ordinance, the staff did
recommend approval so we have a motion structured for you on page 20 of the staff report and
I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
8
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Kate on the entrance, the access from 41. We have the letter from
MnDot, from Lisa Freese. What is the process if that access was to be pursued further? What
action needs to be taken there and what are the chances that?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think there’s two points that we need to look at. One, it’s very steep.
So if, this is a variance between the separation and that’s one issue. The second issue is can you
make it safe because there’s a certain grade requirement, touch down when you’re coming onto a
road that you’ve got that stacking coming down at a certain angle, so I’m not sure it can be
engineered to even meet that condition, whether you can get the access point or not. So we’d
have to look at both of those.
Councilman Lundquist: Well assuming, if we’re going to do construction, or some of the
grading traffic is going to come in and out of there anyway, if I remember right when I read
through this, so let’s assume that the engineering piece can be overcome. What’s the, in my
mind the harder would be the MnDot piece.
Kate Aanenson: I’d have to let the City Engineer answer that question.
Matt Saam: I can take that one for Paul. On behalf of getting, or to your question of gaining
access off Highway 41, the developer would be required to submit an application to MnDot
requesting permanent street access off of Highway 41. MnDot has indicated in their review
memo that with this plat they are looking to get access control along this property. Along this
property’s property line, along 41 and that basically means that they do not want any access
along the highway. They want to control the access. So it’s basically up to MnDot’s review and
the process would be started by an application to MnDot.
Councilman Lundquist: And what’s the general timeframe of that process?
Matt Saam: I guess my experience has been 1 to 2 months. Something in that. I mean it’s
timely. They route it around everywhere, so it’s not a quick turn around.
Councilman Lundquist: And given that Ms. Freese has already given essentially her opinion
memo, what’s the chances that something like that is going to be successful or get to the next
step in the process?
Matt Saam: Yeah, we have three documents from MnDot plus my phone conversations to them.
The whole time they’ve been against it so I guess if I was a betting man I’d say chances are
pretty slim that they’d look favorably on allowing an access there.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I did have an opportunity to talk to Lisa Freese today
and beg that question to her and her response is that in her previous letter and review of this
property she went through the variance process in determining if access should be granted or not.
If somebody should make application they would do the review again in more detail but I believe
the outcome would be the same.
9
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When we were up on Highway 7, as Highway 7 was re-built in
the last year or so, how many access points did we lose off of Highway 7?
Todd Gerhardt: I don’t know that number off hand. I think we lost 2. Shorewood I believe lost
2 or 3 in making those safety improvements between Highway, from downtown Excelsior out to,
well just outside of Victoria.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, back on options for the road by the Harrison Hill piece. Option C.
To look at that, the drawbacks again are the retaining wall that has to go on the west side of the
road or the east side of the wetland.
Kate Aanenson: Well more tree loss and yeah, the maintenance of that retaining wall.
Councilman Lundquist: More trees come out.
Kate Aanenson: And grading. And that means you have to clear away this portion of the road
because actually the grade’s dropping down towards the wetland. So to get the grades for the
road you’re actually importing more. So you’re kind of working against the natural, and then
yeah, the height, the maintenance of the retaining wall.
Councilman Lundquist: And how far does that push the road to the west? From that, say the
apex of the corner there. From where it was before. Or from where it is on Option A.
Kate Aanenson: It’s got to be a minimum 125.
Councilman Lundquist: So 120 feet or something?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That’s all I have, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions?
Councilman Peterson: Kate, keying on that same issue, if you look at your, one of the drawings
you had.
Kate Aanenson: The cross section?
Councilman Peterson: The cross section. If you did Option C, and I can’t tell the elevations.
Would those houses that are now back abutting the other neighborhood, would they be up
higher?
10
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yes, you’d be looking down into the other neighborhoods.
Councilman Peterson: Substantially?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: So the other neighbors would be looking up at houses versus down at
houses?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions?
Councilman Peterson: Matt have you looked at, I think one of the things I read was, you did
some traffic studies on speed and can you talk a little bit about that, just to help clarify some of
the, between the two neighborhoods.
Matt Saam: Sure. I don’t know if I’d call it a traffic study yet. Just because we haven’t been
able to get the tubes, or our counting tubes out there in the winter with snowplows and that sort
of thing. We usually hold off til May. What we did put out there, and I’m talking Hunter Drive.
That was the area that the residents in Longacres were concerned with, where the speeding came
up. We did put out our newly bought speed trailer. Coordinated that with our sheriff, or Jim
Olson through the County and that was out there for a couple of days. While it’s not as scientific
as the tubes, just because people see the sign, they can react by slowing down or what have you.
We did get 2 days of counts in. 8 hours one day and 6 hours the next. Basically the results were
th
that, what we saw is there wasn’t a speeding problem. The 85 percentile speed out there, which
MnDot uses to set the speed limits, and that’s what we look at, that was about 25 miles per hour
for Hunter Drive. So again it’s not as scientific as our tubes. We will be putting out the, we will
be putting the tubes out there in May. One of the first sites that we’ll do. We’ll take a better,
harder look at it then. But that’s what we’ve gotten to this point.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, was there ever an open house or a neighborhood meeting
between the two developments and the developer?
Kate Aanenson: I don’t think so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So there really hasn’t been a formal communication about anything.
I didn’t see the application from the builder for access to Highway 41. I take it he never intended
to apply or even try to gain access on 41? Maybe that’s another question.
11
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: We, yeah well we as the, as the jurisdiction that reviews it. Sends it to all other
jurisdictions for their comments so we kind of are the…for that so we send it to the Watershed
District, MnDot and collect it so we collect all that data. So it was our role, yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I was driving these roads today, on Highover and in
Longacres and man, those roads are narrow. Yes, I saw the signs that said you know, a collector
street or whatever was going to be you know, will be developed or whatever. And if those
streets were meant to be collector streets for the new development coming in, why weren’t they
built wider then at least?
Kate Aanenson: They’re not collector streets. They’re local streets and they are.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But they’re connecting those to this new development.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but that’s the same scenario throughout the city. These local streets, as I
indicated, local streets can handle up to 1,000 trips and that, so between these two, this street can
handle that amount of traffic.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Boy I was parked on one of the streets with my husband’s truck. I
was talking to a neighbor and the UPS guy came by and it was like, it was a tight maneuver for
him just to even get by, and so I’m thinking you know, this woman had a 2 year old out playing
in the snow and the narrow streets and I just thought, as a parent you know, I would be sick
thinking that all of a sudden I’m going to have 1,000 cars, is that what you said? 1,000 trips?
Kate Aanenson: No. That’s what they’re designed for.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, okay well then you could probably have 100, 200 cars going
by your house maybe.
Kate Aanenson: Well if you add up how many houses are currently on the street and how many
are coming in, it still would be under for that design. It’s similar to Lake Susan, which has you
know long local streets that handles that much traffic. Again, I’ll go back to the comprehensive
plan. When we put this in place in 1991, we did all the traffic. TAZ’s, the traffic analysis zone
and we said this could handle it. If this piece would have come in first and Highover was
coming in, you know so it’s hard for us to flip that around because we, you know we don’t look
at the sequence and we have no control over when it’s ready to go, but if that, if this one was in
first, and then this one needed to connect.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Kate Aanenson: That’s how we looked at it.
Councilman Peterson: Further answer to that Kate, if all of these neighborhoods would have
came in at the same time, would the road have been the same width?
12
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Exactly, right. And there wouldn’t have been access to 41 because these
are the two connection points. You know it just so happened that this piece got left out. As is
Mr. Carlson’s piece got left out which will tie into Highover too, so it’s a sequencing issue.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, just one point. I think where Bethany might be getting a little confused,
our collector streets are a wider width of roadway than our local streets which will connect, so
this is not going to be a north/south collector. It will be a regular urban section.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But these streets are basically the entrance to this new development,
is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So it’s, I mean it’s still a lot of cars no matter what the street is
called, it’s still a lot of cars coming in and out. That’s how at least I gauged it to be when I was
standing.
Todd Gerhardt: Don’t disagree. There will be additional cars that will go through Highover and
Longacres, and from our engineering standards those streets should be able to handle that traffic
that would be generated from there is what Kate is saying.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Now what happens if you know there are accidents or there’s
speeding problems and they decide the road is too narrow, are we going to come and widen that
road then? I mean I’m just thinking out loud I guess. What happens with that? Because I don’t
think.
Kate Aanenson: I know it’s a highly charged thing but we can go through and count up other
subdivisions that are this long that have this, you know Settlers West. We have this many homes
on this wide of a street all throughout the town. It’s not the only situation where we’ve got this
many trips on a local street. As Todd indicated, when you do a minor collector they’re typically
80 foot cross section. That’s what this is, and these are typically the 60 foot, so. It’s not the only
street handling that much traffic, that’s I guess my point.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: Well just to, if you look at, and I think we’ve got to just come out and say
the name of the road, Hunter Drive. It’s a nightmare to drive. It’s winding. There’s a hill from
the power lines down with a steep curve, and I live in the neighborhood and everybody knows
that and we know which neighbors have gotten their mailboxes knocked down. Which ones
have lost trees at the top of the hill and the bottom of the hill this year. And if you’re going to go
and add up to 700 more vehicles a day, that are going to be, some of those vehicles will be using
Hunter Drive as a shortcut, we’re all humans. We’re going to take the point of least resistance.
If we leave Yoberry Farms and drive down Gunflint to Longacres Drive, and we’re going to go
west on 5, we’re not going to go out to 41 and go through that nightmare of the stop light there.
We’re going to go up Longacres Drive to Hunter Drive. We’re not going to go up to Longacres
and Galpin. We’re going to cut across Hunter and we’re going to go down the hill. That’s
13
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
where they’re going to go. And Hunter Drive is not a safe road right now. You go and add more
vehicles to it, it’s going to be more dangerous. So I think that.
Mayor Furlong: Ladies and gentlemen, please.
Councilman Labatt: I think that we’re not addressing the overall impact of what this
development is going to do for traffic to the south and to the north. I mean you’re looking at the
collector road but people aren’t going to use the collector road to get from Yoberry to Galpin or
to 41, they’re going to use these other local streets and they’re not capable of handling it yet, so
I’ve got more comments but we’ll keep going on.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have any questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: I’m trying, Kate help me out here. Realizing that, I think one of the options
that this developer missed is, you’re looking at the overall impact and the question and concern
from both associations and one thing we can look at and encourage them to come back with is
the option of making cul-de-sacs that don’t connect but come in from Longacres. Come in from
Highover. There’s no actual connection. That way you’re not going to have a huge traffic
impact. To go along with that we have developments that we’ve approved as a city, and I don’t
believe I was part of them but it was before, Summerfield and Kiowa Trail. There’s no
connection there between the Lundgren development in Summerfield to Kiowa.
Kate Aanenson: There is a condition of approval of that once 212 is built that those streets will
be connected. That is a condition of approval. Once 101 gets, which will be in the next couple
years.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, and then what about Timberwood to Stone Creek?
Kate Aanenson: That’s the only one I’m aware that didn’t get connected.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, so I’m just trying to figure out what the rationale is.
Kate Aanenson: There’s no other access. It’s got to be connected to one side or the other.
There’s no other way to get access.
Councilman Labatt: To where?
Kate Aanenson: It has to go either to Highover or to Hunter.
Councilman Labatt: Agreed. It has to go either one way or the other, or it could go cul-de-sac’s
and they both share. And there’s no through, I’m just trying to think of the rationale when the
council decided not to connect Stone Creek to Summerfield, or Stone Creek to Timberwood.
And it just dead end’s there and there’s barricades up there. What the rationale was for not
making the connection there. It had to be traffic.
14
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Well I think there was a couple of reasons but the one I’ll state is that this large
lot development, 2 ½ acres on a rural section of road, that’s not an urban standard road with a
current, a subdivision that met current standards. So you had two different land uses. Large lot,
RR and you had an RSF. Large lot higher density so that was the main point that they decided
not to connect those two. Two different types of neighborhoods. I guess that was my point here
at the beginning, similar lot size configuration.
Councilman Labatt: How’s MnDot going to, if MnDot’s saying to us right now we’re not going
to allow access onto 41, how are they going to apply the same standards to the west side of 41
when that gets developed, Ches Mar Farms. How are we going to, how are we going to treat
everybody the same here?
Kate Aanenson: There isn’t a lot of development potential there. You just have the one piece,
the Ches Mar Farms, and there’s no sewer and water to there. Tanadoona also is exempt from
sewer and water in our comprehensive plan. We really want to protect that as the Girl Scout
there. Also is the access to Tanadoona to get possibly down to the other site, the church site.
Coming back around, which is long term as that subdivision to the back side of that, which is the
back side of Dogwood. Bringing that out to the light. That comes through Westwood Church,
which is what we’re working on now. So they would come back around as that street gets
upgraded.
Councilman Labatt: But this applicant has made no formal request, even for, to MnDot to look
at even a right-in/right-out into Yoberry.
Kate Aanenson: Well I don’t want to say the applicant. The City took the lead on that part of it.
Again, that’s our job is to, in working with those jurisdictions, whether it’s the, whether it’s
wetlands or MnDot.
Todd Gerhardt: We’ve got 3 letters from MnDot. My conversation with Lisa Freese today is
that she reviewed the access point similarly as if it was an application for variance for access.
Her response probably would have been in more detail if there was a formal variance process,
but she followed the same procedures as if a formal application was made.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. You can go on.
Mayor Furlong: Kate, I might bounce around a little bit here so forgive me for that. Back to the
Options A, B and C. I had forwarded you an e-mail that I received where the resident raised the
issue of street frontage and the street behind and I think referenced the comprehensive plan or
ordinances, I’m not sure where it was but one of the statements you made earlier is that Option A
I think meets our ordinance even though it’s coming in behind. Typically we have a street going
in front of two houses with the back yards connecting. But were you able to determine whether
or not this plan Option A does indeed meet our ordinance or not?
Kate Aanenson: Yes it does and I did review that with the City Attorney and I apologize. I
meant to show some of these. We have other instances. I’ll show similar situations and I’ll
show a true double fronted lot, and again in our opinion it’s not a double fronted lot. There’s 13
15
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
feet of buffer inbetween. But this is a similar situation. This is Point Lake Lucy where you have
lots backing onto a street. This is Mulberry Circle. This is kind of at the corner of Powers and
Lake Lucy. This is Knob Hill that went in recently went in existing, up against an existing
neighborhood to the south. Again there’s the narrow strip. Again not double fronted lots. This,
by our code and our interpretation is a double fronted lot and this is in the core of downtown.
You can see this is Laredo Drive. This is a cul-de-sac coming in. These lots butt on the cul-de-
sac and directly onto Laredo. So that in our opinion is a double fronted lot, and we have double
fronted lots throughout the community. Sometimes, again our ordinance says they’re not
desirable but sometimes again, I was trying to make the point in the beginning, you have to work
with not every piece of property’s square or flat. Every piece is different and try to work with
them to meet the ordinance. Then you have to decide at what, what are your goals you’re trying
to accomplish. Sometimes you’re trading wetlands for trees and trying to work through grading
for slope preservation. So we worked through all those issues but these are double fronted lots.
This circumstance that you’re looking at in this subdivision in our opinion is not a double fronted
lot.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. You had made the statement that you looked at a number of different
layout options. One that Councilman Labatt mentioned where two cul-de-sacs coming north and
south. I had my thoughts but from a planning standpoint, from your standpoint, knowing what
you know about the comments received, can you comment on that?
Kate Aanenson: Well you’re double tripping people. We don’t know exactly what direction,
you can assume, at the Planning Commission people said 75% are going to come our way. The
other neighborhood, 75’s going to come our way. Well, you know it really depends on trip
generation. If you’re going to the grocery store north, up to 7. If you’re going down to Target
and going the other direction, so really what we find in most neighborhoods is there’s a pretty
good split differential, and by having the two cul-de-sacs you’re forcing everybody to go back
and forth the same way. Whether it’s the mail or the bus, or that as opposed to giving the people
the choice of looping back around and making that turn back out onto 41 or onto Lake Lucy.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. The road design, I guess I want to just clarify in my mind there.
We talked about roads being designed when Highover was developed, those roads were stubbed
there to that property and also to the property to the east. Same with Longacres, when that went
in. And I think you said that there were some other neighborhoods that have been added in the
Longacres neighborhood in particular off Fawn Hill, is that right?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, the, I forgot the same of that. Forest Meadows access directly off of
Longacres. That’s not part of that. They come in, and that’s this subdivision here. They access
that. Then as I indicated, if you go up towards Ashling Meadows, which is another Lundgren’s
subdivision, and not showing up here on the map. This subdivision. Again, it’s our job to
provide access because this piece could be landlocked. We had to provide a stub to this piece of
property. There’s wetlands. Again, all those things impinge development potential. For
example if you go back to the Longacres, all this property was owned by Mr. Dolejsi when the
Lundgren’s bought it. There’s a large wetland complex that goes through the middle of it. In
order, we did make a trail along it, and connected it via a trail but we couldn’t get the road across
based on that, so they actually, there’s natural breaks. So every time a piece of property comes
16
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
in, we have to look at how does this relate to the piece next so you can’t look at it in a vacuum.
You have to look at the slopes. Does it make sense to put a street here? If it’s too, if it’s going
to be too steep to the adjoining property, so each development as it comes in, they have to
modify their plan based on the neighbor’s property, whether or not they’re going to develop
today, tomorrow, 5 years down the road, so that’s kind of the mystery part of it, but we worked
really hard to, and like we say, we’ve got these ones that are coming in. The ones you just
recently approved, Pinehurst, and now we’re working on the Carlson piece again tying into those
existing stub streets to provide access.
Mayor Furlong: So by that statement are you saying that when Highover was developed and
when Longacres were developed, they modified their plans to provide these…
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, to provide those, yeah. As I said, our original goal was actually of
this street right here on Highover. Can you zoom in on that please? To have this street on
Highover, which is a cul-de-sac to come down, but we couldn’t because of the grade change and
the wetlands so we, the first few iterations that’s what we looked at. Again we field check
everything and it just, it wasn’t going to work so we had to move it over to avoid the wetlands.
And that same circumstance occurs on the Brenden, it’s not Brenden Pond. It’s the Woodside
development where we actually have a piece that’s on the neighboring property. Oops, I’m
sorry.
Mayor Furlong: You were off there.
Kate Aanenson: This piece right here. You’ve got a large wetland complex below.
Topographically it belongs to this piece, so we have to look at all of those features. We can’t
just look at property lines. That’s, you have to look at how the topography, the wetlands and
then the mystery of making it engineer. The roads can only be certain grades and tying all those
things together so there are a lot of variables, and that’s what I’m saying. We worked with the
developer over the last 6 months, working through all those issues. There’s existing homes that
want to stay on the site so you have to match certain grades and so working through all those
issues to try to get a well conceived plan and it takes a lot of effort on both the city side and the
developer’s side, to get it to meet code and that’s our goal. Not to maximize lot but to have it
meet code.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. You said it’s consistent with the comprehensive plan. What would be a
request by the developer that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan?
Kate Aanenson: If they were to come in with a multi-family project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, much higher density or retail.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So because it’s single family residential that’s what makes it consistent?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
17
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: With the comprehensive plan.
Kate Aanenson: And the fact that that’s what it’s guided for.
Mayor Furlong: It’s guided for that.
Kate Aanenson: It’s guided for low density.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Hunter Drive. Councilman Labatt mentioned it. Hunter Drive is a
windy, twisty road on a hill. I know the speed trailer, we got that out there last fall. Listening to
some neighbors that were talking about it at that time. Are there some other things that we can
do, Mr. Gerhardt or Mr. Saam, with regard to monitoring the safety of that road and traffic.
Regardless of whether or not this development goes forward, there are issues on Hunter Drive
and we’ve heard about those. I think they’re just, they’re coming to the head here again because
they’ve been there before so.
Todd Gerhardt: As Matt indicated, we will be putting out the tubes once the snow stops and do a
traffic study in that area and we can bring back several options to the City Council to consider in
trying to make that road a little safer. I think we shared with the council some safety
improvements that the City of Edina and Bloomington have been doing in communities where
they’ve seen higher rates of speeds in residential areas. So right now I think our engineering
department’s looking at those and that potentially could be something we could offer up.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, I think those are my questions. Now does anybody else have
questions at this time?
Councilman Lundquist: Just one more follow-up Kate. Any variances with this project at all?
Kate Aanenson: There are no variances.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you’d like to address the council sir.
Chuck Alcon: Good evening Honorable Mayor, members of the council. My name is Chuck
th
Alcon. I reside at 6138 76 Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. Representing the Yoberry Farms
development this evening. With me are other members of the development team, Mr. Tom
Stokes and Bill Coffman. And Mr. Steve Johnston, the project engineer and the land surveyor.
Also in attendance one of the property owners, Karen Weathers. Just a couple very brief
comments supplementing the staff report. This development will have it’s own homeowners
association be responsible for strict architectural control, maintenance of the entrance
monuments and planted areas. We anticipate with the 57 lots, approximately 3 custom home
builders with homes ranging from $750,000 to the $1,000,0000 range. All conditions of the staff
18
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
report as presented are acceptable and I think the most recent development with the outlot and
the possible future connection to the regional park for all of the residents east of 41 is a very
exciting possibility. As I understand that that park is not, is under utilized. I’ll just say it that
way. With that, as staff noted, the plat is fully compliant with variances and we would request
approval of the rezoning request and the platting action. Stand by to take your questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Chuck Alcon: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for the applicant. Any?
Councilman Labatt: Obviously you’ve, I think Bethany said it. There’s been a lack of dialogue,
communication between Yoberry and Highover and Longacres and it’s disappointing. And I’m
really disappointed by the fact that if you’re going to put in 57 lots of homes of $750,000 to
$1,000,000 you wouldn’t consider a totlot. I think that your neighbors are going to be utilizing
the private parks in the two neighboring homeowner associations is wrong, and by your group
not taking advantage of putting in a totlot into your development is disappointing to me as an
individual. And a resident of Chanhassen and a councilman. I’ll say that to you now.
Chuck Alcon: May I respond to that please?
Councilman Labatt: Go ahead.
Chuck Alcon: Our concept for marketing this, especially with the development of the access to
the regional park, we didn’t feel it required a totlot. We have had discussions with the Longacres
Homeowners Association because there is some concern, it’s a valid concern, that the people on
the southern part of our development will migrate towards the western most totlot in the
Longacres development. We are hoping to arrange with that homeowners association some type
of an annual membership fee or an annual fee for anybody, any of our residents who would like
to use that park. We didn’t feel a combination of homeowners association would be the right
thing to do at this time. I’d rather not commit our future residents. Let them make their decision
as to what they want to do, but clearly if they’re going to use somebody else’s park, that’s being
maintained by somebody else’s money, they should help pay for it.
Councilman Labatt: Have you entered into conversations with Longacres on this?
Chuck Alcon: Yes, we’ve had one breakfast meeting, several phone calls and a couple of e-
mails. We haven’t got to an agreement yet but we think we’re close.
Councilman Labatt: I’m just jotting a note. I’m fine now. I’ll just save my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? If I could have my Park and Rec Director just update the residents here
on the potential of a pedestrian underpass on 41. I think this is new information that wasn’t
19
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
presented at our Planning Commission. This is some information that’s occurred here in the last
2 to 3 weeks. If I could have Todd give a short presentation on that.
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Todd Hoffman: Thanks Todd. Members of the City Council and audience members.
Minnewashta Regional Park is a park located just to the west of this site across State Highway
41. There’s a development of neighbors, neighborhoods in Chanhassen sandwiched between
State Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard which will have very convenient access to the regional
park by pedestrian or bikes at some point in the future. I met recently with Marty Walsh, our
Carver County Parks Director and we talked specifically about that site for the underpass
because they’re making T21 grant application for that potential underpass and in a county wide
perspective, they think this underpass at State Highway 41 for the regional park is the highest
ranking application that they’ll have in the County. The location of that is just opposite, can we
zoom in on that? There’s an existing culvert that takes water under State Highway 41 at this
location. It’s also a very low point on either side of State Highway 41, so this is the location that
they’re considering for that underpass. Actually Todd Gerhardt came up with this suggestion
that we get this outlot at this location to align with that underpass. There was another location
farther north that was contemplated earlier so we have a stairway section proposed to come down
so residents in this entire area can access regional park which is 340 acres. Has a beach. A large
playground. Picnic areas. Trailways in that vicinity. So that’s the proposal for an underpass for
State Highway 41.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. You can only access that through stairs? Is that
correct?
Todd Hoffman: At this location. This would be via a stairway. There’s really no other way to
build that…
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, so if I have a stroller, how do I get to the park?
Todd Hoffman: You would want to go, yeah you’d either have to walk down this, which would
be difficult, or you’d want to go through Longacres Drive. Back down here onto State Highway
41.
Todd Gerhardt: If you’ve got a stroller, you’re going to drive there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You’re going to drive?
Todd Gerhardt: You’re going to drive. I’ve got kids. I understand this so drive.
Todd Hoffman: There’s two at grade, there will be two at grade connections at either Lake Lucy
Road or Longacres Drive or this would be at grade…
20
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: So Mr. Hoffman, what you’re looking at is extending a trail all the way along
the east side of 41 from Lake Lucy down to Longacres to connect, we just made that connection
further south of Longacres this last year I know to connect the trail up there so.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. The comprehensive plan identifies that trail from Longacres Drive
north to a terminus point probably at Chaska Road and then with the underpass. So the trail
would be on the east side of the underpass with a trail system winding in. Again, that’s a future
planned improvement with this County application that may or may not speed up that process,
but it’s certainly not booked in anybody’s budget at this time. This is simply planned.
Todd Gerhardt: Todd, the application deadline for this would be? For the grant.
Todd Hoffman: This year. This year application so 2005 for a 2006 or 7 timeline.
Councilman Labatt: Todd are we, maybe I’m missing the trail here on this one but are we taking
any sort of park dedication land or anything or easement along 41? I know Longacres Drive,
there used to be a sign that says this trail will be extended in the future but we’re not taking or
platting or taking any sort of deeded access where that trail’s going to go along 41 right now.
Todd Hoffman: No we’re not. The trail will, you can see the right-of-way in this area for State
Highway 41 is very wide. And as a part of that outlot we’re taking a little sliver but with the
exception of that, we’re taking a sliver here. With the exception of that this trail would be a long
ways away from these properties out into the state highway ditch.
Kate Aanenson: So it would be built in the existing right-of-way. You don’t need additional
dedication.
Councilman Labatt: So how much right-of-way are we, you know as you look at a portion of
this property where it has that old railroad bed or some sort of trail bed along 41. Is that where
the trail’s going to go is on that flat, old snowmobile trail?
Todd Hoffman: I don’t know where the trail will go. I know that it will be in the right-of-way,
but where the exact location, I couldn’t tell you.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Hoffman, as long as you’re here. We dealt with this issue as far as a
potential totlot in the Pinehurst development that came through a few weeks ago. That issue’s
come up again here. I know Kate mentioned a little bit but could you take a look at your map
there and show me again where, why do we not get into totlots? Why have we not got into
totlots before?
Todd Hoffman: City has a comprehensive park plan which identifies park service areas of about
one-half mile so the concept is that every resident will have a park within one-half mile of their
front door, or that’s the goal of the comprehensive park plan. If you take a look at this area as it
develops, we have one public park at Sugarbush Park, which is servicing a portion of this
property that we’re talking about being developed here at Yoberry. We have a second park that
Kate mentioned at the Pulte development. It’s actually at the head waters of Bluff Creek that
21
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
will be developed as a touch down point on this property. And then we’re currently seeking a
public park in the Carlson property right at this location which will also service portions of the
Yoberry so you have 3, 2 existing parks. This one is acquired. It’s not developed, and then a
third proposed park which would provide public park services at a neighborhood park service
level to Yoberry. Neighborhood park is intended to serve upwards of 5,000 people. 2 to 5,000
people. This 57 homes will generate approximately 175 people. The City has shied away from
developing individual totlots or what is called mini parks where you take 1 or 2 or 3 lots. We’re
simply not set up to go into that business. We would have literally potentially hundreds of those
mini parks throughout the community if we were to take those on. Many developers have
chosen to do that on their own, especially in homeowner associations or in associations for multi-
family housing where they set up a totlot and they pay for it through their association dues, and
that’s a choice by the developers and the residents to maintain those. Outside of the
neighborhood park service areas we also have community parks which provide service to this
area. The Yoberry and that’s the Middle School West, which is up the street and is certainly
accessible once that trail is completed. It will be easily accessible. In the meantime it’s
accessible by Highover Drive and then up Brenden Court, to get to that site. You also have the
Chan Recreation Center which is accessible via a trail system to this property, and then Lake
Ann Park, which is currently accessible. Community park service areas broaden out. They go
past half a mile to a mile and even greater than that. If you go one step farther you get regional
facilities. We’ve talked about Minnewashta Regional Park. It’s 340 acres of public parkland
just across State Highway 41. You also have the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum which is
close by and Camp Tanadoona. So again it’s staff’s position that additional public parkland is
unwarranted as a part of this development.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? At this time. Or for the applicant.
If not what I’d like to do is allow an opportunity for public comment on this. As we do this, I do
it with a couple preferences. One, each of us have read the minutes to the Planning
Commissions to both public hearings and the Planning Commissioners comments as well as read
numerous e-mails and talked on the phone so what I would ask, at the same time I want to make
sure that people have an opportunity to be heard. There’s been some new information that’s
been brought up tonight and that we’ve talked about this evening that wasn’t at the last Planning
Commission so I want to make sure the residents have an opportunity to respond to that and give
us as much information as possible as we talk about this in a few minutes so, what I would ask,
just for the sake of everybody’s time, try to be brief. Certainly try not to be too redundant and
try to cover issues that are germane to this development and the issues we’ll be talking about so,
with that I would certainly invite residents or interested parties to come forward at this time. If
you could state your name and address and feel free to address the council on the matters of
concern.
Thomas Hirsch: Good evening Mayor, City Council members. Thank you for allowing me to
address you. I’m Thomas Hirsch, President of Longacres Homeowners Association. Resident of
Longacres at 2290 Longacres Drive. Would like to submit to the record a signed position paper
from the Board of Directors of Longacres at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
22
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Thomas Hirsch: I certainly don’t expect you to read that whole packet.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Before you start, is this new information?
Thomas Hirsch: It’s an executive summary and a board position that’s signed by the board of
Longacres.
Councilman Peterson: We have not seen this before?
Thomas Hirsch: You have not seen this particular document or set of documents. I present to
you with a little orientation on the package. There are two pages at the beginning of the package
stapled to a map and two pictures, that’s all I’m going to discuss. The following stapled
document is a detailed discussion of that executive summary, if you would like to validate our
positions in the executive summary, there’s detailed discussion that follows. And then I also
attached a two letter correspondence with a solution that we proposed to the developer on shared
infrastructure components between Yoberry Farms and Longacres and in that two page letter is a
discussion of the history of our communication with the developer at that point. Page 1 of the
executive summary summarizes the problem. Page 2 of the executive summary is our proposed
solution. In consideration of time I draw your attention to paragraph 4 on page 1 of the
executive summary, which lays out how the proposal is not in conformance with the
comprehensive plan or city ordinances. I believe there will be a speaker to go into more detail
on the traffic patterns and the car loads and the relative width of the streets and connectors and
residential, local residential streets being 26 feet or 24 feet wide so I won’t cover that.
Personally I’d like to focus on 3 items. Parks. We’ve repeatedly tried to meet with the Board
th
and the developer unsuccessfully. We did have one breakfast meeting following the January 4
Planning Commission meeting to conceptually lay out some options. Those are covered in the 2
page e-mail at the back of the package, and we did yesterday submit the proposal to the
developer. I will now put up the map that we’re already looking at with a couple of marked
highlights and you have a copy of this in your package. I did mark the black area is the Yoberry
development. Our west park of Longacres is the private marking on the left, and the yellow
marking on the right is our east private park. As you can see the half mile neighborhood parks
are not servicing this new development there. The lower one-third of the development would be
serviced by the Sugarbush Park in the center of the lower right circle. We contend that the
Yoberry residents will use our parks and infrastructure. It would be natural with strollers, there
is I think we heard earlier that there is really no access for mothers with strollers to go anywhere
but our parks. Our opinion is that the developer has taken a wait and see what your decision will
be tonight attitude concerning this matter. And rather than working cooperatively with us and I
think we’ve made reasonable effort and reasonable proposals to the developer to date. The
second item I’d like to discuss or highlight is the need for a construction access off of Highway
41, which I’ve had discussions with senior people at MnDot also and they are not opposed to a
construction access existing for the duration of the project. This is a 3 year project. Be 20
homes estimated built in the first year. 20 homes in the second year. 20 homes in the third year
and that’s a lot of concrete trucks and a lot of framing material and a lot of hauling of dirt and
landscape materials and I think we’ve all lived where there’s construction going on and this is an
23
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
extended 3 year period that jeopardizes the safety of our children on Longacres Drive. I do want
to point out that 78% of our residents live south of Longacres Drive and must cross Longacres
Drive to access our parks, so that’s a real safety concern. With all of that construction traffic
coming through Longacres Drive. Highover has a similar situation with residents and I believe
one of the other residents in Highover will address the number of children and that issue. The
third thing I would like to highlight is traffic. There is precedence that was covered earlier with
Kiowa and Summerfield and Stone Creek and Timberwood Drives not connecting. I drove those
over the weekend and it looked similar to me on a map too, if not identical to our situation here.
Longacres Street, Longacres Drive is not a connector based on the definition of a connector in
the city code. It is only 33 feet wide of pavement. A connector is defined as 36 feet wide in the
code. There is no double yellow line on Longacres Drive like there is on Lake Lucy Road.
Gunflint has a maximum capacity of 800 car trips per day as defined as a local residential street.
If you count up the number of homes and use the engineering handbook of 10 trips per day per
home, there would be 1,200 car trips per day going down that road. It exceeds the capacity of
that local residential street. Highover is out of capacity also for the same reasons. There will be
other detailed measurements and car counts by a speaker that follows me. The trail, that’s new
information. Appreciate that addendum to the proposal. For clarification, I’m glad we did
clarify that it will run from Longacres Drive all the way up to Lake Lucy Road along 41, because
initially it didn’t come across that way this evening. Is that true? That was a question.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Thomas Hirsch: Okay, thanks. And the timeframe is 2007.
Todd Hoffman: Timeframe’s unknown. That’s for the application.
Todd Gerhardt: And we haven’t received the grant. We’re making application. There is the
opportunity that we may not be successful in receiving that. So I just want to make that clear.
Thomas Hirsch: So at this point it’s an unknown and if approved it would be the 06-07
timeframe I think I heard.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Thomas Hirsch: Okay. With that, thank you for your consideration tonight. Request that you
deny the proposal as it currently is proposed. I believe the two cul-de-sac solution is the best for
traffic and park situation. It makes both of those go away. And with construction access, I think
we could fully support this development going in here. We recognize the right to develop land,
we just want to do it prudently and I hope I provided you some input to make a prudent decision.
Thank you. Any questions at this time?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions? Thank you sir.
Rodd Wagner: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at
6915 Highover Drive and have for the last 6 years. I would like to share a letter with you that
bears 43 of the 55 signatures of my neighbors. Some of the other signature pages were not able
24
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
to be united with the document this evening. Apologize that I could not pass it out earlier. We
had an algebra crisis at the Wagner home on Thursday night that delayed the writing of the
document. This, I’ll ask a little bit of leeway to go through each of these briefly. I hope that will
prove to be the most efficient use of the council’s time but it represents the views of a number of
different folks in the Highover development. You’re aware of a number of our concerns through
our individual letters. I’ll let those speak for themselves. At the outset though I do want to
emphasize that we are not against residential development of this parcel per se. Only against the
many negative aspects that have been brought up this evening. In fact if we could, with the
proper modification we’d be more than happy to welcome some new neighbors, extra places to
Trick or Treat, what have you. Having reviewed the pertinent portions of the city code and the
comprehensive plan we have some particular issues to raise and we’ll try to keep them here. I’ll
try to keep them here on point to the proposed Findings of Fact and Decision that are before you
this evening which I believe are drawn from municipal code, Section 18-38(f). Specifically 4(b)
on the paperwork you have in front of you. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all
applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city’s comprehensive
plan. We would disagree that it fits that.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Mr. Wagner, where are you reading from?
Rodd Wagner: Well from the very front of the, I’m not.
Mayor Furlong: What you handed out?
Rodd Wagner: Yes. The very front of that. I’m going through in faster fashion than the actual
letter in the interest of the council’s time, and on 4(c), that the physical characteristics of the site,
not including, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion
and siltation, susceptibility to flooding and the storm drainage, storm water drainage are suitable
for the proposed development. As has been mentioned this evening, this situation creates some
unique problems given the fact that it’s sandwiched between two existing developments, and
because there’s kind of an expostfacto character to it that in many of the similar situations that
have been shared, those streets were laid out in a way that people who were purchasing the
homes knew what the street layout was before they made their purchases and this was in many
ways a situation that was not anticipated by those who purchased the home. Let me go through
our rationale as quickly and efficiently as I might. The proposed development exceeds the
capacity of a local road on the proposed Highover Drive, Gunflint Trail through street. The letter
that I distributed goes through the city code is to what is designated as an arterial, a collector and
a local street. I draw your attention to the definition of a local street as a street of limited
continuity which is used primarily for access to abutting properties. Highover Drive is
designated a local street. It’s roughly 26 ½ feet wide. That’s the measurements that my
neighbors took. The city code requires rural residential local streets have no less than 24 feet of
pavement. Urban residential streets must have 28 to 32 feet of pavement. Collectors, as has
been mentioned need to be at least 36 feet wide. 26 ½ feet, it’s either a residential local street or
an out of code urban residential. Urban residential local street. Cannot be nor neither was it
anticipated to be a collector. Most planning books suggest that local streets serve more than 80
homes and carry no more than 800 trips per day. I heard staff’s suggestion that in Chanhassen
that number is higher, but this connection would be more than three-quarters of a mile long. A
25
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
length more consistent with a collector than a local street. I did some measurements with my
GPS on Lake Lucy and Longacres that are shown on the document before you on page 2. The
new through street would need to serve 120 homes. These are homes that have to go on that
street to access either Lake Lucy or Longacres. Only 56, 58 of which, by my count, would abut
the street. So the minority of homes it’s serving abut the street, therefore it fails the definition of
a street which is used primarily for access to abutting properties. That’s without taking into
account any kind of through traffic. Being situated between the two collectors, Lake Lucy and
Longacres, a disputed collector I grant you, it will also attract some degree of through traffic.
We don’t know how much. Even without the through traffic, as I said it could no longer be said
to be used primarily for access to abutting properties and we heard this evening that it is already
under consideration that there will be a development in this area east of Highover Trail and so
and particularly the folks who are on the north end of Highover Drive will be picking up traffic
from the through street, a portion of it from Yoberry. They’re also going to be picking up traffic
from the new development to the east and therefore certainly out of compliance with being a
local street. One of the unique facts of Highover is it is a crest at the highest point in the county,
and I brought some photographs this evening. They appear as exhibits to your, at the back of the
packet that you have. This is, these two photos were taken from essentially the same spot, fairly
near to my house. The first one is looking north on Highover Drive. The other one looking
south on Highover Drive, and what I’d like to point out is the degree to which visibility is
blocked by the slope of the hill. If a car’s moving in any speed whatsoever, it will quite frankly I
would challenge you to say is there a child over the crest of that hill. Is there a kid on a, with a
wagon or a kid with a Hotwheel there, you really, you don’t know. And nor does the driver
who’s moving down the street. And therefore it’s even, it has limited width. It has limited
visibility and therefore safely can carry only limited traffic. We already have problems with high
speed traffic and a letter from my neighbor, Mr. Lee Broadston lays out some of the problems
we’ve had and had to ask the sheriff for some assistance. There are a large number of families
with small children who purchased homes on the street with a reasonable expectation that it
would remain a local street in character and in fact. These assumptions were fed by the design of
Highover Drive. It has a sidewalk only on one side, and also by some representations, oral
though they may be, from the developer that yes, Highover Drive was going to go through but it
would only go through to a cul-de-sac of no more than 12 homes. My neighbor Jenny Johnson
emailed me. I don’t know if she supplied a letter to the council, saying she was one of the first to
purchase. One of the last to build but yes in fact that’s what the builder had represented and that
became commonly known throughout the neighborhood as what folks anticipated when they
purchased. I would draw the council’s attention to the quote on page 3 from Planning
Commissioner Steve Lillehaug who said in his vote against this that when I look at this there are
high traffic levels on those local streets period, and truthfully I wouldn’t want that in my
neighborhood. I’ll jump to the end here. As a resident and Planning Commissioner, I don’t want
to see those higher levels of traffic on those streets. Rationale to the direct connection of
Highover and Longacres as proposed conflicts with the city code requirement of discouraging
through traffic on a local street. There are a couple sections of code that I cite there that talk
about how the alignment of local streets shall discourage through traffic and that location and
design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets. I think that would apply to the
extension of Highover Trail. Topographic conditions and safety. When you create a connection
you create the possibility for through traffic, and there is no way to predict exactly what would
happen if a traffic light were put on 41. How people would cut through to try to make the light
26
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
to get on. To make it a guaranteed left hand turn onto 41. We just don’t know what would
happen. We certainly know that our friends on Hunter Drive would pick up additional traffic, as
the shortest distance to get to Highway 5 going towards the east. Jumping to the next page, I cite
another piece of the comprehensive plan about yes, street linkages are preferred but that same
section it said, while linkages are preferred, it said development should be planned to avoid
running high traffic volumes and/or non-residential traffic through residential neighborhoods,
and I don’t think this current plan meets that test. In issue 3, in several respects the proposed
development fails to adequately mitigate negative impact on surrounding properties as required
by the city code. Speaking specifically about the Harrison Hill, those folks, city staff mentioned
that it’s not definitionally a double fronted lot. I would argue that that is a distinction without a
difference that it is for practical matters a double fronted lot and you will see in the photo exhibit
some pictures of the folks that are most affected by this. A photograph of the gentleman who
lives on that street and of course we’re just approximating, the young man who’s standing in the
picture, approximating where the street would be and where, and he’s standing, the resident there
is standing on his property. That is not, I think the definition of a good additional development is
that would people purchase it again if they knew full well exactly what was going to be there and
would they purchase it for the same price, and I think it fails there as well. As has been
mentioned, each neighborhood incorporates restrictive covenants to create a more enjoyable
place to live. We maintain at our own expense entrance monuments, lighting, landscaping. In
short, the Yoberry development takes advantages of improvement in Longacres and Highover
while it’s current design degrades the property values of those on Harrison Hill Trail and by
virtue of too much traffic the property values and safety of those on Highover Drive and Gunflint
Trail. The other problem this poses is there’s just simply no neighborly way to draw a
distinction on Gunflint Trail and say this is where Longacres ends and this is where Yoberry
begins. People interact and how do you say to a brand new development, do you put up a fence,
signs? No trespassing. You can’t come in here. That’s just not the way I believe a city ought to
be planned. And also, the developer now is introducing the oddity of monuments to a new
neighborhood mid-street which I think is just poor design. Finally point 4. In seeking to crowd
as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed development requires dramatic
alteration of the topography and vegetation contrary to the municipal code. It strikes me, I’ll cut
to the chase here. There’s an awful lot, in staff’s report they supplied to the Planning
Commission, there’s a lot of references to how much grading. I understand 44 feet of that hill,
we don’t have that many tall hills in Chanhassen, is going to be taken off. There’s a lot of
accommodations for trying to run streets up steep directions and it seems to me nearly any site
can be made suitable if it’s graded. If the trees are cut down. If you put up retaining walls right
and left, but that doesn’t seem to meet the intent of the code. Rather the code is to preserve the
topography and vegetation to make the development lead to, yield to the landscape and not vice
versa. Finally, as far as citing code and such, there is an important paragraph in city code
Section 18-56 which there’s been a lot of discussion about things meeting the requirements of
the city code and comprehensive plan. City code Section 18-56 says, the proposed subdivision
shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and design handbook, but it gives the
council wide latitude. It says the design features set forth in this article are minimum
requirements. The city may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot
size, streets, and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided
and I would ask you to invoke that paragraph of the city code in looking for a proper solution.
We do propose a solution. We are taking for granted, as does city staff that MnDot is most likely
27
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
to deny access so we’re no longer pursuing that. Instead we strongly recommend the parcels in
question, incorporate a cul-de-sac termination of Highover Drive on the north and a cul-de-sac
termination of Gunflint Trail on the south as homeowners anticipated when they purchased. It
solves a lot of the problems, a lot of the conflicts with the city code and comprehensive plan.
Most importantly the through traffic issue. It makes less distance to gain speed on Highover
Drive and less of a traffic load. It creates a natural boundary that fosters the two existing
neighborhoods and while I can’t speak entirely from our neighbors, based on our unanimity in
approaching the council on this issue and how well we work together, I’m certain that we would
work well to incorporate those additional homes into our neighborhoods. We recommend the
plans be altered to avoid sandwiching Harrison Hill Trail between the two roads, again for the
reason that the topography, it’s not the folks on Harrison Hill Trail’s fault that the topography
just doesn’t allow what the developer is trying to do without a lot of accommodations. That is
just the topography that’s on the land. We as the developer be required to route all construction
traffic off 41 has been mentioned, and we urge the plan be modified to require far less grading,
removal of fewer trees and the accommodation of more open space to match the topography and
vegetation of the land. Now I’ll end as I began. We said we’re not against the development per
se. The modifications we proposed would make the difference between a development that is
sandwiched between two really disgruntled neighborhoods and a development where we could
really welcome our new neighbors and enjoy what the comprehensive plan and the city code
anticipate in the way of development. I appreciate you allowing me extended remarks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Would anybody else like to comment?
Mark Zaebst: Good evening. My name is Mark Zaebst. I live at 2325 Hunter Drive in
Longacres. Speaking in behalf for a large number of Hunter Drive residents that are here tonight
and would like to speak specifically to some of our concerns on that street. As I’m sure you’re
all aware, you’ve heard, we feel that we definitely have some significant problems on our street
right now. Those of which are, we feel that the speed limit of 30 miles per hour right now is
excessive for the design that that street has. If you drive that short one-half mile street, you’ll
encounter 3 blind turns, significant grade changes and also a blind intersection which also serves
as our school bus stop. So it’s a dangerous situation. As Councilman Labatt mentioned earlier,
he hit it right on the head. People will take the shortest route they can possibly find. Hunter
Drive was never designed to be a connector street and to be the major thoroughfare out of
Longacres over to Galpin and therefore into Chanhassen. I’ve lived on that street for over 7
years and I know for a fact that a great number of people that don’t live on that street do use that
street to gain access through that area, so we have a large amount of traffic with too high of a
speed limit for the type of street that we have there. We have 78 children that live on that one
half mile stretch of road right now. We are all honestly fearful for our children to go out and
play in the front yards. I know that staff mentioned that they put the, I don’t know what you call
that. I call it the speed wagon but they put the speed wagon out on the street for a few hours for
a couple of days. Didn’t monitor anyone in excess of 30 miles an hour but they placed that at the
bottom of the excessive grade change which is also a blind curve. If you went over 30 miles an
hour on that curve you would spin out, which a lot of people do, and end up in our yards. I
would ask that next time that the speed monitor is brought out, that they put it on the straight
away out in front of my house and I can pretty much guarantee you you’re going to find some
folks driving in excess. So as I mentioned, we are concerned with the total number of folks
28
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
driving down the street. We are concerned with the Yoberry Farms development. Staff has
mentioned that we could anticipate from that development in excess of 700 car trips per day
generated by that neighborhood. We feel on Hunter Drive that a large percentage of those are
going to realize that Hunter Drive is the fastest way out and we’re just going to end up
exacerbating a problem that we have right now. We also are not anti development. We would
welcome this development but we would welcome it with some conditions put on the
application. One first of all, the speed limit on our street has to be lowered. 30 miles per hour, if
you have not driven our street, please come drive our street. Drive it at the speed limit. 30 miles
per hour is ridiculous. Takes almost 200 feet to stop an automobile that’s traveling at 30 miles
per hour. There are many sections of that road where you cannot see 200 feet ahead. Please
come drive it. You will realize that 30 miles per hour is excessive. We ask that that speed limit
be lowered to 20 miles per hour and that it be enforced. I guarantee you if we could get a cop
out there, write some tickets once a week, word’s going to get out. People are going to slow
down on that street. We ask that you post additional speed limit signs. There’s only one speed
limit sign on Hunter Drive and you cannot see it because as you negotiate the turn off of Galpin
onto Hunter Drive, it’s posted right at the corner there. You are not looking for a speed limit
sign. You’re on Hunter Drive and people do not know what the speed limit is on that particular
street. We must get some stop signs located at Fawn Hill and Hunter Drive. Again as I
mentioned that’s a blind intersection. It’s posted as a blind intersection but it’s used as our
school bus stop. It’s almost impossible to see the children standing there on the corner, loading
the buses. Again we are fearful that we’re going to end up losing a child there. A stop sign will
do two things. It will make that intersection safe for our children. It will also take Hunter Drive
away as a totally unimpeded section of road where people can come off of Longacres and go fast
and get over to Galpin. If you put a stop sign there, it will slow people down and make that
street safer for everyone that lives there. We also ask that the city place a speed bump
somewhere along the other section of Hunter Drive. We have to get people to slow down. So in
conclusion we ask that the council again, if this development is approved, that it please place
conditions upon the development that street improvements be made. Traffic calming measures
be made to Hunter Drive. The concern should not be how fast can people drive down Hunter
Drive. How convenient can Hunter Drive be for people to get out of there. The concern should
be for the families that live on that street. Make it a safe environment. The fact is the street is
there. People will continue to use it as a cut through street. Please help us to slow the traffic
down. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Leslie Witterschein: Good evening. My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Harrison
Hill Trail. In reviewing the documents prepared by both Highover residents, our residents and
the document provided to you by city planner Sharmeen Al-Jaff, I looked at the city code,
Section 18-57 which states specifically that the location design of streets shall consider existing
and planned streets. Reasonable traffic circulation, topographic conditions, runoff of storm
water, public convenience, and safety of the proposed land uses of property to be served. If you
look on page 9 of the document provided to you by Ms. Al-Jaff, specifically under the streets it
says while the minimum radius allowed on public streets is 180 feet, staff is willing to allow the
tight curve on the end of Gunflint Trail, which is that street that will back up to our street,
because the curve is at the end of the street. Staff is recommending a curve sign with a 20 miles
29
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
per hour speed limit be posted on both sides of the curve. Now it’s been represented this evening
that there are no variances being required but it specifically states in here that it is, that the radius
is less than the required radius provided by the city and so I guess there must be some sort of
variance specifically related to this curve. If you look at…up against the edge of the property
lines right here and you look at the pictures as provided to you in the earlier packet with the little
boy standing by Mr. Rysso, you will see that there is not very many feet between the end of the
property where the kids play all the time. There are 36 young children that live in that
development, on our street specifically and they run up and down the backs of those houses all
summer and winter long. And when you’re looking at a tighter curve, particularly during the
winter time and they’ve taken out the retaining wall so there is no barrier really between the back
yards, with the exception of a couple little lilac trees as they proposed, to stop any type of traffic.
If it’s going too fast on a slippery curve and loses control, those homes and the safety of those
children are in great jeopardy because of the tight curve. And I know they said that there’s only
4 houses on the end but let me tell you our street does not have that many houses on it and there
are a couple young teenagers that live up at the end of this street and they can whip up the end of
our block at 30 to 35 miles an hour. In fact if you look at the end of our street you can see where
coming down that block someone went fast enough that they jumped over Longacres Drive,
down the embankment and knocked out a tree. So you know that they can kind of get going
pretty quickly along those roads, even if there are only a few homes. And so I think that when
you look at the safety of that, you should be very concerned and I think it goes against what the
city code specifically requires. And I want to refer back to the fact that city code section allows
you to impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall
design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided. When the developer
talked about the 3 different proposals, the one that had the houses between the street and the back
of our lot, it was deemed desirable, less desirable because of the fact that you’re going to have to
do a little more change and you might have to have a retaining wall, and in essence I truly
believe that the real problem is that, the homes then wouldn’t be walkout lots as they desired and
therefore worth less money and that’s really the true reason. It has nothing to do with the fact
that they might have to put a retaining wall up and knock down a few trees. When you’re
looking at the difference I think between knocking down a couple trees and having you know a
higher retaining wall, it might be a little more difficult and the safety of the 36 children along
that street, I don’t think that it’s a very tough decision. You know I figured that each of those
homes is, being very conservative, each of those homes might be worth, and this is very
conservative, $200,000 less because they’re not a walkout lot and I think that that’s greatly
exaggerated. If you multiply that times the 4 homes, that’s about $800,000. You divide that out
by the cost of our 36 children, you’re talking, you’re saying that the value of our children are
only about $11,000 and I just don’t think that that seems to be right, and is not in accordance
with the city codes, and the overall comprehensive plan. So I would respectfully request that you
look at this very carefully and give strict consideration to the true safety of the children on that
street, and any other children within our neighborhood or that we might have coming over to
visit us, so it’s not just our children but it is the greater interest of the other citizens of
Chanhassen too. And finally with regard to the park system, and I’ll just say this briefly. While
I respectfully am happy about the fact that they’re adding that trail, although it seems to be up in
the air. It seems to more appease us with regards to the totlot but in actuality be functional
because in order for those residents to take their stroller and their 6 year old on a bike to 41, they
would have to walk past, they’d have to come down and walk past our park, and I find it hard to
30
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
believe that in order to get over to 41, if you’re trying to do it in the 2 ½ hours between the time
your kindergartner leaves for school and your kindergartner gets home, that you’re going to get a
stroller, and all of the supplies that you need to go to the park, plus you know a 5 year old that’s
just learning how to ride their bike, down their road, all the way down Longacres and back up,
that trail right at 41 to go under that overpass, and so I would respectfully request that you also
look at the totlot issue because they will be using our parks. It’s common sense to any mother
that’s ever been in that neighborhood. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Jeff Tritoh: Good evening. Just a couple quick facts about Hunter Drive because that seems to
be one of the big issues here.
Mayor Furlong: If I could ask you to introduce yourself. Name and address please.
Jeff Tritoh: I’m sorry. Jeff Tritoh. I live at 2313 Hunter Drive.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Jeff Tritoh: The road is obviously quite curvy and the minimum radius, turning radius for that
street, or that type of street is 180 feet, and there is one curve that is 166 feet so it is less than the
minimum required by the city. The slope that everyone has been talking about, the maximum
slope allowed is 7% and that slope is actually 10%, so it is much steeper than allowed. The
driving, stopping your car at 30 miles per hour, which my neighbor just previously mentioned,
it’s 197 feet to stop your car safely and that’s according to MnDot’s design standards for safe
stopping. Also the building covenants for 18 of the 26 homes on that road allows the front yard
setback to be 20 feet versus 30 feet which is the minimum and that’s an encroachment of 10 feet,
so that is why that road feels, another reason why it feels so tight and narrow.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, that’s, excuse me for interrupting. That’s on Hunter you’re referring
to?
Jeff Tritoh: Hunter Drive. All these facts are on Hunter Drive.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you.
Travis Sprague: Hi. My name is Travis Sprague. I live at 6888 Highover Drive. I just had a
couple brief comments regarding safety once again of Highover. When I measure it it’s 26 feet 2
inches on the pavement and I guess I hear a lot of comments on, from the city staff of here’s
what it requires or here’s, this follows the plan and there’s certainly guidelines. We know there’s
reasons for guidelines and you have to be consistent when you lay out developments but I guess
there are also sometimes reasons for exception. I’m just urging the council to take a look at that
and look at some alternatives and take some common sense approaches like Mrs. Tjornhom said
when she parked on that street. If there’s any cars on that street at all it’s incredibly narrow and
with the amount of extra traffic that’s going to be coming down, and I truly think that when you,
if you make it a through street, Highover through the development, that it’s going to encourage
31
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
people to use that in the future as we get more development and more population as a cut across.
Or an alternate route to Galpin, to 41, to Lake Lucy and it’s going to be far more traffic than just
the homes and from the numbers I’m hearing, I don’t think the homes even support the width of
Highover. I also heard comment about a precedence that was set at Stone Creek and
Timberwood, and I heard, and I apologize for not knowing your name but I heard the comment
made, if I’m quoting her correctly that one of the justifications for that was that it was not an
urban standard road. And from the information that I have seen, it doesn’t seem like Highover is
an urban standard road for a local street being the width that it is and what the recommendations
are within the code. And so I just want to urge the council to try to take a common sense
approach and consider an exception to what the normal guidelines are and give hard thought to
the two cul-de-sac approach that has been already proposed from both neighborhoods. Thank
you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Phil Haarstad: Mr. Mayor and councilmen. My name is Phil Haarstad. I live at 7066 Harrison
Hill Trail. It’s the property that is at the northeast corner of the Yoberry Farms proposal. Near
the cul-de-sac. The first thing I did the evening I went to look at this property to purchase it was
look behind to see if there’d ever be houses built in my back yard, and as an engineer by
profession I quickly made the judgment, although I’m not a land development engineer or have
any training in that, with a little common sense it was clear to me that this land was highly
unlikely going to be developed and have houses directly in my back yard. And seeing from the
difficulties that the planning people have had in using different options, it’s, I think that’s true
that this land is being squeezed for homes to be put in there. While I, so also I understand
though that it’s unfair for me to purchase a home and not expect anyone else ever to build around
me. I just wanted to make it clear that I agree with my neighbors on Harrison Hill Trail for the
safety concerns of that curve coming up the back of our lots. I would much, however I would
much rather, if that land does have to be developed, have the homes further away from my house
than right high up in my back yard. So please consider that as well. That I would also just say
that I think the better solution would be not to place those 4 homes in that area and use it as a
common area or a park or something of that nature. Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else?
Joe Thull: Hi. My name is Joe Thull. I live at 6872 Highover Drive. Just a brief comment on,
there’s been a lot of talk about I believe it’s Hunter Drive and all the traffic issues. Living at the
T of Highover Drive and Highover Trail, it’s interesting, at one point the people who were
building and developing their homes on Hunter Drive you know looked around and said, you
know what, it’s going to be a nice neighborly local traffic. I can deal with that, etc, etc. To me
that represents today kind of hind sight now. They’re dealing with traffic. They’re dealing with,
and it’s you know what, there isn’t a simple solution now. The deal’s been done. Now it’s
systemic and it isn’t going to be a traffic cop. It’s not going to be all these other things that are
going to challenge that. I’m sitting on Highover Drive thinking you know what, Hunter Drive
represents my future and that is pretty frustrating future that I don’t want to deal with so I would
expect that the council have some foresight and to protect the neighbors and the residents and
clearly deal with local traffic and local neighborhoods like they should be dealt with, thank you.
32
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I do not live in this
neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood just down the street but I’ve heard some things tonight
and having read the report and been at the prior planning meetings, I do have a couple points that
no one’s brought up yet. I have to collect my thoughts, I’m sorry. I’m trying to keep this really
short. I heard Kate said that all requirements of the zoning ordinances have been met but what
about all requirements of the subdivision ordinance. All lots from the last report I read said all
lots do not meet lot frontage requirements. They said lot lines could be adjusted. Well I think
it’s wrong to move forward and approve a subdivision with 57 lots if you do not know where
those lot lines are. And I know it’s preliminary but with so much at issue I think it’s a very
important point. Also relative to your latitude at making decisions about the change in zoning.
Yes we do have a comprehensive plan. However, is there latitude in the density of this
development? In other words, there’s 57 lots. Could you reduce that? I think you can. I think
there’s latitude in reducing the net density. And thirdly, there was an issue raised by a resident
pertaining to double lot frontage. And I heard it justified by the fact that well here’s a lot here in
the city. Here’s another lot. I’ve been down that road before. There are lakeshore lots that have
75 feet width that were not approved according to the code, and I submit that you cannot use an
existing lot and make that the reason for allowing double frontage. I think double frontage in
this instance would be a variance. I hope I made that point. The fact that something exists in the
city does not mean that it can be used as a reason to approve it within a new subdivision. Thank
you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Larry Lovig: Good afternoon, or good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council members. My
name is Larry Lovig. I live at 2475 Gunflint Court and this is my third time speaking on this
matter and still am quite nervous about that. I did send in an e-mail with an attached letter so
hopefully you had a chance to read that so I won’t touch on those points or any other points that
have been covered here tonight but there are a couple things I did want to bring to light. First to
me it seems there’s a conflict between the staff and the current homeowners, between the staff
and the Planning Commission and now between the staff and the City Council. Doesn’t appear
to me that staff is trying to be helpful with the commission and the council within these matters
but rather working very closely with the developer to jam as many lots as possible into this area.
The staff admittedly went as far as working with the developer to suggest that there’s no need to
apply for access to 41 in this case, and there’s still not been a formal request for access to 41.
And I guess my question to you would be, is there no recourse from the city to work with the
state to try and get an exception in this case. We’re talking about something that’s not even been
officially declined yet. Also I noticed in the comprehensive plan, page 21, it discusses
mechanisms to protect natural beauty while at the same time reserving certain areas for
recreational use. I’d like your attention to the area that adjoins the private park to the west. It’s a
very, very steep, very vegetated area. So steep that the developer has planned a very long
retaining wall so he can develop houses that back up to the park. Those houses will be closer to
that park than any of the Longacres residences. I ascertain that that is a bluff. In reviewing these
meetings previously it seems to me that the definition of a bluff is made by the current survey
33
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
and the survey is a matter of where the surveyor sets the stakes. I would request the City Council
to make that minimum investment to get a second opinion by a neutral survey crew to understand
better if that is truly a bluff or not. That is definitely a natural area that should be looked at to be
protected. It makes a very nice back drop to the park. Also staff has talked at great length about
Longacres Drive and it’s, whether it’s a definition, meets the definition of a collector road or not.
I don’t think that matters. What matters is the definition of Hunter Drive. These people are not
going to be using Longacres if they’re heading towards 5 to head east for any reason. So with
that I’ll close with, I request that you reject the proposal in it’s current form. That you challenge
staff to meet as many of the current homeowners requests as you see fit tonight and appreciate
your guidance in that matter. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Karen Weathers: My name’s Karen Weathers. I’m one of the landowners. I live at 7235
Hazeltine Boulevard and I empathize with you all. I went through this when Longacres came in.
I bought a 5 acre hobby farm and it was supposed to be zoned rural residential forever. Of
course Longacres came in. Very dense. Nobody listened to me so I know it’s frustrating. I’m
not going to talk about the technical issues. I think it’s up to the city to know what’s in and out
of variance. I do have just a couple comments. The traffic, one question I have had since the
beginning of these meetings, I don’t understand why you don’t make Hunter Drive a dead end.
It seems like everybody’s got problems already and their problems are becoming our problems.
So I don’t know, it sounds like we, I don’t know Mark you had a suggestions of making that. I
don’t need you to make you know Hunter Drive restrictions part of our development but I don’t
see why that can’t be dealt with separately. So it seems like that’s the issue with Hunter Drive
and I empathize with that but I think it’s kind of ironic that that kind of becomes our problem.
It’d be nice to keep those separate. The only other thing is on the park issue, I empathize with
that too. For 10 years I’ve had kids trespassing, I’ve got the part that’s just north of the park so
for 10 years I’ve had kids trespassing on my land, but I have not really cared. I had 4 boys
yesterday, they said they were deer hunting with their eyes. So I said that’s fine. Have a good
time. So I think it would be great if we could team up with Longacres. I’m all for that but I
don’t see that that, view that as our issue. So I’d just like to comment on that. So I hope we can
get everything resolved. We’ve seen all this development come around us much to our dismay
but it’s very hard to stop these things. It’s also been good. It’s been nice for my kids to have
neighbors and all those good things too so I hope we can all meet on common ground. Thank
you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Sara Schneider: My name is Sara Schneider and I live at 6872 Highover Drive. As the
developer was just saying, and I think I know especially for Highover, we have no issue with
additional neighbors. With additional homes. It’s just a matter of how it’s going to be handled.
We talk kind of about the traffic patterns and traffic studies can’t be real conclusive because you
don’t know if they’re going to Target on 5 or if they’re going to Cub on 7 and what’s going to be
their easiest way out. And one of Kathy’s comments was just that they don’t really want to limit
residents to have to go all the way down Highover because it isn’t through. I think that would be
better taken up with the current people in Longacres and the current people in Highover and a
34
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
good discussion with the developer about, I would prefer to see my own neighbors at the end of
Highover cul-de-sac coming down and coming through my neighborhood, whether they’re
coming through to loop all the way back and going to Target. Whether they could have taken a
shortcut if it had been through, I’d rather see it be a cul-de-sac where it would be, where it would
limit the traffic. And we don’t roll the traffic dice whether someone is going to Target or
whether they’re going to Cub. So I too would also respectfully request that you would reject the
current plan as it is and as Highover has already stated, we would really welcome an open
discussion with the developer and you’ve seem to have indicated that as far as some comments
about have there really been any discussions, and the developer has kind of talked about some
discussions with Longacres but it’s already been kind of mentioned that those have been not as
extensive as represented by the developer and I really think none of us have any objection to new
neighbors, to new homes, to more kids. We welcome that, but just in a way that’s going to make
it a healthy, safe neighborhood for Longacres and for Highover and I think there’s a way, and I
think that we’re coming up with some really pretty reasonable options with the two cul-de-sacs.
So I would hope that you’d reject this and we could get on with the better plan. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We are coming up as best as I can tell, on about an hour and
a half of public comments so I’d like to take one more if we could. If anybody’s interested.
Tim Block: You’d say a couple more or just one more?
Mayor Furlong: One more please. You get to close.
Tim Block: Mayor, City Councilmen and women. I’ve sat here today as a father of 4.
Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address please sir.
Tim Block: My name is Tim Block. I live at 6903 Highover Drive. I live at the top of Highover
Drive. Right at the top. I have 4 children, all 5 and under. Each one of those children if they
want to go visit their friends has to cross that street, Highover Drive to get to the sidewalk. Each
one of those kids then has to drive down the sidewalk and cross again if they want to visit
someone at Highover North or Highover Court. I’ve heard today a lot of supposition about what
that means to my 4 kids. I’ve heard in the planning report I see, this is all I see, overall the
proposed street layout appears to work well. That kind of conclusion is what we’ve heard here
today. We’ve heard ideas about possibly putting up pads or some sort of tubing to figure out
what’s going on. We’ve talked about potential neighborhoods going in at Highover Trail, along
with Yoberry. Along with Longacres and along with Highover. But nobody has gone through
the effort to find out how much houses that were. I haven’t heard the city staff say how many
are in Highover. How many are in Yoberry. How many are at Longacres and how many are
going to be in the new Highover Trail. By our count that’s 150 to 170 homes, all potentially
running by my house on Highover Drive. All potentially going over that hill where you’ve seen
pictures where people don’t see anything. And now we’re talking about, not only serving those
homes but we’re talking about connecting two collectors. One, a named collector. One, a
collector that doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t have a yellow line between it. Longacres Drive has
become a defacto collector. Highover Drive is destined to be that. If we aren’t here to stop it.
City code, the comprehensive plan tells us don’t do this. We’ve got neighbors and we’ve got
35
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
residents and we’ve got people who are selling their property saying, Hunter Drive isn’t my
issue. It’s our issue today. The comprehensive plan tells us that, it says development, whether
commercial, industrial or residential is long term, both economically and physical. Since
development is permanent and usually irreversible, the effects of substandard or poorly located
facilities will be evident for a long time. Therefore the developer and the city must be aware of
natural, physical, social constraints and potential long term effects of the project. Only by
paying attention to such detail at the early stages of development can facilities be constructed
which are functional and aesthetic to both today and in the future. Today the city, the City
Council is being presented with hard evidence by the residents of both of these communities.
Not suppositions about the layout works well. Not suppositions about well we might put out
something later. These are the people who are living in these areas right now and they’ve come
to the city saying there’s going to be a problem. We have a problem right now and there’s going
to be a bigger problem. We all know how we live. We all know how we might cut through this
area and we all know how other people might cut through this area. People are coming down
Highover Drive over the hill already too quickly and the only way that we can stop them right
now is to follow them to where they live and tell them to stop. And right now you make it a
through traffic and we lose that ability. Now I said in my letter to the City Council, this city has
told the residents of this community that if you want to stop traffic, if you want to stop speeding
in your neighborhoods, it is your job. It is the residents job. I think in the Leadfoot program it
says, the key to traffic safety is a voluntary compliance with traffic laws and safe driving
principles. The key to developing and maintaining safe driving in neighborhoods is residential
support and involvement. That’s what these people are here for today. That’s why these people
have showed up today to tell you that Yoberry right now as it’s planned is not good for these
communities. And if this people can’t go on the web site and read what the city council has told
them to do, and don’t get the type of relief they get when they are the only ones presenting real
facts, when they are not the people who are saying there might be 800 to 1,000 trips by this
neighborhood. Instead they know what they’re living through and they know what their
potential is going to be. When the city comprehensive plan, Chapter 2 Housing tells people what
I just read, do it now. Don’t do it later. Tubes are too late. Widening the street after it’s already
in, it’s too late. I’d have to say Highover’s 26 ½ feet long. I read the plan, the Yoberry property
anticipates 31 foot wide streets. When they get to connecting those streets and find out there’s 5
feet of difference, it’s too late. When somebody gets hit by a car, it’s too late. When someone
decides to sit down and count up 54 Highover Drive residents, 54 Yoberry Drive residents, 54
Highover Trail residents, Longacres and the through traffic, count that up to over 100 by the
city’s standards. 80 by almost every other code in the nation, and that number becomes 150 and
170. That correlates to 1,500 trips on Highover Drive. It’s too late. You know people here have
come to you with their concerns. I know that I’ve met with them. I’ve talked to the Longacres
people. When this all came down people said we have to get here. You have to be here and I
ask the council to listen. Listen to the people who are presenting the facts. Listen to the council
member who had the foresight to go there and actually sit on the street and observe. Alright. I
haven’t heard anyone in the city staff say that they’ve done that. These people have come to
you, we have come to you with an idea. We think that it’s the best idea. We think it preserves
our ability to monitor the traffic. We think it preserves our ability to stop unreasonable traffic
and that is to create two cul-de-sacs so that both properties can do what they are told to do by the
city, and that is be good residents. Be residents that are looking out for their neighborhoods, and
be residents who will come to the City Council before the plat is preliminary approved and tell
36
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
them why it is that they think that when you put a piece of paper between two existing things, it’s
not just paper. It’s real life and these people want some help in making sure that their kids are
okay. And I have to tell you, from my little boy Michael who told me today, daddy why are you
leaving for this. I said because I’m going to tell the City Council about you Michael. Because I
don’t want you riding your bike across a street to get to the sidewalk when someone coming up
Highover on a hill has no less than 100-150 feet of sight line and that person has decided that
they’re going to go from Lake Lucy to Longacres because the light at 41 and 7…has turned red
and now it’s time off to the races. That’s what’s going to happen. Nobody’s talking about that.
Nobody’s talking about what’s going to happen at Highover Trail. The code, the comprehensive
plan tells us have the foresight to think of it all and get it down and make sure that we stop things
from happening that will be preventful. I thank you for your time. I ask that you deny the plan
as it’s set forth and accept the residents, I think it’s a joint proposal by the residents to make it a
two cul-de-sac development. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to end this period of public comment and I
think before I bring it back to council if I could, Mr. Knutson we’ve heard a lot of references to
code, the comprehensive plan. Your thoughts, comments on what you’ve heard this evening in
your review of the proposal.
Roger Knutson: Mayor I think Kate earlier in the evening went through a lot of more the ground
work on how the land use process works. Essentially your job tonight is to determine whether
the ordinance, or whether the application meets ordinance requirements. If they do you really
don’t have, if they do meet ordinance requirements you don’t have much discretion but to
approve them. If you don’t, someone else will do it for you and then you lose control of the
process. Going back through the two applications. One on the rezoning. The central thing that
controls your zoning is your comprehensive plan so the question you have to ask is the proposed
rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I believe the Planning Director has
answered that question yes, but that’s a decision that you will have to make. There’s more than
one zoning designation you could have under this particular guiding, as it’s guided, but my
review of it, this is the least dense zoning you could have that’s consistent with the current
guiding. So you might decide looking at the preliminary plat, again the question is does it meet
ordinance requirements. Your staff has reviewed it and determined that it has but again that is up
to you to make that independent determination. You make the ultimate facts, but if it does meet
the ordinances, the fact that someone may like it or may not like it really is not dispositive
because it is you know we live under a rule of law. You’ve established your policies in your
ordinances and your comprehensive plan. That’s where policies are made. Once those policies
are made, we require the developer to live by those policies as adopted in your plan and your
zoning ordinance, and likewise the city is required to live by that and you have to make that
ultimate decision as to whether those ordinance requirements have been met. But again staff has
reviewed it and determined that it has but it’s ultimately your decision.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We’ve heard a lot of public comment this evening which has been
appreciated. I guess I would ask at this time if there are any follow-up questions for staff on any
of the issues that were brought up.
Councilman Lundquist: I do have a few.
37
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the double frontage, if that could be classified as double frontage
on Harrison Hill, is that, does that require a variance to proceed?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Lundquist: Matt, talk a little bit about the roads, specifically Highover and
Longacres. Their road width. The classification. Collector. Non-collector. Address some of
those comments that were brought up.
Matt Saam: Sure. The two collector roads in the area, the one to the north is Lake Lucy Road.
Highover Drive connects to that. The one to the south is Longacres Drive and Gunflint Trail
connects to that. Each of those, which are local roads. Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail as
classified in our comp plan, each of those roads are proposed to be extended into this
development to route traffic from this development both to the north and to the south to the
collector roads which then connect to the arterial, in this case Highway 41. It’s the way our
street system works. A functional classification system. Going from the local roads, the lower
volume to the collector roads, a little higher onto the arterials. As far, if the local roads can
handle the traffic that’s proposed, we did look at that. As Kate said, local roads classified in our
comp plan can handle up to 1,000 trips per day. Assuming, or taking that each lot generates
approximately 10 trips per day, that means you have a maximum of about 100 til you hit that
threshold. Currently Highover Drive has some 50 plus or minus lots. I counted 50. Somebody
said 54 so we’re right around that 50 mark. This development has 57 I believe. Now if we can
assume that not all of the traffic is going to go to the north. You know it’s going to find some
split. Some people will go north. Some will go south. That means that we’re going to be under
that 1,000 trip threshold at least for Highover Drive going to the north. Gunflint Trail to the
south currently only has about 9 lots on it so that won’t even be an issue.
Councilman Lundquist: And the width of Highover, 26 ½ versus 28 versus 31.
Matt Saam: Yeah, now I wasn’t here when Highover was approved but I believe it’s 28. What
we classify is to the back of the curb. Our current standard is 31. Used to be from 28 to 32.
There was latitude so I’m assuming based on comments here tonight that that one is the 28 feet,
which would make sense if the actual pavement is the 26 ½. So it does, it did meet the code at
the time. While it may be 3 feet less in width than we currently go by, we still believe it can
handle the traffic that will be generated from this development in addition to the existing traffic.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Talk about the speed limit issue that we heard. Do we have any
latitude on speed limits? Less than 30 miles an hour.
Matt Saam: Somewhat. Speed limits are set by MnDot. In order to get that lowered we would
need to provide hard data, basically a traffic study using our tubes, traffic counts, measuring
speed, on the existing road. Present that to MnDot and as I mentioned at the beginning of the
th
meeting, what MnDot looks at is that 85 percentile. It’s basically the speed that 85 percent of
38
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
the traffic is driving at. If that would come in at the 25 miles per hour, which I mentioned earlier
from our trailer, our speed trailer, then we may have some data to show MnDot to say hey, we
could lower this down to 25. Surely if there’s some tight curves, I know there’s some tight
curves, we could look at posting curve signs out there. Again we want to have some data though
to support that. That’s why I’m saying we’ll put the counters out in May and we will definitely
follow up on any issues on Hunter.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Conditions as I read through somewhere I thought I remembered
when I read through, maybe it was just the e-mails, about a construction access off of 41. But I
didn’t see that as I read through the conditions anywhere. Is that in there somewhere and I
missed it or.
Matt Saam: It may not be and that’s simply because they are proposing to utilize the driveway
off 41. They’re currently showing it on their plans so when they’re showing what they’re going
to do that we want them to, we don’t place a condition on it.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that, is that then covered in something in the motion that says
refer to plans and specs dated, whatever the date is.
Matt Saam: It should be. Typically it is.
Councilman Lundquist: Plans dated and received December 20, 2004.
Matt Saam: It’s shown on the grading plan.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Brian, just to point to that. That construction traffic would only access that area
until the road was paved. The new road to Yoberry.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. What else do we got? Kate, options between preliminary and
final on street layout. Between how much latitude do we have on say the Harrison Hill piece or
whether or not it’s a cul-de-sac or a through street or any, how much latitude do we have
between preliminary and final.
Kate Aanenson: We did notice this with variances because a private street was one of the
options too, even though they weren’t asking for variances. We did notice it in case there was a
request to go to the. If you wanted to give us some opportunity to work through with that with
the applicant and the neighbors to kind of understand better the difference. It seems like there’s
a split with some of the neighbors to understand that, which would be better. We could do that
between now and final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: And then the cul-de-sac versus through street.
Kate Aanenson: We would make that a condition of approval.
39
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Roger Knutson: Right, if you wanted to leave something open like that, you would call that out
as a condition and specifically say, unresolved, you fill in the blank. This particular street. We
need additional information on whether it should be done this way, that way or the other way.
You’d call that out as a condition.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When do you expect final to come back?
Kate Aanenson: I have no idea. 6 weeks.
Councilman Lundquist: And last one. Mr. Lovig talked about whether or not that area next to
that park is classified as a bluff or not. Response to that.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. We looked at that ourselves with the existing topog and we asked them to
field verify. If you would like us to have an independent field verify that again between now and
final plat, we’d be happy to do that.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That’s all I had sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Peterson: One for Matt or Kate, as it relates to the curve going into Gunflint Trail
that we’re going to post I think at 20. Was there discussion about changing that curve and
changing the road structure and lots. It just seems if we’re here and discussing it, we know it’s
an issue. Why couldn’t we re-design a road? I’m assuming that was discussed but kind of walk
me through that.
Matt Saam: Yes, correct it was discussed. What it would require is basically, let me go to the.
The curve in question is this one. That’s what we recommending be posted at a 20 miles per
hour speed. To get this to be a more gentle curve, we’d have to push this bubble over farther up
into this corner. Currently there’s already a retaining wall I believe now too to protect the tree.
If we push it over farther we start getting into the trail here. Basically we, it would make that
retaining wall go up more. More severe grading so we compromised…and let me clarify the 180
feet. It’s not technically a variance. We use that as a design guideline here in the city as staff to
say we really don’t want them to get any tighter than 180 so that’s why it’s not a variance. But
we compromised with the developer that we would lower the speed limit here to 20 and what we
did was looked at well how much traffic is going to be in here. We have 1, 2, 3, 4 houses. It’s
not a through street. If we had a 90 degree curve say up in here, where initially I believe they
were under 180 up in here but we got them to redesign it. We think there it would be more of an
issue because you’d have more traffic here going through there than the 4 homes.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just address the cul-de-sac too which drove that. There was a strong
recommendation from the Planning Commission to save a couple of significant trees right there
so that’s why the cul-de-sac swung back.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. One more and this may be a tougher question to answer. Let me
first of all preface that I’m a strong proponent of connecting neighborhoods but obviously you
40
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
don’t want to connect neighborhoods at a price, whatever that price might be. Particularly when
in this case potentially safety. That being said, if we would have presented to the developer that
we wanted two cul-de-sacs, walk me through the implications of that from a planning standpoint,
knowing that that would preclude the two neighborhoods being connected, which is not ideal.
But does that really mitigate the safety issue that has been discussed by many of the residents or
is it.
Kate Aanenson: It’s pretty rare where we’ve done a subdivision where you split somebody with
two different access points. It’s a little different. Again, obviously it’s highly charged
emotionally because everybody’s talking about their kids on the street, which I understand. I
have children. You know it’s that empirical data, the factual, what we tried really hard to do is to
make the street, as did Longacres, those streets were designed specifically by Lundgren Brothers
to make them curvy so people wouldn’t speed. Obviously when people do speed that’s where
the rub lies. When they don’t, they veer off the road but that was really their goal. That’s kind
of what we took, not to that extreme as Matt indicated. We tried to reduce some of the curves to
make those, and the sight lines. That’s why those sight lines are such that you have to slow
down because you can’t see further ahead and that’s the goal of traffic calming to provide those
so you can’t see. Now do teenagers always follow that? Not always but that was really the
intent of working the street design as such. Could it be done with two cul-de-sacs? I’m not sure
we’re going to make both parties happy because the way it lays, somebody’s going to end up
with more lots you know, just because of the way it would figure out. But kind of an interesting
way to do a development when you’re stuck in the middle. Again I go back to say if this would
have come in first, the neighbors are saying maybe people would have made different decisions.
It’s the grading and everything is similar to everybody else that’s come in around it. We’re not
treating this one any less. Actually the bluff ordinance is more restrictive here than the
Longacres one so we’re really a little bit more restrictive on this as far as the bluff.
Councilman Peterson: Then one last question Matt. I forgot to ask it earlier. So that curve you
pointed out earlier, that is the only 20 miles an hour. No other parts of this new development in
Yoberry will have any marked curves on it?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this time.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: So Matt, we’re going to, the slope and grade and the radius of Hunter Drive.
Can you just go over that real quick and how we’re applying the standards and what the current
conditions are for that road to this extension of Gunflint.
41
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Matt Saam: Yeah. I talked with Mr. Tritoh numerous times over the last couple weeks. He’s
the gentleman who mentioned the slope and the radius. He’s correct there. Again I wasn’t
around when that was approved. I don’t know all the particulars but Hunter Drive, there is a
curve in there. For sure one that is less than the 180 feet curve radius, so that may be a case
where I said previously where we’ll post that curve at possibly a lower speed. And then the
street grade, he was correct there too. We have a street that’s right at around 10% there.
Currently we allow maximum of 7%. So again I don’t know the situations there but that was
approved and that’s to those design guidelines. Again the fact that I tried to, or the point I tried
to make at Planning Commission is Hunter Drive, while there may be issues with it and we
should address them and we will, we really think they’re separate than this development and
that’s the point we were trying to make is that we’ll address Hunter with anything we can do to
make that safer but we didn’t see where that was this development’s or developer’s issue to
correct.
Councilman Labatt: Well it may not be this developer’s issue but it’s the city’s issue. I mean
we’ve got a road that isn’t conforming. We’re going to have a development here that’s going to
be bleeding onto this problem already of Hunter Drive so they do run very parallel tracks.
There’s a huge impact here. What is the potential impact for the Carlson property? We’ve heard
about that coming down the chute. How many homes we looking at doing and bringing in there
and what’s the impact on Highover Drive and Highover Trail? Nobody’s ever talked about
numbers yet on that, as far as how many more are going to be increased up there. I think we
have an issue here where we’re not dealing with our comp plan. We’re not looking forward.
Kate Aanenson: Again I’ll just comment, when we did the traffic zones and we put those
collectors in place, that was based on anticipated development within that. I do believe that
when I went through all the different subdivisions I indicated how many lots. Right now the
Carlson’s are looking at 50. That one does have access via Galpin Boulevard. We’re also
working, it also has access via the subdivision Woodridge Heights, which has access onto Lake
Lucy, and also we are working to provide another direct access possibly onto a collector road to
the north, if that can be resolved so trying to give some other access points. Unfortunately on
this circumstance, based on topography, there are no other options. Besides the two cul-de-sacs.
Councilman Labatt: So that’s what I have for questions right now.
Mayor Furlong: All of the questions, okay. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? If
not, comments. Discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: Comments. Obviously this is going to be one of the issues where there
will be parties that walk away from the table unsatisfied. No way around that. Some of the
things I found interesting in the comments tonight from the residents is, the conflict even among
themselves. People along Harrison Hill, they don’t want the road there. They’d like to see a
park there but then the people that live down in other part of Longacres don’t want the Yoberry
people to use their park. What’s going to prevent the people from Longacres on Harrison Hill to
go up to the park that’s right in their yard? I’ve heard people talk about minimizing the grading
and don’t take out as many trees and use the topography and do all of that stuff and yet when you
try to put a road along, on Gunflint Trail, along the Harrison Hill, we hear well let’s not put it
42
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
there. Let’s put it closer to the wetland where we’re going to have to grade the heck out of it.
Wipe out a bunch more trees and put a bunch more fill in there. So I think we’ve got some
conflicts there. Hunter Drive is an issue regardless of whether this development goes in or not
and I believe that by putting a cul-de-sac there, you have a potential to increase the traffic that’s
going to go on there more than decrease it because now those people have only got one way out,
and that’s Hunter Drive. You make that a through street, you’ve got two ways out. That’s not
what the people on Highover wanted to hear but again, you’ve got some conflicts there as well. I
heard a lot of talk about safety and again as Kate stated as well, some of the comments I guess I
took exception too, especially taking the, putting the cost of a child’s life at $11,000. I think that
the 5 of us up here as well all have children and you know to think that we would put something
into motion that would put anybody’s children safety at risk isn’t giving us enough credit so
hopefully no matter what comes out of this, that people realize that obviously we want all the
kids in the city to be safe and to be able to ride their bikes and walk down the street and play in
their yards and all of those things without being in danger. So a couple of concerns I do have
overall. I think that the park thing is an issue that somehow needs to be resolved. Not something
that I really, as a representative of the city want to get involved in. More like something, I’d like
to encourage Yoberry and Longacres to work together on some kind of agreement because I
think we’re kidding ourselves if we think that there wouldn’t be residents from Yoberry that
would go down to the Longacres homeowners parks because they’re convenient, so I’d like to
see something worked out there. The cul-de-sac versus the through street. I think having a
development with two cul-de-sacs in it, that would be an interesting one to have a Yoberry
development, two ways to get in and no way to get through the whole thing so as much as
probably everybody in this room doesn’t want to hear, I believe that a through street probably is
the best alternative for continuity of neighborhoods. And I do believe that we have factors that
we can mitigate, especially along Hunter Drive that we’ve got to do something there and address
that as well. Highover, Mr. Block, Mr. Wagner, your comments are taken very seriously and I
think especially at the top of that hill there, at the intersection of I believe it’s Highover Drive
and Highover Trail, that we need to look at some options there to control some of the speed on
that as well. Along with Councilwoman Tjornhom, I also spent a lot of time driving around out
there this weekend so based on the amount of e-mails and contacts and phone calls that I
received, this isn’t one I take lightly so for those of you who think that we don’t read the e-mails
and we don’t drive around, I think that you’re again underestimating how serious, at least myself,
that I take this one so. A lot of conflicts going on and no easy way to resolve but based on what
I’ve seen, I think especially on the zoning, I’m in favor of the rezoning to residential single
family there. Again that’s the least dense option so for the residents, especially in the
surrounding neighborhoods, this property’s going to be rezoned one way or another so it’s going
to be this or it’s going to be a PUD you know where lots of crazy things can happen so definitely
to protect the continuity of the neighborhoods and that, I’m in favor of that. I would like to see
some more exploration on the access off of 41 to be used for a longer period of time than just the
grading. Potentially through the majority of construction. Obviously there’s some conflicts
there. Tying up a couple of lots and some of that so, but to have 60 homes worth or 40 homes
worth or whatever the magic number is, driving on Highover or Longacres and Gunflint,
probably there’s something we can do there with that access on 41 to keep that open for a little
longer. And again the park thing, it’s not something I guess that I’m necessarily in favor of
putting a condition of approval on an agreement between two private parties but I would strongly
encourage the applicant here to work with the Longacres Homeowners Association and also for
43
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
the Longacres to not hold them hostage so that a good faith agreement can be made there,
because I’d hate to see Longacres have to spend money to put a fence up and some kind of keys
to their residents so that only they can use the park too. That doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Neighborly. And as a note to our staff, Hunter Drive is an issue that we need to deal with and
take care of so, and rather than hold this development hostage for that, it’s an issue that’s got to
be addressed regardless and if we start on that issue now, there’s a lot of things that can be done
before there’s ever a house put on this site that’s going to be affected so that’s a problem that I
expect will be addressed before any of this stuff happens anyway. So in summary, I’m in favor
of where we’re at now with the zoning and a preliminary plat. We’ve got some work to do on
final and, but again I think that the staff has done. This is not an easy one to work with all of the
different parties at stake here and it really is the staff’s job to try to put the best plan together that
they can and often that involves working with, directly with a developer obviously as the
applicant so that may appear that they you know favor the developer but their job is to put that
plan together. Meet all those ordinances as best they can and get that development through. So
that’s my summary.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I was thinking to go last.
Mayor Furlong: That’s mine.
Councilman Labatt: …be the dissenting person here but, okay. I’ll go last.
Mayor Furlong: If I let you.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah you will.
Mayor Furlong: You think so. I think I’m taking last. I’m taking last.
Councilman Labatt: Fourth.
Mayor Furlong: Fourth is a better number. Councilman Tjornhom, thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright. I’m going to make this brief. I think this has been a farm
for a long time and I think it will be a development for an ever longer time and so I think now is
the time to take our time and work these issues out and make sure it’s done right for everybody.
If that’s possible. It might not be possible to please everybody but there’s so many issues here
that I think we need to at least resolve some of them. You know we’ve got traffic problems,
which I understand it totally. I wouldn’t want to live there. We have construction traffic
problems. You know I also wouldn’t want to live there for 3 years having cement trucks going
down my road. We have park issues and I think those can be resolved. I think between the
development and the developer, you know if the development and, developer cannot get
together, then the developer probably does need to put in a park. I just feel that that’s the most
responsible thing to be doing for his own development and for his community. And so I just, I
44
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
don’t think anything has been solved. I don’t think anything’s been worked out and so that’s
where I stand.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson, Labatt. Either one.
Councilman Peterson: Sure I’ll go. Based upon Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question or point,
where are we at with the clock on this one?
th
Kate Aanenson: The 120 days, which we’ve taken all of, would be March 5. So you’d have
one more meeting to review this application.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. You know I’ve worked on these things for over a dozen years now
for the city and taken a lot of pride of being able to find some creative solutions in bringing
people together. This one is going to be more of a challenge than probably almost any of the
other ones I’ve dealt with. Primarily because you know as I said before I believe in connecting
neighborhoods. We’ve done that historically. I think it’s the right thing to do for the
community. It’s the right thing for the neighborhoods in the long run. I’m concerned about
safety, as everybody else is, but I think the staff has presented that we have other neighborhoods
with the same or similar issues and it really hasn’t come down to a significant safety issue. The
park issue, I do think it needs to be addressed and I think that whether or not this is tabled to
address some of these open issues like the park, like the Harrison Hill area, I think that my
biggest concern is that, and as Councilperson Labatt said earlier, the developer didn’t pull the
neighborhoods together. I think that was a mistake. I think that, and it’s not staff’s fault. That’s
the developer taking the initiative to bring neighborhoods together, which I think is very
important. As to what could come to fruition from that? I don’t know but at least a good faith
effort I think needed to have been made and I think still can be made and I’d like to give the
opportunity to let the developer do that. So with that being said, you know I don’t think the idea
of two cul-de-sacs. I don’t necessarily think it addresses the safety issue. I think you’re going to
have the same amount of traffic whether you put the cul-de-sac in the middle of the
development. It’s statistically probably not going to be significant. The traffic’s going to go
both ways in the same amount because people are going to go south or people are going to go
north as often as though it would have been a through street anyway so, and again you compound
that with our desire in the comp plan clearly states we want to connect neighborhoods. I think
it’s important to think about that. I too agree that we need to put a majority of the construction
traffic on 41 for the absolute longest period of time that we can. Specifically the Harrison Hill
issue, you know I think the way staff has recommended the current option is appropriate. I mean
you’re not going to get a consensus as to which is right and wrong there from all the neighbors.
Lastly I think I just, the bottom line is I think that perhaps tabling is a good answer to give
another 2 weeks to let the neighborhoods try to work through some more issues. Ultimately I
will more than likely vote for the through street and I think that is the best thing for the
community. But I think it’s good to get the neighborhoods working and talking together. And
lastly, Hunter Drive again we have to address that in some form or fashion at a different meeting
and I think we need to aggressively pursue any alternatives we can to calm the traffic there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
45
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Well I’ll start by thanking Craig and Bethany for their comments. Brian
nothing against your’s. Take no offense.
Councilman Lundquist: Wouldn’t be the first time.
Councilman Labatt: It wouldn’t. Probably won’t be the last but yet you have good points. I
mean this is actually you know, I mean obviously everybody knows I live in the neighborhood
and it’s a very big concern. And I had written down on the top of my notes here whether to deny
or table. I mean those were the two things, and I think Craig you know, a certain thing’s been
missed. Certain comments have been made. The developer hasn’t done a good job, I’ve already
expressed those points earlier. And as I look at where the two homeowner associations came up
with their presentations tonight and where we’re lacking and their interpretation of where we’re
not hitting the comp plan. And I hear staff’s recommendation on where we are. There’s, where
there’s a gap there. So maybe tabling it in order to fill that gap in the next 2 weeks here, get the
good questions answered. My issues still are, is the overall layout, the safety and the road
design. We heard that within Yoberry they have a known road that services 4 homes that’s a
problem so staff has recommended that we’re going to post it 20 miles an hour zone. We’ve
heard of the Hunter Drive problem for a couple years. Carver County’s been working with the
issue. They’ve come in before to ask to get it lowered. We’ve done nothing. I’m disappointed
in that lack of progress. I still think we’re missing the target on the overall impact that this
development is going to generate for traffic safety and joining neighborhoods. The impact with
the Carlson property, the Highover, Mr. Block’s presentation was pretty powerful. I mean
there’s some concerns there that at what point with the Carlson development and Yoberry and
existing stuff and Highover is that going to push the local street designation out of Highover
above 1,000 vehicles per day. It’s stretching it now. Longacres and Hunter Drive is stretching
it. So I think we’re all on the same conclusion with 41. Keep the construction access open as
long as they can. Trust me, you know as these neighborhoods have gone through development
and growing pains and construction vehicles, we’ve had a period of several years here now that
we’re happy to see those trucks not coming through there. Now we are. So if we can keep that,
or the 41 construction access. There’s two points that you know, if you look at the property that
goes up to the north to the Hurrell property, that’s a gradual grade there. If you look at the
Weathers property, that’s a gradual grade. The Youngquist property going up is a steep grade.
That’s going to be hard for construction but there’s two accesses that have gradual grades that
can be utilized for I would imagine quite a long time and possibly if the Weathers property is
actually the third phase of this, you would think that for a good 2-2 ½ years they’d be able to use
the Weathers property for access. Harrison Hill, and the street back there. You know, somebody
mentioned earlier that this is you know, and I’ve said before, developers are trying to squeeze
every possible lot out of a development and I think this is an example here where Gunflint’s been
extended up there where they’re trying to squeeze the blood out of it so I’m really not happy with
that location of the cul-de-sac up there and that configuration. So question is as Roger said, is
the proposed rezoning consistent with the comp plan? Probably. Does the preliminary plat, does
that meet the ordinance requirements? For approval. That’s where I think some of us have
disagreements or concerns or issues that we’re not all comfortable saying yes right now, so the
question would then be either we table it or we deny it. Because if we have these questions
about whether or not it meets the ordinance requirement, if we can’t sit here and say yes, it does,
46
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
and I can’t, then we have to deny unless the developer’s willing to approve it. Approve an
extension. I believe that’s all I have Tom.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I always enjoy this section of the meetings because as many of you
know the 5 of us aren’t able to talk amongst ourselves on these projects outside of the meetings.
That’s good. There are open meeting laws that make sure that decisions are made in public. The
challenge to that is, while everybody else in this room has obviously been talking, none of us
have so this is really the only opportunity for us to understand what we’re thinking. There are a
lot of issues here, as Councilman Lundquist said, and there’s also a lot of disagreement even
among the existing residents and that makes it more difficult. It’d be nice if there was consensus
and I think you know in some areas there may be agreement. In other areas you know there’s
differences of opinion. Traffic is the biggest issue here. That’s the biggest one that’s been
coming up time and time and time and time again on all the e-mails and public comments that
we’ve seen. My challenge is, and I made this statement before on prior developments, you know
traffic is an issue but in terms of this development shouldn’t go through because it will add more
traffic to my road, I don’t think that’s a valid and a justifiable fact or circumstance to keep the
development from going forward. That statement could be true before any development goes
through. The challenge is, is it safe? Does it meet our standards, design standards? You know
the city attorney we live under a rule of law in this country and that’s something that I appreciate
very, very much because we set our laws and in the city that means our comprehensive plan and
our ordinances up front and say these are the standards we expect people to adhere to. There are,
the comprehensive plan deals with land use. How can the property be developed? The benefit
there to existing property owners is, it says land use here for this property isn’t going to be a
convenience store. Or it’s not going to be a high rise building. That’s where there is some
benefit and some protection to existing property owners in terms of that comprehensive plan for
land use. The ordinance say how from a subdivision standpoint, how can the property be
subdivided and developed? We set minimums. That was raised. I don’t think necessarily this
word minimum here is a negative because it always means relative to what? We could, as our
ordinance say we want an average lot size of X, but if we do that rather than saying as we do that
we need a minimum lot size of 15,000, if we put in an average, we could have 13,000 square foot
parcels in here and 17,000 square foot parcels and the average would be 15 and we’d be fine. So
we set a minimum, a hurdle that has to be overcome. As we do that, those hurdles are in place.
Hopefully they find a balance between protecting existing property owners and providing
another property owner to fairly develop their property. I believe that our ordinances in
Chanhassen, when compared to other cities are either equal to or more stringent than other cities,
and I think that’s fair because that’s how as a city, as a population, as residents we want our city
developed. But then when a developer meets those guidelines it’s incumbent upon us to allow
them to develop, so the question gets back to, are they meeting the guidelines or not, and I’ll get
to that in a second. Has this received, the other thing that I’m interested in as mayor and I know
my fellow council members, and that is has proposal received a fair and open process. I think
it’d be silly for anyone to say that this proposal hasn’t been challenged from all sides by all
people multiple times, so I think it has received a fair and open process. Are there some
unanswered questions? Maybe there’d be some different answers to those questions depending
on who you ask but at least the questions are there and we get the privilege of determining those
answers. So under that backdrop, looking at some of these things, I strongly concur from some
specifics here that I’d like to see in regard to maintaining a construction entrance as long as
47
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
possible. I would encourage staff to work on that to figure out what that is and work with the
developer to say how long can we do that. Having had a home go up next to me this summer, I
have young children. Clearly it’s more effort when you have children outside and there are
construction vehicles around than after the 3 or 4 months and they’re gone and then you’re just
dealing with normal traffic. So anything we can do to mitigate that on the existing
neighborhoods, I think we need to do. The Gunflint Trail cul-de-sac, we’ve heard from
Highover neighbors that Option A is preferred. We’ve heard from Longacres that Option A is
not necessarily preferred but neither is Option C and so maybe nothing. I think there, I don’t
know that we’re going to be able to find a consensus, resolution among different people. I can
tell you living on a street where the back yards back up to it, it has been my experience that it
hasn’t been an issue. Does that mean that there will never be an issue with children playing in
the street? No. As long as children play in the street, any street, whether new development or
old, there are risks that cars will come along. Cars drive on streets. So I, the jury’s still out for
me with regard to Option A or Option C on that, and you know I guess I’d be interested in other
thoughts but you know if there’s a way to take a look at that as well. Connecting the
neighborhoods, I’m a proponent of that. I think that’s one of the issues that came up was, do we
plan for the long term and I think connecting neighborhoods does plan for the long term and is
generally the way to go. I would concur with Councilman Peterson that the two cul-de-sac
option, not only is a different route to take but in terms of the traffic I’d be interested if it made
any material difference there or anything at all. I would be willing to table and I guess my
suggestion here at this point would be that we just received from the residents again this evening
more volumes of paper. I guess my suggestion to the council would be, and we also received
comments where the residents were saying there are inconsistencies between the code and the
plan. I think that’s something that I’d like to have staff have a fair opportunity to evaluate and
you know there may be some things here that again we may have differences of opinion between
what a resident things the code says and what staff things the code says and differences of
opinion are fine. Reasonable people can differ but at least we’ll give staff the opportunity to
listen to the public comment that was again received this evening to the extent that there was
new information received as well as this information. And to the extent that they can work out
some of these other issues again within the next two weeks, that’d be great. One thing I’ll say,
and this gets back to philosophical standpoint. In this country you know we have the freedom to
associate and I get very concerned when a government body forces association. I think that by
itself takes away the right to associate. Longacres and Highover both have homeowners
association. That’s great and that’s fine. We have a lot of those in town. Yoberry’s talking
about having an association too. That’s wonderful. I get very hesitancy if we have a
governmental body here requiring the two associations to reach some sort of agreement. Clearly
they can do that civilly. You know the issue’s been brought up tonight with regard to parks and
causing Yoberry to negotiate with, or excuse me, with the Longacres association but it certainly
occurs to me that as Yoberry’s developed, residents from the Highover may have easy access to
Longacres parks too. And so you know it’s a never ending, it’s a snow balling effect so, and you
know this is just, if something can be worked out there, I think it should. You know this
shouldn’t be here in this case. I think people could have worked better together to get this done
and I’m not necessarily attributing blame on any one person but I would hope if the council
decides let’s have a chance to review some of this. Give staff a chance to see and evaluate these,
respond to this information. Respond to the comments we heard tonight and give us their
thoughts with regard to code and comprehensive plan consistency, because ultimately that’s our
48
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
question. And I would be in favor of tabling for that reason. To the extent we can get that done
in the next 2 weeks, that’d be fine. And if the associations choose on their own to meet during
that period, certainly they’re free to do that as well. So there may be some other issues but
that’s, and it would be my thought that when we brought it back we’d deal with the open
questions that have come up tonight on the record from the council to staff.
Councilman Labatt: Could we also in these two weeks have our engineering staff come up with
some preliminary ideas on Hunter Drive?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. I mean I guess my thought on Hunter Drive is, just like when you
hear that there’s traffic problems on Highover, that’s with the current residents. That’s been
something that we’ve talked about. Are we going to come up with solutions in 2 weeks?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: We can’t.
Councilman Labatt: But ideas though.
Mayor Furlong: Well, if they can come back with ideas, that’s fine. I think to Councilman
Lundquist’s point, there is some time between now and when this development is completed that
we can come up with some ideas and possibly some solutions that are acceptable. Anything that
can be done in the next 2 weeks, let’s get it done I guess would be my direct answer to that. But
let’s not put a 2 week timeframe on something like this where we aren’t necessarily working
against the clock…development. Let’s get some good solutions.
Councilman Labatt: Did you watch Larry the Cable Guy? Get er done.
Mayor Furlong: I did not. So I guess unless there’s other thoughts, Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I’m comfortable with tabling.
Mayor Furlong: For the reasons stated. Okay. Is there any other discussion tonight on this topic
or is there a motion to table directing, I would guess we’d have to direct to bring it back next
meeting unless there’s an additional extension.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
th
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a motion that we table this until the 28 to let staff,
give staff the opportunity to review some of the issues that have been brought up tonight, along
with council being able to review some of the documentation that was presented new this
th
evening for us to make a determination on the 28.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
49
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the rezoning and
preliminary plat request for Yoberry Farms, Planning Case 04-43 until the February 28,
2005 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Taking a look at the clock, we’ll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Let’s make it about 5 minutes.
REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION AND POTENTIAL LAND
USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW
DENSITY; LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD
AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 05-06.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive
Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard
Dana Muller 8880 Sunset Trail
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, before she gets started I’m just going to recuse myself on the
possibility of a conflict here so sit this one out.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Alright. This application is before you. You have seen it a couple times
before. Under this circumstance the applicant, or one of the subject property owners went to the
Planning Commission and asked them, based on some evidence that they believe had
circumstantially changed in the area, to re-examine the land use in this area, specifically the
Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The subject site includes this property here and the two lots across
the street. The Planning Commission back in September when this applicant approached the
Planning Commission did ask for an application to get on the agenda, which they can do.
Presented their case to the Planning Commission and at that time asked the Planning
Commission to direct the staff to re-examine the Hillside Oaks development. Again that includes
the two lots that are on the east side of Powers, which are guided low density and then the large
lots. So with that the staff again, you had seen this previously with an application attached to it
so this is just really to examine the validity of the existing land use. Had something
circumstantial changed to re-examine those existing assumptions. So again the Planning
Commission has the powers to, under the comprehensive plan examine that so directed the staff
to review it. So on page 4 was kind of our analysis of the area. Again the area has been
developed into large lots, 2.2 to 3.96 acres as shown in the area. The existing topography is very
steep. Partially wooded along the western side and adjacent to the city park on the southwestern.
I think that’s really what led the staff’s recommendation to leave that existing zoning in place, or
50
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
land use in place based on the fact that there’s some topography issues and we did lay out some
schematics which are attached. Existing Hillside Circle is the lots, existing homes on the other
lots. Again you can see the park and the very steep ravine so looking at to further subdivide, it
really needs to be assembled and at this time the Planning Commission recommended against
changing the land use. At that time…the fact that no additional properties or applications were
th
included with that, so the Planning Commission at their hearing on January 18, when they
reviewed this, voted 4 to 2 to leave the existing land use. Again we are the applicant because
the, one of the property owners asked to have the Planning Commission re-examine it but
technically the City is the applicant on this so I wanted to clarify that. So.
Mayor Furlong: So are you going to speak again when we ask for the applicant?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I’m going to argue against myself here. So with that we are
recommending supporting the Planning Commission’s recommendation and that is leave the land
use in place, and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions. For staff.
Councilman Labatt: No sir.
Mayor Furlong: No? None. Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: One. Kate, were there, were the City to receive say, let’s see 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, about 9 properties in there. Or say 5 of the 9 to come forward or something like that,
would the staff’s view at that time change or?
Kate Aanenson: Well that is kind of one of the criteria but I think the other criteria is you know,
we need to work together on this property because of the topography. It may lead to something
besides maybe clustering some of the units or different housing type based on the topography.
So you know to have one person go, how that works with the rest of the surrounding area. The
ordinance does say that you have to change the land use. We’ve got large lots. That’s a life style
choice. That’s one of the things the Planning Commission also reaffirmed. You, as a council
kind of reaffirmed that when you looked at Lake Lucy Road. Left that large lot. That’s a life
style choice that people can have. It is functioning today that way and, but the code,
comprehensive plan as you indicated Councilman Lundquist, it does say that if the neighbors
come in and say there’s something substantially, but we have one neighbor at this point so that’s
some of the factual reason that the Planning Commission also said probably premature.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff. If not, I won’t ask for the
applicant to speak, but I did mention earlier this evening that in light of visitor presentations and
looking at our agenda items, I did offer that we would take some public comment at this time as
well so if there’s somebody that would like to make some public comment on this. Again I’ll
preface it by saying that we did see the Planning Commission minutes so we do have the, all the
51
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
verbatim discussion that took place at the Planning Commission on this matter as well as the
public hearing so, with that sir if you’d like to come forward. Good evening.
Arild Rossavik: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Arild Rossavik, 8800
Powers Boulevard. I’m owner of the lot, Block 1, Lot 2 as you may know. This one here. You
can amplify maybe this area here. Okay. This is a map here. Just briefly point to it. On this side
here we have Hillside Oaks Block 2 which is zoned or guided RSF. On this side here we have
Copper Hills with 9 houses, or 9 blocks or 9 lots which is also guided for RSF. On the top on
here we have PUD or RSF. On this side down here we have high density coming up. There are
1,400 housing units. 700,000 units of office space. Which is planned. Now we have an addition
to that, we have Powers Boulevard being extended down here to meet new 212. That traffic will
start in 2 months, so even before I could come back with an application for whatever I think, that
traffic here would go up to 15,000 cars a day. That’s from the actually from the city. It will
increase to 27,000 cars a day if the collector road in this area has not been built. That collector is
not at this point in time funded. So there is a dramatic change in the whole area.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me sir, just for the benefit of the recorder, if you could speak into the
microphone and if we could give them a microphone. That’s better.
Arild Rossavik: There’s a dramatic change in the whole area here. Powers Boulevard will be
extended down to 212. Construction is expected to take 3 years. At the same time 14,000
housing units, 700,000 office space and new public school in close in the vicinity of Powers and
Lyman Boulevard. Lyman will be expanded to 4 lanes so there will be a traffic light on Powers
and Lyman. On the current plans I’ll show you the different conflict. You have 3 different land
use guidance… Powers and Lyman will be construction zone for years to come. First it will be
3 years just for bringing it down. In addition to that you’re out I would say probably 10 years at
least. You’ll be living in a construction zone. There’s no question about that. So the impact on
me, on the neighbors would be dramatic and permanently. And in my case, if we go to another
thing here. I’ll just be brief about this thing here. There’s another thing here. The City put
water, sewer or water in from this designation 10 years ago. This has been standing… This is a
tax assessment sheet for that and the tax assessment sheet basically says if it has been assessed, it
was $16,300 a year or something like that and that comes up to $160,000 a year. If you times
that by 10 years, it comes out 10 years. The projection, the guidance for the water and sewer was
brought in which I’ll point to here. It sits right here. There’s a lift station, the stub into my
driveway. The stub into the neighbor. That and Simpson down there was an RSF guidance.
There’s no question about that. It actually shows that. If I guess to make that the cost of not
collecting taxes for this year here, we’ll estimate about $700,076.00 if potential development was
taking place. If you also add the cost of the lift station at $250,000 for 10 years ago, probably
come up to $400,000. You estimate a million dollars lost in tax revenue for the city. And of
course the city can do what they want to do. Hillside Oaks is fragmented in 3 pieces. It’s the
northern piece, which I belong to. There’s a southbound piece with the cul-de-sac which I don’t
belong to, and then you have the piece on Lyman Boulevard there so it’s 3 fragmented pieces. 2
of the pieces is A2 and one piece is RSF. If I can get this here. If we look at my driveway here,
Lot 1. Or sorry, this is Block 1, Lot 2 and 1. If you see on the border line or the property line
goes all the way here so this property could, my property can easily facilitate a cul-de-sac or turn
around. Today we don’t have any turn around so I pick-up, trash pick-up is down on the Powers
52
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Boulevard itself. School pick-up is the same thing. And mailbox pick-up is the same thing. So
yes, delivery trucks, if they’re large enough they cannot turn around. Basically have to back up
and against the traffic on Powers Boulevard here. I have myself been out guiding traffic out
there. Flag stop traffic on Powers Boulevard. This is going to increase now. It’s not as safe, and
we don’t have any turn around for fire trucks. Fire trucks will do the same thing if they should
come down there. So at minimum I feel that because of inconsistency here, you have invested in
the water and sewer here and not rezoning is kind of a condemning the whole water and sewer.
We have to use, well we’re all on septic and septic and well so these are not being available to us
without re-guiding of the area. On the present guidance we cannot access water sewer at feasible
cost. But in either way I have asked the city council to at least consider re-guiding my property
for Lot 2, which was recommended by the staff in ’92, 2003. 2003 before all this issue came up
with the traffic coming down…so at least I can facilitate and my property can facilitate a turn
around…come down so this issue can be resolved. Present I have just, that would be another
issue but I have a zoning request coming up later. …my property to two more lots actually. I’ve
got 4 right this down there but that would finance basically the cost of putting a turn around for
properties and I can’t see you’d do any damage to any property. And since it’s already
fragmented, more fragmentation could be okay but that’s up to the council to decide. If you have
any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions of Mr. Rossavik? Very good, thank you. Is there anybody else
that wishes to speak on this matter? Address the council.
Steve Buan: Hello. My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive. Just would like to
say, thank you for the opportunity to address the council on this. I know you don’t have to do
that. There was a public hearing earlier. And I’d just like to say that I agree with the staff that
the land use is appropriate as other, as the comprehensive plan and other groups, that the city has
commissioned to look at land use in the city. They determined it should stay that way and just to
just over ride that without a look at that 20 acres as a whole and not just 3 and 4 acres at a time,
would not, I don’t believe be very prudent for a number of reasons. And so I think that the
staff’s done their homework on this the last, it’s been going on for about 5-6 years now so I think
the homework’s been done on it and unless the group all comes together, several of the lots down
there and it comes up with a comprehensive plan for the 20 acres on the, it would be on the west
side of Powers for developing. There’s a lot of uniqueness in that area with the ravines, the
topography, the wildlife, everything and the park. The decision to not develop the park that’s
immediately adjacent to this property to the west, the city made a conscience decision not to
develop that. It was at one time going to have lighted tennis courts for Lake Susan Hills
development and they took that away and decided to leave that as a natural park area so I believe
there’s something encumbent on the city to look at the abutting properties to that, to the east to
ensure that that goes together in that as a natural park and that there’d be a nice segway into
future development down in that 20 acres. It can be done but it really can’t be done 3 and 4 acres
at a time so I’d just like to say I agree with staff and I certainly hope the council would follow
the staff recommendation on this one, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council
on this matter? Seeing no one I’ll complete the public comment period then and bring it back to
53
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
council at this point to see if there are any follow-up questions for staff at this time. Councilman
Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Kate. Spot zoning. Would this be considered spot zoning?
Kate Aanenson: Well my opinion that spot zoning would be one lot and really if you’re just
going to rezone one, that would kind of fall into that criteria because as the gentleman who just
spoke indicated, really to get the lot yield, similarly we talked about on the last subdivision, you
have to assemble lots to really make it work and what we’re saying, as I indicated on that. You
know looking at this open space it’s labeled park but it’s really open space. And possibly some
bluffs. Really to look at the best utility that probably should be combined. I guess that’s kind of
what we were saying too. Maybe we do some density transfer and push things around and that,
that’s what the neighbor was saying too. To kind of look at it in a holistic manner.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Any comments or
discussion?
Councilman Labatt: I mean I would concur with staff and Mr. Buan. It’s just if we’re going to
do it, do it all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts?
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur. As I read through the Planning Commission meeting
minutes and saw on the public comment, the rest of the low owners there are along the same
lines. It just doesn’t make sense to blanket them with the whole thing, as this application is for,
nor to change the spot zoning with just that one lot so I’m in favor of affirming the staff’s
recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree with Councilman Lundquist.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. You know just to address a couple issues. This is something
that the City Council dealt with most recently I think just under 2 years ago. And while the
applicant is different, you know some of the proposed reasonings are very familiar. I think you
know just to address them with regard to the utilization of the utilities that are put in there, I view
those as a sum cost. I’m not going to sit here and double or question the decision that was made
at the time with regard to the issue of lost tax revenue by not rezoning this and building more
properties. I think there the clear answer is, I mean that could be an argument in any zoned area
throughout the city and what we try to do with our comprehensive plan is balance land uses
knowing that on balance we’ll have a, the tax capacity to provide the services that our residents
look for. Traffic issue was raised. I think the only difference between now and 2 years ago is
that we’re 2 years closer to what we’re expecting. I mean the, and perhaps it’s a little more
certain but I look at this and I don’t see any changes. You know the final question here was,
looking at the land uses around the intersection, I’m sure there are other examples of this but the
one intersection I can think of is Highway 5 and Galpin. We’ve got business neighborhood in
54
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
the northeast corner there. Neighborhood business zoning on the northeast. I think we, didn’t
we put in commercial or office industrial in the northwest there. We’ve got a school and public,
our Chanhassen Rec Center is in the southeast and we’ve got medium density residential in
southwest, so I mean that’s just one example and I think that works fine. I don’t think when
you’re dealing with major roads like this, they provide a natural barrier. It’s not like the issue we
were just dealing with before earlier on our agenda items so I look at this, and as much as I
appreciate Mr. Rossavik’s passion, excuse me, I don’t see any changes in facts and
circumstances between the last time we addressed this and I don’t see any compelling reason to
change the land use. I concur with the others. We should have, you know staff has looked at
this again. Planning Commission’s looked at this again and I think everything seems to be just
fine the way it is. I don’t see any compelling reason to change. So any other thoughts or
discussion on this? If not, is there a motion.
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I’d move that we affirm the land use designation of residential large
lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition as in the staff report.
Roger Knutson: And does that include adopting the Planning Commission findings as the
council’s findings?
Councilman Labatt: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
affirms the Land Use Map designation of Residential-Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks
Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson did not vote due to a possible conflict of interest.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.19 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD, JOHN
HENRY ADDITION; ERNEST PIVEC AND TIM MCGUIRE; PLANNING CASE NO.
05-05.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located at the intersection of Melody Hill and
Murray Hill. There’s an existing house on the subject site. Now we need to back out. Existing
55
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
house on the subject site. That house currently does not meet the setback requirements from
Murray Hill Road, which is only at 19. It’s because it’s existing, it’s legal non-conforming and it
wouldn’t affect the plat. There’s also a shed that doesn’t meet the setback requirements which
again is non-conforming. The applicant is proposing to subdivide to get 2 additional lots. All
lots do meet the minimum requirements. They all have access onto a public street. Pretty
straight forward subdivision. I just wanted to point out one thing for the record, if you could
zoom back in here. You know again as, I just want to bring this up because it came up you know
how we always have to look at how could things be further subdivided. In looking at these lots,
just for the record, they are long. They’re over an acre so they could be further subdivided. Now
we’re not going to try to solve that problem here today but I just want to put it out there on the
record because it does provide some interesting alternatives which would be working together
with the neighbors. Sometimes you can’t further subdivide a large lot and as we just learned or
talked about in this past application, the only way would have to be through variances where you
combine driveways and those are the lots. But we did look at that. If you try to force a straight,
back out here again, try to force a straight, so these would be these large lots moving this way.
To force a street through here, 4 or 5 lots that may or may not subdivide. It drops off, but I just
wanted you to know we did go through that iteration. Kind of looked at that exercise. What
makes the most sense. Based on kind of the character of the neighborhood, most of those lots are
larger. We don’t anticipate, there was a street coming off, they could provide access. It was
vacated so it’s our anticipation that it will stay large lot but 10 years from now when someone
comes in, you know that’s kind of what we’re thinking. They may have to combine and do a
private drive and that would require a variance, but to stub a street through here on a maybe, we
went through that evaluation and we thought it didn’t make sense so I just wanted to explain that
for the record. So with that, again it’s a pretty straight forward subdivision. Plat. Extracting
park and trail fees for the two additional lots. We are recommending approval, as did the
th
Planning Commission at their meeting on January 18, so they voted 5 to 1 to recommend
approval. With that the staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the conditions in
the staff report. I’d be happy to answer questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? I guess one question with regard to those
lots to the, is it the east or the south, whichever way. The ones that you were looking at there.
Did you by any chance contact the owners and inquire about their thoughts?
Kate Aanenson: We did notice all owners. We did not contact them to see what their desirous.
Again, the evaluation we went through is most of those of those homes sit pretty squarely in the
lot so again, just to be clear, you’re not obligated to give any variance to provide someone the
opportunity to subdivide, but I just wanted to point out for the record, this lot that is coming
before you is a little bit larger. It does have direct access onto a public street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there are no variances here?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: The issue with the non-conforming, when the staff report says it’s.
Kate Aanenson: Pre-existing.
56
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Not like pre-existing but it doesn’t intensify.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Does that mean that there’s no difference in the non-conformance before and
after.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here
this evening? Like to address the council. Good evening sir.
Applicant: Good evening. Thank you mayor and council members. This is a pretty straight
forward development we think. We have an opportunity to develop 2 additional lots on this
piece of property and we intend to access that through Murray Hill. There are going to be houses
that are comparable to the surrounding homes in the neighborhood, probably around $700,000
area. Somewhere in that category. Delahay Builders who’s doing some other work in the city
right now is the partner in this and I guess…Carver Beach so it will be something similar to the
style that’s already in the neighborhood, either of the colonials that are on the cul-de-sac or
there’s some homes to the west that have recently been built. It will either conform to those.
Our intent is to keep it blending into the neighborhood that’s currently there so.
Mayor Furlong: Very good.
Applicant: Is there’s any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you sir. Very
good. Any thoughts or discussions?
Gil Kreidberg: How about public comment?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Gil Kreidberg: The reason I, my name is Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Gil Kreidberg: Good evening to all of you. Appreciate your time. The reason I came here
tonight is I attended the Planning Commission meeting with regards to this subdivision. My
home would be just to the west. Northern part of my property to the portion of this lot that’s
going to be split into 3 instead of 1. And the applicant failed to appear at the Planning
Commission meeting which disappointed me because I wanted to get further clarification as to
the nature of the homes that were going to be built and how he was going to enter either a
driveway or whatever dealing with the existing 50-60 pines and stuff that border along Murray
Hill there. I see that he’s shown here this evening. I have no problem with the concept of
57
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
developing this as some of my other neighbors who weren’t able to attend tonight. His answer to
the nature of maintaining homes of the same integrity in the neighborhood is clearly important.
The only other issue was addressing what he was going to do with the existing trees and so on as
to how he’s not going to barren what is a kind of attractive tree lined entry. That was my point in
here and got at the outset…disappointed not to see him at the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay, any other public comment? If not, appreciate that.
We’ll bring it back to council for discussion. Question Kate with regard to the, and I failed to
write the gentleman’s name down who just asked about access to properties. At this point in
time we’re looking at just the subdivision, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Can you point to me which lot you are? Can you zoom in on this?
Gil Kreidberg: I would be the property…so I would be in the cul-de-sac in here but I also own
land right up to here. I’m on this piece here on the fast east, right.
Kate Aanenson: So I’m sorry, your question was?
Mayor Furlong: His question was access to the property. I’m going to raise the question, what
determines how they access the property for driveways and such.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. In this circumstance based on the fact that they houses face Murray Hill,
they would get access that way. The requirement would be 90 feet. These are 100 foot lot
widths, so based on how this property could be subdivided, this is the most logical way. All lots
have to abut a public street so that’s the only way it could be subdivided.
Gil Kreidberg: I wonder because you know there’s an option if these houses go in and how
many of those trees are going to come down.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and to be clear before they can proceed with construction we actually walk
the site. That was addressed in the forestry part. I’d be happy to, if you wanted to talk to us
directly about that. This is a little bit different because it’s pretty flat. It’s not going to have to
be custom graded on this site so we can certainly work.
Councilman Labatt: Flat and square.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, as opposed to.
Councilman Peterson: This is not Chanhassen.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, this is a lot easier to do so typically what we do before we give an order
to proceed construction is we typically walk a site. You kind of agree on those significant trees
and we mark those trees and we make them put construction around that. Construction fencing
to secure that those trees are safe. I’m assuming the trees that you’re most interested would be
adjacent to Murray Hill Road.
58
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Gil Kreidberg: …I’ve been in there 18 years…I was just concerned that going in here, we didn’t
want to fool around with a whole bunch of them…
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I think there’s two things that we need to look at. One is utility
connection. When you connect for sewer and water, that’s going to, you have to trench for that
so that will be some tree loss, and then depending on where the driveway location is, but if we
can work with the developer on that we can certainly address those and get those marked.
Gil Kreidberg: Yeah, I’m sure the other one will be reasonable…
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yes, he was specifically invited to be here tonight.
Mayor Furlong: And we appreciate him showing up, and I guess the answer to your question is,
there will be tree loss as the access. What I would suggest is continue to work with Kate or her
staff on that and Kate, if you can keep him informed. Thank you. Bring it back to council then
any discussion.
Councilman Labatt: Just reading my annual report from Southwest Metro.
Mayor Furlong: We’re not into council discussions yet. If we can stay on task here. Any
discussion? Comments. Seems pretty straight forward. Within our code and ordinance. Flat
and square. This cannot be Chanhassen so.
Kate Aanenson: One lot. The only one we have.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. If there’s no discussion, is there a motion? Is there a motion to
approve the recommendation in the staff report?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-05, John Henry Addition for 3 single
family lots as shown on the plans received December 17, 2004, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions:
a. A minimum of one planted tree shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
b. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
59
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
c. All trees shown as preserved and outside of the grading limits as shown on plans
dated Received 12/17/04 shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed
tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
2. Submit drainage calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of
final plat.
3. On the plan:
a. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance.
b. Call out the proposed house types on Lots 2 and 3.
c. Show silt fence around the grading area.
d. Show the existing access drives on the western side of Murray Hill Road.
e. Show the locations of the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lots.
f. Show the location of the proposed driveways for the new lots.
g. Show existing topography and structures within 100 feet of the property line.
h. Show the existing sanitary manhole rim and invert elevations along with all of the
existing utility pipes in Murray Hill Road.
i. show 30 foot rear yard setback.
4. All sanitary services must be 6” PVC-SDR26 and water services 1” copper.
5. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (3) than what the property had been
previously assessed for, the additional two units will be charged the sanitary sewer and
water connection charge. The 2005 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are each
$5,118 for a total per unit or per lot cost of $10,236. Based on these rates, the total
amount due payable to the City for the additional two lot units will be $20,472 (2 @
$10,236.).
6. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300, and 5301.
7. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
8. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots.
The 2005 trunk hook up charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel
at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council.
9. As part of the development improvements, the developer will be required to extend water
and sanitary sewer services to the property line of each new lot.
10. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also
required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
60
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be
aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before
building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be
required, including the MPCA.
11. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign the plans for the
utility improvements.
12. 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
found, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
Type of Slope
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
14. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.19 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $1,301; the water quality fees are approximately $3,219.
At this time the estimated SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording is $4,520.
15. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. The 2005
park fees rate is $4,000. Park fees for John Henry Addition will be $8,000.
16. Building Official conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
b. Separate water and sewer service must be provided for each lot.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
61
City Council Meeting – February 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: I’ve got one item, just information for my fellow council members. And
residents as well. I’ve been asked to, and today participated in the first meeting of the executive
committee of a new organization. It’s the Regional Council of Mayors. It’s a group that’s in
association with the Urban Land Institute. ULI I think. And while I believe it started with land
use and development issues, something that obviously we deal with. But also in discussion
today, the executive committee is a group that will organize activities, create policy as well on a
regional basis and that was the issue that came up. While the members of the executive
committee include cities both Minneapolis, St. Paul, as well as around the 7 county metro area.
In December I attended a meeting that was organized by this group where approximately, I
believe there were over 100 mayors from around the metropolitan area came. Talked about
transportation, housing, so similar to the Chair Peter Bell’s, or the Metropolitan Council in which
I participate, because of the 4 statutory limits on the Met Council, the 4 items that they work
with, this group will have a little more latitude to focus on areas that are important to really
developing an overall regional plan. So I raise that just to let my fellow council members know
what I’m doing. I believe it’s something that being at the table and being able to participate will
clearly help represent Chanhassen and our interests as well so, if there are items, what I will try
to do is circulate issues and topics that come up if I can do that legally to get input or thoughts
but we’ll find a way to do that so that as the issues come up we can try to get your thoughts as
well, so let me know if there are items you’re thinking are important to be discussed there. Any
other council presentations? Hearing none, administrative Mr. Gerhardt.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
None.
CORRESPONDENCE PACKET:
None.
Mayor Furlong: I will make the comment for the record once again. I made it off record earlier
this evening. This is Councilwoman Tjornhom’s third meeting I believe and the second that has
extended almost to 11:00. You just increased the average meeting length to about 3 to 4 hours
so, we’ve got to get that in check. I think it was a good meeting tonight. Obviously there’s a lot
of issues on some of the stuff we talked about and it’s important that we take the time to listen to
residents and I think we did that and we’ve got more work to do but that’s fine. So if there’s
nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:55
p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
62