The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Arvidsons Addition/Subdivide CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~ity Cmt" Driv" PO Box 147 anhass"" Minnt50tll 55317 Phon,612.937.1900 ;",,,,,1 Fax 612.937.5739 ;n,tring Fax 612.937.9152 ,lie Saftty Fax 612.934.2524 'b www.ci.ehanhass....mn.1/S to - MEMORANDUM To: Scott Botcher, City Manager From: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Date: October 9, 2000 Re: Arvidson's Addition- Update On August 28, 2000, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. The main issue concerning the site was access (through public street, cul-de-sac, or private driveway). The City Council directed staff to prepare a pros and cons analysis of a private vs. public cul-de-sac. The applicant submitted plans reflecting the above mentioned layouts. The following constitute our analyses: Exhibit B This proposal/layout appeared before the Planning Commission on April 17, 1996, as Hobens Wild Wood Farms Second Addition. The Planning Commission reviewed and denied this application. Following the decision of the Planning Commission, the applicant withdrew his ~pplication. This option proposes a private street. PROS Less impervious surface CONS Does not meet criteria for private street, hence, settin a recedence Limits development potential to property north of site to a private drivewa Inconsistent with the comprehensive Ian rrom a trans ortation stand oint Se e ates nei hborhoods 1m airs an future school ex ansion Dead-end water s stem Duplication of utilities for the city to own and maintain (When property to the north develo s) No emer enc vehicle turn around Does not provide secondary access to westerly ortion of Melody Hill Less grading Maintain existing dwelling No Cit maintenance of rivate street ~il"l ofChauhasseu.A rrOwinfCommunil"l with cltOn lakt5, aualitv "hooli. a eharmin~downtown. thrivin~ busint5"" aud b,autiful Parks. A "tOt plact to live. work. and pia, ~;:, Arvidsons Addition October 9, 2000 Page 2 This option proposes a public cul-de-sac. PROS Meet subdivision ordinance Provide emergency vehicle turn around Maintain existing dwelling line This option proposes a through public street. Exhibit C Exhibit D PROS CONS Meet subdivision ordinance Eliminate House Meet Comprehensive Plan rrom Eliminate Trees (The road could be transportation standpoint. designed to minimize tree loss along the north property line by locating the street along the southerly portion of the right of way. Provide continuity between neighborhoods More costly to builder initially and access to school facilities Provide future subdivision potential to More impervious surface parcel to the north Eliminates duplication of utility and street Minor additional grading for street width access. (31 feet vs. 20 feet) Provide looped water main system with Melodv Hill Provide secondary access to westerly portion of Melody Hill Eliminate dead-end street Arvidsons Addition October 9, 2000 Page 3 CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff still supports option "D" as the best long-range plan. However, in choosing between the Private vs. the Public cul-de-sac, staiIis inclined to recommend the private cul-de-sac (option B) since it has more positive than negative attributes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the 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: I. The pIli! sltall he recle3igaefl iaeol']'1el'lltiag the ea3t/west e){teasiea of Meloày I Ell R-eafl to l\1a_y Hill R-eaà withia a 60 feet -;liàe deflieated right of '!illY. The eJdstiag home shall he remevefl Hem the right ef WilY hy the developer. The de',-eloper sltall petitioa the City te eeastruet Melofly Hill Roaà het'/teea MW'ftty Hill Read tiflfI the eal'l'eflt te_iaas sf Melofly Hill Reafl. Prelimia!U]' anà Raal pIli! appwval shall he eeatiageat !lpoa the City Ceaneil ffiltheriziag II pfOjeet te eea3truet Melody mil R-eafl throagh te 1\1!1l'ffiY Hill Rea&: 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 Meleày Hill R-ead the northern property line, 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. Arvidsons Addition October 9, 2000 Page 4 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. Outlot A shall be eliminated in favor of these cross access easements. 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 rrom 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. 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 rrom 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. 11. 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 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." Arvidsons Addition October 9, 2000 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS I. Staff report dated August 28, 2000. 2. City Council minutes dated August 28, 2000. 3. Plans dated Received June 30, 2000 4. Plans reflecting options B, C, and D. g:\plan\sa\arvidson i i.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN L{- PC DATE: 8/1100 - CC DATE: 8/28/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 8-29-00 CASE #: 00-8 SUB By: AI-JafflHempel:v I- z <t u :J Q.. a.. « ~ ~ w I- - C/) STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 2.17 Acres into 4 single family lots, Arvidsons Addition LOCATION: Southwest comer of the intersection of MUITay 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. - - .- J: ~ &... &... ::3 ~ et: "E .- Q. Arvidsons Addition August 28, 2000 Page 2 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: · Different applicant. · Existing house to remain. · The proposed private driveway has a bubble. · Minor variation in lot area. 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 of 2 units per acre. The site is located at the southwest comei' ofthe intersection of MUITay 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 ITom 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 of21,9l8 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. SURF ACE 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 of 2.17 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 from 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 $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. 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 from 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 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 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 from 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 ofthe site. A rock construction entrance will also be required. The final gradingldevelopment 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 andlor trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Home Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/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 PRESERVATIONILANDSCAPING The applicant has not submitted canopy coverage calculations for the site, therefore staff has calculated approximate canopy coverage. Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Arvidsons Addition development are as follows; Total upland area (including outlots) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 94,525 SF or 2.17 ae. 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 1. 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 infrastructure 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 ca¡¡se 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 PltinfliRg Csmmi3sisfI 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: Arvidsons Addition August 28, 2000 Page 10 1. The plat shall be redesigned incorporating the east/west extension of Melody Hill Road to Murray Hill Road within a 60-foot wide dedicated righ~-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 1. Application. 2. Public hearing and property owners list. 3. Memo from 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 rrom Thomas and Neysa Winterer dated received July 24, 2000. 9. Letter from 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CL./ FF <t PA I \)../01 DÂ .PPLlCANT: }//) K£ A. ¡r¿ V I 0 S 0 tJ OWNER: J ·VI ~ DDRESS: S5')S- Ttfi1ßE..te. LN ADDRESS:¿ß37'J" )1tJ/(RA\.j ¡-I ILL /ê() S I+ORI~. WOD 0 , H N ...:55"..3 3 / C 14.Á fJ {-\ A-s<s %A..;' µ IV, , I ElEPHONE (Daytime) ¡PI;; - If 7'-1 - 'óO,,? ~ TELEPHONE: c;. r a . 1../ 7 If - ír~f18" MY OF CHIINl\~;;;;ËM O¡;CEWFD JUN 13 2000 €H1-\I'.¡nM.~~I:N ¡-ILANr't."... ..-..'f _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROWIEasements - Interim Use Permit - Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit _ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment ~ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review 1 Notification Sign ~ /SD.éJO _ Site Plan Review" --X.. Escrow for Filing Fees! Attorney Cost"" ($50 CUP/S~~~1XAR/W~~etes and Bounds, 400 Minor SUB) :X Subdivision" i '-!-{..D.Oò TOTAL FEE $ I,OIOVV A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the properly must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8Y2' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. .. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract OTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 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 parcel into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Arvidsons Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the developar'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 Sharmin 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™ ) SCHOOL DIST 276 SCHOOL AVE :ELSIOR MN 55331 =HAEL L & ANDREA K SCHARFF o MELODY HILL RD :ELSIOR MN 55331 BERT E LEE III o MELODY HILL RD :ELSIOR MN 55331 'HARD & LINDA K NICOLI o MELODY HILL RD :ELSIOR MN 5533\ REN SIGNE PETERSON o MELODY HILL RD :ELSIOR MN 5533\ 3ERT J CRISTOFONO RGARET A CRISTOFONO o SOMMERGA TE :ELSIOR MN 55331 .-cHELL M & SUSANNE B KANTER o SOMMERGATE :ELSIOR MN 5533\ 'IDA M KUZMA 1 SOMMERGA TE :ELSIOR MN 5533\ .RK T & ANNE K GINTHER \ SOMMERGA TE :::ELSIOR MN 5533\ tRY C HARRISON 1 SOMMERGA TE :::ELSIOR MN 5533\ ~ AVF17V0 rr1r1rp~~ I ;¡hpl~ AVVl {C;~ Use template for 5160® CLAUDE W & KA YE L BENSON 2211 SOMMERGA TE EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ PETER E & LISA J STAUDOHAR 2204 SOMMERGA TE EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ GREG GOLMEN & JUNIE HOFF-GOLMEN 2220 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS G & NEYSA L WINTERER 2210 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & JOANNE FLEWELLEN 6340 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ MARK L & CAROL J RIESE 6320 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ MICHAEL C & MARGARET L BUCHN 2\9\ SOMMERGATE EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ JOHN THOMAS FAVORITE II SUSAN LEE FAVORITE 2080 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ RICHARD & BARBARA D ATHERTON 2082 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ DON & K KELLY 208\ 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ LORRAINE S CLARK 2\6\ MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ JOHN R & NANCY H LIBERG 209\ MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ RICHARD D & JOYCE H MCFARLAND 6341 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533 I ROBERT E LEE 626\ 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 5533\ WAYNE E POPPE & JOYCE SLATER POPPE 2090 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN G & DENISE GARTLEY 2098 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ HARLAN & ELEANOR JOHNSON 6340 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HARRY DAVID BAERT 6300 HUMMINGBIRD RD EXCELSIOR MN 5533\ laser 5160® @09t!i las1!l JOHN J & JUNE A HAMSHER 2081 MELODY HILL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CRAIG R & CATHERINE JOHNSON 2071 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ANN S F ARNI & JULIE F ARNI TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6454 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN J & L YNNETTE J DELUCA 6484 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GILBERT & JlLLENE KREIDBERG 6444 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN . C/O SC~TT BOTCHER-/' 690 CITY CE PO BOX 14 CH~ EN MN 55317 saq1!l ssaJpP'tf \, ®AlI:IJ\V" 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 From: Planning Department By: Sharmin AI-JirlT, 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, StOO11 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 from 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 ~4, 2000. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. @relePhone Company (US West or Sprint) c§1lectric Company (NSP or MN Valley) ,:§:>rriax Cable System City Departments @ City Engineer b. City Attorney æCity Park Director ~?Fire Marshal æBuilding Official f. )Water Resources Coordinator (j) Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 3. Soil Conservation Service 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 4. MN Dep!. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Other '~ , . 6;iMmnegasco 7. MN Dep!. of Natural Resources CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Centtr Drive. PO Box 147 ChanhilSsen. Minnt50ta 55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 Central Fax 612.937.5739 Enginming Fax 612.937.9152 Public Saftty Fax 612,934.2524 Web www.cÎ.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Steven Torell, 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 fÌ'om 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/stlmemoslplanJarvidsonsaddn The City ofChallhassen.A f(l'owin; community with clean lakes. qualitv schooli. a charminf downtowll. thrivin~ busintsSt5, and btOuti!Ù/ parks. A '[Ttflt place to liv,. work. and p CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Sr. Planner CityC'"ter Driv,. PO Box 147 FROM: 'anhass,", Minnesota 55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 DATE: ;,",,01 Fax 612,937.5739 ;inmingh<612.937.9152 SUBJ: ,lie Saftty Fax 612.934.2524 'b www.â.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 of the 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 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 fi'om 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 .subäivision. Without the extension of Melody Hill Road, the Dorenkamp Citv ofClul1lhassen. A I1rowinl1 communitv with cleiln/akes, C/ua!it'¡I schools, a channin:z downtown, thrivinf businesses, and beautiful parks. A y,reat place to /ifle, work, and play. Sharmin Al-Jaff July 25, 2000 Page 2 parcel wiII be limited in development potential to a private street as well. Staff also believes it is important to improve access to the Melody HilI neighborhood and school property. Melody HilI 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 ofthe 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 HilI 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 HilI Road wiII improve access to the Melody Hill neighborhood, provide pedestrian access to the school facilities, and provide the Dorenkamp parcel with future subdivision capabilities. It wiII 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 HilI Road and costs assessed to the benefiting properties. There is sufficient right-of-way west of the development for the extension of Melody HilI Road. As the Planning Commission and City Council members may recall, there were discussions about the extension of Melody HilI 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 HilI Road to Murray HilI Road). The revised plat requires removal of the existing house. The amount of grading is approximately the same. All the proposed dwellings wiII 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 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 Manãgement 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 from Murray Hill Road. Watermain is also bordering the parcel on the west side ftom 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 ofprojects 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 1. The plat shall be redesigned with incorporating the eastlwest 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. 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 Sharmin AI-Jaff July 25,2000 Page 5 reimburse the applicant their fair share of the 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. 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. 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 Works/City Engineer g: \eng\dave\pc \arvi dson. ppr .doc ¿V e~ MELODY HILL - - - PROPOSED SUBDIVISION EXISTING LOT LINES i " ",. i ~J,*,1:..o< /~ SOMMER GATE g,# / ~ "sl, /' --- - -r--- ---,--.----- I ! I I I l .' Jø I S)ScF' I I t1:~ I ~-_.. fl~cJP I c,~~ '/ \ \ \ I \ \ " \ \ I \ \ \ ~fl ~\ \ \ \ ---- Q ~ a: ...I ...I - :c - a: a: :) 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEMORANDUM OCityCmterDriv,.POBox147 TO: JJanhassm. Minntsota 55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 FROM: Gmeral Fax 612.937.5739 :nginming Fax 612.937.9152 DATE: ublic Saftty Fax 612.934.2524 SUBJECT: W'eb www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Shannin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal July 17,2000 Request to subdivide a 2. I 7 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 FireDepartmentlFire 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 mllst 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 penn its will be issued due to close proximity of neighboring houses. g:\safety\ml\plrev2000-8 'he Citv of Chollhasstll. A rrowinrcommunitv with c!tOn lakts. aualitv "hooli. a charminr downtown. thrivinr busintssts. and btautiful parks. A ",at pia" to Ii"" work. andp/a, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City CmttT Drive. PO Box 147 Chanhasstn, Minntsota 55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 GtIItTal Fax 612.937.5739 Enginming Fax 612.937.9152 Public Saftty Fax 612.934.2524 IItb www.ci.chanhasstn.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator ~ 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. I 7 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 runofffi'om the site. This will be determined upon review of the pondingand 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 installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-farnily/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. The Cil"l ofChanhasstn.A J(l"owin~ community with cl,on lakts. qualitv schooli. a charmin~ downtown, thrivin~ bu;intssts, and btautiful parks. A !(T,at plaæ to liv" work, and pia. Sharmin AI-Jaff July 24, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. The proposed residential development of 2.17 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\planning\Arvidson's Addit.doc SWMP FEE WORKSHEET DATE FILE NO. PROJECT July 24, 2000 2000-8 SUB Arvidson's Addition Site Area In Acres 2.17 Assessable area 2.17 WNlNG CLASSIF1CATION Single Family Residential WATER QUALITY FEES Rate per Acre Acres Total $ 800.00 2.17 $ 1,736.00 Rate per Acre Acres Total $ 1,980.00 2.17 $ 4,296.60 CREDITS WATER QUANTITY ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL . PRICE PRICE $ SWMP FEE $ 6,032.60 SWMP CREDITS $ TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 6,032.60 TYOF NHASSEN a Driv,. PO Box 147 . Milllltsota 55317 612.937.1900 1X 612,937.5739 [',,612.937.9152 'h1X 6/2.934.2524 ,-¡.c!J{/llbtWeI1,lIIll.1lS 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, ~~'~r~ Sharmin AI-Jaff Senior Planner Sharmin AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Mr:c~nfr:n ,IUL 2 12000 CJ ¡ Y l,.¡~ Gtú;-\¡~t;i"',6SEN Re: Subdivision of Parcel Into (4) Single Family Lots at 6330 ¥urray 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 ofIife 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 113 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 fi-uition. 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 ofIiberty - the acceptance of self preservation; the bedrock of socialism - the diminished respect for the individual. ¥J!}~/~ ~~ JNo~~~ G. & Neysá ~terer - Residents of22l0 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. R:~~CtfUIlY:..,,/'¿ __--~. ~ ......·¥,y",.¿"A.,"'. ","''''',J,,' { ,.. J ,.' Greg Golmen and Junie HO~~G~I~en . 2220 Melody Hill 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: ............ ,. ...............,......., -.....'. ............ ..... ;"':'0<':':'; ....·z· ..................... ..,.....,... ........ .~i.willbe unable to attend the August 1, 2000 meeting discussing the development .t¿;~~2Ë~]~g~ªª;~~~~, ;:;:;::,::;~:j::f:t!:;:;::~::::·· ;ìI§~j¡¡;ve that had the council been forward in stating its intentions to the community, '0, â'štronger 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 ofthis 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 £Tom 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. Signature ~ C eIJ Date 7~..J-¿){) 5533 Date 7- C r-oo · Name ~ ~53 Signature LÄ\J(L1'r; 1¡JE'~"Eì2-- Date~D LN I ~~' M<0 50>-';3 Signature ~ Date 7/;;)( /ø Address · Name Address Address Date~déCD Address Date-.1/¿I} 2006 Address 1- D ( Vv0 · Name 'J 0 h IV" ¡J t1I"V;;' Signature ç~ ~Date 7- )-/-~ \'Î^ 0 '5 '5 ~ð S. ~ ~I ¡J Date 7-Z(~'2-()'O:;¡ Ignature f.A, ~ 1016r fte./od"1 ¡.J, /) f~c.,d {L ,(IIlN 55331 AM"';, S~h~ 8'"""" ~d ,J3óo _e-Io~ . ,. ~oL I Gtvu.M'3seA~'i233) Date -:If '--I f ¡yO Address · Name Address . 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 · Name Address Address s(~ :.,:-fz-:;l~l:'~7: "~;E~ · Name Signature Address Date 1-0<.;2-06 Date Date 7ÙsIM , , '-'\ Date ^-. S-ç 7· 2. s·a-(J Date ;?-z:.ý--. J Date · Name Signature Address Date · Name Signature Date Address · Name Signature Address Date DAìN ~ Richard D. McFarland Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer INVESTMENT SER.VlCES 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 sI and the purpose of this letter is to support the appJication 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. S;_IY'~/;;~~ Richard D.\Lc~!J(ß RDM:ca (.-.~;:," ~':, ."\"': r."~ jUt. 2 S 2000 C : !; \.,.,,' ',.,; :i'- ;.\ " ..i<2,¡~.~ : Dain Rauscher Plaza 60 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55+02-+422 (612) 371-283+ Fax (612) 371-7755 Email rdmdarland@dainrauscher.com Dain 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 infonnation we received from the present owner of the property. We are strongJ.y 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 information or if the plan does include Melody Hill going through the property. Thanks for asking for our input and the invitation to the hearing CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1996 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MF.MRF.RS PRF.SF.NT· Nancy Mancino, Don Mehl, Craig Peterson, Bob Skubic, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, and Jeff Farmakes MF.MRF,RS A RSF,NT' None. ST A FF PRF.SF.NT· Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin AI- Jaff, Planner II; and Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator PITRT.TC' HF.A RTNCw· PRF.T .TMTN A RV PT.A T OF 2 17 ACRF.S TNTO 4 STNCwT.F. FA MTT,y T .OTS ON PROPF.RTV ZONF.O RSF, RF,STnF.NTI AT. STNCwT .F, FA MTT.V A NO T .OCA TF.O AT THE SOTITHWFST CORNER OF THE TNTERSECTTON OF MITRR A V HIT.T. ROA 0 A NO Miff .onVHI' .1, UOA. Or HORENS WIT ,n WOO F Â. RMS SFCONn A nnITTONr HORF.N CORPORATION. Public Present: NQme 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 Arlrlre.. 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 ITom 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, Sommergate 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 I do want to act on the W oida 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 Woida'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 comer... 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 from 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 ofIiving 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 numerous 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 from 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 from 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 char!\cter 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 rrom 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 s!:e two houses on the property rrankly, but I can live with four. And as Chuck said, it could really, rrom 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 of 2 1/2 million people who would not appreciate buying from 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 rrom 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 sununer 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 rrom the deck of my house, at least 4 or 5 balls went across Melody Hill and into our front 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 Comn:1Íssion? 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. Betty Burkholder: Yeab 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 iswhat 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 rrom Chaska Road, they could also use the approach on the east side from 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 Me!ody 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 from 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 rrom 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 rrom 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 streét 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 tom 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 from 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! 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? II Planning Commission Meeting - April 17, 1996 AI-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 HilI 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 off base 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 of long 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 rrom 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! 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 rrom now. Is an issue that I think...but I do like the idea of potentially extending Melody HilI 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 HilI 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 HilI 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 HilI 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 rrom Public Safety? Hempel: I guess I can't answer that. I'm not aware. I've not been informed from 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 HilI 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 á 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, PITHf ,fC REA RfNr.· SfTE Pf.AN REVJF.W OF A 111,9411 SQITARE FOOT OFFICE WAREROITSF. FACn.JTV ON PROPERTY ZONEn fOP, fNnITSTRf A f. OFFfCF, PARK, ANn f .OC A TEn ON f .OT 1, HJ.OCK 1, CRANRASSEN HITSfNESS CENTER SECONn AnmnON, J.OCATEn ON T .A.KE DRIVE WF.ST, TF.CHNTCAI. TNDTTSTRTAI. SAT .RS TT, RA V COI ,I .TNc;S 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 TSPIEOS 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 Fíú LUt qtþ-,~ Charles E. Spevacek, Esq. 6474 Murray HID Road E.ceIsIor, MInnesota 55331 Telephone: (612) 470.'697 June 20, 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEN œœ@{}On7[ffm JWJ 2 1 1095 Ms. Kathryn Aanenson '" v Director of Planning Depaf\llMn arid r.nli.NffRIHG DEI'JT Ms. Colleen Dockendoñ !" , 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 Engineer and Ms. Nancy Mancino Chair ofPIanning Commission Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Proposed Melody Hill Street Extension Dear Sirs and Mesdames: We understand the City of Chanhassen is considering extending Melody Hill Street west &om its intersection with Murray Hill Road. through the property prs: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 Sommergate, 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 would be of considerable 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 &om Hazeltine Boulevard to Galpin Boulevard. We fear for the safety of our children, particularly during the school year (the neighborhood school bus drop is at the corner 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 understand a new cross street between Hazeltine Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard is planned at a location less than two miles south of us; and when the trip which would be "saved" by this road extension (between the intersection of Melody Hill and Chaska Road, and Melody Hill and Murray Hill) amounts to all of seventhltenths 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 submitted, ~ Charles E. Sp acek Petition to the City of Chanhassen We understand the Cty of Chanhasseu II conslderlq . plan to exteDd Melody Hill Road west from Its Intersection wltb Murray Hili Road, through the property pmeatl)' owned by the Waldu. We, the undersigned, II!:2!!Ib; oppose IUch a plan. Extending Melody Hili Road In this maDDer would result In an Irrevocable, detrimental, change In the character of our neighborhood, reduclag the value Rn'd deslnblUty of our properties and lDa'eas1ng the safety risks to our neighborhood's children. We see DO Deed for thls project. or healeDt from Its completion. Please coDsld_er our Input In aD)' decisions you may make regardloa this wasteful, detrtmeDtal and unnecessary proJOl8l. Date Name (PrInted) Address S(IS'('\S' ~\r;S fêW"", b~'t"'Vv'''''3~l~ :J/tt/rí ?l/t¡~ .;;¡...... Ha-1J~e.-- I'1$l"c.,.. Ã/ÒlS>ee.- b't5lt~W1~ ~"=;í~' fr>38'1 flf)~. 7J(~/~7I(~-<C" s1lS'11( h../J~' ~ I -1~5 dil\en~\<,æ¡'dbP_'5 foi4<{ mUf't"&j'-lt:11 C)r:f1C; G'~e"""i' ~~~ G-N<-I ~"-U'ò ~.. ~J. -,:lfØirß«¿ ~ ~ S- a 1'11-£; I. 0 Þ Y If/I- .j;"¡9s"trdß~t<re, I1MM' ~~1 ( Ú1lP,tS2, Y/¡£ 51\N A .&ìM c93a:JiJJdalt¡lId/ rdl/~d;u~ 5/11/'W M.a.rk S F-¡a~M7 ;lESt; MdoJyJlill @ m..dA.J:_J...TjJ~ 1or,,':\'. ~I\,r\~ "Õ .;:2"350 N el ò~ Itu.c I¡,...)¡t~v~ S/JI/95 Óf!idð ~'. JJgO ~ 'I/dI r7øfdð %œú' ,l,ifldQ N,col, §/z t!1i ~ \c~® < ,. Petition 10 Ihe City of Chanhassen We uuderstand the City or Chanhassen Is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from Its Intersection with Murray Hill Road, through the property pmeDtly owned by the Woldas. We, the undersigned, I1!:2!!&!l oppose such a plaa. Extending Melody Hili Road In this manner would result In an Il"ftVoc:able, detrimental, change In the character of our neighborhood, redodng the value aDd desirability of our properties aDd IncreaslDg the safety risks to our Defghborbood's children. We lee DO need for this project, or benefit from Its completion. , Please consider our lopot In any declslons you may make regarding this wastef'ul, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (Printed) Address \0\.(8,) \'<\u.rr£1.j \1\1\ . II"' r,-Iß2 /'1"~ /It, Signature C;¡\L¡ qç S\.I.'i:An ~OLl.~i, ~.v / // / 't /ftn;->l-<J. &và>t', hftn4/""'- ",?/1,q'J S1;~N G I~ z..oq8 MISlt,pt 1.}1/) ~"1'-~'\Á..c. ~~ l~ \~f\i~( Vovr¡¿ 2-0QO ~'\~l.Dþ~ ltl"'- 'S Iii J01jCf fo 1.0<10 MI2ID~ Hi! 5#1:/, C1~I'Z lJJet:. ~ó5/ rnf..!CJ~ +j¡'{{ S/14 tv\ i cn.ek. d06Q J-{eJQ~ ¡-!,¡ 'Îfkfl.&ej.JJxB~krcß2k- / ~V> f'ax'(j C; II'( jG,''''l~ .?4: ~ò ~e{d~!.., If/II J~w' q!/ ~.ç""5e(' ~iL-j .::5e.n(') ( doSO f'{ìe\O~\j t\UßJON~/) 1=n~G..('\ \....tlll K,qrn~~¡J J..fJ?/J f11t: UP'( I-JJL.L,., '~~ VONfftfl?YY1!'ù) ( \.~ , 1/0 '~ J~------- L1n~:'f~'\ , \ /1 vi ¡J '. - ¡~/Ju~ 'µ¡~ v.ln- I , . Pellllon to the City of Chanhassen We understand the Clt,' or CbaDhassea I. COaslderlD& a p[au to extend Melody Hili Road west from Its Intersection with MulTa)' Hill Road, tbroup the property presently OWDed by tbe Woldas. We, the undersigned, I1t2!!Ib; oppose such a plaa. ExteadJq Melody mil Road In thb manoer would result In au Irrevocable, detrimental, change In the character or our neighborhood, reduclng the \'IIlue and desirability or our propertlu and Inc:rusloa: the safety risks to our aelahborboocl's chßdreD. We lee DO need. for thl. project, or benefit from Its completion. 'Please caulder our Input In any decisions )'OU IDa)' make reprdlne this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (PrInted) hI! I ;-¡ ~'> ... ~ f'R -¡.¡r.Rf .£.L~ø '" ¡f . '\ MIt" S (1tjj? «"....J1, ï''{I-':J '¡(,SK.\ :1 I'ìS ¡1'\Æ.. 'r ¡ll\oQ. S. "It<! 'lHrvø Æ~I .:;;/tt.¡, f..,ou.<\ fotJiY Address t.SY/ -ht/N/tY '- fh 62-bI 111"1-"''''1 p,11 j(J. . ,£7).. I Sign.'.'" II (/ IJ)JJr~ "" .~ -. ..._....... 7.L 7J'r ~':~--L~ (.1.31 ¡tI-\<.(vv"'1 \1;\\ .¡?,ß, J3/Jo Z3,.36 SP>"1) ~ S-N-'Ç )« 1¡11¡O}· J /J (,p'Wo ,i{1/~1t1'1IM /fa. Mvll[. Æ'M/S'J~ L Øk~ fi ð~/.(.~ .,¿frt7 /(,'1- S'/~"Ì ~ W4 f1~S ~¿7c ¡"¡v,'t,tAT i{,~ f?,) Tæo K~ -l/¡'5/95 ¡:>/~'r IJí't:''S ;;/.(/ -.J . :Jf; (( J,,. ¡IM"''''-'/¡ ,r ./.1S' .~r/> ..,l,~J hhL..L,A"" .~ 'j;sf9<;' bØrl ! ~" (4c/ Illi/J.'N lit/! 1171. ~/ ~;-. (l, t' . If' c,- /;';;3- /'1.Jr::æOí N,. "'~d. _.." .-1 u:A¥..: ~ .7·/ //'-=--" át£tÆYlv..u¿¡.a,:v PML- -&-0t.=1Ï'( ßUrzKNCi....Ot:::.(<-' ~370 7Út~ /I~(({l!. Petition to the City of Chanhassen We understand the City 01 Chaobassea Is considering a plan to extend Melody Hill Road west from Its Intersectlon with Murray Hill Road, through the property presently OWDed by the Woldas. We, the undersigned, 11!:2!!&!% oppose such a plan. Extending Melody Hill Road In this manner would result In an Irrevocable, detrimental, cbange In tbe character or our Delghborhoo~ Madog the value and desirability of our properties and Increasing tbe safety risks to our nelghborbood'. children. We see DO need tor this proJec:t, or benefit from Its compleUon. 'Please consider our Input In any declsloDS )'OU may make regardlog this wasteful, detrlmeutal and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (Printed) Address Signature S¡'Ú¡fq{¡ fMtk.-';1 E bL\14 t-\J rfo..t 1\; \ \ RÄ. ~ ~o.u.L E.}Wl~\()(,,~"\ 6S?>~1 'S"¡ítJ¡.r ~1'6( £. ZZð'ffr#f~ ~~ tJSA-.J: £~.s2bl(,~ ~ 7",4 c-t;1oH "'""" 11' ~ ,~ 4:41(~7 ~kv ( '/ tr"1 Slrf :;J:11 Jr¡.<t. /,-q~ ¿ sfJ4- 2.. z. "bö filfY) be<- tf(~Jll} 5/14 LyrdéJ kuzma ~LI Son1~ sh0. f'Iu,-~\l..:2A'l1'T 'do)."\\ s.o",...~~ y~ ~ 4/~ ~5"ý Pel'''', c. ~rv~ ')...1-1-\ 70"",,,,ØtGl1 ~ (. ' ?ßY7ß/! ð~d~¿/acd: Petition to the City or Chanhassen We understand tile CIty of CbaDhasseD Is cODslderlDa: 8 plaD to extend Melody HIli Road west from Its latenectlon wllb Murray Hili Road, !broaøh Ibe properlJ' preseuüy """ed by Ibe Woldas. We, Ibe uuderslgaed, II!:IIIII!z oppose 'uch . plan. ExteadJng Melody HUt Road In this maDDer would result,ln aD 1rTevocable, detrimental, change In the cbaradc:r or our neJghborhood, n:dadag the value and desirability or our properties and increasing the safety risks to our Deløhborbood's chll....... We see DO ...... ror Ibl, project, or beaeßt &om lis .....pledo.. , Please eoaslder our Input In IUI)' decisions you may make regardlag this wasteful, detrimental and unnecessary proposal. Date Name (PrInted) Addres#, Signature LYIJfI€7ÞJ, Q.Luc:o. 6'f'lif Hum! ,¡ I ~I I~ ui1ta.~ 5-/lffs ExceJslòr' P11J~5'831 r! óq fr'-f /"I~".rA/ If,' fI f1 ?~;I7L--- 1)-14-9'1 Ji,h,>V QL,,-,=- E;'<..~¡or ;11,,</ ??3'?J/ Ý II.j-r::r kh.v~L4 ~¡l ¡v,va*lf.o (d \~- .e::- £lcc:b'V\.. 0..... .~')"S.., / ~·f '\ .t":! _ . . . z o ¡:: o o « CJ) z o CJ) o - > a: <C Ii.: o ~ ...J c... >- a: <C z - ~ :J w a: c... ¡ , , ; Ii z' " g: ~ o' >1 i ~I ~ .... > w 0 ;: . <J: ~ ::Ejg; ê; ~ ~ ~ . " . p ;J .. . " " h .. í~ ~î [. " ., :~J! g~:: ~q !ò ,; 8H m"u ~h £ ~ IS &!,u .. "'.~ :j~ ~ž1: ~ .. ~H ~ g Zit " . . ~ ,I " ,. ,. ., 1 .;; £ ;¿ i ~ ~ 1 'E~ j- ~ i ;, ~ k: ~ .., ~ a ~~ ~f~j .r~ ~i "'¡¡" h ~£ 'Õ ò2 ~... :'i'i ~¡ II- ~i 'd î ~ ~ t: g~ ~~! ~: £ p ~¡ E£~ ~.~ ~ II ~~ ~ ~ ¡ ,¡ . I, OU ~£:¡¡ õ! 1 ~s t8 £!.. õ ,~ "'~ II I! .., 1II ò 1 si -i: i~ ï! '- .' " " §! '. n .,~ f " '. I, ¡~~ã ! ~ "'.. El~~ .¡.. ~õ ~~~i -a'¡::E ïfu: ~;~ ~£ ~"£i: ~!i;g& , J 'I ~ ¡' ¡ I ~ f "' :g~ § ~ . . \. ., ---, j;1 . . . .. i s ~ i ~ f t õ ;:;::.1: ~ ~ :§~;" ;! õi i ..... .. <>. ~ ~ ¡; .. ~:::L p :~n¡8~ ! :!:~ ~ ::. ~ . ,~.¡¡; ¡ !~ f¡~Õb~ iõ f: 1;~ 1_ .§!!.." fi õ ! ~ ~ ..'. ~ H ~ ~ -, '. t ;¡ -.~p ~b L'~ ;~ !!:~! '-·il ,. !-<>£5'<:ih~~ f;~ .' ,- i ,.... , .~~_o¡ gJl;.fi 1f !2H~~I~_~-t¡"'~ mÏH~' ~J~~~¡': ·d...1I. it ~:. í '; o~ s_:~££!~b£'¡g{í~"6 :.::-~b_ -;;2 O~~iii""!'o ip~.§::ol!;:~ f%. -¡.!!¡~ .._>-~£ i~ :J~'~: ~E8 ~~ !~ ¡:~~~u:¡:~ß~~ ¡!:,,; ~ ¡ , , , ! ...... E'õ i~ ,- o' ~~ " ~£ . .' i!' ~~zª- c~j~ , m .- ~~U ~~~~ . ~"':;:; g~g~ ~~~~ ."- ~..i~ ........~ §õ." q,! :i....~ ~;;!: "" . ." i~ 00 ~ . ~ ~ . ~ >oJ d~g. UI~.;¡;C. ~ ~z œ m < ; ~ g ~ ~ 0 ~ o >oJ œ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m-l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § § § § § § § § ~ \ Q.; ,;. (~; ¡ " I I L o s' (~ ~. <!; ð· --- " ~ '" ~ ~"' °Œ Zo "tu > OŒ ~=> W"' Ii: Z <3 w o ~ ~ 0 --~- .' . g g ~ < 0 u ¡,;-,(7\ ¡'10 n) v ..J~ v (., ~ ..... - ? o ;', I "-'6.ë5i .Ú"./:âòs ... . .~,~-~ " --...-- -' , ,I : I ¡ " ~ I-I' ~ I I I 11/1 bl: Ii r y, :1.: :1~1e.~1I ~ 111111.1.11 11I'llil:~ ! I I, ~I'''! P. :1 'I:I~:I'I <dJ . I r '.H . I . ,,(I '. r i Illilllllllq !!,PP::I:: . I 'I'¡'I. II I:,I €s¡ ~- 1111111.11: · .. , , .' -- ~ .. ¡, ¡, i! i ., 'r ~. . J. ~! : I!: ~ ~g§fh s ~gl~ Hi~ìH hi i I II , I if II ¡¡ : I !llo.¡I....¡¡j:o, q ¡II .¡I .,I.,,¡I dd :i;¡!.:U:I¡ I i !~II Uli ¡In ....~ ~¡ I ~ I, ~¡ ! I ~ ~! ! J ·l\!~~ ~ L:-~. ~ --- I/~ \ __ ...:.-----.. -.¡ \.... I I i I 7 - - - - ¡- -..- -- ! Ii :! ¡ Ii II I !mH ¡! î ¡ II : 1- .... ,/ . 1..... 1 . -.:-=::::-.......h , ¡ -ai' . .... ¡../¡ .) .../ ¡--.>/,'_·...···..,::::.'..,_...-I........ -.-........ I .,.,.- j"J./ II Ii I I :' I III i II I II , .,1 II· II:I!! . . I I' ;11 II "" III !II II I ill!, ~ !!¡U ~ J I" II! I ¡I! II ~:! IIIIII!II!:I III III 'II ¡, Iii i! 'I,,! i'll ¡ .1,: ,'!I 'III ill!! I I, 'I, I' 1r.~I.lül;1 M~¡IUI r¡¡¡!1 ~!' ~ !i: Ii ~IIII! I ¡! 11,1, I!!!! Ii ¡!I! !I !III I, !! 1'!.:._.......I!h"II!.13~1' " 1:911.1. 11,1, ., I ! I I It ~ . ~. ..., .. I ¡; I. i ~ I ! ~ ! to. . 0 ¡Ii ~ 5 "- 5~ "-is; "'U:) ffiz"- "'O~ ~f!j:J ~ffi5 c" " z ~ !3 ~ "'§ß ~Zc a.j:> ß ,~ ch :><i'j ~~;¡ i'j I I ." , ,š: I ~: .;;: I f' ~. I lj .:i!: , ..." I ¡¡" I ~: . ! , . Planning Commission Meeting - August I, 2000 21. No interior remodeling which would require a building penn it, except for lighting and HV AC upgrades, will be pennitted 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 7S'h 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 2Sth and Ladd your reason for the nay. Conrad: I 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 AI-Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of the staff? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question. The existing structure, do we know how long that's intended to remain there? We don't. Peterson: Speculation by staff! 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 I 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 thingjust 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: I 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 1,2000 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 staff s 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 staff's 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 I, 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. Al-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 tenns 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. Chainnan. 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 hòuse would remain? Mike Arvidson: I believe the Woida's said it was built in the 40's and that's aliI 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 tbe 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 of the 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 ajewel 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 of the 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, Ijust feel like that's in jeopardy here. I wòuld 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 of this 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 thm 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 of that. 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. Ifthat 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 ofthe good things about the neighborhood there. We moved in in '96, is some ofthe 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 isjust 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 Summergate 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 if there'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 pnblic hearing. The pnblic hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you gentlemen. Commissioners. Anyone want to take a jump at this one? You look I ike 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. Yeah 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 of the 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 r~commend 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. 1 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 1 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. Chainnan. 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 ifthey 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], 2000 standpoint Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, 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 Snbdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried nnanimously. 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 MINNEW ASHTA P ARKW A Y, WHITE OAK ADDITION. COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INe. Public Present: Name Address Elaine Arion Eileen Heitkamp Scott Bieganek Bill Coffman Mike Steadman Marty Campion Dave & Bobbie Headla 404] White Oak Lane 402] White Oak Lane 4040 White Oak Lane 600 West 78"h 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 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2000 REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RsF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD. ARVIDSON'S ADDITION. MIKE ARVIDSON. Public Present: Name Address Clifford Woida Mike Arvidson Ted & Bonita Dorenkamp Carol & Mark Riese Andrea Scharff Tom Winterer Rich & Linda Nicoli Junie Hoff-Golmen 6398 Murray Hill Road 5595 Timber Lane, Shorewood 6370 Murray Hill Road 6320 Murray Hill Road 2300 Melody Hill Road 2210 Melody Hill Road 2280 Melody Hill Road 2220 Melody Hill Road Sharmin AI-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item and went over the history of subdivisions in this neighborhood. Teresa Burgess gave engineering's recommendation that the City Council not approve the plan as submitted with a cul-de-sac, but that Melody Hill should be continued through to eventually connect to Chaska Road. The following people from the audience got up and spoke in favor of approving the plan as submitted with the cul-de-sac, and stated they were not in favor of creating a through street with this subdivision: CliffWoida, Ted Dorenkamp, Mark Riese, Tom Winterer, Linda Nicoli, and Junnie Hoff-Golmen. There was discussion by Council over the size of cul-de-sac required, and whether it should be built to public street or private street standards. After considerable public input and council discussion, the following motion was made. Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the request to subdivide 2.17 acre parcel into 4 single family lots at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Arvidson's Addition, so that the applicant and staff can further study and bring back to City Council a private vs. public cul-de- sac. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 96.925 SO. FT. EXPANSION TO A 95.260 SO. FT. BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED AT 950 LAKE DRIVE (LOT 1. BLOCK 1. EMPAK ADDITION). AMCON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. EMPLAST. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item to the City Council. Mark Huus from Amcon presented the site plan and reviewed the elevations. Alan Whidby, the landscape architect went over the landscape plan for the City Council. There was some concerned expressed by council members regarding the size and placement of trees in front of the new addition. After discussion by City Council the following motion was made. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan #2000-10, plans prepared by AMCON, dated June 30, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 6