4 Subdivide Arvidson Property
-
.,
¡
)
J
L..
L
:(
::(
-
3
1J
-
-
f)
-..........
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
L(-
PC DATE: 8/1/00
-
CC DATE: 8/28/00
REVIEW DEADLINE: 8-29-00
CASE #: 00-8 SUB
By: AI-JaffïHempel:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.17 Acres into 4 single family lots,
Arvidsons Addition
LOCATION:
Southwest comer of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill
Road
APPLICANT:
Mike Arvidson
5595 Timber Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
(612)474-8086
Cliff and Pat Woida
6398 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612)474-8998
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 2.17 acres
DENSITY: 2 Units per Acre Net 1.8 Units per Ace Gross
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Subdivision of 2.17 acres into 4 single family lots. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed
to all property owners within 500 feet. A development sign has been posted· on site since mid June.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning
Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a
quasi-judicial decision.
a::
a:: "E
.-
-
.-
:I:
è
L..
:::s
~
:::J
Co
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 2
· Different applicant.
· Existing house to remain.
· The proposed private driveway has a bubble.
· Minor variation in lot area.
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and denied this application. Following
the decision of the Planning Commission, the applicant withdrew his application. The current
proposal is the same as that submitted in 1996 with the exception of the following:
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.17 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is
zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 21,918 square feet with a resulting net density of2 units per acre. The site
is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Road.
Access to the subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private driveway and serve all four
lots. There is a home on the existing parcel, which is proposed to remain. The existing attached
garage is proposed to be removed to eliminate a rear setback variance and a new garage is
proposed to be built.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The site has mature trees along its westerly portion.
One of the main issues of concern is access to the site. Back in April of 1995, in conjunction
with the Golmen-Hoff-Golmen subdivision, which lies directly to the west of this site, Melody
Hill Road connection was discussed. Some alternative development possibilities on the subject
site and the adjoining parcel to the north have been explored by staff. The Assistant City
Engineer explored these alternatives which will be discussed in further detail in the report. Staff
informed Mr. Arvidson that we will recommend the parcels be served via a public street vs. a
private driveway. This will provide the opportunity for the other adjacent parcel to subdivide as
well and improve access to the existing neighborhood. The private driveway proposal, as
submitted, limits access to only Mr. Arvidson's parcel and no future access to the adjoining
parcel. Staff feels that this area can and should be developed under a different alternative, which
includes a public street. Therefore, staff recommends that the subdivision be approved
contingent upon the extension of Melody Hill Road. If a private driveway was allowed to be
constructed, the parcel to the north will have limited subdivision potential.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 3
The city did receive a petition from the neighbors requesting the city not extend Melody Hill (see
attached letter).
We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.17 acre site into four single-family lots. The density
of the proposed subdivision is 2 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum
15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of21,918 square feet. All of the proposed lots
meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, a shed occupies proposed Lot I,
and a barn occupies proposed Lot 4. The single family residence is proposed to remain, however,
the attached garage is proposed to be demolished and a new garage that meets setback
requirements, is proposed to be built. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory
structures prior to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a
nonconforming situation (the shed and barn on Lots I and 4). The applicant should escrow funds
with the City to guarantee the removal of the structures no later than one month after final plat
approval by the City Council. If the applicant fails to remove the structures, the City would
contract to have the structures removed.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
WETLANDS
There does not appear to be any wetlands present on-site, however, staff recommends that a
wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning maps.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP)
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium
density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of2.17 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project would be $1,736.
The applicant may be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff
ITom the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations.
Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the
SWMP. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 4
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-
family/low density developments have a connection charge of$I,980 per developable acre.
Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $4,296.60 fee.
These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
STREETS
The plans propose a private street to service the development. According to City Code 18-57(N),
the construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57(0). This
section permits construction of a private street if the City finds the following conditions exist:
*
"The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street."
Staff has reviewed the development proposal and found that it is feasible ITom an
engineering standpoint to construct a public street. The extension of Melody Hill Road
through to Murray Hill Road would eliminate the existing 900 foot long deadend on
Melody Hill Road. It would also provide continuity between neighborhoods and access
to school facilities. The street grades for the extension of Melody Hill Road are very
level and fairly void of significant tree cover. Additional street right-of-way was
dedicated for Melody Hill Road west of this site with the subdivision of Golmen Hoff
Golmen Addition in 1996.
*
"After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public
street system is not required to service other parcels in the area, improve access, or
provide a street system consistent with the Comprehensive Plan".
Staff has reviewed the neighborhood for potential future subdivisions. The parcel directly
to the north of this site (Dorenkamp) has the potential to further subdivide into a total of
three lots (see attached plans). The Dorenkamp parcel would be able to utilize the public
street for future lot subdivision. Without the extension of Melody Hill Road, the
Dorenkamp parcel will be limited in development potential to a private street as well.
Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood and
school property. Melody Hill Road has a street grade in excess of 10% in some areas.
This makes winter driving fairly difficult.
_.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 5
*
"The use of private street will permit enhanced protection of the City's natural resources
including wetlands and forested areas."
There are no wetlands or forested areas on the site. The plans propose on grading
approximately 75% of the site for utility and street extension and house pads.
Construction of the public street would not reduce or increase the lot grading, however,
tree loss may be slightly greater in the northern part of the site with the extension of
Melody Hill Road.
Staff believes that this subdivision proposal fails to meet city ordinance necessary for a private
street. The extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road will improve access to the
Melody Hill neighborhood, provide pedestrian access to the school facilities, and provide the
Dorenkamp parcel with future subdivision capabilities. It will also minimize the amount of site
utilities and impervious surface necessary to serve both parcels.
Melody Hill Road ends approximately 120 feet west of the property. The City would have to be
petitioned to extend Melody Hill Road and costs assessed to the benefiting properties. There is
sufficient right-of-way west of the development for the extension of Melody Hill Road. As the
Planning Commission and City Council members may recall, there were discussions about the
extension of Melody Hill Road with the Golmen Hoff Golmen plat which resulted in additional
right -of-way being dedicated for the future street extension.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
According to the site plan, approximately 65% of the parcel will be graded to develop the house
pads, private street, and installation of utilities. Staff has redesigned the plat layout with a public
street (extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road). The revised plat requires removal
of the existing house. The amount of grading is approximately the same. All the proposed
dwellings will be rambler-style homes, i.e. no lookouts/walkouts.
The neighborhood drainage pattern is predominantly to the north. As a result of the proposed site
grading, the drainage is proposed to sheet drain over land in an east, west, and north direction.
Additional runoff from this development is relatively small in comparison to the existing
conditions. No additional storm drainage improvements are proposed nor are any recommended
as a result ofthis development. The existing streets and drainage system in the area are
substandard to the City's current street design standards (curb and gutter and storm sewers). In
the future when streets are reconstructed, storm sewer will be installed accordingly.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 6
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site ITom Murray Hill Road. Watermain is
also bordering the parcel on the west side from Melody Hill Road to the city water tower. The
existing home on the site is connected to city sewer and water. The plans propose on extending a
common sewer and water line along the private street to service the four lots. All utilities in the
subdivision will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion. All utilities should be
installed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction final plat approval.
The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide
financial security to guarantee installation of the public utilities and conditions of final approval.
If the plat is approved without a public street, a 40- foot wide drainage and utility easement will
be needed over the utility lines on the final plat. If Melody Hill is constructed, the utilities will
fall within the street right-of-way and no additional easements will be needed.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one
sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charge. As a result of the development, three of
the lots will be subject to hookup charges at time of building permit issuance assuming the
applicant installs the mainline sewer and water lines. Another reason staff believes Melody Hill
Road should be extended is also for utility service to the area. If a private street is permitted, the
Dorenkamp parcel to the north will require another sewer and water line in which the City will
own and maintain, thus, requiring maintenance of two separate water and sewer systems in which
one system would suffice to service both parcels. If the applicant installs the utilities along
Melody Hill Road, they will be entitled to compensation for a portion of the utilities. When the
Dorenkamp parcel develops and connects to the system, the City will collect connection charges.
In return, the City would refund a portion ofthe connection charge back to the applicant. This
scenario has happened on a number of projects where the adjacent parcel wasn't ready to
subdivide at the time utilities are provided.
As proposed, connection to the City's sanitary sewer system may require temporary closing of
Murray Hill Road for up to a day. Special construction techniques such as a construction box or
creating a temporary bypass lane in the boulevard to maintain ingress and egress to the residences
at the end of Murray Hill Road (cul-de-sac) are recommended.
EROSION CONTROL
Type I silt fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction entrance will
also be required. The final grading/development plans shall include a rock construction entrance
at all access points.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 7
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city
ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Lot
Depth
Home
Setback
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
30' ITont/rear
10' sides
BLOCK I
Lot I
21,151
142.89'
150'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
Lot 2
21,896
138.85'
166.65'
Lot 3
22,023
124.74'
172.01 '
30'/30'
10'
Lot 4
22,605
155.50'
150'
30'/30'
10'
It should be noted that these tabulations would change if Melody Hill Road were extended. Lot 2
will be considered a comer lot and have 30 foot setbacks from Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill
Road. The remaining sides are 10-foot setbacks.
TREE PRESERV ATION/LANDSCAPING
The applicant has not submitted canopy coverage calculations for the site, therefore staffhas
calculated approximate canopy coverage.
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Arvidsons Addition development are
as follows:
Total upland area (including outIots)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
94,525 SF or 2.17 ac.
65% or 61,441 SF
46% or 43,482 SF
33% or 31,193 SF
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 8
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is
multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
12,289 SF
1.2
14,747 SF
14 trees
A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan
shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size
requirements. Plantings should be divided between the four lots as follows: Lot I - four trees,
Lot 2 - two trees, Lot 3 - four trees, Lot 4 - four trees.
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the subdivision ordinance.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report. The site is fairly level and will require minimal alteration
for development.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban inftastructure
except the property should be accessed by a public street per city ordinance.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 9
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject
to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas
to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will require the extension of a public street.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On August I, 2000, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the subdivision
application. The main reasons stated for denying the application were:
· Extending the public street is good planning practice.
· The subdivision as proposed does not meet the subdivision ordinance requirements.
· The application as proposed does not meet the requirements for a private driveway.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Plftftfiiflg Cemmissiefl City Council adopt the following motion:
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Addition
for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans dated received June 30, 2000, subject to the
following conditions:
r:
t
i;
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 10
,<
I. The plat shall be redesigned incorporating the east/west extension of Melody Hill Road to
Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated right-of-way. The existing home shall
be removed from the right-of-way by the developer. The developer shall petition the City
to construct Melody Hill Road between Murray Hill Road and the current terminus of
Melody Hill Road. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City
Council authorizing a project to construct Melody Hill Road through to Murray Hill
Road.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the
development. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the
city engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall also enter into a
development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall apply for a obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department, and
PCA for extension of the utility lines.
4. Lots I, 2, and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These
charges shall be collected per city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. If the
utilities are extended along Melody Hill Road, the applicant shall be reimbursed for a
portion of the cost of installing the utilities when the parcel (Dorenkamp) connects to the
system. Connection charges collected by the City shall be used to reimburse the applicant
their fair share of the cost in providing utility service to the Dorenkamp parcel.
5. If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the applicant shall
dedicate a 40- foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the utilities on the
final plat.
6. If a public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in accordance with the
City's private street ordinance. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will be
required to maintain access.
7. During utility and street construction, provisions shall be made to maintain at least one
lane of traffic open at all times on Murray Hill Road.
8. The applicant must plant 14 trees in development to meet minimum canopy coverage and
reforestation requirements. Trees must be from City's Approved Tree List and be of
minimum sized as stated in ordinance. Replacement plantings will be divided among the
lots as follows: Lot I - four trees, Lot 2 - two trees, Lot 3 - four trees, Lot 4 - four trees.
Reforestation plan must be submitted prior to final plat for city approval.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page II
9. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits prior to grading. Fencing
shall remain in place throughout the construction.
10. Building Department conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before
demolishing any structures on the property.
b. A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
II. The existing garage, shed, and barn shall be removed no later than one month after final
plat approval by the City Council. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to
ensure compliance with this condition.
12. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and/or trail construction.
13. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. The new road servicing the four lots must be given a street name. Submit the
proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b. Submit cul-de-sac radius dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
c. If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site. No
burning permits will be issued due to close proximity of neighboring houses.
14. The proposed residential development of 2.17 net developable acres is responsible for a
water quality connection charge of$I,736. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding
provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be
waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $4,296.60. These fees
are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. "
ATTACHMENTS
I. Application.
2. Public hearing and property owners list.
3. Memo ITom Steve Torell dated July 18,2000.
4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated July 25, 2000.
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated July 17,2000.
Arvidsons Addition
August 28, 2000
Page 12
6. Memo from Lori Haak dated July 24, 2000.
7. Letter from Sharmin AI-Jaff dated June 19,2000.
8. Letter ITom Thomas and Neysa Winterer dated received July 24, 2000.
9. Letter ITom Greg Golmen and Junei Hoff-Golmen dated July 22, 2000.
10. Letter and Petition from Andrea Scharff dated July 24, 2000.
II. Letter from Richard McFarland dated July 24, 2000.
12. Letter from Rich and Linda Nicoli dated July 21, 2000.
13. Planning Commission minutes dated April 17, 1996 and letter and petition from Charles
Spevacek dated June 20, 1995.
14. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1,2000.
15. Preliminary plat dated received June 30, 2000.
g:\plan\sa\arvidson sub.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
~OFCHIINlHo\~~~M
OF.CElYFD
JUU 13 2000
êHM 'in"';~tN t"LAt4t..".... ..,,,IT
APPLICANT: J.IJ I K£ A R Vi 0 S 0 ¡J
ADDRESS: SS9..s- T (M ß EIe. L AJ
SHOR.£.WDDO, HIV 55.33/
,
TElEPHONE (Daytime) (PIt} - If 71.{. - g--o,?, C.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Ct....( FF q- PA'I \;..Ie I nÂ
;:5 . of r
OWNER: . \' ~
ADDRESS: to37ð' 11 v I( R A V JJ, ILL
C!4,Á~(-I4S";"'A.i M AJ,
,
TELEPHONE: G> r Ii . \.j 71f - ?-1'1'r
/è{)
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permtt
- Conditional Use Penntt - Vacation of ROWlEasements
- Interim Use Permit - Variance
_ Non-confonning Use Permtt - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
. ~ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review 1 Notification Sign Q. (50,00
- Stte Plan Review· -X.. Escrow for Filing ~~ltorney ~E
($50 CUP/SPRN CI'!o/,AR/W P/Metes
and Bounds, 00 Minor SUB)
.::L Subdivision- i <.¡.{,O,Oð TOTAL FEE $ 1,010.00
A ßst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Bundlng materIal samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an av.'· X 11" reduced copy 0"
transparency for each plan sheet.
.. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
(
, r~-·J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of Parcel
Into 4 Single Family Lots
APPUCANT: Michael Arvidson
LOCATION: 6330 Murray Hili Road
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
Mike Arvidson, is requesting to subdivide a 2.17 acre parcal into 4 single family lots on property zoned
RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray HIli Road, Arvldsons Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing Is to inform you about the developer's
request and to obtain Input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Sharmln at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 2000.
Smooth Feed Sheets™
!ND SCHOOL DIST 276
261 SCHOOL AVE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MICHAEL L & ANDREA K SCHARFF
2300 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ROBERT E LEE III
2250 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RICHARD & LINDA K NICOLI
2280 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KAREN SIGNE PETERSON
2240 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ROBERT J CRISTOFONO
MARGARET A CRISTOFONO
2210 SOMMERGATE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MITCHELL M & SUSANNE B KANTER
2220 SOMMERGA TE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LYNDA M KUZMA
2241 SOMMERGATE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARK T & ANNE K GINTHER
2231 SOMMERGA TE
EXCELSIOR MN 5533\
PERRY C HARRISON
2221 SOMMERGATE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
.. "" I'--"""
"J.-t____, _'._1_
Æ:{Vl ~ S~
Use template for 5160@
CLAUDE W & KA YE L BENSON
2211 SOMMERGATE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PETER E & LISA J ST AUDOHAR
2204 SOMMERGA TE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GREG GOLMEN &
JUNIE HOFF-GOLMEN
2220 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 5533\
THOMAS G & NEYSA L WINTERER
2210 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CHARLES R & JOANNE FLEWELLEN
6340 MURRAY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARK L & CAROL J RIESE
6320 MURRAY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MICHAEL C & MARGARET L BUCHN
2191 SOMMERGATE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOHN THOMAS FAVORITE II
SUSAN LEE FAVORITE
2080 65TH ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RICHARD & BARBARA D ATHERTON
2082 65TH ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DON & KKELLY
2081 65TH ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LORRAINE S CLARK
2161 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOHN R & NANCY H LlBERG
2091 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RICHARD D & JOYCE H MCFARLAND
6341 MURRAYHILLRD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ROBERT E LEE
6261 MURRAY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 5533\
THEODORE DORENKAMP II &
BONITA JANE DORENKAMP
6370 MURRAY-HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CLIFFORD E & PATRICIA E WOIDA
6398 MURRAY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
WAYNE E POPPE &
JOYCE SLATER POPPE
2090 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN G & DENISE GARTLEY
2098 MELODY HILL RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
HARLAN & ELEANOR JOHNSON
6340 HUMMINGBIRD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 5533\
HARRY DAVID BAERT
6300 HUMMINGBIRD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
. - - -..
~..,...(ÍÌ\
¡¡09t!i
Jasel
IN J & JUNE A HAMSHER
I MELODY HILL
CELSIOR MN 55331
AIG R & CATHERINE JOHNSON
I MELODY HILL RD
CELSIOR MN 55331
N S F ARNI & JULIE F ARNI
USTEES OF TRUST
4 MURRAY HILL RD
CELSIOR MN 55331
:HARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT
;4 MURRAY HILL RD
CELSIOR MN 55331
'UGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON
'4 MURRAY HILL RD
CELSIOR MN 55331
ROL ASLESEN CHILD
2 MURRAY HILL RD
CELSIOR MN 55331
HN J & L YNNETTE J DELUCA
34 MURRAY HILL RD
:CELSIOR MN 55331
LBERT & JILLENE KREIDBERG
44 MURRAY HILL RD
:CELSIOR MN 55331
TY OF CHANHASSEN ..
OSC~TTBOTCHER-·
o CITY CE PO BOX 14
1~ SEN MN 55317
s aqel SSaJPPV
\.
®AH3A"f.1
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
Date: July 12, 2000
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
Prom: Planning Department
By: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
Subject: Request to subdivide a 2.17 acre parcel into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF,
Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Arvidsons Addition, Mike
Arvidson.
Planning Case: 2000-8 SUB
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on June 30, 2000.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, stonn water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect rrom the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on Tuesday, August 1,2000 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than July
24, 2000. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is
greatly appreciated.
1.
{Î>relephone Company
(US West or Sprint)
(iklectric Company
(NSP or MN Valley)
mir .
~ . nax Cable System
City Departments
(J2 City Engineer
b. City Attorney
æCity Park Director
cPFire Marshal
æBuilding Official
()Water Resources Coordinator
($ìForester
2. Watershed District Engineer
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3. Soil Conservation Service
12.
Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
13.
Other
.,....,
/6.A1innegasco
., ,/
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
1 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
:hanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
'ngineering Fax 612.937.9152
,blic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
Xfeb www.ci.chanhassen.mn.uJ
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
Steven ToreH, Building Official ~
July 18, 2000
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Review of proposed subdivision: Arvidsons Addition
Planning Case: 2000-10 SUB
I have reviewed the plans for the above subdivision and have the following
conditions and comments:
I. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before
demolishing any structures on the property.
2. A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before building permits will be issued.
G/safety/st/memos/planlarvidsonsaddn
'he City of ChilllhasseI1. A {1'owÙ¡t community with clean lakes, qualitv schools, a (harmin~ downtown, thrivinv businesses. and beautifù! tJarks. A mat Place to live, work, and tJMV.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Sr. Planner
690 City CmttrDrive, POBox 147 FROM:
Chanhassen, Minnesoti1 55317
Phone 612.9311900 DATE:
Gentral FI1X 612.937.5739
Engineering FI1X612.937.9152 SUBJ:
Public Safety FI1X 612.934.2524
Wéb www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DlYð
July 26, 2000
Review of Preliminary Plat for Arvidson Plan
Land Use Review File No. 00-16
Upon review ofthe development plans prepared by Roger Anderson & Associates
dated June 30, 2000, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
STREETS
The plans propose a private street to service the development. According to City
Code 18-57(N), the construction of private streets are prohibited except as
specified in Section 18-57(0). This section permits construction of a private
street ifthe City finds the following conditions exist:
*
"The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate
to construct a public street".
Staff has reviewed the development proposal and found that it is feasible
ITom an engineering standpoint to construct a public street. The extension
of Melody Hill Road through to Murray Hill Road would eliminate the
existing 900 foot long deadend on Melody Hill Road. It would also
provide continuity between neighborhoods and access to school facilities.
The street grades for the extension of Melody Hill Road are very level and
fairly void of significant tree cover. Additional street right-of-way was
dedicated for Melody Hill Road west of this site with the subdivision of
Golmen Hoff Golmen Addition in 1996.
*
"After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of
the public street system is not required to service other parcels in the area,
improve access, or provide a street system consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan".
Staff has reviewed the neighborhood for potential future subdivisions.
The parcel directly to the north of this site (Dorenkamp) has the potential
to further subdivide into a total of three lots (see attached plans). The
Dorenkamp parcel would be able to utilize the public street for future lot
subdivision. Without the extension of Melody Hill Road, the Dorenkamp
The Citv ofChanhasSin. A rrowinfCommunitv with clean lakes. aualitv schook. a charmin~ downtown. thrivin~ businesses, and beautiful parks. A rreat place to live, work. and p"
Sharmin AI-Jaff
July 25, 2000
Page 2
parcel will be limited in development potential to a private street as well.
Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody Hill
neighborhood and school property. Melody Hill Road has a street grade in
excess of 10% in some areas. This makes winter driving fairly difficult.
*
"The use of private street will permit enhanced protection of the City's
natural resources including wetlands and forested areas".
There are no wetlands or forested areas on the site. The plans propose on
grading approximately 75% of the site for utility and street extension and
house pads. Construction of the public street would not reduce or increase
the lot grading, however, tree loss may be slightly greater in the northern
part of the site with the extension of Melody Hill Road.
Staff believes that this subdivision proposal fails to meet city ordinance necessary
for a private street. The extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road will
improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide pedestrian access to the
school facilities, and provide the Dorenkamp parcel with future subdivision
capabilities. It will also minimize the amount of site utilities and impervious
surface necessary to serve both parcels.
Melody Hill Road ends approximately 120 feet west of the property. The City
would have to be petitioned to extend Melody Hill Road and costs assessed to the
benefiting properties. There is sufficient right-of-way west of the development for
the extension of Melody Hill Road. As the Planning Commission and City
Council members may recall, there were discussions about the extension of
Melody Hill Road with the Golmen Hoff Golmen plat which resulted in additional
right-of-way being dedicated for the future street extension.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
According to the site plan, approximately 65% of the parcel will be graded to
develop the house pads, private street, and installation of utilities. Staff has
redesigned the plat layout with a public street (extension of Melody Hill Road to
Murray Hill Road). The revised plat requires removal of the existing house. The
amount of grading is approximately the same. All the proposed dwellings will be
rambler-style homes, i.e. no lookouts/walkouts.
The neighborhood drainage pattern is predominantly to the north. As a result of
the proposed site grading, the drainage is proposed to sheet drain over land in an
east, west, and north direction. Additional runoff ÍÌ"om this development is
relatively small in comparison to the existing conditions. No additional storm
drainage improvements are proposed nor are any recommended as a result of this
development. The existing streets and drainage system in the area are substandard
to the City's current street design standards (curb and gutter and storm sewers). In
Sharmin AI-Jaff
July 25, 2000
Page 3
the future when streets are reconstructed, storm sewer will be installed
accordingly.
Staff recommends that the Surface Water Management Fees (SWMP) be paid in
lieu of water quality or quantity improvements. Currently, SWMP fees for single-
family residential developments are $800 per acre for water quality and $1,980 per
acre for water quantity. These fees are due to the City at time of final plat
recording.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site ÍÌ"om Murray Hill Road.
Watermain is also bordering the parcel on the west side ÍÌ"om Melody Hill Road to
the city water tower. The existing home on the site is connected to city sewer and
water. The plans propose on extending a common sewer and water line along the
private street to service the four lots. All utilities in the subdivision will be owned
and maintained by the City upon completion. All utilities should be installed in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in
conjunction final plat approval. The applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee
installation of the public utilities and conditions of final approval.
If the plat is approved without a public street, a 40- foot wide drainage and utility
easement will be needed over the utility lines on the final plat. If Melody Hill is
constructed, the utilities will fall within the street right-of-way and no additional
easements will be needed.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the parcel was previously
assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charge. As a
result ofthe development, three of the lots will be subject to hookup charges at
time of building permit issuance assuming the applicant installs the mainline
sewer and water lines. Another reason staff believes Melody Hill Road should be
extended is also for utility service to the area. If a private street is permitted, the
Dorenkamp parcel to the north will require another sewer and water line in which
the City will own and maintain, thus, requiring maintenance of two separate water
and sewer systems in which one system would suffice to service both parcels. If
the applicant installs the utilities along Melody Hill Road, they will be entitled to
compensation for a portion ofthe utilities. When the Dorenkamp parcel develops
and connects to the system, the City will collect connection charges. In return, the
City would refund a portion ofthe connection charge back to the applicant. This
scenario has happened on a number of projects where the adjacent parcel wasn't
ready to subdivide at the time utilities are provided.
Sharmin AI-Jaff
July 25, 2000
Page 4
As proposed, connection to the City's sanitary sewer system may require
temporary closing of Murray Hill Road for up to a day. Special construction
techniques such as a construction box or creating a temporary bypass lane in the
boulevard to maintain ingress and egress to the residences at the end of Murray
Hill Road (cul-de-sac) are recommended.
EROSION CONTROL
Type I silt fence is proposed around the perimeter of the site. A rock construction
entrance will also be required. The final grading/development plans shall include
a rock construction entrance at all access points.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The plat shall be redesigned with incorporating the east/west extension of
Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated
right-of-way. The existing home shall be removed ITom the right-of-way
by the developer. The developer shall petition the City to construct
Melody Hill Road between Murray Hill Road and the current terminus of
Melody Hill Road. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent
upon the City Council authorizing a project to construct Melody Hill Road
through to Murray Hill Road.
2. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall pay the City a
stormwater connection fee per city ordinance in lieu of constructing any
on-site drainage improvements. Based on current fee structures, the
stormwater quality and quantity fees are $1,736 and $4,297, respectively.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water
service to the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications
in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and City
Council approval. The applicant shall also enter into a development
contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to
guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for a obtain permits from the MWCC, Health
Department, and PCA for extension of the utility lines.
5. Lots 1,2, and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup
charges. These charges shall be collected per city ordinance at time of
building permit issuance. If the utilities are extended along Melody Hill
Road, the applicant shall be reimbursed for a portion of the cost of
installing the utilities when the parcel (Dorenkamp) connects to the
system. Connection charges collected by the City shall be used to
Shannin AI-Jaff
July 25, 2000
Page 5
reimburse the applicant their fair share ofthe cost in providing utility
service to the Dorenkamp parcel.
6. If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the
applicant shall dedicate a 40- foot wide utility and drainage easement
centered over the utilities on the final plat.
7. Ifa public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in
accordance with the City's private street ordinance. Cross-access and
maintenance agreements will be required to maintain access.
8. During utility and street construction, provisions shall be made to maintain
at least one lane of traffic open at all times on Murray Hill Road.
Jms
Attachment: Revised plan layout.
c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public WorkslCity Engineer
g: \eng\dave\pc\arvidson. ppr .doc
~~
dJ~
G
MELODY HILL
- - - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
EXISTING LOT LINES
,/
,J ~/~e
,¡p"
,¡;
SOMMER GATE
rb~
#~
, \
\ \
\ \
\
\ ~~
I # \
\ \
\ \
\ \
,\'b1. /
-- - - -,....-- ---r------
I I
I '
I I
I I ~
L #'
I ~'b~1
I~
~-_.. ----
~~~I
c.~~
~';t'
Q
g
a:
...I
...I
-
::c
~
a:
a:
::::)
~
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
MEMORANDUM
690CityCmttrDriv"POBoxJ47 TO:
ChanhfIJJm, Minn"ota 55317
Phon, 612.937.1900 FROM:
Gmera/Fax 612.9315739
Enginming Fax 612.9319152 DATE:
Pub/ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 SUBJECT:
Web www.ci.chanhClJJm.mn.us
Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
July 17, 2000
Request to subdivide a 2.17 acres parcel into four single-family lots on
property zoned RSF, residential single family, and located at 6330 Murray
Hill Road, Arvidsons Addition, Mike Arvidson.
Planning Case: 2000-8 SUB
I have reviewed the proposed plat plan for the above project. In order to comply with the
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is based on the available information
submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or
policy items will be addressed.
I. The new road servicing the four lots must be given a street name. Submit the proposed
street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
2. Submit cul-de-sac radius dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
3. If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site. No
burning pennits will be issued due to close proximity of neighboring houses.
g:\safety\ml\plrev2000-8
The Citv of Challhassen. A rrowin'l community with clean !Ilke;. Duality schools. a channin(T downtown. thriving hUíínf.Hfi. and hl'dutifu! Mrln A UTfI1t hll1rf tn li1JP. 1/1orb. t1"d 1J1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
o City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 612.937.5739
;"gineering Fax 612.937.9152
ublic Safety Fax 612.934.2524
Web www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator .P}J
DATE: July 24,2000
SUBJ: Arvidson's Addition
Upon review of the plans prepared by Roger A. Anderson & Associates, Inc.
dated June 30, 2000 and the preliminary plat prepared by Egan, Field & Nowak,
Inc. Surveyors received June 30, 2000, I offer the following comments and
recommendations:
WETLANDS
There does not appear to be any wetlands present on-site, however, staff
recommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning
maps.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP)
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water
quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential
development rates with a medium density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed
developed area of2.17 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project
would be $1,736.
The applicant may be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to
treat runoffftom the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and
storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees
for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP. No credit will be given for temporary
pond areas.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on
an average city-wide rate for the installatiòn of water quantity systems. This cost
includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water
ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family/low density developments have a
connection charge of $1 ,980 per developable acre. Therefore the applicant will be
responsible for a $4,296.60 fee.
These fees will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
he City of Challhassell. A fJowinK community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charminf downtown, thrivinf busilzesses, and beauti{ùl parks. A f!Jt'at place to live, work, and pla~
Sharmin Al-Jaff
July 24, 2000
Page 2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. The proposed residential development of2.17 net developable acres is
responsible for a water quality connection charge of $1,736. If the applicant
demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality
goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also
responsible for a water quantity fee of $4,296.60. These fees are payable to
the City at the time of final plat recording.
g:\eng\lori\admin\pJanning\Arvidson's Addit.doc
DATE
FILE NO.
PROJECT
SWMP FEE WORKSHEET
July 24, 2000
2000-8 SUB
Arvidson's Addition
Site Area in Acres
Assessable area
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
WATER QUALITY
WATER QUANTITY
FEES
Rate per Acre
$ 800.00
Rate per Acre
$ 1,980.00
CREDITS
ITEM
UNIT QUANTITY
SWMP FEE
$ 6,032.60
SWMP CREDITS
$
TOTAL SWMP FEE
$
2.17
2.17
Single Family Residential
.
.
Acres Total
2.17 $ 1,736.00
Acres Total
2.17 $ 4,296.60
UNIT
PRICE
$
6,032.60
TOTAL
PRICE
I
,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
ty Ctnter Drive, PO Box 147
lhaßtn, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.9311900
Jeta! Fnx 612.937.5739
Jeerillg Fnx 612.937.9152
. Snfery' Fax 612.9342524
//'ll'wcÚ!JnubmSfll,lI1ll.llS
r,..., ,
June 19, 2000
Mr. Michael Arvidson
5595 Timber Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Arvidson:
We are in receipt of your Preliminary Plat application for Arvidsons Addition.
The plans dated received June 9, 2000, are incomplete and as such cannot be
processed. Your application will be placed on hold until additional data has been
submitted (ie; grading, drainage, erosion control, house type, utilities, tree
removal, etc.). Attached is a copy of the subdivision ordinance and the data
required for a preliminary plat application.
We also need to clarify that the 60 day time period in which an application m_ust
be processed, will not begin until a complete application is submitted.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ext. 120.
Sincerely,
~~.~~~
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Senior Planner
Sharmin Al-Jaff
City of Chanhassen Planning Commission
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RF:CJ::!VFO
,JUL 2 4 2000
CII Y \)¡- i..,nr\l~hF.::'SEN
Re: Subdivision of Parcel Into (4) Single Family Lots at 6330 Murray Hill Road
Dear Sharmin,
This letter is a follow-up declaration of our (our family & our neighborhood's) opposition to the
City's current plan to connect Melody Hill alongside of the above mentioned subdivision. This
extension of Melody Hill will greatly diminish the quality of life we now enjoy. We believe that
the majority of the residents along the west leg of Melody Hill chose to purchase homes here
because of the limited access to their properties. Tom was told by one of your planners that our
safety will be enhanced when Melody Hill becomes a 'through-street.' Weare aware of past
efforts by the City to take this action in years past. The last time this happened the residents put
together a petition to demonstrate that this was not acceptable. Frankly we will continue to
petition this effort until it is finally resolved to reflect the desires of the residents in this
neighborhood.
As regards the specifics of the subdivision you told Tom that Michael Arvidson proposed to have
his subdivision be serviced by a private drive that did not meet any of the City's ordinances. Tom
suggested that you (the planners & engineer's ofChanhassen) do a study to see if a regulation
sized cul-de-sac would meet the needs of the new subdivided lots and the City's desire to safely
be able to access these new residents. We looked at the diagram that was sent to us and cannot
conclude how the street extension will help with Mr. Arvidson's efforts to create (4) lots out of
this 2.17 acres. It appears that at least 1/3 of his land will have to be dedicated to the proposed
extension in order to comply with the City's request. It seems logical to us that you will be greatly
limiting Arvidson's ability to divide up this property into reasonable and appealing lots.
Finally we need to mention the City's failure to adequately inform our neighborhood of the City's
plan to go ahead with the Melody Hill extension. Your maps and announcements do not mention
this anyWhere. The neighborhood grapevine reports that this is not the City's only plan for
increasing traffic in our quiet little part of town. Weare hearing of a link to MMW from Melody
Hill westward to the middle school's property. Perhaps it could be an overflow parking lot that
would be accessed via Melody Hill that we have been hearing about? We can just imagine the
change for the worse heading our way if these plans see ftuition.
We invite you & the entire City Council up to visit with us in our current picturesque ftont yard
which should remain so, as you will see upon your visit. The bedrock ofliberty - the acceptance
of self preservation; the bedrock of socialism - the diminished respect for the individual.
¥i!1~7~ ~~
'¡'No~~s G. & Neysá ~terer - Residents of 221 0 Melody Hill
Greg Golmen & Junie Hoff-Golmen
2220 Melody Hill
Chanhassen, MN 55331
July 22, 2000
Sharmin AI-Jaff
City of Chanhassen Planning Commission
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Subdivision of Parcel Into (4) Single Family Lots at 6330 Murray Hill Road
Dear Sharmin,
We are writing this letter to express our opposition to the city's proposal to connect Melody Hill to the
above mentioned subdivision. This alteration would greatly reduce the value of our current setting. We
purchased, as did all others on our block, our house believing it would remain a safe quiet street. We
are very upset to hear that the city actually believes this change would be for the better. The attempts to
put this road through in the past has always been met with strong opposition. We are certain that the
consensus will be the same in this case.
This plan will benefit no one with the possible exception of Mr. Michael Arvidson who will actually be
losing a good portion of his land to road. We believe there are better options, such as a more appealing
cul-de-sac, that should be explored.
We are also very disappointed in the city's failure to communicate to us of the plan for this extension,
along with a possible link to MMW from Melody Hill. This would also be a great blow to the property
values in our neighborhood.
As long time taxpayers of this city we want our voices to be heard. We will not accept a change
that will affect the quality of our lifestyle thai we enjoy in this city today.
Andrea Scharff
2300 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
July 24, 2000
Chanhassen City Hall
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN
Attn: Sharmin
Tel: 937-1900 ext. 120
Dear Sir or Madam:
............ ..
.-........... ....
.......... ...
...'...........-,-,. -.',-.'.-,
........... ......,
............. ........
. ..... ......
..........". -......
.-.....-.--.-... ......
.. ....... ......
......-...-.- ......
.. ...... ......
... ....... ......
~t':Yi¡lbe unable to attend the August 1,2000 meeting discussing the development
·illl:~~~~a~~~;~A~£~~~:~:~::~::S~f~~~~~~~&:f~l:~~:~:~,
·yjimøì¡:tyself concerned that it may well be the result the city council is looking
Ffðfit·
... "'W"
.'...-...........-.-
...................
...-................
..................
...............'...'..,.....,..-..
.~~¢íié~e that had the council been forward in stating its intentions to the community,
å stronger opposition would have been organized within the Melody Hill area.
Some residents of the area were sent a notice of this public hearing. Nowhere in this
notice is it stated that the council will be recommending an extension of Melody Hill
Road. Only a telephone call with a direct question provided this information to me.
I was made aware that the developer is not a proponent of this measure. I also made
a survey of my own neighborhood, and found strong opposition. I believe, as do
many residents of my area, that the measure would create an unnecessary stream of
traffic in a sedate neighborhood.
I have circulated a petition in my immediate area which opposes making Melody
Hill a through road. I received official notice of the Arvidsons Addition by mail on
Thursday, July 20, and called the Planning Commission at 8:00 Friday morning. I
received a call back ftom the Commission Friday afternoon stating their intentions.
I was then asked to have any petition ready for the City Council by Monday. I am
worried that this short notice may have been intentional.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
July 24, 2000
Page 2
Enclosed is the petition, which is meant not to impress with its number of signatures.
Only one member of each household was asked to sign it. Rather, it should be seen
as a representation of households in the area. I did not speak with anyone on
Melody Hill Road who would support the extension. I spoke with everyone who
was home in the period oftime I circulated the petition.
Please consider strongly the desires of the residents most directly affected by this
plan.
Sincerely,
Andrea Scharff
Opposition to making Melody Hill Road a through road
Before signing this petition, please take the time to read over its contents
PETITION STATEMENT
We the residents of the Melody Hill area, near the site of the proposed Arvidsons Addition development project,
would like to express our opposition to the extension of Melody Hill Road beyond it's existing boundaries. We do
not wish Melody Hill Road to become a through road.
PETITION SPONSOR
Michael and Andrea Scharff, 2300 Melody Hill Road, Chanhassen, MN 55331
SIGNATURES
Please print your name and address and sign your name.
Address
Address
Date 7-"u-()O
5533
Date 7- '2 (-00
Address
· Name
Signature LÄv(L¡Oo; 1,ù€~€V2-- Date~D
Lr--..J I ~~l MI\J 5S~3(
Signamre "12 ;tvL
Date
7/;;)( /Cð
,
Address
Date~déCD
Address
· Name JlAhie
Date~¿I} '2006
· Name
Signature ç'~ ~ Date 7-)./-~
~0 "5'56ò
Signature~ cJ:WVz.k~ Date 7 - 2-1 ,t¿ (J '0 "
')0'3/ fte.lod-J ¡J, /) £~(dQ{L ,fV1N 55331
AY\,,\r~ Se-VJa...r-f.Ç Signature ~
J3óo ~o~ Hill ~oL I ~SWi.- ¡, 5"33 )
Address .1. D ( Vv0
· Name 'J 0 h IV JJ 11 f'\S
Address
Date '1f ~I f 0-0
Address
.
Before signing this petition, please take the time to read over its contents
Opposition to making Melody Hill Road a through road
PETITION STATEMENT
We the residents of the Melody Hill area, near the site of the proposed AlVidsons Addition development project,
would like to express our opposition to the extension of Melody Hill Road beyond it's existing boundaries. We do
not wish Melody Hill Road to become a through road.
PETITION SPONSOR
Michael and Andrea Scharff, 2300 Melody Hill Road, Chanhassen, MN 55331
SIGNATURES
Address
· Name
Address
Address
<;,cr--r-
:=~-:;ø~;'~ S~;E~
· Name
Signature
Address
· Name
Signature
Date
Address
· Name
Signature
Date
Address
· Name
Signature
Address
Date 1-cJ.;).-{)Ó
Date
Date 7 /~3/M
......
"Date 7Zs·a-Q
6-S-
Date ;!-¿ý-_
')
Date
Date
Richard D. Mcfarland
Retired Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
INVESTMENT SERV1CES
INVESTMENT BANKING
July 24, 2000
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City Hall
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Commission Members:
My wife and I will be out of town on August I ,( and the purpose of this letter is to support
the application of Michael Arvidson for the development of property at 6330 Murray Hill
Road.
We live at 6341 Murray Hill Road which is across the street from the proposed
development. We are impressed with the plan and we are impressed with Michael.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard D.
RDM:ca
:-:';' _cr·'., ~:.~ ~ "-, t: '?:: ¡.:~
JUL 2 :) 2000
c: Ii \.ii .,.... :t..·;.'. ,. ,';"':·i~.;¡
Dain Rauscher Plaza
60 South 6th Street
Minneapoli" MN 55402-+422
(612) 371-2834
Fax (612) 371-77S5
Email rdmcfarland@dainrauscher.com
Oain Rauscher Incorporated
Member NYSE/SIPC
7/21/00
TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, City of Chanhassen, fax 937-5739
FROM: Rich & Linda Nicoli, 2280 Melody Hill, 474-3729
RE: Proposed subdivision of parcel into 4 lots by Michael Arvidson
I am sorry we will not be able to attend the public hearing on August 1.
We have lived on Melody Hill for the past 23 years. We do support this
subdivision from the information we received from the present owner of
the property. We are strongly opposed to any attempt to make Melody
Hill a through street with this property and understand this plan does not
do that. Please contact us if you would like more infonnation or if the plan
does include Melody Hill going through the property.
Thanks for asking for our input and the invitation to the hearing
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17, 1996
MF.MRF.RS PRF.SF.NT: Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Ladd
Conrad, Kevin Joyce, and Jeff Farmakes
MRMRF.RS ARSF.NT· None.
ST A FF PRF.SF.NT· Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharrnin AI-
Jaff, Planner II; and Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator
P1JRT.TC HF.ARTNG:
PRRT .TMTN A RV PT.A T OF 2 17 ACRRS TNTO 4 STNGT.R FA MIT.V T .OTS ON
PROPRRTV ZONF.ORSF, RRSTOF.NTTAT. STNGT.R FAMIT.Y AND T.OCATF.O AT THR
S01JTHWRST CORNRR OF THF. TNTRRSF.CTTON OF M1JRR A V HIT.T. ROA 0 A NO
MRT .OOV HIT.T. ROA 0, HORF.NS WIT.O WOO FARMS SRCONO A OOnTON, HORF.N
CORPOR A TTON
Public Present:
NHmp.
Gilbert Kreidberg
Chuck Spevacek
Lorraine Clair
Jim Hoben
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Burkholder
Steve Woida
Clifford Woida
Phil Bonthius
Linda Nicoli
Randy & Jennifer Koski
Denise Artley
Dick McFarland
Addre..
6444 Murray Hill Road
6474 Murray Hill Road
2161 Melody Hill Road
18285 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka
6370 Murray Hill Road
2161 Van Sloun Road, Chaska
6398 Melody Hill Road
2300 Melody Hill Road
2280 Melody Hill Road
6231 Murray Hill Road
2098 Melody Hill Road
6341 Murray Hill Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission?
Jim Hoben: About a year and a half ago.
I
Mancino: Could you please state your name and address?
Jim Hoben: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mancino: Thank you.
Jim Hoben: I am Jim Hoben, Hoben Corporation. About a year and a half ago we appeared
before the Planning Commission with a proposal for four lots on the Shogren property, which is
this one over here. It met with some good deal of opposition by the neighbors in the area and
then after, I've got it upside down. Sorry about that. I did go back ftom that meeting and talk
with some of the neighbors in the area and I did change it to three lots because of the major
streets, SOß1li1ergate and Murray Hill Road. And I'm in the process of concluding building of
that site. At the end of that time, I did talk to the neighbors who asked me if! was interested in
the Woida property, and I said that I was. I was questioned as to what my intentions there would
be and I said well, if! do want to act on the Woida property I would be coming back with four
lots instead of three, as Lon the Shogren property. And this possibly that would be okay with
them. They wanted to see what I intended to do and, I'd better turn it back to what we were
talking about. And I did that last summer. I got that ready and went back and showed and as far
as I know it met with their approval. Late last fall, or sometime last fall I was advised by staff
that if I were to proceed with this, that they would be asking for the extension of Melody Road. I
had, at that point in time...contact with the W oida's for the purchase of that property on the basis
of the four lots. This is the first time I've seen what I've put up there as far as Melody Road is
concerned as the suggested way out. However, I would not be interested doing it that way and
the simple reason is that I, my idea is to tie in the homes on this development with the homes on
the end of Murray Hill Road, which are all in excess of$300 and some thousand...they were built
I think about 10-12 years ago. A lot of them. We're talking in excess of $350,000.00 for the one
I'm doing on the corner... As I had toured the area over there...following the concept that I saw
presented like it is now, it would change the nature of the homes that I would be building because
the nature of the homes back towards the school would not be of the same...as far as I know as
the ones that I would be developing on the, filling in with the ones on the end of Murray Hill
Road. Because those are being planned to be in the 300, plus or minus, $50,000.00 range. I find
myself in a unique position. It's not for me to come before the city and argue whether the road
should or should not go in. I'm in the position to purchase the property ftom the Woida's to do it
more or less on the basis that I had it planned for there, and not on some other plan. I really
haven't had a chance to look at that...I would not proceed on that basis with the types of homes
that I probably thought facing on that road. So I think it's a matter of the city.
Mancino: Mr. Hoben, you did receive staff report? You have gone through the staff report?
Jim Hoben: Pardon?
Mancino: You have received the staff report and the drawings that came with it.
Jim Hoben: Yeah, I got that...
2
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17 , 1996
Mancino: Did you see this?
Jim Hoben: No. But in any case...! got a lot of other things to do in this...city and anyplace and
argue about whether how these things go together. I made a presentation...would be my
preference to do it that way. Like I just said, at that point it becomes an issue between the city
and the neighbors in the area as to whether it's desirable... At that point I just sit back and wait
and hear what develops. That's just my position.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open for a public hearing and a second
please?
Mehl moved, Farmakes seconded to open for a public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission on this issue please come forward. State your name and your address.
Chuck Spevacek: Thank you Madam Chair. My name's Chuck Spevacek. I live at 6474 Murray
Hill Road in Chanhassen. To put that address in perspective with tonight's proceedings, that's 3
houses south of the proposed public street... Madam Chairman, members of the Commission.
I'm the author of the letter that is attached to the staff report which...the petition signed by the
residents of this neighborhood strongly opposing the new public street which the staff report
advocates. I'm pleased that my letter and the enclosed petition made it's way into the staff report.
I sent that letter nearly a year ago to the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Engineer, to the
Chair of the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning Development and to the then City
Council members. And to date I have received no response to that letter from anyone. I did not
even receive notice of this meeting, except that which I found published in the Chanhassen
Villager. I bring this up only because I sincerely hope this is not indicative of the city's
responsiveness to the very serious concerns the residents have concerning this project. As that
petition indicates, the residents of this neighborhood are very much opposed to this public street.
The extension of Melody Hill Road would in our opinion, irrevocably alter the essential nature
and the character of our neighborhood. Weare concerned because the extension of Melody Hill
Road would turn it into an unnecessary shortcut between the two heavily traveled north/south
routes it would connect if extended to County Road 41, and west to Galpin Boulevard to the east.
Thus instead ofliving in a neighborhood where traffic levels are low and where what traffic
there is is generally related to the neighborhood and it's activities, we believe the proposed public
street would transform our neighborhood into a high traffic area with the majority of that
increased traffic simply passes through saving the 2 minutes or less travel time it would take to
3
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17 , 1996
otherwise use TH 7, TH 5, or the other roads to the south of us that would serve as connectors
between Galpin and TH 41. I am troubled that the neighborhood is concerned about increased
traffic and the noise, safety and economic concerns that go with it were not addressed in the staff
report. It is certainly it was brought to the staff's attention in my June of 1995 letter and that's...
Instead the staff report claims only benefit to the neighborhood as a result. According to the staff
report, that benefit is in the form of the improved access to the existing neighborhood and the
creation of an opportunity that the adjacent parcel, owned by Paul and Betty Burkholder, could
be subdivided as well. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, Paul Burkholder signed
the petition opposing the road extension and I understand that he's here toady and may well
choose to address... Moreover, none of the residents in this neighborhood are anxious to see
another of our large lots carved into nurnerous smaller parcels just because such a carving has
potentiality under, and allowable under the city's current zoning ordinances. As to improve
access. To my knowledge no one ever asked us if we felt access to our neighborhood or to our
concerns was a problem. Certainly none of the signatories to the petition believe access is of
such concern that we are willing to accept the proposed road extension as a remedy. And
virtually every resident of Melody Hill Road on both sides of the Woida property, Murray Hill
Road and Sommergate have signed that petition. Madam Chairman, members of the
Commission, the last time I appeared before this body was to strongly opposed Mr. Hoben's plan
for the development of the Shogren property, which he spoke of and which he showed to you.
The Shogren property being the property two parcels north of the property that's at issue today
and what is now known as Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition. What I've learned from
that experience is that the city's zoning ordinances cannot help me to protect my neighborhood
ÍÌ"om the development totally inconsistent with the character of my neighborhood. Many of you
sympathized with our concerns, while admitting your lack of authority to help because you were
constrained by the regulations as they exist. Fortunately Mr. Hoben heard our concerns and
revised his plan to minimize it's impact on our neighborhood. This commission commented
when Mr. Hoben came back with his revised plan how lucky we, the residents of the
neighborhood were, that we had a developer that listened to the neighbor's concerns because this
commission was powerless to help us. Well this time this commission's not powerless to help us.
I know we can't avoid having four houses put on this lot. A lot that... I know the city ordinances
would probably allow for more than the house houses. I dare say that if the road doesn't go
through, and Mr. Hoben withdraws ÍÌ"om the development as he plans, the next developer who
comes along will purchase this with plans to maximize the density on that property that the
ordinances enacted by the city will allow. In any event we apparently have Mr. Hoben again to
thank for presenting a proposal which at least considers our concerns. But if we are powerless to
oppose there be four houses on a lot that previously held one, please don't compound the impact
on our neighborhood by putting through the proposed public street. The neighbors have clearly
made their voice heard as to what they feel the proper result on that should be. The neighbors
have mobilized themselves and have taken the time to present nearly a year ago a petition to this
4
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17 , 1996
committee letting you know what our thoughts were. This time you are not powerless to help us.
This time you do have the power to help us preserve the character of our neighborhood and we
ask that you act upon it. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Paul Burkholder: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning and Zoning. My name is Paul
Burkholder and I am the, my wife and myself reside directly abutting the subject property. The
previous speaker's remarks were very eloquent and I agree whole heartedly with them. I also
want to state that we are 100% against the road. I see no benefit for myself to have a road
through there. I am aware that I can split my lot up at some time in the future. I do not care
about that...character of the neighborhood which is the reason that I moved to Chanhassen ITom
Deephaven where I had a 40,000 square foot lot. Now, and I have to admit myself. I'm very
surprised that this road business would come up. No one, no one has, I have not received
anything in the mail. I've not received a phone call. No one has ever, ever approached me from
the city or anywhere else stating, we think we should have a road through here. The property has
been there for many, many years. Why at this time does somebody bring up the road? I'm not
opposed to Mr. Hoben putting four houses on the lot. I'm a real estate broker now starting my
31 st year in the real estate business. I believe that the best use for the neighborhood and for the
property is, I'd like to see two houses on the property frankly, but I can live with four. And as
Chuck said, it could really, ITom the standpoint of the statue, could probably hold more houses.
I'm against that. And as far as myself is concerned, I want to state again, I'm aware of the fact
that I can cut... I don't want to do that. I don't see any benefit at all to myself, as long as I live
there and in the future. I can't imagine anyone living in the metropolitan area of2 1/2 million
people who would not appreciate buying ITom me and my wife at some time in the future, the
lovely property on I 1/2 acres of land. It's just you know, I believe that my property is worth as
much in the whole as it would be in the sum of the parts. So I want to state again, my wife is
here now. I'm sure that she'd be happy to come and speak to you personally to say that she also is
opposed to this road. Thank you very much.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission?
Denise Artley: Thank you. My name's Denise Artley. I live at 2098 Melody Hill Road. Couple
things I want to tell you. First of all I am a transplant ITom Minneapolis and one of the reasons I
came to the home I did on Melody Hill Road was because I did live on a street that was a
shortcut. It didn't need to be a shortcut but the streets were crafted in a way that our's was one of
the only streets in South Minneapolis that did not have the curbs...pass thru traffic. I understand
the impact of that on the homeowners. I understand that the pizza delivery guy is the only person
that I've ever heard who complained about the fact that Melody Hill did not go all the way
5
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
through. And I would hope that this Planning Commission would not respond to the pizza guy...
There is no one in our neighborhood that I know that has any complaint about access. And in
fact, I had a conversation with some neighbors who would love to see Chaska Road closed off at
Highway 41 so we would have even fewer people coming through. Now given that kind of
experience of having the...kind of wonderful experience I have where I live now, I would hate to
think that I would now live on a thru street. And I cannot think of one neighbor who would feel
any differently. So I would like to see you reconsider this road, thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Linda Nicoli: My name is Linda Nicoli and I live at 2280 Melody Hill Road so I'm right on the
curve to the west of the proposed development. I've lived there for 18 years and I've raised four
sons there and if anybody should really want better access to their property would be me. We
live right on the top of the hill and for the last, I don't know, probably 8 years I've many times
had to park at the bottom of the hill and walk up because I couldn't get my car up the hill. And
my solution to that was to get new tires on my car and I'd much rather continue to walk up the
hill in the winter than see the proposed road go through. One of my major concerns, having
raised those four boys there. They're all soccer players and those fields now in the summer are so
heavily used. The Tonka United Soccer program uses those fields, has grown in an expediential
rate the last few years and every night of the week there are soccer games going on on 3 or 4
fields across the street. And the way they had the fields configured last year, the soccer goals
were up against the fence on Melody Hill, and every game that I attended there and every game
that I saw ITom the deck of my house, at least 4 or 5 balls went across Melody Hill and into our
ITont yards and followed immediately by 2 or 3 little soccer players chasing those balls. And I'd
hate to see those kids being in jeopardy by people using that road as a shortcut to get out to TH
41. And then also, I'm just not sure how the configuration, how the new Lake Lucy Road is
going to be also. The way I understand it, that is going to be another cross access between TH 41
and the property to the east and so I think that makes it even less important that we have an
access along there.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Dick McFarland: My name is Dick McFarland. My wife and I live at 6341 Murray Hill Road.
Right on the corner of Melody Hill and Murray Hill Road. We've lived there for 27 years. We
raised four children. They're all gone now. But it's been a delight for us to see the young
families moving into our neighborhood and there are lots of kids that are running around there. I
think it would be absolutely outrageous to put that road through to connect Melody Hill so I
would hope in your good judgment that you would not allow this to happen. Thank you very
much.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission?
Betty Burkholder: Nancy? Was this about the road tonight...
Mancino: Would you please state your name and address please.
Betty Burkholder: Betty Burkholder, 6370 Murray Hill Road. Right adjacent to the proposed
roadway. I didn't know that this meeting was supposed...because it didn't say anything in the
stuff that we were sent. It did not mention a road.
Mancino: I didn't see the slip that was sent to you.
Betty Burkholder: Well the one that we were sent does not mention a road.
Mancino: But it did state that there would be some, a subdivision.
Betty Burkholder: Exactly.
Mancino: But it specifically did not say the road.
Betty Burkholder: ...four parcels on the existing lot...so I'm wondering why we're talking about
the road.
Mancino: Because it involves the subdivision and how we're going to get access into that
subdivision.
r
¡
I
Betty Burkholder: Yeah but are there people that know that there would be talk about roads?
Mancino: Well I get the impression that your neighborhood is well aware of that.
Betty Burkholder: ...that I talked to a few people tonight that didn't have any idea. And did not
know that there was going to be any talk about a proposed road. On Melody Lane and on Murray
Hill. Down the road a ways so. So I'm wondering if it's apropos to bring up this road. If this is a
good thing to bring up. If there might not be more people here if they thought that this was the
reason for the meeting.
Mancino: Well it's in conjunction with the subdivision and it has been notified in the
newspapers. We have made public notices.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17 , 1996
Betty Burkholder: You have to only notify people within 500 feet.
Mancino: Is it within 500 feet? Yeah, and I think we've heard some very good.
Betty Burkholder: I think we're not notified but there might be...
AI-Jaff: We received quite a few phone calls. Those who contacted us, we told them what was
happening with the subdivision and that staff was recommending a street extension.
Betty Burkholder: But who was recommending the street extension, because nobody petitioned
for a street extension. Not any neighbors in our neighborhood want a street extension.
Mancino: And that's what we'll talk about.
Betty Burkholder: Unless it's the city that wants a street extension. Not us. Not the Woida's.
Not anybody on the property wants the street extension. So.
Mancino: So we have heard those comments and...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mancino: ...Melody Hill and the Middle School is to the right of you. And that particular grade
is 10%, or is it more than 10%?
Hempel: It exceeds 10% in some of the areas.
Mancino: It exceeds 10%. Now if the road were to go through, they wouldn't change the grade
of Melody Hill there. All they would do is what they, for public safety is to give those people on
Melody Hill, there are 7 houses there right now. Instead of just using the approach ITom Chaska
Road, they could also use the approach on the east side ITom where Murray Hill and Melody
intercept. Does that make sense?
Mehl: Okay, sure. So they could in effect avoid that portion of the steep grade if the weather
doesn't permit using it by going around the other way, is that right?
Mancino: Well to some degree. I mean if you live, I think it was Linda. If you live, just a
minute. If you live in the middle of that, of that hill, you can make a right hand turn and go down
it to go to Chaska Road. Or you can go left, which is going to be harder than heck anyways. It's
8
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
not going to make it any easier to go up over the hill. If you're coming from Galpin, and you go
up Melody Hill. You make a left hand turn going west up Melody Hill and you live on that west
side in the middle of the hill, you can come down and kind of approach it. Instead of having to
come up ITom Chaska. So that's where it does make it easier access. Possibly. You could also
keep sliding down the hill also, so. Dave, do you want to add to that?
Hempel: No, you stated it clearly.
Mehl: Yeah, that helps me out here. I didn't know how the 10% grade was going to be affected,
either way. Whether it was a thru street or not.
Hempel: No, it will stay the same.
Mehl: Okay. I guess my opinion is with this development being developed, this area being
developed and with the potential in the future. Sometime in the future of the property to the
north being developed, I think a thru street makes sense ITom getting access and joining
neighborhoods. I guess I'm not convinced of a great, large amount of additional thru traffic
through there. I guess at this point I would support the road going through and the development
as staff has laid it out.
Mancino: Okay. Jeff.
Farmakes: Different point of view. Usually when we look at these things, on these road
extensions, we get a large group of existing homeowners that come in...comes to mind. The
extension on there. And usually trying to take a crystal ball and look at how the traffic would
affect the quality of the neighborhood is usually pretty ambiguous because when it comes down
to it, half the people go left and half of them go right. Unless you happen to be on the west side
of the turn in which case when you come forward and look at the plan, everybody's going to be
heading to the right. I think in this case, I've driven through this neighborhood for 17 years. The
neighbors have a legitimate concern here. The reason is, is that there's a destination of a
commercial area that's off of Chaska Road. The locals use Chaska Road. People around my area
tend to go up along CR 17 and cut over because the access to the highway's goofy. Highway 7.
Even Chaska Road is goofy, particularly in the winter time. If this thru street goes in, I'd go up
Melody. I'd go right up over there to make several trips a week through there. And I think the
city needs to look at this ITom a common sense point of view as to how that would affect the
existing neighborhoods there. That have been there for some time. From a planning standpoint
it makes a lot of sense. If you live there, it will change significantly how that neighborhood, the
dynamics of that neighborhood. I don't know if what the city is gaining here is worth that. The
type of development that would be...even to the property to the north, although it would be
9
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
somewhat restricted with having a thru street that still would be accessible. The one thing I'm
concerned about too is that even though you're looking at notification with the 200 feet or
whatever, it's going to affect everybody up and down that street and they should be notified.
Usually when we look at this, like I said, there usually isn't the destination up here of a
commercial access point up on TH 41 up there. Both in Shorewood and in Chanhassen. All of
these people, if they're not going to this commercial area here, are whipping up into here. And
when they come off of CR 17 or they come off of Lake Lucy Road, that's going to be where they
cut through.
Mancino: Until they're able to cut through on Lake Lucy.
Farmakes: Yeah, until. But my point is that even so there's some wetlands through there and so
on. They may, that would be a pretty direct route that's out to here. That would probably be the
first way you'd cut across. And like I say, I think there's a couple of stop signs now and 3 or 4
blind curves going down Chaska Road and it's dangerous. Particularly with snow service in the
winter time. So I think in this particular case, if you're familiar with the neighborhood and how it
works, they have legitimate concerns here. Their argument is a good one if you happen to live
there in that neighborhood. Because there will be a funnel of cars going through there. And like
I said, usually we don't have that. Pleasant View are seen as other areas. We don't have that type
of perspective draw of outside driving. Anyway, if I look at the issue of sizing of the homes.
The city has a base minimum for lot sizes. We don't have a large lot. The fact that you built your
houses some time ago or however the dynamics of that works and you're familiar with some of
the people who have been in real estate for a while, we can't legislate that you put in a half
million dollar home there. It doesn't work that way and you're familiar with the city has no basis
for that. There's a trend in development of putting as many homes as you can on a small piece of
property and there are other influences for that. It's cheaper to provide support facilities. Many
houses... restricted area so there's a natural direction to do that... We usually in larger
developments try to get a buffer of some sort of development where you have some transition. In
this type of lot it's nearly impossible to do that... There's not enough area to put in a park or some
type of buffer that you normally look for. So as far as what I'm looking here as development...is
about how it would work out. So there's not much movement for flexibility there...! would not
support at this time a thru street simply because I feel that under that type of development, for
that length of time, how long it's been there, that the city should be doing that.
Mancino: Can you speak to the comments made on the subdivision as it is proposed? As far as
the private street, etc.
Farmakes: I don't have, I don't see how else really that you would handle it. Unless somebody
else has some alternatives that differ significantly to change the issue of the thru street... As I
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17 , 1996
stated, if the property was larger or there might be possibilities there...
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I'm torn by this. I believe that we need to efficiently develop our city and certainly our
comprehensive plan is directed towards that purpose. And there are federal agencies also that are
guiding us to do so to limit urban growth and my concern is that we restrict development of the
Burkholder properties, that we are indeed compromising our plans. It's a little difficult when the
owner of the property, and all the neighbors coming here are opposed to it to and say they're not
going to develop it. I am interested, if staff could help me understand what the alternate access to
the Burkholder property would be if the road did not go through.
Hempel: Madam Chair, commissioners. It would limit it to another private driveway, either off
of Melody Hill from the west or off of Murray Hill.
Mancino: Dave, why would it limit it to a private drive? I mean if we could put a full sized,
standard road in all the way ITom the cul-de-sac on the west side, why can't we put a road, a
regular public road up to the Burkholder property and then have them subdivide two lots off that?
Hempel: If I understand, you're suggesting that a public street go partway through this parcel to
serve Burkholder piece and the Woida piece at this time and not connect through? That's also a
possibility.
Skubic: I would be in favor of something to that effect.
Mancino: So you would not be in favor of connecting Melody Hill?
Skubic: Not if there was a good alternative, and this sounds like it could be a feasible alternative.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: I have two questions for planning staff. Number one, and I don't mean to butcher your
name. Mr. Spevacek. Is that how it's pronounced?
Chuck Spevacek: Yes.
Joyce: Thank you. Bob. Is Mr. Spevacek within 500 feet of?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
Al-Jaff: Yes. And typically what happens is Carver County Abstract and Title supplies us with
the names. The applicant would go and put in an application. We do our best to notify
everybody. You will see attached the list of names that was sent out to all the neighbors within
500 feet and Mr. Hoben, the applicant spoke to me during the meeting and said he realizes that a
name was missing.
Chuck Spevacek: The whole cul-de-sac.
AI-Jaff: Okay.
Joyce: I was a little disturbed by that.
Resident: Yeah, I'm the property directly to the south.
Joyce: I mean that's an oversight, number one. Number two, you wrote a long letter here and I
think someone should have cross referenced that with something. We've got to make sure this
guy gets some information. So that bothers me. The second thing is, in your report it says we'd
like to improve the access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide access to the school
facilities and provide the Burkholder parcel future subdivision capabilities. And I'm new to this
process. Maybe I'm offbase but would it have helped if you would have talked with Burkholders
possibly about this?
AI-Jaff: We did. Well he did stop by and what we.
Betty Burkholder: That was after the fact.
Mancino: Excuse me. I don't want to open discussion.
Joyce: Yeah, we shouldn't open it up. I'm stating a fact that in the report it seems to me you're
acting as a proxy for them. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. I don't want to open it up. That's
my opinion, okay. I think that they are owners of that property and if they came to you and said,
listen. I'm concerned about this development because I can't access my property, that's a whole
different ballgame. They're against this. Thank you.
Mancino: Ladd.
Joyce: I have one more thing and then I'm done. My point is, the developer's against it. The
adjacent owners against it and everybody in this room is against it except for the planners and
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
this is the city here. Not the planners. So I'm totally against it. Okay, and that's my opinion.
Thank you.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Got some problems in the neighborhood in terms oflong cul-de-sac grades. Have two
road segments that really should be connected. I think if everybody got notified in the
neighborhood, they'd all be here. I don't think we'd learn anything else. Most everybody would
be against it. So we could send out public notice but to be real honest, you're not going to hear
anything different than what we heard tonight. I like preserving neighborhoods. It's hard though
in this particular case, unless I hear a real compelling. I've got two real problems. Almost every
neighborhood that comes in talks the same thing. Seriously so ITom a standpoint of, as
development occurs, you know cars and what have you, we probably hear that every 2 weeks
when we're here. And there are probably 3 subdivision proposals here a night. We just have to
deal with it. If I were you I'd be...really angry. Don't do it. Two things though that I haven't
heard. One thing I really don't know and I'm not sure how we solve it is, if we connected those
two, I'm not sure, I haven't been persuaded by either group that. Development just causes more
traffic. That's the way it is and welcome to Chanhassen. We live in a wonderful spot and
unfortunately people are going to move out here. I'm not convinced that I've heard a compelling
argument one way or another that the traffic is going to be burdensome or not. I just don't know.
I tell you, we could stop all roads from going into Chanhassen because some child is going to be
hurt and yeah, I have to listen. I agree. That's what happens. But on the other hand, I haven't
been persuaded by any member of the commission here tonight that there's a supreme risk that a
typical neighborhood deals with. Now this may be an untypical neighborhood and we may have
some situations that we should look at but maybe that's a challenge for the staff. The other thing
is, this really, what I've seen tonight is a real obvious turn down. It's for road or whatever. It
doesn't pass to what is necessary for a private drive so regardless of whether you agree with me
or not on my position, it doesn't fit into our requirements for a private street so it's a turn down as
far as I'm concerned. Now maybe there's some other solutions but tonight the solution is, from
my standpoint, it doesn't go in the way it's presented tonight.
Mancino: So you would like to see it come back?
Conrad: It's a turn down.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: Similar thoughts. If! had my preference, yeah I'd love to see a street go through. But
that is for growth. That is for future safety needs. Development of Chanhassen. A lot of that is
13
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17 , 1996
for 2 lots that may be developed down the road. And part of that, on the Burkholder property we
have to think about not what the Burkholders would do but what their future owners of that
property may do 20, 25, 100 years ITom now. Is an issue that I think...but I do like the idea of
potentially extending Melody Hill to address that issue... I agree with Ladd that the issue is gray
enough where I'd like to see more of a clear cut issue that the city should go through for public
safety reasons. For access reasons. I don't feel that tonight but I think also can't approve staff's
recommendation as it's presented...
Mancino: Thank you. I have a couple questions. And that is for Dave on some public safety
issues and this is about the street going through. Has the city not been able to plow Melody Hill
west because they had real problems getting there or plowing it?
Hempel: To my knowledge, no.
Mancino: And has there been any problem other than the street names, because how do they
know, how does Public Safety know which Melody Hill to go to? East or west...
Hempel: That's a very valid point. They've learned from their mistakes in the past. Now they do
require streets that have a west, north, south, east on them. In this situation it's, look at the
address map and try and determine which side of Murray Hill it's on.
Mancino: So luckily there are only 7 homes on that west side so they probably have those
memorized. Have they had any problems, has Public Safety had any problem responding to fire
calls? Anything like that in that western area during winter? I mean has there been any, I
suppose quantifiable, qualifiable concerns ITom Public Safety?
Hempel: I guess I can't answer that. I'm not aware. I've not been informed ITom Public Safety
on that.
Mancino: Okay. How do I feel? I live very close to the area and I use Chaska Road every day. I
exit off of Highway 7, take Mayflower to Chaska. I never cut up Melody Hill or cut through that
area at all. Actually I'd like to at different times when I kind of want to slow myself down and
calm myself down because it is such a nice area. I tend to, in things like this when we have older
established neighborhoods, and I don't see any clear cut value in connecting, I lean towards
keeping it the way it is. The way the neighbors in the area want it to be. So I don't see a huge
reason to connect it. I think that the neighbors tonight have been very articulate in all of their
reasons and have done a good job of presenting it. I also think that staff has done a good job in
their report of presenting why they think the road should go through, and they're supposed to.
They're looking out for our best interests and they are supposed to show us and to give us
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996
information to make those decisions. I don't feel that the Hoben, so I would not be in favor of
connecting Melody Hill. On the other hand I don't feel that the Hoben subdivision, as I see it
right now, should have a private drive. I don't see that it is fulfilling any of the conditions that
should have to be a private drive. It certainly isn't doing anything environmentally to save trees
or grading. I am concerned, so I would like to also turn it down. Have that come back as a
public street into that development and I want to make sure that there is a way for the Burkholder
property in the future to be developed. I want to make sure that we address that. May I have a
motion?
Conrad: Yeah Madam Chairman, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission
recommends disapproval of the preliminary plat to subdivide, Subdivision #94-15 under the
rationale that the access does not meet the current city standards.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Peterson: Second.
Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council deny the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95-15 for Hobens Wild Wood
Farms Second Addition under the rationale that the access does not meet the current city
standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PTlRI.IC HF A RINr.·
SITF. PI.A N RFV1F.W OF A :\11,9411 SQTI A RF FOOT OFFICF. W A RFHOTlSF. F ACTT "TV
ON PROPF.RTV 7,ONF,n 'OPT TNnTTSTRTAI. OFFTCF P.4RKr ANnT,OCATF:n ON T,OT
1 RI.OCK 1, CH A NH ASSF.N RTlSINF.SS CF.NTF.R SF.CONn A nnlTION, I.OCA TFn
ON T,AKF DRIVE WFSTf TFCHNICAT, INnnSTRTAT, SAT,If.S 'Ir RAV rOT,I.TNGS.
;
t
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Does the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission please.
Rick Wesling: Yes I do. My name is Rick Wesling. I am with TSP/EOS Architects. We have
been working with the owner of the property to coordinate all the... Very briefly I will walk
through the design rationale that we had used to put this package together. This is a rather low
bay...warehouse building. In other words, it's got...therefore the exterior wall material in an 8
inch, 10 inch, 12 inch kind of block arrangement you know...unit works just fine for this use. We
have chosen a concrete block where color is integral all the way through the block. This is the
15
Fiú LU~ q~-
Charles E. Spevacek, Esq.
6474 MurnyHIDRoad
E.c:eIdor, ~ 55331
Telephone: (612) 470-""
June 20, 1995
CITY Of CHANHASSEN
œœ@{}OWmfJJ
JUN 21 '/995
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson ...
Director of Planning D,
Ms. Co::' Dockendoñ NEERlII6 DEPT,
Mr. Mark Senn
Mr. Steven Berquist
Mr. Michael Mason
City Council Members
The Honorable Donald J. Chmiel
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen
and
Mr. Donald Ashworth
City Manager
and
Mr. Charles Folch
City F.l1gineer
and
Ms. Nancy Mancino
Chair of Planning Conunission
Post Office Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Proposed Melody HiD Street Extension
Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering extending Melody Hill Street west ftom its
intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property pr¡:sently owned by Clifford Woida, 6393 Murray Hill
Road.
This letter is to advise you that the residents of Murray Hill Road, Melody Hill Street and
Sonunergate, indicated on the enclosed Petitions, are strongly opposed to this proposal. The signatures on these
Petitions represent the vast majority of the residents of our neighborhood.
We see no benefit to our neighborhood in particular, or to the City in general, by this project.
Instead, we believe its completion wou1d be of oonsiderab1e detriment. We are concerned the quiet character of our
neighborhood would be destroyed by the increased traffic using this new route as an unnecessary shortcut ftom
Hazeltine Bou1evard to Galpin Boulevard. We fear for the safety of onr children, particularly during the school year
(the neighborhood school bus drop is at the comer of Murray Hill Road and Melody Hill Street). We do not
understand why this disruption to our neighborhood and devaluation to our properties should be tolerated when we
lUlderstand a new cross street between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard is planned at a location less than
two núles south of us; and when the trip which would be "saved" by this road extension (between the intersection
ofMe1ody Hill and Chaska Road, and Melody Hill and Murray HiD) amounts to all of seventh/tenths of one mile,
and less than two minutes travel time.
There are many other objections to this proposal which we could raise if the City is, indeed,
contemplating this project. We trust, however, that the wishes of the citizens most directly impacted by this project
will be sufficient in persuading the City such project is unnecessary and inadvisable. We would appreciate your
confinnation that the City has no plans to undertake this disruptive, wasteful endeavor.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CES/pep\277080
Respectfully subnútted,
~
Charles E. Sp auk
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We ..donlaDd tho 011 or Chu......... Is ....Idorl.. . pia. 10 atend Melody Hili Road ...., from Its IutonectJo.
with MulTBY Hm Road, throu", the property ¡nsently owned. by the Walda.. We, the undersigned, I1t2!!I!% oppose IUch
a plan.
Extending Melod1 HID Road In this manner would result 10 aD Irrevocable, detrimental, change In the cbaracter of
our aeJghborhood., redudag the wloe .g'd deslrabWt;y of our properties aad loereaalng the satety risks to our
neighborhood'. ebllcIreD. We see no Deed for this project. or beÐeftt from Its completion.
Please cooslder our Ioput 10 auy decisions )'OU may make reprdlog this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
proposaL
Date Name (Priutod)
5(iS'!'\S' ~vìs fav,,;,
Addres.
b~'tµu "'V-¡)"a"l.£L(
.J!r (;¡
?¡I{q~
. ;;:¡.,.... I1d.fJ ee..-
/1i,..-C,. J-.fASre.e-
b't5lt~!ht1~ ~"=f~'
fr,3f¡ ~~. 7J(t1.1~7/{~
s1l~ 11( Pn.,.:J.3. f~ I
.:y~5 dilleC\~\(æ¡'dbe lo'i'i'f mlÁ¡,ro<j~:ll
-,:If%tþer4
.c!tqF¡c; G'~e-, ~~~ ~ }.l"-u~ ~.. ~J.
:;. ~ 5 a ~ t... 0 P Y !fIt..
!;1Vý~ f(ðSft<fe, 1t1l1/j,v t ~1 ( Ú1!PI'S2,
>:iþ SAN A .&ìHI r9&:oIlWaIt¡ lid! 'Æ;;t/,f~
s/+W Marks r--Jo..Mry ;2.ESð Me.lody/lill~. ~.J;..J..Tß~
t()rf~~~l\l\e"ê ~35D NE'I~fk\.£
1(þ.-~t~\J\L~
S/JI/95 ÓvidA ~.. ;;;)gO ~ ikiJ r7ødð ~.
LindQ NICDI,
. f31z'/t¡~ ~\C~®~ (;<1~1.\ \\\~~t>'i~lllØ).
Petition to the City or ChaDhassen
We undentaDd tile CIty or Ch8nbauen Is CODslderlag a piau to extend Melody HIO Road wst from Its Intenec:tloD
with MulTllJ' WII Road, through the property proseu"" ....ed by the WoIdas. We, the uuden/ped, III:!uIIb: op....e .udl
.plaD.
EJrteadl.. Mel0d7 Hili Road lu this mauuer ...../d ,",ult Iu an hTevoeable, detrlmeutaJ, change Iu the dlanu:ter of
our neighborhood, Maciag the value and deslrabWty of our properties and JDtteaSIng the sarety risks to our
uelpborhood'a dill....... W. see DO Deed for thla prqlect, or beuetlll'rom Ita eomp/etJoa.
Please œaslder our tDput Iu auy deåslons )'011 l1li)' make reprdloa thl, waltel'ul, detrimental and unnecessary
propose/.
Dale Name (PrIDted) Addra.
C;J lc1.\8.:> \'<\u.rC"-j \411\
IlL¡ qr; S\.>..SD..n~o\.\.àt; . r
(' I,. / ",-ISz /'1"~ d¿,
11"1, ~/?I-<l. &vàt'. ht,:!U,,,,,,--
"%î iJ ~I\¡?N 6. I~ UJ'f8 MdÐDt I~I¡
5#':1 C1~I'Z lJ.J.U::' ;ló5{ rnfk:Jcj~ ill'rl
~t l~ \~~i\-l~ 10~¡; 2-oQO ~'laDþ~ ttl\.\-
fj/)~ J~Cf fo )ccroMe{{)~H/1
S/J4
c; II'(
tt/L.
;. I{~
II vi
I
tv\ i c.n.ek.
-:!:.\'"\ f'a..r>j
..Jc¡,,,,; ~
~.ç""5 (('
Jenn l
M~CÅ.()
K(-I1¡. (~J
VDt-!~/:JYY1ròJ
Signature
~~~~
~c~l1-L
~. li9- 'f(9rV~\L
Jtjj
dOSb Uel~ 1-1, II 'În~kQu'~ð/7lßM
?"'~ I~'{{
d~~' C??
q<.~i)jUT~fÎ
,fi¡~
)~------
I \
t - ,IJuz .
,;µ';<jò /'VIt:.!d~¿, If/I!
doSO me).oö.y,...
k'll \J
Z/)?f) t11t: LVV¡' J.JIl.L-
r
,.
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We uDderstaad the City or Chanhasseu Is conslderlag a plan to extend Melody Hili Road west from Its Intersection
with Murray HIli Road, through the property presently OWDed by the Woldas. We. the undenlped, I1t2!!&II oppose such
. pIau.
Edeadlng Melody Hill Road In thb manner would result In an Irrevocable, detrlmeutal, change In tbe character or
our neighborhood, redadlll the value and desirability of oar properties and Increasing the safety risks to our
nelahborbood's children. We see no Deed for thl. project, or benefit from Ib completion.
Please consider our IDput fa an)' decisIon. you may make regarding this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
propouL
Date
Name (PrInted)
"}/tt.¡,
~E4 Ýorl'Y
Addra.
{.5 '1/ hI/IV;.!
Ph
6 z{f Ih¡.rr",y
1-/,11 ¡(J .
(., 1..31 ¥",,,<vv,, '1
\'f; l\ (ltP.
J3/30
Z3I.36 ~"1) ~
S-N-'t~ )t( f¡t{,4)· t'ho ¡l(¡¡¡(IA'IlIil/ ¡d.
/J!)yu¡; MMI>dÆ L
S'/~-'ì ~ W'I f1~'> £¿7c I-<'MIIí /{,~ /<'}
T<Xù j<.~
-1/1'5/95 ¡1j~7 /}/;''''j ¡;/f¡
-j. :3(a((
J... tl.A¡),VI
.' ./·1S'
,:>.p
_.....~~~.....,¡
tv, L.L . ^n--,.;J
~S/9S- ;~ð40
4.,7c/ //li:'I.'h 1/1//
At/.
/;.;;3>:. )l-l"IC,z'1j lilt
t?d.
0370 7tu~
/I A/UI.
Signature (J
rf{))jllj?~ '"
-~. f'_",,- -;AL ;?)C' -~~'~--L.
(
'1-
Øúr fi
cf~t? ~
.4.#/(,..-
:/ /'>I:c~
'-._0"
'U u'j¿?~ _.
.7·/ //-=--,,-
át.?t/i.YLVu.¿U4V
P,4UL. -&-0'=17'(
ß UiZKf1tL.Ot.::::(~
I
Petition to the City or Chanhassen
We uaderataDd the City of Chauluwen Is conslded... . plan to extend Melody HIll Road 'Wst from Its Intersection
wllb Murl'8J' HIli Road, Ibro.... Ibe pI'OperV p......1I1 owned bribe Wolclu. We, Ibe uuderslgned, III:II!!Ib: oppose neb
. piau.
ExteDdloa Melody Hln Road III thb manner would result 10 an Irrevoc:able, detrimental, chaD. 10 the character of
our aelgbborbood, redadog the wiDe and deslrahWty or our properlles aad IDcreaslog the safety risks to our
ueJ¡bborhood', cbßdrea. We 'ee no need for IhIa projeet, or beaellllrom Ita completion.
Please CODIlder our Input 10 any dedslODS you may make reø;ardJDø thl. wasteful, detrimental and uanecesslU')'
propoaaL
Dale Name (Printed) Ad....... Signature
5¡''t~6 fMt~';) ~ bL\14 t-\.Jrro..ý 1\;\\Rtl ~
~o.uL £~\Orll-\J 6S?>~1
~~.r ¡P.u« ~, ZZ(J'Ift#f~
,I-N~ IJSA.J. £~5~~
~""",4c-t!/OH
-- . 'I'
~
~~.
sir'! }.J:11 err....· ¡,'A!{ð(é.- '/ p1'(
4/4- 2..2. ~ 1)( fY) be:<.. L (,~)
5114 Lyrda Kuzma ~"'I SðY11~ ~~1
Shv. ¡:::¡z..,...-l--¡!..oz..VI1' - 'd-),'-\\ S'O"'....~./L y~.{l,~
41L-\ Pty¡.., C. ~tY'~ )..1-1- \ S' ° """,{#.GI! ~ (. ,
5ý _ ?ßY7Ø ð~dj:evacel
Petition to the City of Chanhassen
We understand the City of Cbanhassen Is eonslderlnl a plan to extend Melody Hili Road ftst from Its IntersectloD
with Murray HlII Road. through the property presently cnmed by the Woldu. We, the underslped, I1cDud! oppose IUeb
. plaD.
Extending Melody 8U1 Road In thb manner would result,lo an Irrnoc:able, detrimental, chance 10 tbe character of
our neighborhood. redado. the value and deslrablUty of our properties and increasing the safety risks to our
aelghborhood'. chlldrea. We see DO need for this project, or benefit from Its completion.
Please CODltder our htput 10 any decisions you may make reprdloa thb wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary
prop.....
Date Name (PriDted) Addres#, r~
6~~Zu:r-af ,/1 ~I J)
5-/¡¡.f!s /...'/ift€7kJ, ThWC:{À E _ 5/0r ' V1/1Sf83/ '
C'<I 'ìr"l /"Jv./Y,,::? /I; II " ~9z:---
1)- /(../-9'1 'Jðh", Q~ ~<O.~¡or ¡11y PD'?J/
{- 14-r:;r ~~~L4 G¡t.W /V v.ry.¿,..f/.o <J. 'I~.
.è:,
£k<-6'",- Þ,,- 1),,~.., / ~f,~
\,\.,--:/-
0
,
.
z .
Î
0 I~
Z,·
t: o t
~,'"
C ~I !
CI <If
¡rl:r¡;;
« ~::'J
u:¡:¡
51: ~
(j) 10
5~
Z . .
~ ffi
0 . ~
H
(j)
CI
>
a:
«
Ii.:
0
I-
«
..J
D.
>-
a:
«
z
-
~
:J
w
a:
D.
, .. ¡ I ,
'6~ H .
" ! n} ,
., .~ . .1- I ~ ,
.. õ fj i .!
,. ", ~::: ;:
..
" p jõ I! õ r "'-' ,
5- ~ i ... ~ ~lf 01 !
;{ !j ~ ~ Ii ., "i ·
.-! i ~ i
t, < -- .5- . !
:;...5: 0 ¡,m.!
,g -IF .il · t'î,
H .Î '- · ,
J>
.~ " ., Æ- ;11" ¡
~... -1 " !! < - ,
t:.<: !l_ 'P'i î'
S' {:~: ~- Ii
S! ~1 g... -
)---. -
~ì "II! ,~ ,,- i'" ..-
J ~p¡ " I ,ri ' H -,!
"- . · I}' j', · ì
b!ij ..1 ! ¡ ~~ } h
....~J: " ¡"li ;j
:~! f~ I: !~ I~~:¡ II
J'6... i~ ,q
gi'i I;§~ -)!if¡ õ~
~õ i= I'll .! g t' ~..
8£U ~' -.
·h q' &1;'" ti :~ :lI.t] .¡;:
i~~ ",-:I ~ 'td ; t! 1£11 I; £.'
-" "" ~",h .. I; - - ~ !
l~~ !j Õ I ;r:J "<;-1 õõ!t!¡
:i~ ðu f= i:ti ~"E" II ....
õ ì :~ ~ £..~£ ·ii.~¡~ I;-iil
~¡¡ ~fH: ~gaz lh ~2
KH ið i!
...-,1' N " -
lõõ õ'¡ ð "'õ'£-
.. " ~i£i1 "
a::;,<>.".
IL68: ~
;"
,I ."0;:;
õ, ~
:£
" g ':-
j! . cj
.¡ . ~ '--;Í""~-'!~ ~
:f " k · "
~5 ~
~U>
~, . o~
H . Zo
.1 ~"'~ .~
~n 9§
I, i~
:1 ~J. wu>
,. ~; ~ ..
il 'r" ~·H z
~i ~JI q C!
~~ w
£h~ h"
o c 1- . ~
; ~ - .~
.; t; .
.",, ,I i~ ~
~~
!c...:
~ , w
w w , U
" < ~ , "
" " ·
" ~ · ~ 0 ~ <
w < m . 0
· . ·
· '. 10 0 N ." ~ -
0 ,
~ " " ¡:: ¡:: " " ¡::
" . · . ·
· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ õ õ õ õ õ õ õ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I (i; Œ,· (~: Q;' <±. · Œ.J ,
I (T) .
i
I ~ ! I ~:
~ ::-¡ I I
I . ,. ~ ·,i
l '~I '
J 'I~J r
_ /~1 \'
~----'- -' ~. ,
".' "..
'"
Z
W
C>
w
--'
w w
w ~ ~ 0 ð
0 ~ . . m
" . z ~ Ii
~ ~ 0 0 "
. " · . 0
c , <
I
I
L
{/ION
.
"~J"'",
:,- iI'
~- ijî~ Ii , _
}í¡ 'iU
....~ ¡ ¡ ':i
11! '~i
.~. .:1
f:·,·
i
II '-
'"
Œ\. _......:..~ /.
'6rii6'i " ÎI.;zÚios'"
---
---
---
77/11 -~-;:,:':~ .f t;Y;j,}/f
U~.__ _______._
{J'lf.,o ".
~...~. -;. ·.f
.",
.~
---
~
w
"
- "tQ ~
o
.
.
o
"
o
w
"
<
u
-..®
lJ~ I ~.
I/° .!
v -'
~
,
?
o
,---.
"
.
'..
-----.---. ---
liC
~~
III .¡¡!IIi
b ~ ~~:
.c I toe
I ~~ilh I <i~l~
~~~ .' ~.
",..it~! .. 11
¡ I II lilt ¡
s lillo·II·...ill':o)
g ¡ 'I '11 . II! I ¡I
~I" :1;1!,:I,ld¡ I
i I~I,
iI~li
~~ ~I
I' , !1 ~¡ ~ .
. ~~ : i .
J l\!~¡ ~ L::-~. . I
-~i/~r\ __
~.-----'. ~ ". I I
,----¡---,,---
.,(1
i ~
! I! ;!
i II II !
~OO
I! Ii
¡ II §~
i
...
.....---
......
¡........J./
.......'
J
II Ii I
:. I III i I I I II
. II II· '¡I:lI!! . . 'I' :11 II 'I
'I i. , L II' :,1' I' 1 i 'I : i :1111 ,II jl jllillll¡l 111"11 I
III I!I i!! II!¡ i~ ~~ Y" ~ J 1'1 II ! I,I!: UI! IÌ Ii i!ll illl ¡II! I'
,i Iji i! 'I!,!ill 91¡ , I,! ~ !IIIII' a ¡I! I II 'I, I ,I
¡¡II ~III,OOI!!I ~III~~~! ~ iil ~ i! HI I ¡! I'gl I!! I! II !n! II II !I IIII
Iii !I!: !:..)!~! 1!li !Iml !!I3~ hi.: þ !Ii 11.1. I IIII .1 I, ! : ' ~
~ . .. . .. . . I I i I. i ~ I
,I : I
II~I' 'I: d,
lifl~!I¡!I¡~~
:1 I! Ii I i
;1 1I11i : II
11~I:hl~ ~
~ :'¡ ~~:I <ill
! IiI n 'I F. ~ ,çrTI
!!I:I:I;::I:;~
II',', Irlll;pl ~
II 111111111: ~
, ,
~ .. II bj 2 i
I
I
i
,
I
I -
i "-
,0
,
II -
~
0.
~g
o. !¡z
1-0:\
¡Szo.
:20/:
0.111"
OOF
~!5:J
c"
"
Z
Õ
<
~
<
I- .
1-0~
:\Zc
a..l;,.
(~
c~~
5'~iS
~:c_
~:2
is
I
. I
u" r
.9: ,
If:
.~: I
~. /
,1!"
..: !
tl
.:!: I
<. I
I!.' I
.:!;
I
I
!h
III
I
.
I
,
ì
,
I.
"
.,
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
21. No interior remodeling which would require a building permit, except for lighting and HV AC
upgrades, will be permitted within the existing classroom portion.
22. The applicant and staff will study whether windows on the south side of gymnasium are
visible from the parking lot and from West 7Sth Street.
23. The applicant will consider changing the color of the rock roof when replacement of the
roof is necessary.
All voted in favor, except Conrad and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Peterson: Goes onto City Council on the 28th and Ladd your reason for the nay.
Conrad: 1 think the applicant should review the acoustics with the staff. The applicant I think should, I
think as in the motion, review the windows in the gymnasium on the south wall, and I'm not comfortable
with condition 24 as it's been addressed.
Peterson: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330
MURRAY HILL ROAD. MIKE ARVIDSON.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Tom & Neysa Winterer
Shelli Placchino
Mike Arvidson
Chuck Lewellen
Carol Riese
Ted Dorenkamp
Greg Golmen
Gilbert Kreidberg
Junie Hoff-Golmen
2210 Melody Hill
2210 Melody Hill
5595 Timber Lane
6340 Murray Hill Road
6320 Murray Hill Road
6370 Murray Hill Road
2220 Melody Hill
6444 Murray Hill Road
2220 Melody Hill
Sharmin Al-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of the staff'?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, 1 have a question. The existing structure, do we know how long that's
intended to remain there? We don't.
Peterson: Speculation by staff I would imagine so.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
Sacchet: That might be more a question for the applicant.
Peterson: Other questions?
Ladd Conrad asked Dave Hempel a question regarding tree removal during the tape change.
Hempel: No. Tree removal. There would be some tree removal associated with that or trees along the
property line.
Conrad: Major or minor?
Hempel: Not significant tree, wooded area. One other thing 1 did fail to mention with the previous plat
that was approved in '96. The Golmen-Hoff-Golmen plat which was a two lot subdivision directly west
of this, staff did recommend additional right-of-way for extension of Melody Hill be conveyed at that
time with that plat. That did occur. We do have right-of-way through that subdivision up to this
subdivision at this time. Remaining right-of-way needed would be on the south side of the road, actually
on the school property which is about another I think 20 foot width of land that we would need. One
other thing just came to mind. Over the past year or two we have had conversations with the school as
far as looking at a secondary alternative access through Melody Hill area because the access situation
with Trunk Highway 41 so that's another incentive I guess to having a thru street if possible. Connection
with the school property.
Sacchet: Well Mr. Chair. Are we talking car access or pedestrian access as a secondary access when
you're talking about access?
Hempel: 1 believe they're looking for both. Secondary vehicle and pedestrian. I don't believe it was for
bus traffic. Main route for the buses to go.
Sacchet: But they're thinking that you could drive through there.
Hempel: Correct. I should point out I've not heard anything since the one time which was
approximately a year and a half ago.
Sacchet: I have a few more questions. Now if we would not go with where it plans to go.. . cul-de-sac
and do a road, or partially road, would that have to be resubmitted to the Planning Commission or in
terms of procedure? What's our scope with this that's in front of us. Can you answer that?
Aanenson: Our condition is to recommend it with the thru street. Since you don't have the thru street in
front of you, our recommendation is to deny the plat as proposed.
Sacchet: Okay. Now, so you understand that... still another question that comes beyond the scope in
terms of having a vision of where this is going. Doing this thru street, does it have to go all the way
through. Or potentially it could just go and stop for access that development and maybe have a
pedestrian way through if the neighborhood is so violently opposed to having a thru street. That would
be a possibility eventually, is that correct?
AI-Jaff: Where would you stop it?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
Sacchet: For access to parcel space. Instead of going all the way through.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. That's kind of a difficult halfway, I mean how long do we
envision for it to remain halfway I guess. Are we just delaying the inevitable? We do have a few
subdivisions that occurred in the past that have similar, where they extended the road partway and then
over time as the area filled in with additional neighbors and so forth, the road never went any farther and
it kind of defeated the purpose of putting the road there in the first place so. I guess it'd be staffs
recommendation that you either look at extending the road all the way through, make the connection, or
not having the road and doing the cul-de-sac street that serves basically this type of subdivision and
anticipate another one with the parcel to the north.
Sacchet: Do we know if the parcel to the north having intent to subdivide?
Hempel: I believe in a correspondence from them, they do not wish or have a desire to subdivide at this
time.
Audience: I'm the person to the north.
Peterson: We'll have public comment in a few minutes.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'd appreciate if you can address it.
Peterson: Other questions of staff?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. If a road did go through, the applicant would still have the same rights to do
a cul-de-sac coming from the north. Is that true?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Dave, the site was assessed for one additional, over the years has been assessed only for one
additional sewer connection. But regardless of where the cul-de-sac is put, they do have the right to put a
cul-de-sac in. Is that true? Whether it be from Murray Hill or an extension of Melody Hill, they still
would.
Aanenson: Well it's our recommendation, our finding that it's in violation of the city ordinance. That's
our opinion.
Conrad: To?
Aanenson: To not have the street go through. That's the staffs recommendation.
Conrad: Okay. But if Melody Hill went through, they could run a cul-de-sac off of that and still feed 4
lots.
Aanenson: They wouldn't need a cul-de-sac. If Melody Hill was extended you would have 3 lots
accessing off of Melody Hill.
Conrad: Okay, and then the fourth off of Murray.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
Aanenson: Murray Hill.
Peterson: If they made the cul-de-sac to meet the codes for a private road, they could still go ahead and
do that, am I not interpreting this right?
AI-Jaff: Repeat your question please.
Peterson: If they increased the cul-de-sac, increased the size of the cul-de-sac private drive to city
standard, could they not still do that?
Aanenson: Again our recommendation that doesn't meet the subdivision regulations.
Peterson: Okay. That was my question. So even if they increased it to meet the street standards, it still
wouldn't meet the subdivision?
Aanenson: That would be our opinion, yes.
Peterson: Okay.
AI-Jaff: This option meets city standards as far as public street but it's not the option that staff is
recommending. We're still recommending connection of the thm street.
Aanenson: Not quite exactly. It doesn't meet the thm street criteria. It doesn't meet the subdivision reg
when there's an option to put the street through. The cul-de-sac width would meet the city standard...
Sacchet: Can I ask one more question Mr. Chair? What is our intent in terms of the comprehensive plan
for the city, what's the plan for Melody Hill? I mean we have a Melody Hill stub to the west and then
you have no more Melody Hill on the east side. What's the original intent that that is to go a thru street.
Is that one street? I mean what's the original vision here? Or city vision I should ask. Is that something
you can address?
Hempel: Yeah, in the comprehensive plan it does propose the connection of those two streets to provide
a transportation link to connect the neighborhoods to the secondary access from Melody Hill.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks for clarifying that.
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your
name and address please.
Mike Arvidson: Mr. Chairman. Mister and Misses. The city is proposing that I change my plan
completely. I object to that and I will not change the plan. I think the city is using the wrong priorities.
believe that the people and the neighbors are the priority here and not the engineering of putting a road
through. My intent is to enhance the property and the neighborhood. If we put a road in, it would take
away from the neighborhood. It would take away from this beautiful property. And I might add that
there are 100 year old trees that would have to be taken down to put in the city road. The economics of
doing what the city would prefer is not in the best interest of anyone. The price of the lots would have to
be for 3 lots and not for 4. For this neighborhood there are exceptional homes in this neighborhood.
This is an exceptional neighborhood. I don't think that has been taken into consideration. The city says
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
that it's inappropriate, meaning unsuitable. Improper. Unfitting. My plan. I say the same thing about
their plan. Finally I would not want this property if my plan does not go through. Thank you.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. The existing house that's on there, like I was trying to get that question
answered by staff before. Do you have a vision of how long this house would remain?
Mike Arvidson: I believe the Woida's said it was built in the 40's and that's all I can tell you. And it's
been added to a number of times.
Sacchet: I mean it is the view ofyour...how exceptional the neighborhood is, which I certainly agree
with. It's a wonderful neighborhood. I can vision that house wouldn't stay long at all.
Mike Arvidson: Well, you have to have vision. Carolyn McClure is willing to purchase this house. I
think a number of people in this room know who Carolyn McClure is. She does amazing things with old
homes. The best I can tell you.
Sacchet: Appreciate it.
Mike Arvidson: One other thing. I do plan on building on this property, one of the lots if it is approved
the way I would like it.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. A motion and second for public hearing
please.
Burton moved, Sidney seconded to open the public bearing. Tbe public bearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward
and state your name and address please.
Tom Winterer: My name is Tom Winterer. I live at 2210 Melody Hill. I'm the neighbor that would be
to the northeast. No, northwest of this parcel. I'm the proud recipient of the subdivision of Go 1m en-
Hoff-Golmen when that was subdivided and so where I enjoy right now is some ofthe land that's been
deeded for the right-of-way for the extension of Melody Hill. And we, when we purchased this house
about 5 years ago, we looked at probably 20 properties from Shakopee to this was the further north
property that we looked at. And it just was such a jewel when we got up to it. Saw the thing, you know
and we were told that this subdivision had happened and that the neighborhood was so united in their
concern about the quality and the character that the streets lended. We were like, well it's a great
investment. We always envisioned the place remaining the way it is. This is the issue regarding this
development. What this says is that at the request to subdivide 2.1 acre parcel into 4 single family lots.
What I think it should say is, this is a request to have the city continue on with their master plan. I don't
know how old the master plan is, but I do know that the house that I'm in has been served well by the
way that the streets have served it for, I think it was 1936 is what's on my deed. And the city's filled in
lots around it rather well and it's very pleasing and it feels like to us in the neighborhood that you know
the patient is fine, but the city wants to recommend major surgery. One of the issues that got brought up
by staff was the desire to help out the school's needs by serving the school with access off of Melody
Hill for an overflow parking lot I think is what it's for because ofthe concerns with safer point of access
on Highway 41 for the school. I don't know what the issue was Dave, but you brought it up when you
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
talked about the type of traffic that Lake Lucy Road gets and what Melody Hill would get. It sounded
like you were saying Melody Hill will still be fine and it will still keeps it character but if you put,
connect the two streets and then put that overflow parking off of Melody Hill, it will become a Lake
Lucy. In fact it will be nicer than Lake Lucy to go on because of the hills and the turns and the twisting
and all. We envision that it will become the neat race course in the neighborhood for people to zip up
and around just because of how nice the homes are and everybody, the way they do their yards and the
gardens and everything, I just feel like that's in jeopardy here. I would look forward to having Mr.
Arvidson as a neighbor with this current proposal or if the commission sees fit to help him resolve the
issues that he has and still be able to do 4 lots. It looks pretty obvious to anybody that you can see from
the plan, you can take a look at the amount of land in here that he would have to get rid of to make this
extension happen so as a neighbor or a future neighbor of his, I would like to lend my support to Mr.
Arvidson's plan and if you have any questions of me I'd like to let you ask them now. Nothing?
Peterson: Thank you.
Tom Winterer: Thank you for letting me speak.
Ted Dorenkamp: Chairman and panel. My name is Ted Dorenkamp. I'm the property owner to the
north. I purchased my property about 3 years ago and there was no idea at that point in time to, that that
was a subdividable lot. I didn't purchase it for that reason. I only learned ofthis sitting with the city
planners when I had thought about purchasing the Woida property. We have no intention of subdividing
our property ever and we are opposed to the road extension of Melody Hill. Like our neighbors, our
neighbor previously talked to you about, it is an exceptional neighborhood. It's a quiet neighborhood and
adding a thru street on Melody Hill would only degrade the property and add much more traffic and give
you maybe some safety concerns. If you're talking about that road being a feeder road for the school,
you should certainly understand that there's a 10% grade that that road would have, that buses would
have to go down on Melody Hill, around a curve. They would have to make two left turns into that
school. If you try to get across 41 in the morning, you'll notice that, you will surely know that it's
impossible to do that with all the traffic. Lake Lucy Road is the right approach there. I do support Mr.
Arvidson's proposal. It makes sense for the neighborhood. It keeps the integrity of the large properties
there and I give him my support. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Don Kelly: I'm Don Kelly. My address is 2081 West 65th Street and when I came this evening I didn't
know what Mr. Arvidson's proposal was. I was concerned that there might be some consideration in
connecting Melody Hill. I was pleased to see that he had a more sensible solution than having all of his
access off of Murray Hill Road. I was here 15 years ago. My home is on West 65th Street which is right
here and this property here was being considered for subdivision. And I was very surprised when the city
proposed that they just loop this road right through and eliminate two cul-de-sacs. Looking at city
ordinances it was the right thing to do. Looking at safety, at snowplowing, at all sorts of things, trash
pick-up, it was the right thing to do. The Planning Commission recommended it. The neighbors of
course were all opposed to that. The developer was opposed to that. Only the city was in favor ofthat.
It was sent to the City Council and fortunately one of the people on the City Council drove to the
neighborhood and looked and she said this is a beautiful neighborhood that we'd be destroying if we
continue with the city's plan. As a result this development was finished this way and it's still a beautiful
neighborhood. I have the same concerns with what the city is recommending now with the new
development. There are people that live on Melody Hill on both stretches that are, that live in beautiful
neighborhoods that have moderate traffic. Connecting those roads would substantially increase the
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000
traffic. It creates a shortcut from my area to the school from anyplace, anybody going to Video Update
can get there a little quicker going that way. That's not an appropriate thing to be doing to those
neighborhoods. Issues of safety have been brought up. The other thing is that as far as access to school
from the north, obviously we don't want to increase the traffic there either, but the city had an
opportunity only a few years ago to put an appropriate access to Lake Lucy Road through an area that
had not yet been developed and was cornfield. If that access was necessary, it would have been sensible
to make that part of that development and not part of a neighborhood that's been relatively stable and
developing over the 4 years. When I came, my only concern was to point out that the area right through
here where the city water tower is, and the access road for the city water tower is pedestrian access from
this neighborhood to the school and hopefully nothing in this development would restrict that pedestrian
access. After listening though my major concern is that my hope that we can approve a development
very similar to one that Mr. Arvidson proposed without extending Melody Hill Road. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Chuck Lewellen: I'm Chuck Lewellen at 6340 Murray Hill Road and just a couple of points and one is, I
support Mr. Arvidson's plan. It looks real good to me and I think one of the good things about the
neighborhood there. We moved in in '96, is some of the beautiful trees and white pines and I believe that
some of the trees that would have to be removed for this proposed extension of Melody Hill would be
some truly beautiful and perhaps extraordinary white pines. And the other one is just a technical point
and I don't know if it's important or not but I live at 6340 Murray Hill Road and my neighbor on the
corner here of Summer gate is 6320 so I don't know where this 6330 came from that was in the notice
because I think the address of the current house is 6398 so at some point I don't know ifthere's any
technical problems with service. I don't think they'd want to continue to use 6330 as a address here.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close?
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Thank you gentlemen. Commissioners. Anyone want to take ajump at this one? You look
like you have some thoughts Matt.
Burton: Yeah I do so I guess I'll go first then. I guess for me, starting at the point that triggered the
whole process I guess that's the application itself. I was just looking at the, one of the petitions that we
received. Actually this is, I thought this was a present one but this is one from 1995. I think there was a
newer one too. Yeab there is. Well, the trigger is not the city wanting to put a road in. The trigger is
that the subdivision plan with the private street was submitted and this is the second time that this has
come before the Planning Commission and I went back and I read the proceedings from last time and
some ofthe members on the commission now were on the commission then and I read over Ladd
Conrad's comments and Craig Peterson's comments and I agree with Ladd and Craig's comments from
last time. I think that it's a good planning practice in my opinion the road would make sense and that
takes into consideration the potential future development ofthe surrounding parcels. And even though
the parties to the north or around the property don't have any present intention or any future intention to
subdivide, down the road that could be a concern and I think it's obligation as planners to watch out for
that. Now it's obvious the neighbors don't like it and if! was a neighbor, I wouldn't like it. The flip side
is, the project doesn't qualify under the subdivision ordinance to be approved. On it's own merits it fails
so in my opinion the options are a public street or don't subdivide and that's where I'm at.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments?
20
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll take a stab at it. I too went back and I read the comments from the previous
time. This type of application came before the Planning Commission and in this case I do agree with the
staffs analysis of the application and with Commissioner Burton's comments. I think the foremost
question surrounding this application is whether or not the proposal meets the test to be a private street
per city code and I don't believe that it does. In that case I would recommend denial of this application.
.,
Peterson: Okay, thank you, Other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I actually did go out there. Somebody made the comment to go out there. I
spent more time than I expected. I spent at least an hour or more driving around this neighborhood
because I understand one of the concerns of the neighborhood is the thru traffic. And I have to reach the
conclusion that thru traffic in what I call thru traffic really doesn't apply to that place. I mean if you call
thru traffic, people coming over from West 65th Street or from Hummingbird Road, or maybe from the
other side of Galpin from the extension of Melody Hill or a couple of roads there, to me that doesn't
quite qualify as a significant thru traffic. Anything significant that comes from a distance is going to go
down on Lake Lucy Road. So I don't think that this thru traffic concern is that much of a concern. When
I was out there, I also had this thing in the back of my mind, the access to the middle school which seems
to be somewhat lurking in the background to a lesser concern. Yeah, I wouldn't be thrilled if! were a
neighbor there and they wanted to make a parking lot you know, but that's not what we're discussing
here tonight. What I could see as a possibility, even though I really make no, Dave Hempel's comments
about... there is this easement in-between. I was hoping that maybe there would be a way to access this
new development, this subdivision through Melody Hill based on the position of the neighborhood, not
make it a road that drives all the way through. That it would be pedestrian thru way which I have to
agree with Dave Hempel, that's kind ofa half baked solution. But I have another concern is personally,
it's very nice up there even though you're proposing it but having been out there and looked at it, one
concern I had is the one house you're basically putting right underneath the water tower. While with the
rough subdivision sketch that was drawn up as an alternate vision from staff, you would have the house
away from the water tower so that seemed to be a plus in that sense also. But to come back to the issue
that's in front of us, does this qualify under the city ordinance framework for private street? Well the
first criteria is the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street. I really don't think this request meets that requirement. That's the number one criteria that
we have to deal with to look at whether we should recommend or not recommend this plat. Based on that
clause I feel from,..view from this side we have to deny this. That's my comment.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Anything additional Ladd?
Conrad: Really nothing new Mr. Chairman. One thing though. I think the development is out of
character with the neighborhood when you really get down to it. It's legal if you can get the access to it
but when you look at the other properties around, it's not the same. It's maximizing the use so, but it's
legal if they could get access, but it's real clear that our ordinance doesn't allow it the way they're
proposing. That's real clear and that's what the ordinance is for is to kind of standardize it, and I don't
think we're kind of ramming a plan through if somebody thinks we are because I have no need to ram a
plan through. There's common sense reasons for not going it, but right now it's sort of an out of
character development with an ordinance that really tells us what we should be doing from a good solid
planning standpoint, and you know the connection, you know I don't think it's a thoroughfare. I've lived
here for 30 years and I'll take you to my street and I'll show you the 20 fold increase in traffic on my
street just living here, and that's not comfortable for me but it's the way Chanhassen has grown, I don't
think this is the same. This is a lot different than the street I live on so, I think from a pure planning
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 1,2000
standpoint Mr. Chainnan, this application should be turned down. I think if the neighbors really think
it's important not to have that connectivity and there's a good reason to preserve something, I think that's
something that you've got to pursue at the City Council level. Don't want to put the burden on them but
from a planning issue, this is real clear in what we do.
Peterson: And in closing I certainly would mirror all of my fellow commissioner's thoughts. It is pretty
clear and it just doesn't work. And there's no compelling reason to let it go so, with that said I'll
entertain a motion please.
Burton: Mr. Chainnan, I'll move the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat
for Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Division for four single family lots as shown on the, I guess I can
just deny this request. I don't have to go through the whole thing do I?
Conrad: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Subdivision
#00-8 for Arvidson's Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Thank you everybody for coming and offering your opinions.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO
OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED
AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. WHITE OAK ADDITION, COFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. INC.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Elaine Arion
Eileen Heitkamp
Scott Bieganek
Bill Coffman
Mike Steadman
Marty Campion
Dave & Bobbie Headla
4041 White Oak Lane
4021 White Oak Lane
4040 White Oak Lane
600 West 78th Street, #250
6455 Tanager's Point
Otto Associates
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of Bob?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. The original plan for this area is to get access through White Oak Lane,
correct?
Generous: Correct.
22