The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-36_PINEHURST (5)0 0 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing SCANNED State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized PLANNING CASE NO.04-20 agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- N0710E IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, amended. 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of]� this hearing is to consider a request (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. L for Rezoning from Rural Residential was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said (RR)toSmgleFamilyResidential(RSF) and Preliminary alfora4 Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of lot with Variances for with Variances r the newspaper specified. Printed below is a co of the lower case alphabet from A m Z, both ,aPe copy ate streets private streets located on Lois 1 & 2, l inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 and publication of the Notice: Galpin Boulevard) - Pinehurst. Applicant: Plowshares Development, abcdefghijkhnnopgrstuvwxyz LLC. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. AD interested Laurie A. Hartmann persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinionswithrespecttothisproposal. Subscribed and sworn before me on Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: b¢ n ro+� i banha c n n nc this day 1&4004��`' 2004 �«w Phone: 952-227- 1131 (Published in the Chanhassen of , GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARVPUBUG MINNESOTA Villager on Thursday, November 25, My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005 2004; No. 4303). Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum Tate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch SCANNED 0 6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-36 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and Preliminary Plat Approval for a 43 -lot Subdivision with Variances for private streets located on Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin Boulevard) — Pinehurst. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: b¢enemus@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 25, 2004) • 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 24, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Pinehurst Subdivision, Rezoning & Variances — Planning Case No. 04-36 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this,,24t"aay of , , 2004. �.. AAAAAU MA $SAEN NotaryPUblic- Minnesota CARVER COUNTY My commission Expires 1(.1112005 VVVNVNMVVVWNNWV SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single - Family Residential (RSF) and Preliminary Plat Approval for a Proposal: 43 -lot Subdivision with Variances for private streets - Pinehurst Planning File: 04-36 Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. Property Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin Property Boulevard) Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant'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: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. 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 Questions & this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Comments: e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within Soo feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersoNrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single- . Family Residential (RSF) and Preliminary Plat Approval for a Proposal: 43 -lot Subdivision with Variances for private streets - Pinehurst Planning File: 04-36 Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. Property Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin Location: Boulevard) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. 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 Questions & this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Comments: e-mail baenerous0ci.chanhassen.mmus. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alteratio , Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified o4pj application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. E Subject Site This own is ..her a lams recorded rreo or a survav and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a completion of mci information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarcing the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The Qty does not warrant that Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent Mat the GIS Data can be used for navigational, molding or any other purpose requiring exacting rmasurement W distance or direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. If errors or ciscrepancies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclamer is provided pursuant to Minnesola Source, §666.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and Me user W this rrmp acknowledges Mat Me City shall not be liable for any damages, and enpresay waves all Maim, and agrees to "and, indemnity, arM had harmew the Qty from any and all chins brought by User, its employees or agents, or third pantos which arise oc W Me users access or use W data previded. Subject Site Disclaimer- This map is nether a legally recorded map nor a survey ar d is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infometion end dam located in various city, county, Mate and tedere offices and cher sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant Mat Ma GeagraWYc Intonnol System (GIS) Data used to prepare Mis map am error free, and Me City does net represents Mat Me GIS Data can be used for naNgabonal, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting Measurement W distance or direction or problem in Me depiction W geographic features. If errors or discrepen cies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stables §466.03, Subd. 21 (20D0), and the user of this map acknoWedges Mat to Qty shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waves all claims, aM agrees to defend, Indemnify. and hold harmless Me City from any aM all darts brought by User. M; elryloyees or agents. or third parties; aluch Brise out W the users accestS or use W data pronged. Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Pinehurst City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-36 a _ D M ° ler W n + Q' � �bm Hi Melody Hill 6 asst /V Urfa ince[ n 2Mr o m' x _ m n O Subject trees Site M1e Tad p \d eCt CresN U Cr R U d v � m m Ce c� 1 Hi h ate Cir Soda v ° gOaa U B acm q46 �n e �m `o T o �m C O m ALEXNORTHWOODS LLC JOHN F & MARIELLEN WALDRON MARY TRIPPLER C/O UPTOWN PROPERTIES 1900 LAKE LUCY RD 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR PO BOX 16314 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 CHARLES C HICKS & KRISTIN F PAUL KENNETH W & NANCY C EATO VICKY R SHERMAN 1941 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1950 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA HELENE STAMP & TROY PAPPAS & GESTACH & PAULSON GORDON L STAMP KAKI A BRACKELSBERG CONSTRUCTION 1960 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1961 CRESTVIEW CIR 200 CHESTNUT ST N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 CE A & JEAN A MATTSON BRUCE BRIAN J HABAS & JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & IE DR 2020 DR SUSAN B LAINE HELENA B STAFKO CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2021 HIGHGATE CIR 2028 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH MICHAEL J STACHOWSKI CLAFLIN 2041 65TH ST W 2050 CRESTVIEW DR 2040 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL S TUNGSETH MICHAEL A & CHERIE M WITYNSKI VINCENT G & DONNA CIGNARELLA 2051 CRESTVIEW DR 2051 HIGHGATE CIR 2058 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BERNARD C JR & SANDRA BENZ GREGORY M & LAURA J ELDER ARNON & PATRICIA M REESE 2061 65TH ST W 2076 HIGHGATE CIR 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2081 CRESTVIEW DR 2110 CRESTVIEW DR 2117 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIANPING MEI & AUBREY WEATHERLY & ALEXANDER JUDITH E AL D RUOPEI CAO ROBIN WEATHERLY 2122 LAKE LUCY 2135 LAKE LUCY RD 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL G SCHULTZ DOUGLKAS E & DEBRA A LANASA GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2150 CRESTVIEW DR 2151 LAKE LUCY RD 2165 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN J & LAURIE A KERKVLIET 2201 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TROY A BADER & GINA SAUER 2244 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 KENNETH F & KRISTEN L THATCHER 2219 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARY L SINN 2249 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLEN R & ELIZABETH ANN TAYLOR IND SCHOOL DIST 276 TRUSTEES OF TRUST 5621 HIGHWAY 101 2340 LAKE LUCY RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA F NICHOLSON & DEBRA A PITTMAN 6500 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN A & DEBORAH S MASCHOFF 6613 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRECK O & MARLIESE JOHNSON 6621 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING 6640 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM O & KRISTEN K FLANAGAN 6653 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DORIS L NIKOLAI REV TRUST 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & HOLLY J JESSEN 6618 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK CONRAD GREGERSON 6633 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN W & WENDY LAM BURESH 6651 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL L & AMY C DEGENEFFE 6654 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 U KEITH A & ERIN E RADEN 2237 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLEONE B FOSTER 2275 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT G & LISA B CHRISTIAN 5450 TAMARACK CIR HOPKINS MN 55345 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & KATHLEEN J MOWREY 6610 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY K MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL J & KRISTI L BORCHERT 6636 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH R COOK & KATHLEEN L HUNTINGTON 6672 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY KRAMER GOERS BRADLEY D HIMLE ERIC M & PATRICIA E BURDON 6673 BRENDEN CT 6681 GALPIN BLVD 6690 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • JASON P & TINA M SCHREUR THOMAS & MARY KUHN DON W & CHRISTINE A ANTHONY 6691 GALPIN BLVD 6693 BRENDEN CT 6700 BRENDEN CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY K GOERS 6709 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DRU N & HIMAN SHU RAI 6724 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & JULIE A FUECKER 6751 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HERBERT M & DONNA M HILLMAN 6716 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SANG C&NHITKY 6729 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE 6739 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL D & DENISE A OLSON 6776 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LESTER A COYER & ANNETTE D MCEWAN-COYER 6719 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANE S & LISA D DOESCHER 6732 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN M & HEATHER L PINT 6750 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD M & CHERYL A BLACKFORD 6788 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & JUDITH LINDELL BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH RICH SLAGLE RENO R LINDELL 9 HAWKINS DR 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD 8433 39TH AVE N NORTHPORT NY 11768 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NEW HOPE MN 55427 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 0 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 13, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Postponement of Public Hearing for Pinehurst Subdivision, Rezoning & Variances — Planning Case No. 04-36 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. IRV �:....r�• WMA v 075 Subscribed and swom to before me this jZL4h day of CXAaha r , 2004. Notary Public go SENesotaTY1/1005 SCANNED CITY OF CHAMASSEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIWG POSTPONEMENT Dear Property Owner: On October 7, 2004, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: • Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances — Pinehurst — Planning Case No. 04-36. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. The public hearing has been POSTPONED and WILL NOT be held at the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as originally scheduled. The public hearing is tentatively rescheduled for November 16, 2004. You will receive a separate notice approximately 10 days prior to the public hearing. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952- 227-1131 or by email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONEMENT Dear Property Owner: On October 7, 2004, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: • Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances — Pinehurst — Planning Case No. 04-36. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. The public hearing has been POSTPONED and WILL NOT be held at the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as originally scheduled. The public hearing is tentatively rescheduled for November 16, 2004. You will receive a separate notice approximately 10 days prior to the public hearing. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952- 227-1131 or by email: bLenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. sn uw uassequego p N^m al!S qaM LL£99Posau IN'uassegueg0 LK NO Od pienalnog IgJBYY OOLL NRSSYHMVHJ 10 lul 0 sn uw uassequega !o mmm al!S qaM Ll£55 etosauu!w'uassegueg0 LK Xug'Od piena!nog MIM OOLL NgSSVBNVfl110 1113 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONEMENT Dear Property Owner: On October 7, 2004, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: • Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances — Pinehurst — Planning Case No. 04-36. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. The public hearing has been POSTPONED and WILL NOT be held at the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as originally scheduled. The public hearing is tentatively rescheduled for November 16, 2004. You will receive a separate notice approximately 10 days prior to the public hearing. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952- 227-1131 or by email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONEMENT Dear Property Owner: On October 7, 2004, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: • Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances — Pinehurst — Planning Case No. 04-36. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. The public hearing has been POSTPONED and WILL NOT be held at the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as originally scheduled. The public hearing is tentatively rescheduled for November 16, 2004. You will receive a separate notice approximately 10 days prior to the public hearing. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952- 227-1131 or by email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONEMENT Dear Property Owner: On October 7, 2004, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: • Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances — Pinehurst — Planning Case No. 04-36. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. The public hearing has been POSTPONED and WILL NOT be held at the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as originally scheduled. The public hearing is tentatively rescheduled for November 16, 2004.ou will receive a separate notice approximately 10 days prior to the public hearing. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952- 227-1131 or by email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING POSTPONEMENT Dear Property Owner: On October 7, 2004, the City of Chanhassen mailed a public hearing notice to you regarding the following proposal: Is • Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances — Pinehurst — Planning Case No. 04-36. Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC. The public hearing has been POSTPONED and WILL NOT be held at the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission meeting as originally scheduled. The public hearing is tentatively rescheduled for November 16, 2004. You will receive a separate notice approximately 10 days prior to the public hearing. If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact Bob Generous at 952- 227-1131 or by email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 0 0 ALEXNORTHWOODS LLC JOHN F & MARIELLEN WALDRON MARY TRIPPLER C/O UPTOWN PROPERTIES 1900 LAKE LUCY RD 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR PO BOX 16314 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 CHARLES C HICKS & KRISTIN F PAUL KENNETH W & NANCY C EATO VICKY R SHERMAN 1941 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1950 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA HELENE STAMP & TROY PAPPAS & GESTACH & PAULSON GORDON L STAMP KAKI A BRACKELSBERG CONSTRUCTION 1960 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1961 CRESTVIEW CIR 200 CHESTNUT ST N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 JUDITH E ALEXANDER BRIAN J HABAS & JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & E A & JEAN BRUCE A & JEAN A MATTSON BRUCE SUSAN B LAINE HELENA B STAFKO DR IE DR 2021 HIGHGATE CIR 2028 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH MICHAEL J STACHOWSKI CLAFLIN 2041 65TH ST W 2050 CRESTVIEW DR 2040 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL S TUNGSETH MICHAEL A & CHERIE M WITYNSKI VINCENT G & DONNA CIGNARELLA 2051 CRESTVIEW DR 2051 HIGHGATE CIR 2058 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BERNARD C JR & SANDRA BENZ GREGORY M & LAURA J ELDER ARNON & PATRICIA M REESE 2061 65TH ST W 2076 HIGHGATE CIR 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2081 CRESTVIEW DR 2110 CRESTVIEW DR 2117 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIANPING MEI & AUBREY WEATHERLY & JUDITH E ALEXANDER RUOPEI CAO ROBIN WEATHERLY 2122 LAKE LUCY RD 2135 LAKE LUCY RD 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL G SCHULTZ DOUGLKAS E & DEBRA A LANASA GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2150 CRESTVIEW DR 2151 LAKE LUCY RD 2165 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN J & LAURIE A KERKVLIET 2201 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TROY A BADER & GINA SAUER 2244 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 KENNETH F & KRISTEN L THATCHER 2219 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARY L SINN 2249 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLEN R & ELIZABETH ANN TAYLOR IND SCHOOL DIST 276 TRUSTEES OF TRUST 261 SCHOOL AVE 2340 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA F NICHOLSON & DEBRA A PITTMAN 6500 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN A & DEBORAH S MASCHOFF 6613 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRECK 0 & MARLIESE JOHNSON 6621 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING 6640 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM 0 & KRISTEN K FLANAGAN 6653 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DORIS L NIKOLAI REV TRUST 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & HOLLY J JESSEN 6618 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK CONRAD GREGERSON 6633 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN W & WENDY LAM BURESH 6651 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL L & AMY C DEGENEFFE 6654 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • KEITH A & ERIN E RADEN 2237 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLEONE B FOSTER 2275 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT G & LISA B CHRISTIAN 5450 TAMARACK CIR HOPKINS MN 55345 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & KATHLEEN J MOW REY 6610 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY K MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL J & KRISTI L BORCHERT 6636 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH R COOK & KATHLEEN L HUNTINGTON 6672 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY KRAMER GOERS BRADLEY D HIMLE ERIC M & PATRICIA E BURDON 6673 BRENDEN CT 6681 GALPIN BLVD 6690 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 E 11 JASON P & TINA M SCHREUR THOMAS & MARY KUHN DON W & CHRISTINE A ANTHONY 6691 GALPIN BLVD 6693 BRENDEN CT 6700 BRENDEN CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY K GOERS 6709 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DRU N & HIMAN SHU RAI 6724 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & JULIE A FUECKER 6751 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HERBERT M & DONNA M HILLMAN 6716 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SANG C & NHI T KY 6729 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE 6739 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL D & DENISE A OLSON 6776 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LESTER A COYER & ANNETTE D MCEWAN-COYER 6719 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANE S & LISA D DOESCHER 6732 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN M & HEATHER L PINT 6750 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD M & CHERYL A BLACKFORD 6788 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & JUDITH LINDELL BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH RICH SLAGLE RENO R LINDELL 9 HAWKINS DR 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD 8433 39TH AVE N NORTHPORT NY 11768 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NEW HOPE MN 55427 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-36 CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to con s ider a request for Rezoning from RuralResidential (RR)to Smgle-Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances located on Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin Boulevard) - Pinehurst Applicant Plowshares Development, LLC. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: beenerous(d?ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227- 1131 (Published in the Chanhassen V illageron Thursday, October7, 2004: No. 4279) 0 0 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) OL4-34� Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein staled as follows: (.A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.� was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrsmvwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this / day of . 2004 RATE INFORMATION DAN M. Ej %T. YR/B110MJ rcsnnt Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch •CANHEO Vi M CI1 O C S T N y O N m K C f0 — I� V O Ma%cLi r"T'NO y. OO A U 1� L L �N U (O � Nto M F- W Lf) O Q M J J Ir 00 \ ! U) cn N W i -2..— !g q E L p Om yj �. mpj QQ a �aASc�n25 `m Eti? �m `E+m�mnw oA of%� $Ei'�ec my me T� c ry@sc oaNb mofr@oa �-a�'O avmffio8s�mrgg mmL '° my_mmDTm_8 gm�"gd Q'�am 0 p'm �N£mmnm `awn Notice of Public Hearing It hanhassen Planning Commission Meeting DO & Time: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. ation: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single - postal: Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances - Pinehurst ning File: 04-36 licant: Plowshares Development, LLC perty Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin L ation: Boulevard) Alocationitualbilion the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant'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; tHappens a e Meeting: 1. Staff will give an ove.view of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. 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 Questions & this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227-1131 Comments: or e-mail boenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the 24 planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be nofified of the ..`application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. •'Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affimr or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industnai. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. 0 49 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 7, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Pinehurst Subdivision, Rezoning & Variances — Planning Case No. 04-36 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this Z day of(]�--! cb¢r 2004. A&A AAAA ' 1 KIM T MEUDE131/2005 ln�l t �,' NotaryPuoic- Notary ublic „' CARVER C My Commission Expir WWVYWW Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single - Proposal: Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances - Pinehurst Planning File: 04-36 Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC Property Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin Location: Boulevard) Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant'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: What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. 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 Questions & this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227.1131 Comments: or e-mail boenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 19 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Rezoning from Rural Residential (RR) to Single - Proposal: Family Residential (RSF) and 42 -lot Subdivision with Variances - Pinehurst Planning File: 04-36 Applicant: Plowshares Development, LLC Lots 1 & 2, Old Slocum Tree Farm (6620 & 6640 Galpin Property Location: Boulevard) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the ro'ect. 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 Questions & this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227-1131 Comments: or e-mail bcenerousrgci.chanhassen.mn.us. 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. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterau Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notifietl o application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. pa .d eep la asn to same s�esn ayt p Ino esus yolym sawed W!yl 404slua6e to saeAodwa sl!'jasn Aq ly6nwq sump IR pue Am wwl NCi aW ssaIumq ppy pue 'Nwuapul'puamp al sawbe pue 'sump IR sanmm A!ssw&o pue'se6ewep Am tol apwl aq wu Iley N!o aW leyl safiwy moe dew eW to tasn aW pue '(pp6Z) lZ 'pgnS 'EO.99V§ salnielS elomuuay of luenvnd papu s! teumixp 6u!papwd wj MLVLZZ-Z96 peluoo asea!d punol are sapuedwxp to voile a eweew 3!udv6oa6 IO uogpdep eW w wmiwd w weowp to eouelsp p wawwnaaaw 6mmw 6uu!n6a1 esownd tayp Am to Bugowl 'muoge6veu tel Paso aq ueo eie() SID aW W, waswdw pu saop Lyp aW pue'awl jam we dew slW wedwd ul Paso wea (SID) wwsAS uopeuuolul oNdw6on aW leW u eu lou saap Lyle eU 'Alun sasodwd eauwalw wl peso aq of sl pue 'umow ewe aw 6upte6w sewnos jew I'm WO'No IwaPe! Pue ales 'Alu.f' 9MMA ul pweool MPP Pm uogauuolu! -splogw p uogelduwo a sl dew sly1'auo se Paan aq of pq mwl m s! pue Aaiun. a tou dew pep oow Alp6al a wW sl dew slyL -JB W)B)7SIQ allS 3aa(gnS p ,wd PIW to asn m asaae sNesn eW p m asue yo.W sawed ww to'swe6e to seeAodum sP'Ixn Aq 146nwq sump IR Pue Am woy N✓J ayl ssaµmy Ploy pue'N!uu -' Puapp of sawee Pm 'sump IR sanmm Apsaid (a pue'se6awep Am iol apwl W Wu Iley Nil ayl IB41 aa6POMOu x dew swl to iasn ayl pue '(OOOZ) lZ "MnS 'Co SM seemIS eosauu!ry w luenvnd pa wd s! lewmlx9 Bup wd OU 'LO I-LZZ-ZS6 peluw eseed punol we sapuedwxp to voua N 'swnmai plgmAloa6 p .o!mp aW w uolspad p uwpwp to ewwsp p luawwnbaaw Bu!per<e 6uu!n6w awwnd tayp A. to Bueme'muoge6pmu wl poen as ueo elect SID aW mw wesadw P. saop Avi eW Pue'.1.9 we dew s!yl wedwd of pxn elect (SID) walsAS uogeuuwul oiydw6 q eyl mW ww,m Pu seep N!n ayy "Alae easodmd aaawelw wl peen N of sl pue'umoys ewe ayl 6wwe6w sewnos'ay)o pue saoWo RlWel pue amis'Nuroa'Aao SMMA u! Palepol we]) pm uogeuuop!'spjo,w to uogal!dnaa a sl dew sw_L'auo se peen aq 11 pWuulu. rvu a. eua nvrv. o . -- yy.. vi '^`u. .v allS loalgnS 0 0 0 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Pinehurst City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-36 Subject Site Cir 0 0 ALEXNORTHWOODS LLC JOHN F & MARIELLEN WALDRON MARY TRIPPLER C/O UPTOWN PROPERTIES 1900 LAKE LUCY RD 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR PO BOX 16314 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 CHARLES C HICKS & KRISTIN F PAUL KENNETH W & NANCY C EATO VICKY R SHERMAN 1941 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1950 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA HELENE STAMP & TROY PAPPAS & GESTACH & PAULSON GORDON L STAMP KART A BRACKELSBERG CONSTRUCTION 1960 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT 1961 CRESTVIEW CIR 200 CHESTNUT ST N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHASKA MN 55318 CE A & JEAN A MATTSON BRIAN J HABAS & JEFFREY A JORGENSEN & BRUCE DR SUSAN B LAINE HELENA B STAFKO 2020 EXCELSIOR DR 2021 HIGHGATE CIR 2028 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COURTNEY W & CHRISTINE WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH MICHAEL J STACHOWSKI CLAFLIN 2041 65TH ST W 2050 CRESTVIEW DR 2040 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL S TUNGSETH MICHAEL A & CHERIE M WITYNSKI VINCENT G & DONNA CIGNARELLA 2051 CRESTVIEW DR 2051 HIGHGATE CIR 2058 HIGHGATE CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BERNARD C JR & SANDRA BENZ GREGORY M & LAURA J ELDER ARNON & PATRICIA M REESE 2061 65TH ST W 2076 HIGHGATE CIR 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2081 CRESTVIEW DR 2110 CRESTVIEW DR 2117 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JIANPING MEI & AUBREY WEATHERLY & JUDITH E ALEXANDER 2122 LAKE LUCY RUOPEI CAO ROBIN WEATHERLY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2135 LAKE LUCY RD 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL G SCHULTZ DOUGLKAS E & DEBRA A LANASA GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2150 CRESTVIEW DR 2151 LAKE LUCY RD 2165 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN J & LAURIE A KERKVLIET 2201 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TROY A BADER & GINA SAUER 2244 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 KENNETH F & KRISTEN L THATCHER 2219 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARY L SINN 2249 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALLEN R & ELIZABETH ANN TAYLOR IND SCHOOL DIST 276 TRUSTEES OF TRUST 261 SCHOOL AVE 2340 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA F NICHOLSON & DEBRA A PITTMAN 6500 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN A & DEBORAH S MASCHOFF 6613 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRECK O & MARLIESE JOHNSON 6621 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING 6640 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM O & KRISTEN K FLANAGAN 6653 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DORIS L NIKOLAI REV TRUST 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID L & HOLLY J JESSEN 6618 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK CONRAD GREGERSON 6633 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN W & WENDY LAM BURESH 6651 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL L & AMY C DEGENEFFE 6654 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 • KEITH A & ERIN E RADEN 2237 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CLEONE B FOSTER 2275 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT G & LISA B CHRISTIAN 5450 TAMARACK CIR HOPKINS MN 55345 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & KATHLEEN J MOWREY 6610 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NANCY K MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL J & KRISTI L BORCHERT 6636 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS M & JOAN E CLARK 6651 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH R COOK & KATHLEEN L HUNTINGTON 6672 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY KRAMER GOERS BRADLEY D HIMLE ERIC M & PATRICIA E BURDON 6673 BRENDEN CT 6681 GALPIN BLVD 6690 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 JASON P & TINA M SCHREUR THOMAS & MARY KUHN DON W & CHRISTINE A ANTHONY 6691 GALPIN BLVD 6693 BRENDEN CT 6700 BRENDEN CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY K GOERS 6709 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DRU N & HIMAN SHU RAI 6724 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & JULIE A FUECKER 6751 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HERBERT M & DONNA M HILLMAN 6716 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SANG C&NHITKY 6729 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE 6739 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL D & DENISE A OLSON 6776 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LESTER A COYER & ANNETTE D MCEWAN-COYER 6719 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANE S & LISA D DOESCHER 6732 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN M & HEATHER L PINT 6750 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD M & CHERYL A BLACKFORD 6788 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD A & JUDITH LINDELL BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH RICH SLAGLE RENO R LINDELL 9 HAWKINS DR 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD 8433 39TH AVE N NORTHPORT NY 11768 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NEW HOPE MN 55427 is 0 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. City Council Meeting — M=014,2005 4 oy-3 co CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 15, 2005 b. Resolution#2005-22: Call Public Hearing for TH 101 Gap Municipal Consent, Project 04-06. Resolution#2005-23: Call Public Hearing for TH 212/101 Gap Bonding Project Items, Project 03-09-3. d. Pinehurst Development, 6620 & 6640 Galpin Boulevard: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications and Development Contract. e. Resolution#2005-24: Approve Resolution for Designating and Revoking Municipal State Aid Routes. Resolution#2005-25: Approve Quotes for SCADA Electrical Improvements, PW307D. g. Resolution#2005-26: Authorize Change Order for New Test Well #10, Project 04-08A. Authorize Inspection Contract for TH 212. i. Resolution#2005-27: Authorize Purchase of 2005 Trucks, PW0I6KKK. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Liquor License, Rotary Tulip Gala at the Arboretum, April 30. k. Approval of 2005 Fourth of July Fireworks Contract. I. Approval of 2005 Reach for Resources Adaptive Recreation Contract. in. Approve City Code Amendment to Chapter 20-814 to Permit Electric Substations as a Conditional Use in IOP Districts. n. Accept Quote for 2005 Boulevard Tree Planting Program. o. Accept $2,000 Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp. P. Resolution#2005-28: Approval of Temporary Charitable Gambling Permit, St. Hubert's Catholic Community. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 2 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 0 Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any further discussion? 04 -3 (60 Roger Knutson: Mayor, just a point of clarification. You have in front of you a resolution. assume what you're doing is adopting the resolution but just deleting the sewer and water portion. Would that be the motion? Councilman Lundquist: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Within the feasibility report right? Roger Knutson: Right. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a, it's been made and seconded. Clarified. Is there any other discussion? Resolution #2005-08: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the attached resolution and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the 2005 street improvement projects, with the exception of sewer and water in the Lake Lucy Road/Steller Court project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone. Thank you for those that came in and took time to address the council and came to the open houses. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO SINGLE SLOCUM TREE FARM (6620 & 6640 GALPIN BOULEVARD). PINEHURST, PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Nathan Franzen Steve Kroiss Peter Coyle Matt Goldstein Curtis Neft Chris Moehrl Daren Laberee Bruce Mattson Charles Jackson Plowshares Development Plowshares Development Larkin & Hoffman Lundgren Bros Construction Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services 2020 Crestview Drive 2100 Crestview Drive 22 scr Mm City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 • Alan Nikolai 6282 Cartway Lane Beverly Jackson 2110 Crestview Drive Doris Nikolai 6570 Galpin Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site, located just off of Galpin Boulevard, south of the Crestview neighborhood. Just north of the Woodridge Heights, and then the subdivision here ... before you. There's two action items on the proposal tonight. One would be the rezoning. It's currently zoned RR. The comprehensive plan has it guided for residential single family and then the second action tonight would then be the subdivision of approximately 27 acres into the 43 lots. The plat itself is very complex in the fact that it's heavily wooded and it is also, has a significant change in grade. Really about 50 feet in change in grade. Of the 27 acres of this plat, 18 acres of that or 60 percent of that is going to be graded. Because of the severe elevation changes and the number of trees and the amount of grading, it's going to impact the development, so one of the issues that certainly came into play was tree loss. The city ordinance does allow, through their calculations of the tree loss formula and does provide a mechanism to replace those trees and that is provided for in the staff. What I'm going to do is kind of focus on the critical issues that were presented and not go through the entire plat, as there is verbatim minutes. But one of the issues on the trees, when this subdivision, the subdivisions to the south and to the east came in, we did provide opportunities for access to the site. For example on Manchester Drive, was stubbed. And then also we did provide a private drive off of Brenden Court because we anticipated with the creek crossing that there could be a private drive in that location at that time that was anticipated. At this time the applicants are proposing to donate that Outlot A. We'll talk about that in a minute but change in wording there. So that's kind of the area that they're preserving for trees. Through our experiences we've talked about on trees, on lots. Trying to preserve trees on individual lots is sometimes creates a quagmire so we find it's the best way to do it as preserving in larger clumps and you can see with the retaining walls, how they're working to preserve some of those areas of significant trees. I would treat this similar to what we did, when we saw in the newest application on Vasserman Ridge has probably been our most recent one with significant trees where we preserve the trees in the back of the lot and there's some retaining walls and the like. A similar developer would be on these lots, so we believe that that's been addressed. One of the issues that the Planning Commission did address was the trees along Galpin and I just wanted to touch along that for a minute. There was a concern from the neighbor to the north regarding tree loss and the Planning Commission also addressed some of the arborvitaes that were along that. The arborvitaes that were on that site are on a particular lot, not in the right-of-way. We're certainly working to preserve as many trees along the site as we can. Staff was a little concerned about the wording of that condition and how that works. But the Assistant City Engineer Matt Saam did meet with the, talked to the County and I think what we worked on the north side here is reducing the length of that decel lane. I don't know if you have a better map of that Matt, but so we won't have to be so far north, and there was a concern about trees. All those trees are in the right-of-way so there may be some tree loss but they're not on private property. They are in the city right-of-way. Matt Saam: If we could zoom in. There we go. Here's the proposed access to Pinehurst off of Galpin. I'm sorry. Here's the proposed access to the site off of Galpin. We have a property just to the north of this development that has an existing driveway also off Galpin. One of the County requirements, because Galpin is a County road, is to install a tum lane for right turn 23 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 movement. People going south into the site. Initially the developer had looked at starting it right, way up at the top at the existing street intersection of Crestview would have conflicted with this driveway. We spoke with the County today and they're willing, based on traffic, speed limit, that sort of thing, to start the turn lane just past this driveway. Kate Aanenson: But maybe Matt if you could address, some of those trees are in the right-of- way currently. They're not on private property so there will be some tree loss but those are currently in the right-of-way. Of the County road. Mayor Furlong: Which one? The hedge there. Kate Aanenson: This. These trees right here on the neighboring property. The other arborvitaes are inside the development itself and they may be lost. I think the Planning Commission had concern that we try to preserve those as much as possible. Just to kind of refrain how we do this ... by the City Forester to ensure that it's properly staked and maintained before they commence grading. Before they're authorized to proceed. Engineering and the City Forester and depending if there's wetland impacts, those are all reviewed before they're allowed to proceed grading so that's kind of our check in to make sure that it's consistent. So I guess that's kind of the tree issue and the trees along the site regarding the, but certainly it's our goal and as is the developer's to preserve as many of those as possible. The second issue that's been raised on this is the street connection. Certainly as the planners and trying to, and the comprehensive plan trying to connect neighborhoods together when we know there's movement going north or south. Kind of providing those trip generations for circular movement. We had recommended a connection. The Planning Commission recommended against that but we just want to talk a few minutes about why we think that's important. Again, historically throughout the city when we do infill development, some of the neighborhoods that we connect, even up on the northern end of Minnewashta we try to provide those cross access connecting neighborhoods to provide, whether you're up on Country Oaks or even Minnewashta Landings where there was an older neighborhood. 1940's, we tied those in. Again, connecting neighborhoods. Better transportation movement. So the request to the north, and I think that's where the Planning Commission struggled. They hadn't seen the Shivley Addition, which did go to the Planning Commission last week. We did want to see access to the north because there is movement going to the junior high, so we had recommended that a sidewalk trail be built and established to get access via a trail over to the junior high. Both these, the Shivley which you'll be seeing and Pinehurst would be going to that middle school. The other recommendation was if it was cul-de- saced and a private street, this was noticed for variances. To do a private street with a cul-de- sac. At a minimum we still feel strongly about that trail connection, to get again the walkers. They're going to be cutting through somebody's yard to provide that trail access to get to, up to the junior high. We did do it on the other subdivision, on the end of Brenden Court. There is a pass thru on the gate on the other side again to expedite that. It seems like that age will find the shortest distance to get to that site. So with that we are recommending approval that that connection. One of the other issues that came up was drainage. On Lot 27, which is this lot. I'm sorry, this lot right here. Kind of in the middle of the plat next to the pond, and if you can zoom in on this. This has a drainage swale that runs through it, and this is addressed in a little bit more detail on page 5 of your staff report. We looked at it a little bit more carefully. The applicant's engineer also looked at it more carefully too but left off the drainage on Lot 23 which 24 City Council Meeting — J 10, 2005 • is up here... The concern that we have when you have a drainage swale running through the area, is that you, it's hard to convey that point of contact where the water's running through. We're concerned that we've had this problem before where the drainage disappears. We have water in the basement. We have people putting structures in those. We believe that's really, we're creating an inferior lot and our concern about the long term impacts of that, so with that we would not recommend approval. Lot 23 again was not included in the conveyance. There was some other discussion talking about could it be piped? Could it be drain tile? It's kind of hard when you have sheet flow from these lots coming down to get that into a channelized. Can we get it to a concentrated point to put a channel or a pipe? I'm not really sure again because of the grading and the way that slopes, if we could get it to a concentrated. Again, and the maintenance of the pipe, but it's kind of an issue that we believe someone buying this lot really is getting a problem. And as we've experienced with Country Oaks, which we recently just went back and retrofitted those sometimes lose their purpose. So our concern with that is again discussed on page 5. If the council chose to approve that as a lot, we're recommending that a drainage and utility easement be placed over that entire width of whatever that drainage swale. At this point it's not identified as how deep and how much, what that width would be but we would recommend that that be described and there be a clearly put out drainage easement over that so any buyer would be made aware of that. And that also the specific computation so that we know that it can manage that, and the homeowner, future homeowner is made aware of that. Again our first choice again based on overland conveyance, that we know sometimes swales and easements disappear, so that was our concern on that one. Moving on, the sewer connection. Matt passed out for you a copy of revised sewer. Did you want to address that Matt or? Matt Saam: Sure. As Kate said this was passed out to the entire council. Previously staff had some concerns with the way that the sewer was proposed originally. We'll go down here, make a 90 degree tum, another 90 and then come into Lake Lucy Road. We sat down with the developer recently. Gave him our list of concerns, which are highlighted on your paper. I won't take the entire time to go through all of those. Steepness of slope. This is city owned property. Future possible well site. Those are some of the issues. The developer, I think did a good job of listening and taking into account our issues with it. They've come back with a different proposals basically to directionally bore, bore in a straight line shot on this sewer that would save this entire hillside. Again it's a very steep slope. We're concerned with long term stabilization of that slope, especially on city owned property. Degradation of the line. They've lowered the pipe slope so the slope won't be as great. Those maintenance issues go away. The only issue we really had left was, we still need an open cut into Lake Lucy but we feel we can live with that. It's a compromise so, long story short. We've come to a resolution on this issue with the developer. Councilman Labatt: Matt can you, on that big map, show us where it is on that. Matt Saam: Sure. Again, this is Galpin right here. We're coming down a street. This is the sewer area, then we own this outlot on the north side. Councilman Labatt: On that steep hill. Matt Saam: Yes. 25 s City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 • Councilman Labatt: Do we have any other sewer lines in the city that are on that steep of a hill? Coming down. Matt Saam: I'm sure we do. Yes. I'm looking at our Utility Superintendent, yes. Councilman Lundquist: How well do they work? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think Councilman Lundquist's question is appropriate. We've got them. How well do they work? Do they cause a struggle? Matt Saam: At the steep slopes that were originally proposed, we were 9 plus percent in the original submittal. We had concerns there. I won't get into specifics. Vortexing gases being given off. They can prematurely degrade the interior of the concrete manhole, that sort of thing. We also had issues with trying to get Kelley's jetter, which cleans the sewer line. Again I won't get into details but getting that up a steep slope at that long of a distance. They brought the slope down now to something in the lines of 7 percent I believe. We checked with PCA and that's a much better slope and Kelley says he can live with that one so. Councilman Labatt: What did they do to make it go from 9% to 7%? Matt Saam: Basically deepened the sewer at the top end Councilman Labatt: So are we still looking at what 30 feet or something like that at one point when I was reading? Matt Saam: Yes. The maximum, and we can verify this with the developer's engineer but the maximum depth now is 30 feet, whereas before if they would have brought it the way we wanted it too we would have been in the 35 to 40 foot area, so they have lowered, or not gone as deep. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So long term maintenance wise, we're not concerned at all about that slippery slope? Matt Saam: Again, based on conversations with the utility folks who maintain those lines, they can live with this versus what the original proposal was. Mayor Furlong: Would there be a preference to, from a maintenance standpoint ongoing cost to the city to still bring it out to Galpin? Would that be a lower cost? Would there be any cost differential on their ongoing utility cost? Matt Saam: It would be deeper. It never went out to Galpin, just to correct it. Mayor Furlong: Oh I'm sorry. 26 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 • Matt Saam: It would go down Manchester. It would be deeper. I would think we'd see some increased costs on the deeper maintenance of the sewer. For sure to construct it, it's more costly to go deeper. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it really saves cost then, the cost would probably be a wash either way? Is that fair or is one preferred over the other in terms of maintenance cost? Matt Saam: It's better to not, if we don't have to go as deep in terms of maintenance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the shallower, the 7% grade is. Matt Saam: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Is still going to be less than bringing it out to Manchester. Matt Saam: In our opinion we can. Mayor Furlong: Best estimate. Matt Saam: Yeah, we can live with that and it will be better. Mayor Furlong: Okay; thank you. Kate. Kate Aanenson: Okay with that, I believe that's kind of the summary of the critical issues that reflect in this plat. Again we worked hard with the developer. It is a complex site. Again just talking about sewers, and figuring all those layers. There is 3 wetlands. They're not touching. So we worked well. Revised, made some revisions. Reduced tree loss, retaining walls so all and all there's still just a couple of sticking points. If we can go to page 9, which is the beginning of the conditions, I'd just like to walk through those. Make sure there's some correct wordsmithing. Again, there's two motions. The first one is the rezoning on page 9. Bottom of page 9. And the second motion would be for the preliminary plat. Mayor Furlong: Is the council vote, is it a four-fifths on the rezoning matter? Kate Aanenson: I think it's just a simple majority. Mayor Furlong: Or is it simple majority on both? Roger Knutson: Simple majority on either one. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: So following then on page 10, number 2. The applicant has requested that Outlots A and B be, the words be changed from dedicated to donated. Again a conveyance term. Then that's all I had on page 10. Page 11, there's a couple conditions that were added by the Planning Commission. Just to be clear on, so there's no misunderstanding. The applicant work 27 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 • with the staff to preserve every effort. I would hope we do that with every plat. That goes without saying. I'm just not sure again enforceability on that. Then the arborvitae hedge, again that is on private property. It's our understanding that that probably will be graded. I'm not sure that we're, you know on that right turn lane, that it may be lost based on the requirement for the right tum lane. Just to be clear on that. And then going to page 13. I think (q). We resolved that issue. I believe in the fact actually the developer, which is, we resolved the, investigated the further sewer based on the plans. If you want to give today's date that the revisions that were handed out tonight. I think that one's been resolved. Mayor Furlong: So staff would request that (q) be removed? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So that can just be deleted because that's not an issue? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And we'll just address that in the plans dated tonight. And then 8 on that page. The applicant work with staff to incorporate a totlot. That's an extraction. I'm not sure that we can force upon the developer. Again, this development is not proposing a park but is being requested to pay park and trail fees. So there isn't a totlot proposed at this time. And again that's not an extraction that we would request. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt: Kate, talk about it briefly when you say you're going to come back, that sliver of land in the Gestach part. Brenden Court. What's the plan with that? Kate Aanenson: At this time it could be, we have a utility easement so we want to maintain an easement over it but I don't think we need to maintain it as an access. When every time we look at subdivisions, we look at, it's all part of a piece of a puzzle. We want to see how the adjoining properties would, could subdivide. It was never our intention to put a public street there because we didn't think there was enough lot depth based on the creek crossing. We didn't want to have to cross the creek, so at that time the current ordinance allows 4 homes off of a private drive. So we put the private street in there, which will provide access to those 4 lots. Otherwise the only way to get access would have to be over the creek to get to there. The applicants have chosen to make that a donation area and preserve all those trees. Councilman Labatt: So are we going, that's paved right? Right now. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: So are we going to keep that paved or are we going to restore it back to natural? M City Council Meeting — Ja• y 10, 2005 Matt Saam: The only thing I would say to that is, we do need that access if we have utilities in there. To the manhole, that sort of thing. We'd like to make sure we maintain available access. It doesn't necessarily have to be paved. Gravel. Something like that. Kate Aanenson: I think between now and the time it comes back, maybe we can meet with the neighboring property owners and kind of see how the developers are come back for final plat to see what, but we do have easements for utilities we want to maintain. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: I've got a whole list. Mayor Furlong: Well, do you want to start? You've started. Do you want to keep going? Councilman Labatt: Sure. Let's talk about Lot 27. I've read stuff from the Planning Commission and their concerns with it. I've heard your's and I've read the developer's book that they've put together, which is actually a very nice book. But all three are saying a little bit something different. And to me it looks like a bulldozer on top of a hill at sunset. This huge thing sticking out of place just to try to throw a lot in there. We've heard about swales and the problems that they create. We just went back and fixed a problem over by Lake Minnewashta. We've listened to former Councilor Ayotte talk about the swale in his back yard with that development in Near Mountain and the problems that caused. So I would support Kate in removing Lot 27 and shifting that pond a little bit. See how you worded it in here Kate, but you talked about, if you eliminate Lot 27 you'd move that pond a little north. But if you can just comment more on Lot 27 and what Plowshares has said in here about Lot 27. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again, they reviewed the drainage. It's our belief that Lot 23 also has contributed to that drainage swale. Part of 24, 25 and 26 is going to a public area. And our concern is that it's hard to have overland conveyance you know without appropriate easements is not a good thing. We've learned that historically. We've learned these things about drainage. That's a bad thing. But even if we get an easement, the issue is, and we've had this problem that people, it might not be the first year. It might be the second year and we might not have a water problem but people tend, it's right in their side yard, to want to use it. Whether it's to put a swing set in or storage, something, and that tends to back up the water, and we have concerns that we're setting ourselves up for a problem lot and wouldn't recommend that. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So we had that taken care of. Kate Aanenson: Let me just add one more thing to that because this question wasn't asked. Could it be piped? Could it be drain tiled? And again, because of the grades there, it's hard to get a concentrated point to control that water. We think that'd be a little difficult to try to, in order to channel it better, so you have a more controlled, that was our concern. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Update on page 3. I'm just reading my notes here. Kate in your staff report you talk about concerns on the western end. In your narrative here. 29 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 • Kate Aanenson: The connection? Councilman Labatt: Well I'll find it. Can we talk about that, the connection from, you're recommending what you're just showing us. The through street up onto the next project. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Labatt: The Planning Commission feels it should be cul-de-saced. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And this was at the Planning Commission last week? The. Kate Aanenson: The one to the north. Councilman Labatt: Yes. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: What did they. Kate Aanenson: Still didn't want the connection. Councilman Labatt: Huh? Kate Aanenson: Still didn't want the connection. They still recommended against the connection. Councilman Labatt: How are they going to access, off of a private drive? Kate Aanenson: So this is the subdivision, they would come out Crestview. So we're saying it gives them another area to come out to, whether it's construction traffic. All this traffic now comes just on this. And part of it is connecting neighborhoods. While people may not be, wishing to subdivide now, those are larger lots that can be subdivided in the future and again we always try to not just plan for today but plan for tomorrow. Looking down the road. Trying to make good decisions down the road. For better circulation. Councilman Labatt: So if you can go back to that other page. Isn't our goal of having, how long is Crestview? Is it over 500 feet? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Labatt: And isn't our goal in our comp plan or guidelines that we talk about, we don't like cul-de-sacs over 500 feet. Matt Saam: Yeah, we try to limit the length. 30 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Labatt: So by allowing access from Street B up there, we're achieving the ultimate goal here of having a loop. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: A secondary access for both. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Again, just to reiterate on that. The other condition was, with that connection was a trail to give access up there. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Or sidewalk. Councilman Labatt: And then on page 3 of your staff report, in the update section, you talk about this, and maybe I'm combining two things here. As part of the court judgment approved on October 171h, that paragraph. Kate Aanenson: ... the original staff report? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, the update. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, what was the question? Councilman Labatt: I'm confused here on this. What, is this, what portion of the development is this? Kate Aanenson: This is the sewer. Matt Saam: Yeah, I just learned about it. Kate Aanenson: ..okay, I'm sorry. There was some mitigation done, that little lot remnant piece that was tied to this parcel. It's against city ordinance to leave a narrow strip of property that's unbuildable so it has to be assembled with one or the other, so it's a litigation. They need to tie that into this plat. Councilman Labatt: Oh, so it's all internally in the property? 31 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Kate Aanenson: That's the legal description, I'm sorry. Yeah. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So that wasn't a part of it. We didn't catch that with the original but was brought to our attention when we looked at the plat. So we can't leave a lot, a narrow piece that's unbuildable. Councilman Labatt: Got it. Okay. And then as long as you've got that up, let's talk about the turn lane impact here from south on Galpin. And the impact that's having on the north property. And I did not have a chance to talk to that homeowner about his feelings or her feelings on that. Matt Saam: Yeah, I talked a few times since last week with actually the son of the homeowner here. I think he's here tonight representing his mother. Initially you have concerns again about if the tum lane would go in her, per county requirements, it would start right up here north of the existing driveway property. That taper or widening of the lane would go into the existing driveway. They basically didn't want to deal with that. We took a look at it from traffic. Really how many people are going to be coming to this development from the north. We're thinking most of the traffic will be coming from Highway 5 to the south, both to and from. Plus the speed limit here is in the 35 mph range. We're not talking 50. North of Lake Lucy remember it's less than 50, so we don't need quite as long of a standard turn lane we don't believe. Based on those two factors. So we talked to the County and they agree that they can decrease from their standard tum lane requirement and start it just south of this resident's driveway. And as far as the impacts go, this is the old original plan which showed grading basically in this entire right- of-way in front of that property. Now, I've talked to the applicant's engineer. The grading can start just south of the driveway. It won't have as much of a tree loss impact, that sort of thing. Councilman Labatt: So how long will the tum lane be? Matt Saam: Approximately 200 feet I believe, and the standard is 380 on a higher speed roadway. Councilman Labatt: So let's take the turn lane at Longacres Drive, from southbound. How long is that turn lane then? Matt Sawn: I would guess that one's 380. Again that's 50 miles per hour in that area. Councilman Labatt: Well this is a 40 zone here. Matt Saam: Okay, the resident there and excuse me if I'm wrong, told me it was 35. It's 35 to 40. Either way it's lower than south of Lake Lucy. And again, where are these people coming from? How many are going to be coming from the north? Galpin to the north. While it does, I don't believe it connects into 7 directly. There's a round about way but again, most of the traffic will be coming from the south. PA 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Well it connects right directly to 7. Galpin does. Matt Saam: Outside of the city. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: You can't turn south from westbound 7 there. Councilman Labatt: No, you just go to Chaska Road and take Mayflower, like I do every day I come home from work. I just, you know I'm looking for some more hard data, empirical data that shows that where I live south on Galpin, I drive north every day to go to work. I mean I just, there's a lot of guys that drive north. People that live in Stone Creek drive north to 7 to get to work in the north metro, and I just, I mean I'd like to see some more data to justify this whole turn lane shortening and I think you're looking at trying to dump a lot of speed into a short turn lane to get into this development coming south. So, I don't know, any other comments on it or? Kate Aanenson: I guess we'd agree that the traffic is coming from the north and that's why we put this shortened turn lane coming southbound because you can't take that tum coming southbound from 7, unless you come Chaska Road but. Mayor Furlong: Yeah you do Chaska, Mayflower and you can still get south. Councilman Labatt: You do it too don't you? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Councilman Labatt: Well you tum on Pheasant. I'm just, a point of concern I have you know. Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question. Do we have any traffic counts or speed counts on that section of road recently in the last couple -three years? Matt Saam: On Galpin, yeah. It's a state aid road. It's done every other year at a minimum. 1 don't have those figures in front of me but we do have those in the office. Mayor Furlong: And that would include not only count but speed? In that area. Matt Saam: That I'm no sure of. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Your point is, make sure it's long enough to handle the traffic. Councilman Labatt: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: And this is preliminary. Kate Aanenson: You know if, that's something we can certainly look at. It's got to come back for final plat. 33 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Labatt: That's all I'm asking is, let's look at that and if we need to lengthen it, then we need to. Matt Saam: We can definitely look at the traffic patterns, the counts. If we have speed data and bring that before you at time of final plat. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then as far as, and still on this tum lane, the impact. The trees that are being cut are in the right-of-way, or easement. Matt Saam: Correct. Those to the north of the Pinehurst property. Councilman Labatt: Correct, yeah. Is there any sort of, how does the development on the downhill side of this, of this owner, now they're developing so now he's going to lose trees in his yard. How are they compensated? What happens? I mean he's going to lose how many trees in his front yard? 10? Matt Saam: No, I believe the number is 2 now. If the tum lane would start south of the driveway. Councilman Labatt: Of the driveway. What if it started back up by that Melody Hill, whatever that road is? Matt Saam: Did you count those? Kate Aanenson: 8. Councilman Labatt: So if it has to start up there, that road, is there any sort of restitution so to speak for losing trees? Kate Aanenson: Well they're in the right-of-way. They're not on private property. Otherwise we'd certainly have to. Councilman Labatt: Well I can see if they're in the right-of-way ... but these are trees that are in the right-of-way that are going to be impacted on the development to the south that this guy probably says well heck, I don't want to lose my trees. But you know. Matt Saam: Yeah, the only thing I know that the applicant has spoke with the resident to the north. So maybe they've entertained some of those discussions. That might be a good question for the. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I guess I share some of the same concerns with the lack of a park in here. I mean, in reading the staff report that you know this is in the Pheasant Hills Park service area but there's really no direct access other than out to Galpin, down Galpin, up Pheasant and over. I mean I just, I think we just need to look at that a little bit. I just want to get other councilors comments on the lack of a park. Or a totlot. We're dealing with the same issue 34 0 • City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 down at Yoberry and we're going to have an impact down there on the same topic. I think we need to look at the big picture here and you know, talk about that so I'll let other guys take some time now. Alan Nikolai: Mayor, can I ask a quick question? Mayor Furlong: With what regard? Alan Nikolai: Is there going to be any public comment on what you're talking about? Mayor Furlong: On this project? Alan Nikolai: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Not this evening. Alan Nikolai: ...questions that Mr. Labatt has brought up can be answered possibly. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alan Nikolai: For example that they're disputing with that right-of-way. Those trees are on my mother's property and that was, I indicated to the city today staff that we are disputing where that property line is. Mayor Furlong: Okay so with regard to, I guess with regard to that issue from our standpoint Kate, there'd be surveys required I assume. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and we'll get that worked out by the time it comes back for final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so this is preliminary so we're. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and that's our intent. To resolve that between now and when it comes back. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. We're still at questions for staff. Any other questions Mr. Lundquist? Or others. Go ahead. Councilman Lundquist: Question Kate on the zoning change from RR to RSF. What's the density that we target in RR? Kate Aanenson: For the most part we're coming in right around 2. Councilman Lundquist: Okay and this development, the preliminary with the RSF, what's the density there? Probably in here somewhere. Kate Aanenson: In the staff report. 1.85. 35 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: 1.85, okay. So if we were to not change that zoning, approximately any idea about how many lots would have to be removed out of here to hit that? Kate Aanenson: The RR is 2 V2 acre lots so, just to be clear on the changing of the zoning. It is the state law says it does have to be consistent so they do have the right to go for the RR. I mean for the RSF so. Mayor Furlong: I don't think your first question was answered, what you were looking for, if I understood it. You asked about density within RR. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Kate Aanenson: Well it's 2 Vh acre lot minimum so you'd have to take that times the 27 acres. Councilman Lundquist: So if you have a 2 Vh acre minimum, how do you get a 2.0 density? Mayor Furlong: I think she misunderstood your question. Kate Aanenson: Okay, you can't. Yeah. I did misunderstand. Councilman Lundquist: Ahight. Mayor Furlong: You were saying RSF we average about 2. Councilman Lundquist: About 2, okay. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: For RSF but this one is whatever it is. Kate Aanenson: Right. Councilman Lundquist: So talk about the, talk a little bit more then about the rezoning from RR to RSF. If I understood what you're trying to tell me there, that we don't have a choice. Kate Aanenson: Well what the state law is, is the comprehensive plan is the guidance and it is guided for low density. We left this in place because some people wanted that because they were seeing a larger lots and not to pay the tax consequences. They weren't ready to develop. There was no sewer and water available to the site. So what we put in our comprehensive plan, until such time that a project came forward we wouldn't rezone it. And so we have other areas in the town that are A2, agricultural but there is sewer and water. For whatever reason it's not, and it's in the MUSA area. It's in the MUSA area, utilities aren't brought to that site. And at that time we would propose a rezoning. So this is consistent with that policy. 36 0 i City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: But it's still at our discretion to change that from, to change or not to change from rural, from RR to RSF. Kate Aanenson: Well I'll maybe let the City Attorney address that, the discretion. Roger Knutson: I've not looked at this issue but how is it guided? Kate Aanenson: It is guided residential single family. It's guided low density, excuse me. It's not guided RSF. It's guided low density, which has a density range of 1.2 to 4. something. Roger Knutson: So under State law we're supposed to eliminate the conflict and you can do that in one of two ways. Changing the zoning ordinance or changing the comprehensive plan but you're facing with this application some time limits so. Councilman Lundquist: So it's still. Roger Knutson: You could change the comprehensive plan, in theory. Councilman Lundquist: So we've got one of two things to act on. Either, if this is, if that piece of this is denied tonight, then we're required to change the comprehensive plan, is that what you're telling me? I'm not sure. Roger Knutson: You would, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Fair enough. That's it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions? Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have, I'm not sure if they're questions or comments but I was on the Planning Commission for this and I don't know if Commissioner Sacchet can come up and testify or not. Mayor Furlong: I think in a minute, yep. What we'll do is get questions for staff and invite the applicant up. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I see in the plans it looks like you are connecting the neighborhoods. Kate Aanenson: But, and the Planning Commission did recommend against it, that's correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah. Okay, I just ... I was at the Planning Commission meeting and... Kate Aanenson: Yep, and they also recommended against on Shivley too, that's correct. 37 • 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. That was just my only comment I wanted to bring up. That there was discussion and it was adamant, most neighbors were there and they were adamant that they did not want access. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: Kate or Matt, on Lot 27. Can you just help me understand, if we took an aggressive position and we talked about an easement, if we do want to do Lot 27, you do an easement. Make the future homeowner, lot owner aware. Is there anything else we can do over and above that? You know it just seems like we should be able to figure out a way to fix that, and I'm not really concerned about if the property owners knows it and then builds a sand box blocking the water, I really don't care about that. If they're going to be that ridiculous, but if they're aware of it but is there anything we can do from. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well what we did recommend, or actually is it on page, where is it in the staff report. And that was to put the utility easement over it. Part of it is. Councilman Lundquist: Page 5 Kate. Kate Aanenson: Page 5, thank you. Is it a ditch? Is it a Swale? And how do we figure out that width, but at a minimum we want the easement over that so when someone comes in for an accessory structure, we can tell them to stay out of that so, could it be addressed? Yeah, but we're just telling you that, even though you put that on there, landscaping people make different choices. Don't always check in, and that's typically the hardest one. Some of the other accessory structures you get a permit for but you know, 1-2 homeowners down the line, it's the grading issue. Landscaping, those sort of things. Councilman Peterson: Are we apt to see a heavy rain, a lot of water passing through there? I mean like inches or an inch or is it just going to disperse? Matt Saam: Councilman Peterson, the applicant's supplied drainage calculations modeling 100 year storm event through the Swale and it was in the inches range of water. Councilman Peterson: Just from a practical standpoint, is it apt to stick around very long? Is it apt to stay around very long? I mean is there enough of a drop there where it's going to disperse quickly or flow? Matt Saam: Yeah, it's not intended to pond or pool water. Of course during a rain event there would be water in there a short time after the rain stopped there'd still be water, but it's intended to drain out. To the pond. Councilman Peterson: It's apt to drain out in hours? Minutes or? Hopefully not days, right? Matt Saam: That's a tough one. KE 0 • City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Peterson: I know but I'm just saying, but the grading is intended to draw attention away from, but it's draining within minutes I would assume. Matt Saam: Yeah, unless it's spring rains where we're getting rain you know every day for a while. Kate Aanenson: I guess that was our concern too. It could be wet for a couple months in the spring and that could be a concern, and that's, it just kind of lends to, if it's not that great of a lot, obviously it has a lot of value. We understand that. We appreciate that from the developers but we also don't want, we're going to get the calls. And we're just trying to set ourselves up you know to have the best, use our best information at this point. To prevent a problem in the future. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate in terms of, a lot of my questions have been answered already, but I reserve the right to ask more. With regard to connecting the neighborhoods. That's something in our comprehensive plan that we require in terms of trying to, for the reasons stated in the comprehensive plan. The question I have, and it was brought up by one of the residents in the Planning Commission and I haven't had a chance to address it specifically. Maybe it's been looked at with the Shivley development up above. Rather than connecting on B Street, coming out of Pinehurst, going straight over to Crestview. Have we looked at connecting at the end of the cul-de-sac of A up to the cul-de-sac of Crestview, so we connect the neighborhoods without maybe encouraging necessarily additional traffic through. Now, I. Kate Aanenson: I think we're almost to the junior high by that point. I think you might be a little bit past it. You're talking at the end of this? Up here. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if you back up because it looked like with your picture, and again there's a lot there but it looked like with your pictures with the Shivley neighborhood laid on top of that. Kate Aanenson: Can this go, yeah. This is actually... on that side of the pen is actually now we're at the middle school site. That's the property line. Mayor Furlong: I mean done it align? Does it work? Matt Saam: I think one of the things we were trying to do is save this applicant what this proposal is trying to save the trees. Let me go up. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Matt Saam: They were trying to save the trees in this area, Mr. Mayor. I think that's what you're asking if we could move this street over. Mayor Furlong: No, not necessarily. If B ended up being a private street or cul-de-sac, which get back to the correctness of doing that. Rather than connecting the neighborhoods, using Street B here and aligning that. Thank you for that picture. You can see where I'm pointing at my television screen. Rather than connecting there. Does it work to align the cul-de-sac at the end 39 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 of Street A to connect that over to the cul-de-sac over at the end of Crestview? See right now Street B is coming in short of that cul-de-sac. Matt Saam: Right through here. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. And maybe it's going to eliminate too many lots out of both of them. Matt Saam: Yeah I guess maybe the applicant looked at it. I haven't seen a proposal, sample grading plan, that sort of thing that would look at doing that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think that would, and I don't want to redesign. I'm asking the question, and maybe it's something since both of these are coming through at the same time, somebody can look at. It's a tough situation because I definitely heard and saw what the residents said on this issue, as well as the Planning Commission but the overall benefits of connecting the neighborhoods I think are positive. Is there a compromise that works where we can accomplish our goal of trying to connect the neighborhoods in terms of building something more than a city of cul-de-sacs and private drives, and yet at the same time address some of the neighbors concerns. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we can look at it. I think, just my understanding is that it's no connection, so I'm not sure if the point of the connection. It's the no connection. I'm not sure if moving the contact, if the contact point makes it more palatable. I just think it's the connection issue. That's all. Mayor Furlong: It may not. There is an issue of additional traffic by making a curve all the way around reduces any through point. We'll get to comments in terms of what the expectations of traffic. Andrew Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I am the ... the development of that so if there are any questions that you'd like to ask me, I'm available. I'm certainly willing to... Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure where we are in the process with both of these. The preliminary but given that they're both coming through at the same time. So I guess, I know the applicant will come up, or I'd like to invite the applicant up, unless there are any other questions for staff at this time. Maybe they can address that question and all the others they've heard this evening. Is a representative from the applicant here? Is the applicant here? This evening. Nathan Franzen: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Nathan Franzen. I'm with Plowshares Development. Just want to start off by saying that the, we appreciate staff's work on this project. It's been a back and forth on many different issues and it's not been a very straight forward thing but we think we've come to a conclusion on pretty much everything to date, with the exception of one thing and that being the elimination of Lot 27, or condition (p). And I'm just going to start with that one because that was a pretty big one for us. I just want to start off by stating that Lot 27 meets and exceeds all the city ordinances and standards for setbacks, size. We're not asking for a single variance on that lot. In fact it's 20 percent larger till • • City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 than your minimum lot size of 18,232 square feet, which seems like we should be able to create a conforming lot out of something nearly a half acre in size. Staff's concerns were mainly related to runoff volume and grades, as well as a swale being properly graded at the time of construction or into the future. And I guess to address those concerns, when we calculated the drainage area we went back and made sure that that area, that's draining into Lot 27, was not going to be something that would cause a liability to the property owner and from our standpoint we wouldn't be proposing a lot that we thought had liability issues. We are a builder as well and we understand that these issues come back years and years from today. From when they're approved. So I guess we're staking our opinion or our reputation on this lot as well. And to address some of staff's concerns related to that, we did provide all the calculations proving that this isn't anything out of the ordinary as far as storm water runoff is concerned, and we are also willing to accept all of the staff's alternative conditions found on page 5. Specifically that we will dedicate the drainage and utility easement over the entire swale. This will help protect that swale from ever being built upon and secondly we will survey the lot after the landscaping is complete so once the landscaping's done, the sod is in, we'll go back out. Re -survey the lot to insure that that swale is built correctly. I think that alone is something that's stating our commitment to make sure that lot is going to be correctly. It's going to work properly and I did bring along our project engineer to answer any questions more specifically about site drainage. He's been going over that particular lot quite a bit lately so, with that I would ask that you delete condition (p) and replace it with staffs alternative conditions found on page 5. And I'll certainly answer any questions related to that. As far as condition (o) is concerned, which is the connection to the Shivley Addition, we would like to reiterate that we are in agreement with staff on this issue. We see the need in the future for that area, if it ever were to redevelop, it would be in the best interest of the city to have another connection. It's already been talked about that if there's construction traffic on Crestview, that it is probably getting in and out of Crestview because it is so narrow and it jogs. However if you don't agree with that, we would ask that you approve the alternative street connection and basically if you feel that street is not justified, we would ask that you approve the private street with the cul-de-sac. This would still provide a sewer and trail connection but it would eliminate the street connection and I guess Kate's been over that with you and we are fine and okay with either of those options and we think both of those are quite viable options. I just have a couple of clarifying points I'd like to ask, as long as we're up here. Condition 9 and that's the trail connection. I've been in discussions with staff on the condition actually states that it will be stubbed out of Street A, which is this street right here. I just wanted to clarify that that was a. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry Kate. Kate Aanenson: That's wrong. We want that to come off of, there's a connect through Street B. Mayor Furlong: Yeah okay. Nathan Franzen: If that could be noted, I'd appreciate it. And I'd also like to note that we are donating Outlot A to the City and it is not required for the dedication or the City's subdivision regulations, and that we are not receiving any financial payment or credit for the city for the dedication of this land, and that's really for the record more than anything. At this point I'd entertain any questions you may have about the remaining issues. 41 9 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the applicant. I guess the one question you brought up, Lot 27. Councilman Peterson was saying what are the alternatives besides just sheet draining that, surface drainage of that. I think that's going to be an issue. Have you looked at that as alternatives? Nathan Franzen: I would like to have my engineer address that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Chris Moehrl: Mayor, council members. My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood. I'm the project engineer on the job. What we've done on Lot 27, basically we've gone into a detailed evaluation of the drainage on the lot. We don't want to propose a lot that's not going to work from a drainage perspective or from an engineering perspective so we've gone an extra step and done some additional detailed calculations. Basically from discussions with staff and meeting with staff, understand the main concern again is drainage. If we look at this graphic here, essentially the way we have it graded out right now is that all water would flow away from the pad to a high point right here and a swale. That that would run down this side lot line. Some of the water would run this way and some of the water would run towards the street and then there would be a catch basin inlet right here that would pick up some of that water. We wanted to kind of get an idea of really how much water is in this swale that we're looking at. I do have a drainage area map that we put together. Right here, this is Lot 27. This is 26, 25, 24 and then we also included half of 23. Part of our conservative approach on this too we assumed that the entire house would drain towards the back yards. Ideally you've got a couple of down spouts in the front of the house that would then drain out to the front of the street and a couple downspouts in the back that would go to the back yard, but we did want to be conservative on this approach because it is important to us. After doing those calculations we ran it with 100 year storm, again being conservative, and we had computed that in this drainage swale that goes around the house, we had 2 inches of water in that swale. And again that would be at the peak of the storm. As soon as the rain stops and you had asked the question about timing and how long that water would be there. As soon as the storm stops, just because of the limited distances here, I would say that that would drain out probably within 10 minutes. So it's not, the swale's not designed to hold any water after the rain stops. It would fully drain out once it's ended. So again through detailed design, we also want to ensure that the slopes grade away from the pad. We do have it designed that way. We could steepen these slopes up a little bit more to add a little extra security on the swale. We also looked at the ordinance for both the city and watershed. There's a requirement of the lowest opening, which would be the walkout elevation or ... of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. In this case we're at 3.1 feet. Another requirement would be an emergency overflow which would need to be at least 2 feet below the walkout elevation. On this particular pad we're also 3.1 feet exceeding the requirement, and again the emergency overflow is a case where if you look at the site, and again the grading design is probably one of the most important engineering functions of the project. If we look at the site and say okay, worst case scenario. If all the storm sewer fails, all the pipes get plugged up, where does the water go? That's why we do provide for emergency overflow so that we don't flood out houses and we don't get basements with water. 42 • City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilman Peterson: Just before you leave, give me an idea of how wide the swale would be, at the 100 year storm? With 2 inches of water in there, how wide are we talking? Chris Moehrl: 3 feet wide is what we used in the calculation. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Sacchet, anything to add? Uli Sacchet: Yes. Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Uli Sacchet. I'm the Chair of the Planning Commission. There is a few things I want to briefly add. First of all, where the Planning Commission is coming from by recommending not to connect the neighborhoods. I think that has not been properly looked at yet. The Planning Commission very clearly understands the benefit of connecting neighborhoods, and we also understand that the comprehensive plan very clearly gives directives that we do want to connect neighborhoods. However, at the public hearing we had we had unanimous, very outspoken unanimous consent from the neighborhood of Crestview to the north that they do not want to be connected. We've had a similar situation not that long ago just north of there where we had a neighborhood that did not want the road to go through. I think it was Melody Hill or what was it called? Melody Lane. And in that case the Planning Commission stood up the principle of the comprehensive plan and made the recommendation to connect. At that point the council decided to allow the request of the neighborhood not to connect. And in that particular case I think the connection would have been more important than this particular case here, and therefore the Planning Commission felt confident to recommend not to connect because it was very outspoken, very unanimous request from the neighborhood to the north not to be connected. Now, at the same time I also want to stress that the Planning Commission was very clear that we recommend a trail connection. A foot trail connection. That ultimately will connect also to the high school. To the West. And that's going to be part of the other proposal that's going to come in front of you, but I do believe it plays into this consideration here. I also want to point out that the Planning Commission did recommend nevertheless still to have the connection from this proposal on the west side going to the high school as well. To have both of them. There seemed to be value to that. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, for clarification. Uli Sacchet: Yes please. Mayor Furlong: There's, the Planning Commission, so and we heard that Street A was a mistake. You're saying that the Planning Commission recommend a trail going both at the end of Street B and at the end of Street A? Uli Sacchet. At the time I think we did, didn't we? Can you verify that Kate? It would have to be verified to be very clear in terms of giving you a clear answer to that one. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. 43 9 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Uli Sacchet: I'm also not sure whether we considered the possibility of the private street at the time which would make sense for the context that it become a private street to reduce the impact. I do want to point out that the Planning Commission felt pretty strongly about getting rid of the Lot that's been kind of discussed, whether it should stay or not. Lot number 27 I believe it is. That's the things I want to add from the Planning Commission. I also do want to point out, as you probably know this, it's my understanding that we have very good representation of the neighborhood to the north here tonight and as you probably observed some of these people would very much love to make a comment so that's just something I want to add here. I think it could be beneficial to let some of these people speak. Just my personal opinion. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Uli Sacchet: Any questions? Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Did you say that the Planning Commission strongly recommended to eliminate Lot 27? Did I hear you correctly? Uli Sacchet: We voted to eliminate it. There was 1 member I believe that did not think so, but where we were split is how to use the lot. There were some members of the Planning Commission that thought it would be a good idea to do a totlot. Others thought it would not be a good idea. But the majority was clearly voting to eliminate Lot 27. Councilman Labatt: Okay, thank you. Uli Sacchet: Anything else? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just a follow-up question. Mr. Hoffman, Councilman Labatt asked a question about the totlot I think during staff presentation. Do you have just a quick response to that about the totlot in the area relative to coverage? Todd Hoffman: This is a map that shows park service areas in the community. The concept of a neighborhood I think when we take a look at this particular area, it's not the neighborhoods that we're talking about for park service areas. Park service areas are up to a half mile for a neighborhood park. Over a mile for a community park, and then for a regional park, such as Minnewashta Regional, that is just 3 to 5 cities is the park service area. So if we take a look specifically at the property of Pinehurst, it does abut the Minnetonka middle school site. It will have direct access to that recreational facility and so it's directly in the center of this, of a community park service area. It is also on the fringe of a park service area for Herman Field Park, which is to the west. Across 41. And Pheasant Hills neighborhood park is just to the east across Galpin. That's the current conditions that we have in this particular area for park service areas. Again, neighborhood parks, half a mile. Up to half a mile. And they serve, again depending on the size of the park, the neighborhood park, up to 5,000 residents in our community, and so we're talking about 28 acres. 43 homes. Up to 100 to 150 residents and the city does not have the ability to provide a neighborhood park site for every neighborhood of 100 to 150 residents. If we jump forward a little bit and take a look at future planning in this area in 44 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 regards to park. We bring up the darker green circles are sites that are either currently acquired or being studied. First in this area, the one that is currently acquired is the area north of Pulte, and so you start to fill in this neighborhood park service area as that land is developed. A site that we're studying very close to the Pinehurst proposal is the Carlson property, right here near Lake Harrison, so the acquisition of a future neighborhood park site and that begins to fill in that site even more. And then two, one off to the west, one off to the east. If Camp Tanadoona every develops, we would look for a property in that location. And if the Gorra property would ever develop, so you start to see that the smaller circles really blend and fill in our total park service areas which we plan into the future. We certainly recommend or encourage private developers to develop their totlot. A totlot facility if they think that will meet the demands or the needs of their residents, but again we cannot mandate that they do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Thank you for that addition. Tim Larkin: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Sir. Tim Larkin: As the only existing homeowner in the Shivley Addition, I would like to request 5 minutes from the council. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Just a minute if you would please. Any other questions for staff? Kate Aanenson: I just want to make one clarification too on the comment regarding the trail. I think when we looked at Street A, for that trail, we hadn't seen the Shivley Addition so I think it'd be a duplication to put it on A and B, if that was the case at this time. I think it's staffs opinion that B would be a better access point, street or no street, to get up through that. Tie into that cul-de-sac and go over. Mayor Furlong: Given what you're seeing right now, the development to the north? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. As opposed to two? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you're in the center more. Picks up more of that traffic going north. The pedestrian traffic. Mayor Furlong: Alright. You know with regard to other public comments. I'd be happy, and we'd be happy to listen to comments from residents. Generally we pick those up during the visitor presentations because the public hearing took place on this at the Planning Commission level. If there was misunderstanding about that, I apologize. What I would ask, since the council has had copies of the verbatim minutes for the Planning Commission, that if somebody wants to address an item that's been raised tonight, or some changes between the Planning Commission plan and this plan, and you want to make comments on that, you're certainly welcome to come forward. What I don't want to do, just for purposes of time and efficiency, 45 1 5 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 that we get into a full re -discussion of the issues discussed at the public hearing. The Planning Commission's the place for the public hearing. Also we're dealing with this Pinehurst Addition so the Shivley Addition, while that's gone through the Planning Commission. The council has not seen the minutes of that. Some of us have watched the tapes or watched it on TV but I don't necessarily want to get into that discussion, except for perhaps where there might be some interconnections from a trail or a street standpoint. But even then, it might be premature to get into those discussions. So if there is somebody that would like to come forward and address the council on an issue, please do so. Tim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I appreciate the time and I' l l try to be very brief. Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address for the record. Tim Larkin: My name is Tim Larkin. I am the, currently the only existing homeowner in the Shivley Addition. I purchased the existing home. Working with the Lecy company I found them to be very good folks, as I'm sure you know. I can appreciate your dilemma because I understand from a testimony at the Planning Commission that the comprehensive plan does call for a connection. The problem in this particular case with interconnection is it leads to an inequity, and I'll try to be brief and address that. And I would also like to point out that in the packet on this particular addition, or this particular application, it very clearly states that the Planning Commission recommended that Street B be turned into a cul-de-sac and that the connection that you're talking about to the junior high school come off of Street A. It's in bold in the report in front of you. I don't know how it stated that it was a mistake that it should come off of Street B. What I'm confused about, and I'm a layman obviously. What I'm confused about is what is the purpose of the Planning Commission? The entire neighborhood Mr. Mayor came out to the Planning Commission. Gave public testimony and tonight I understand the limits of time but tonight the staff has completely disregarded it, it seems to me, although they've reported to you. They've completely disregarded the findings of the Planning Commission, which were in short that the interconnection was not necessary in that the current development has entrances and exits along Manchester and along Galpin. In addition the inequity it's created on what would be the new Crestview, which is of course my cul-de-sac, the inequity that would be created, you have 43 homes to the south that would conceivably be coming up to the new Crestview cul-de-sac, dropping off their children as if it were part of the junior high school and letting them walk through the back yard of the junior high school. I think that creates an inequity for the folks in the existing Crestview neighborhood. In addition, I don't have the map because I frankly thought this was going to be a formality. I thought that the Planning Commission made themselves very clear. I didn't understand that that wasn't binding. Staff has recommended a trail, if I might use this. Mayor Furlong: Could you help him orientate. Tim Larkin: Alright, thank you. Staff has recommended the trail connection, as you can see, here and here. Now I would, I don't know if you can zoom in that at all. Mayor Furlong: Can you slide it over? There you go. 0 • 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Tim Larkin: Here and here, which is literally down the back of my lot line, and then towards the junior high to the west. The gentleman in this existing home testified at the Planning Commission. I obviously paid a great deal of money 4 months ago and preserved trees in this area here for that express purpose. As I understand it, there's going to be a great deal of tree loss to put that trail in, which again is not something that the Planning Commission was for. The Planning Commission and the developer agreed that a better place for that trail would be between 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3, and I understand you're not here to consider the Shivley development tonight, but it seems to one citizen it seems very confusing that the expressed recommendations of the Planning Commission appear to weigh for nothing here tonight. And I have literally all my neighbors here tonight willing to testify. I understand that you're not going to hear that testimony again, but that literally allows the council to not hear the cries of the neighborhood that there's a safety issue. There's an inequity being created. You've got 43 homes to the south dumping into what will be a 5 person cul-de-sac. I think there's an additional safety issue, and I'll leave this for last. I think there's an additional safety issue created by the connection down the existing Crestview. If you're not familiar with it, it's a grade down to Galpin and there's a very sharp curve in the middle of Crestview. It's not a very wide right-of- way. I believe, and someone could correct me on this, I believe it's an existing 50 foot. 40 foot right-of-way existing. So it's a very narrow street and it has a very large curve in the center of it. My neighbors to the east along existing Crestview are very concerned with the safety issue of 43 homes cutting through there, as we all know will happen. 43 homes cutting through there and coming down that very narrow, very windy street so I appreciate your listening to my comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Tim Larkin: Any questions for me? Mayor Furlong: No, thank you. Alan Nikolai: Mayor and council members. My name is Alan Nikolai, 6282 Cartway Lane. My mother is Doris Nikolai who lives at 6570 Galpin Boulevard, which is on the northeast of this development, and you said to keep it towards streets or things that have not been already covered at the Planning Commission. And I will do that. Like to commend Nathan over here and Matt with working with me in the last week on further developments of that turn lane. That was, at the Planning Commission they found out the day of I believe, so and then we finally have actually seen a plan in the last couple days. My concern is that heard today some information. I do take exception to the trees being on public right-of-way. They are on my mother's land. When that city trail was put in approximately 5, 7 years back, she was paid by the city for construction easements and also for loss of trees on that supposedly public right-of-way, what the city staff had said. That is private. It is 33 1/3 feet off the county center line. Not approximately 50 feet as city staff has suggested. That is an issue. So basically that is a problem. I do, my mother talked with her, she does want to have that right turn lane start south of her private driveway. If you have not been out there, her private driveway is a very steep, approximately 12 to 15 percent grade already. To shift the turn lane 12 feet to the west is going to greatly steepen that. There will be massive soil corrections to be able to get up that driveway. It's already difficult now to make it steeper, it's going to be a nightmare for her. So I'm very 47> - 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 concerned about how that right tum lane will impact her property. She would like to see it to the south and being that the County has looked at that, that if you would consider that as a condition with this development, that it start to the south of her private driveway. It'd be safer. Limited sight visibility for her to come down onto a right tum lane. It's just not kosher. You don't have a public, a right tum lane and have a private drive coming into the tum lane itself. That's an accident waiting to happen, and that is a safety issue. You mentioned the streets. One thing that Mr. Larkin did not cover is that it is also on that S curve on Crestview. It is very limited sight visibility, especially in the summer time. Extremely limited. To the point if you have two vehicles going more than 15 miles an hour, you're risking a head on there. The additional traffic would make it an accident waiting to happen so I please not consider that in your decision making about the connecting the two neighborhoods when there's unanimous consent that they do not want that. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. A quick question Ms. Aanenson with regard to the right turn lane and the property there, where that would be. We can make a condition. Our assumption is it's in the right-of-way at this point. Surveys will dictate where it is or isn't. What if it's not all in the right-of-way? If we require that based upon I think Councilman Labatt brought up. Kate Aanenson: Assuming there'd be some sort of compensation or get an easement from the neighbor. Mayor Furlong: And who would be responsible for that? Kate Aanenson: The developer. A condition of approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Can I just iterate one thing because has come up before and while you have verbatim minutes, I focused on the staff. I didn't want to minimize the Planning Commission's recommendations because when we get to this level, often there is sometimes a split on the Planning Commission or internally between planning and engineering, so that's the purpose of this is to kind of filter through all of the recommendations. Park and Rec, planning, engineering, and the Planning Commission and certainly didn't want to minimize. I hope I reiterated that they didn't want to connect it, nor did they on the Shivley want to connect those. Mayor Furlong: I think that was clear. Kate Aanenson: Again, one of our leading points on that connection, while we agree that Crestview is a narrow road, we've heard both applicants say that construction traffic, even at the back end where Lecy's building could come through this way, which we think is a benefit to that neighbor to the north also. That neighborhood Crestview to the north. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Nathan Franzen: I'd like to shed some light on the trail issue and the turn lane issue real quickly. Regarding the trail and Street A, one of the reasons why we suggested that the staff was the M 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 0 grade different at the end of Street A and where the top of the playing field is. You know does that, does everybody know where I'm talking about? Mayor Furlong: The track you're saying in the middle school? Nathan Franzen: This point. Is somewhere in the range of 8 to 10 feet in difference of grade, and that would most likely require steps so it's not going to be an efficient trail connection that you can ride a bike. And that's why we agreed with staff that, behind the scenes that Street B was a better alternative connection because it is all at grade. And in fact the reason why it's to the north, northern part of Shivley Addition is because that is where the school's property and the Shivley's properties the most even between the two properties so there's the least amount of grading at that location. So that is why that location was chosen. And also as far as the tum lane goes, the property line I guess is in dispute. We have looked at it and believe that it is completely within the right-of-way. However, I have also indicated that if it wasn't and we did remove trees, that we'd be willing to replace the equivalent amount of trees that we take out of that right-of-way area onto his property once it's identified so. We're willing to try to be a good neighbor and replace any trees that we, are caused by us. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Andrew Johnson: Mr. Mayor Andy with Lecy Construction. One thing that I did want to mention too is, with this connection that we are willing to make, from here we also have an issue because we are looking from basically walkout grade, okay. So there is going to be, probably 6 or 7 foot grade difference from here to here, so we have the same issues as Plowshares will to make that connection. Our big concern is that you have 43 residents, or 42. The problem is, you're going to ... all that traffic is going to come up along here, to our development. The same thing with Brenden Court. We built a couple residents on that cul-de-sac. It's the same thing that they have a problem is with all those residents come out that street. And actually... build a fence because as you know looking across here, with kids and everything else, it's going to be the quickest way. ...quickest way to this trail so cutting across is certainly going to be an issue. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay, anybody else who would like to comment? Very good, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, let's bring it back to council for discussion. Who'd like to make a go of this one? I'll start calling on people. Deputy Mayor. Well let's start discussing some of the issues. I mean we can go back and forth here. We don't have to just hit everything at once. Maybe the thing is to start hitting some of the issues and we can hit some easier ones first. Councilman Labatt: Big one fust. Street B. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Giving Craig some direction. Go ahead Craig. Councilman Peterson: You know I'm torn. I came in thinking that it was a good thing to do. You know that's what our goals are for the comprehensive plan. I like the idea of bringing as M, City Council Meeting — Ia• 10, 2005 many neighborhoods together as we can when appropriate and when reasonable. I see the issue of the kids trekking through different neighborhoods. The steepness of that. That will stop some kids from doing it. Some won't. So I'm on the fence, no pun intended, on the street issue. Came in thinking that I want to connect and now I'm anxious to hear other people's perspective. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson: Want to take them one at a time? Mayor Furlong: I want to get some discussion going. We're hitting a late hour and I think we have a lot of things thrown at us. I mean the big issues, and there are some minor ones. We've got to clean up the minor ones too. Big issues are the connection issue, the street connection. Trail is kind of related to that. We also have the Lot 27. I think the sanitary sewer issue has been addressed. Some minor issues include whether or not there's a totlot required. There's some issues on, we've got the right-of-way issue. We've got, how many more issues do we got? We got some of the other conditions that were included, not only in the staff's report but other conditions added by the Planning Commission, that depending on which way we go with some of the issues may resolve themselves. With regard to the arborvitae. You know that's kind of the right-of-way and I think we've heard some information on where that is so, whether we want to start with the street issues, you know and give thoughts on that. Why don't we do that? That's the elephant in the living room I think and let's get some thought on connecting the neighborhoods to the north, between Pinehurst and Crestview. Maybe we can see where thoughts are there. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright. Being newly elected I guess I am, as I said that I was representing the residents of Chanhassen and tonight I feel that I have to represent them in this manner. You have to respect the comprehensive plan and I do, unless there's an overwhelming majority of people that have a different opinion. And I think this impacts their day to day life and I think it impacts the whole neighborhood. They bought their homes. They settled in expecting something that you know, if this road goes through, their quality of life I think it lessens by the whole thing and so I think I have to respect the people that are there now, and so I am not in favor of connecting the two neighborhoods together. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would probably have to agree with the council, Councilwoman Tjomhom, although not having, not to, obviously not living up there, if I look at, I've probably driven down Crestview twice in my life so if I lived in this Pinehurst thing, even if Street B was there, I don't know why I would want to drive down that road rather than just drive right down this nice, wide street A out onto Galpin. You really don't have a reason to drive on Pinehurst. It's a narrow street. You can't see. You can't turn around. You can't get out onto Galpin from there either way, so at the end of the day, I don't think it makes a difference because nobody's really going to do that anyway. But the residents feel pretty strongly I guess I don't see an advantage either way other than Pinehurst is going to lose some land. Some lot area having to build a cul-de-sac on there, and you know with the Shivley Addition coming through, if they think that people are just going to drive up there and drop their kids off, if they make that FiC City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 • connection. If people want to drop their kids off, they're just going to drive up Pinehurst and drop them off there anyway, probably. So I guess I don't, it doesn't really, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me either way on this one, and I'd be willing to go with the residents request and wishes and just make that a cul-de-sac at B. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well, I can, I really do understand the points, and I've talked to some friends up on that Brenden Court that have had problems with a dumping ground for their kids to get through the fence there. So I understand the concern about the cul-de-sac in Shivley being utilized that way. So the question would be is, do we make that street to be a cul-de-sac and we say to Plowshares well, put the connection down off of Street A. At the end of Street A between Lots 7 and 8 or Lot 8 and the private cul-de-sac, and either way there's a grade. So do you take one person's problem and put it up on the northern development and say well, you figure it out? I don't think we do. I think that the problem lies within the Plowshares thing here. People are going to be accessing the school. Let's let them create the trail connection through their own development. So if I've confused anybody about my position earlier, I would, now I may confuse myself. In listening to my fellow councilors, I'm now in favor of keeping Street B a cul- de-sac. I think that that does make sense, the most to making that a cul-de-sac. And saying to Plowshares, let's put that lot, that connection down off of Street A into the school. Did I really confuse you mayor? Mayor Furlong: No, but you jumped onto another issue and we were trying to stick to the street. But the street and the trail are connected. No pun intended. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: My thought on the street connection, it is, I started looking at this and recognizing the wishes of the residents to the north off Crestview, and saying that we need to connect these streets. It's something that long term is what we need to do as a city and from planning. I don't think the City of Chanhassen, as I mentioned earlier tonight, should become a city of cul-de-sacs and private drives. I don't think that's good development long term. It doesn't create a sense of community. A connection of neighborhoods. The challenge here is, I agree with, while I agree with Councilman Lundquist, I don't think there's going to be much in the way of traffic going through. It's north at the end of most of the 42 houses. It does have that S curve there that is tough to navigate. Will slow it down. I don't see a lot of traffic happening there. My concern is, is that from a precedence standpoint, the argument that we're going to add traffic to our road prevents us from connecting neighborhoods. From connecting streets in the future. That concerns me because I think that argument will occur each and every time. And it will keep us from following the comprehensive plan which is trying to build a city, not individual developments. And that's where I'm struggling with this one. I don't think anybody up here wants to go against a neighborhood, especially when it's as vocal and as united in it's opinion as this one is, but at the same time, there are other neighborhoods that are going to come to this council and to the Planning Commission and be vocal and united and so this is one of those classic dilemmas and fortunately we get it on the first meeting of this council. What type of city are we building? And I'm struggling. I think there are some specific reasons here that I 51 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 can look at to say don't connect these from a street standpoint because of the design of Crestview. And the safety issues there. But when we start looking at other roads, I mean we got to be careful, if that's what we're going to say is, is if residents come to the council or the Planning Commission and say we don't want it because it's going to add traffic to our roads, then if that's the criteria I think we're doing developments. We're not building a city and I think that's a problem. So I don't know if you know what other people's thoughts are on there. I can see specific reasons here where not connecting makes sense because of the design and the layout of Crestview and the city currently has no plans to improve that. My preference would be to connect them still. That is my preference. But I can see if my fellow council members are saying there are some reasons not to but I think the impact is going to be less than what I'm hearing people concerned about. It doesn't mean I don't think there won't be an impact. There will be. You connect roads. There are going to be some cars that are going to be kids riding bikes. I don't see a problem with that. I think that's positive in terns of building a city. In terms of the trail, there's a need to connect the trail. I've got, if we've got grading issues or adding steps is ... I think putting a trail at the end of a private road ... all sorts of problems. We're talking, we're going to talk about Lot 27 in a minute. Let's talk about a trail coming through a private drive in terms of inconvenience to those 3 property owners later, or the traffic or cars driving up the private drive to turn around to drop off kids if the trail goes up there. I think that's going to be a problem from a use standpoint. We need to put. Councilman Labatt: At least it's their own neighbors though. Here you're taking. Mayor Furlong: Well you don't, I guess I'm not necessarily saying that. There could be other people. It's a public road. There could be other people that will come up and drop children off. That happens on, is it Brenden Court right now. It's not just the people that live on Brenden Court that use that trail to go to the middle school. The other thing is, from a proximity standpoint here, you're traveling across the fields. You've got a much longer walk and in the dead of winter, people aren't going to be dropping their kids off in this neighborhood. They're going to be doing it someplace else or driving them right to the front door, where they should so you know, anyplace we put the trail, somebody's not going to like it so we've got to pick the best place. Whether we connect the neighborhoods, people aren't going to like it. So the question is, is that good public policy in terms of building a city or do we say there are reasons here where we won't, but that is still our policy. And I would be comfortable with that but I wouldn't necessarily be comfortable taking a position that we're not going to try to connect neighborhoods. I think that's the wrong direction to go. Thoughts, feedback. Did we resolve anything or are we just continuing to say this is a tough situation? Let's, given that, what do we want to do, Councilman Peterson? Any other thoughts? You were waiting to hear from us. Councilman Peterson: I think that based upon that, I would like to connect because I think it's going to bring the neighborhoods together. I think that's important. And again, I agree with Councilman Lundquist, that it's not going to bring traffic up. A little bit, but probably not discernable and it will bring kids throughout the neighborhoods but I think that's a good thing. So I probably would lean towards bringing the street through, as staff recommended. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Other comments? Thoughts. If not, why don't we try to move on to some other issues. Lot 27. We've got the Planning Commission and staff are 52 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 0 both recommending that that lot be eliminated because of storm water runoff. Thoughts and comments on that. Councilman Lundquist: I'll go first on this one. I think, I'm in favor of leaving 27 the way it is. The developer, the engineering firm, seems like they've put in a great deal of effort and yeah, we've had some bad experiences in other places but unless the staff can demonstrate that we've had calculations in that area and do things, and the fact that the developer's willing to put an easement across that and do the surveying after the landscaping, I think is a good compromise so I'm willing to give him 27 on that and I think staff is right that we're going to be the ones, or they're going to be the ones that get the call, not the developer and the home builder so the onus is then that we put that easement out there and that we know that when people come in for that, to put up a structure and things, that we watch for that and that we get the survey after that house is built and the landscaping's in there so we can avoid some of those, oh I didn't know it was there things going on so I'm in favor of leaving 27 in. With the added conditions on page 3 1 think it is. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Peterson: I concur. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I say it goes. Eliminate it. Mayor Furlong: You say eliminate it? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. I'm concerned about keeping in a problem lot. The engineering information that we have in our packet was dated on the 3&. The Planning Commission didn't have privy to that information in terms of the storm. But I also respect their opinion about not wanting to create a problem lot. We've got an engineer saying it's okay. We've go the developer that I think has done good work in this city before and while coming in tonight I was assuming that, I was hoping that there'd be a solution beyond just looking at surface drain, and what I'm hearing is there really isn't. And so, you know, the concern there is that we're creating a problem lot but working with the best information we've got I guess. I can go either way on that one at this point. Is there any other issues or discussion on that? Other major issues or other issues to discuss here? The right turn lane's been brought up. That was late in the Planning Commission. It sounds like there's been some progress there, both in terms of staff, the county and the developer and the property owner. To the extent that there is property line disputes, that's not an issue for the city to deal with, am I correct there? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Councilman Labatt, you were suggesting that we make sure that staff work with the County. Get traffic counts and design that right tum lane so that it's sufficient for 53 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 the traffic there. I think that's a reasonable position and with the desire to keep it on the south side of the driveway if at all possible. Councilman Labatt: If at all possible yeah, but we need to, I mean they've got the traffic counts. We know what the speed limit is out there. You and I drive that road a lot. It's 40 zone there but we, some travel faster than 40. Mayor Furlong: You've seen some others? Councilman Labatt: I've seen some. Never done it myself but, so we just need to get better data and we need to figure out that if the Nikolai's lose trees that are not in the right-of-way property, that they are compensated by Plowshares. Mayor Furlong: And it sounded like Plowshares was willing, did I understand, whether it's in the right-of-way, if you're taking trees out, you'll do some replacement and work with the property owner? Nathan Franzen: Correct, either way. Mayor Furlong: Yeah so, okay. Are there any other comments or discussion on the right turn lane? There was the issue on the arborvitae hedge, if I'm pronouncing that correctly. Councilman Lundquist: Arborvitae. Mayor Furlong: Arborvitae, thank you. If that's the only mistake I make, I'll be doing pretty good. Any thoughts or comments? The Planning Commission was saying use best efforts not to take it out. I think that's, that will be done. Anyway. The question is whether or not we force replacement of that in addition to whatever we're requiring under our ordinance with regard to tree replacement. That was one, I guess a minor issue that I see coming from that. Any thoughts or comments? That's the condition 4(e) and (f). That were added. I guess there are 3 things there. Best efforts to preserve trees beyond the tree preservation plan. There is ensuring that the hedge in the retaining wall survives. Maybe there's a question about the word ensure there. And then replacing the hedge. People comfortable with that? Is it more than what we need to be doing? Councilman Lundquist: I would say thoughts on the arborvitae and the turn lane and all of that stuff are still too far up in the air. We need to see where that, where the right-of-way is. Where the private property is. What is all going on. Traffic counts. Speeds. There's just way too much up in the air right now for me to say either way on the turn lane. I don't know enough about what's going on there so we've got some work to do there now so whether that. Mayor Furlong: Between now and the final. Councilman Lundquist: And final, absolutely. So whether that, you know I don't know I guess what our options are there right now. Preliminary and final, but with what information I have now, I can't say really anything in the tum lane right now because it's too far up in the air. 54 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: With the plant. Councilman Lundquist: Or yeah, the hedges and all of that stuff. There's too much in dispute and up in the air right there. Mayor Furlong: For clarification, Ms. Aanenson, what do we need to do tonight in the preliminary in terms of conditions, given Councilman Lundquist's issue of let's see where some things shake out before we deal with these conditions. Do we continue with these proposed conditions then or do we? Kate Aanenson: Sure, I guess I would say, work with staff to demonstrate how the trees can be preserved. If they can be preserved so we kind of leave it open ended so when it comes back for preliminary, we show you the best management practices that we've employed or however we're going to try to save those, or if they can't be saved, giving the rationale why. Councilman Lundquist: Or you know if it's in the turn, I'm sorry, right-of-way. Private property. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Grading of the house pad. Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I think both the applicant and the homeowner there have, I believe that they'll work it when they figure out where the line is and what's going on and all of those kind of things but right now nobody knows really I don't think. Mayor Furlong: The arborvitae are on the Pinehurst development property. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: It's not the property to the north. Kate Aanenson: So I was just going to separate those two, thank you. Just for clarification. Just for the clarification, for the City Attorney too, so what we're talking about is (e) and (f). What we wanted to do. This is on page 11. What we wanted to do is to put those in the format of following up with additional information to clarify those points whether or not the evergreen hedge can be saved with a retaining wall. So it's a but for. So we can resolve that at time of final plat and that would be consistent with (f). Then a separate condition was, regarding preservation of trees on the Nikolai property. To resolve that. To get additional information on the right-of-way line and. Mayor Furlong: Can we put conditions? Kate Aanenson: You can add, certainly. Councilman Lundquist: Top of conditions? 55 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: No, with regard to the property to the north. Kate Aanenson: Sure, you can add any conditions you want. Mayor Furlong: In terms of tree replacement in the right-of-way and... Kate Aanenson: Well I guess it's a separate, it's a civil. Councilman Lundquist: If those are on the Nikolai, those trees are on the Nikolai property and that tum lane has to go into that private property. Kate Aanenson: That's a matter between the developer and Mr. Nikolai to resolve. Councilman Lundquist: Right. So our condition is that the tum lane has to be there and then they've got to figure out. Mayor Furlong: Properly designed based upon traffic. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They resolve it. Whether that's compensation or however they work that out, that's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, that's not for us to figure out. Mayor Furlong: So you've got some suggested wording on 4(d), (e) and (f) there? To address Councilman Lundquist's issues. Kate Aanenson: Yes, between now and final plat the staff work to resolve conditions (d), (e) and (f), to see if they're still valid. And then the other one I would add is, at the time of final plat the staff shows you based on traffic and tum movements, the right-of-way lane. The length that that needs to be for the decel lane. Mayor Furlong: I hope you're writing this down. Okay, we'll call on you at that point. Kate Aanenson: Okay, sure. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts other than Councilman Lundquist on the trail there, unless you have questions. Councilman Labatt: Going back to that, where the existing driveway is right now, is that going to be the same point to enter the development? Mayor Furlong: Is that where the street is? Councilman Labatt: Within 5-10 feet. So Todd's here. When we put the trail in, by my seat up here, we went through an extensive effort to save those arborvitaes then right? 56 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Todd Hoffman: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And I mean we narrowed the path. Maybe you can kind of update us on what. Todd Hoffman: We moved the path from the farther in the ditch line up to the shoulder of the road. Councilman Labatt: At the applicant's request. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Labatt: And now we seem to. Kate Aanenson: Different circumstances. Different. Councilman Lundquist: I'm not saying not save the arborvitae. I'm just saying now. Kate Aanenson: We don't have enough information here to clarify exactly how it's going to. Councilman Lundquist: I don't know if we can or not. Roger Knutson: What you'd be doing is determining the feasibility of saving the arborvitaes. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And we're dealing with the arborvitae to the north of the existing driveway, correct? Kate Aanenson: All vegetation along that. Vegetation along Galpin. Feasibility of saving vegetation along Galpin. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Where are we? Other issues. Minor issues. Other issues that people want to discuss. Councilman Lundquist: The trail. Mayor Furlong: The trail? Where are we on the trail? I guess it's B, A or not. I'm losing my place and that's not good at this late hour so with regard to the trail, Councilman Lundquist. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: I guess a question I think I heard the City Attorney talk to Mr. Gerhardt before about, if it comes off of the private drive on, at the end of Street A and we have to put stairs there, do we have an issue with accessibility? Todd Gerhardt: Can't have stairs. Unless you provide another alternative around it. 57 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: So you've got to have a switchback or something. That sounds like fun. So the longer, theoretically, the longer, farther away that we can get that trail access from a grade change at the middle school, the easier that grade can be. I guess I'm on Street B then. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Hoffman, comments? Todd Hoffman: Clarification, or a comment. Just as we have a responsibility to provide access, pedestrian access to the school site for the Pinehurst, when the Crestview property comes through, we're going to have the same responsibility to connect those people. And so if we do it only on Pinehurst, then we're going to have to do it up on Crestview as well as they come through so instead of having one, it would probably make sense to combine the two at the one access point that can connect it to neighborhoods. Councilman Lundquist: So in other words if you put, if we put one at A with stairs and a switchback, when Shivley comes in, you're going to have to put one there anyway. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So that's why the recommendation was to include the trail across on B. Okay. Any other thoughts on the trail? Councilman Labatt. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilman Labatt: Could we do both? Mayor Furlong: Require two trails? Well each developer would require a trail. Councilman Lundquist: They're going to anyway. Mayor Furlong: Where would you put them Councilman Labatt? What are your thoughts? Councilman Labatt: Well just run it down along Lot A there or Lot 8 off of Street A. Mayor Furlong: Can I, Kate with regard to the preliminary plat. Is it, you wanted direction from the council as to where that trail's going to go. I think there's a sense that we should have a trail. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And so there are, we've got both of these developments coming through somewhat simultaneously so we can try to minimize the impact to all the homes and reduce the class to all developers and maximize the effectiveness of the trails and avoid as many steps and switchbacks as possible. Is that possible to do? Or do we need to definitively state here where that trail goes at this time? Kate Aanenson: Again, just kind of in the perusal of the Park Director but I just want to remind everybody at the end of that, unless you went between these two, you're coming at the end. You're on the end of a private street. M 0 9 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Well what I was looking at is you've got a sidewalk running down along the entire length of Street A, and it ends right there at the beginning of the private drive. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: So you're jumping across to get to the other private drive, and then you run it down along the lot, between Lot 8 and the private drive right towards the end of the cul-de-sac. Then you're on the school property. Councilman Lundquist: You're talking about running it right down the middle of 8. Lot 7 is halfway through the cul-de-sac in Street A. Todd Gerhardt: There's some grade issues in that area too. Councilman Labatt: Well we're talking about running it right down along here. Councilman Lundquist: The lot line is here. Councilman Labatt: No, I'm talking about running it right along here. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, that's a private drive. Councilman Labatt: We'll run it right along the edge of Lot 8. Keep it inside of Lot 8 and just dedicate some land. Keep it off the private drive but just make a sidewalk there. Councilman Lundquist: But the sidewalk goes along the private drive. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: What are the issues? Kate Aanenson: I guess grades. Private drive. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the question is the grade issue. The further west you get, relative to the school property to the north. While they're checking the grades on that, any other comments on the trail or the location of the trail. Whether it comes off B or A or the private drive. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I think Mr. Larkin had some concems with his trees being taken off the trail. Mayor Furlong: That would be in the Shivley development. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yep. :Y, 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: You're going to wipe out trees no matter where you go. To get a trail through there. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Is it, for the Shivley development, what did Planning Commission do with that? Did they table it or pass it? Approve it? Kate Aanenson: No, they recommended approval without the connection but with the trail connection. They had concerns regarding that connection between, going to the north. Whether that, they spent a lot of time talking about grade and one of the members, I'm not sure exactly... Mayor Furlong: Well I guess from a concept standpoint, did they include a trail between the end of the cul-de-sac on Crestview and the school? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes they did. Mayor Furlong: So that's going in. Kate Aanenson: Yes. In the interest of trying to design it here, if you can give, since we're coming back with final plat and you're going to see Shivley, it gives us some time to sit down with them and sit down with Shivley and try to work it out and come back under final plat. I'm not sure we're going to solve it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other issues we can address that way? Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to take them all that way. Mayor Furlong: We need some. Okay, so anything else? Any other issues to discuss here? We've dealt with, or we've at least exposed people's thoughts on the street connection. Exposed people's thoughts on the Lot 27. We've got, we're going to have further information brought out with regard to the right turn lane and the preservation of vegetation along Galpin. Not to maximize that. Any other issues? Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: Playground. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Playground? Totlot. Totlot, okay. Let's talk about that quick. Councilman Peterson: I don't think we need it. Councilman Lundquist: Concur. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts. You're saying no? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No totlot. 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: No? Your thoughts? Councilman Labatt: I'm either way but no. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I don't know that it's necessary to require it here, given what we heard from the Director of our Parks. I'd say no on that. Especially if 27 goes through, it'd be hard to require a totlot on 27. Okay. Any other issues? Thoughts. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Could I propose a, something to help us speed us along. It seems like to me. Mayor Furlong: Now you want to propose that? Councilman Lundquist: It seems to, we've got I think the street connection yeah or nay and Lot 27 as a yeah or nay. Everything else I think we probably have consensus on among the council so perhaps we could formulate a motion to include all of those and then work on an amendment basis for what we do with the street and other piece. Mayor Furlong: Well why don't we start with a motion that either includes or excludes and then see if we need to amend. That motion. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: If that would work. So we have a comprehensive motion to begin with. Somebody want to work on that? Kate Aanenson: And there are two motions... Mayor Furlong: Two motions. Can we deal with those together, or do we need 4 on either of them? Or we asked that earlier. We're on 3 on both of these? Roger Knutson: You need a simple majority on both. So you can combine them in one motion or individually if you choose. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Can we do the first one fust? Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion? That first motion. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the rezoning from RR to RSF. Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Lundquist: Findings of fact in the staff report. GTI 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Everybody's on track here. We're on recommendation A on page 9. That's all we're dealing with now. Any discussion on that motion? It's been made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves the Rezoning of 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) based on consistency with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with surrounding development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Do we want to go with motion B? Councilman Lundquist: Alright, it was my crazy idea. I'll take a run at it I guess. Move that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services. That would be recommendation B with conditions in the staff report. Condition, Kate what condition is it that we're calling the street? Whether it goes through or whether it's a cul-de-sac. Is that condition (o)? Mayor Furlong: Yes, I think so. Councilman Labatt: Let's deal with number 2 first. Where they wanted that reworded. Councilman Lundquist: Where are we at? Oh yeah. Donated. Condition 2, Outlots A and B donated to the City. Councilman Labatt: Let's take them right in order. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Condition 4. 4(d), (e) and (f). Kate Aanenson: Feasibility of preserving vegetation along Galpin will be studied and presented at the time of final plat. Councilman Lundquist: And then did we add condition (g) about the turn lane? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or I added that at the very end but you can put it there too. Mayor Furlong: Want to put that under engineering? Kate Aanenson: ... engineering, that's where I would put it. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So where are we putting that? 5(v)? Alright, let's hit 5(0) first. That's the street, right? I would move that 5(0) be worded so that the street B is connected to Crestview as recommended by staff. And with the addition of condition 5(v). That a right tum lane, or that is already in 5(u) so 5(u) is a right tum lane off Galpin is required and specifications to be determined. 62 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Roger Knutson: You dealing with (p)? Councilman Lundquist: Paragraph 5(u). Condition 4(u) on the turn lane. Councilman Peterson: But we've got (p) in there too. Councilman Lundquist: Oh I'm sorry. And (p), remove condition 5(p). Councilman Peterson: And reinsert staff recommendations on page 5, right Kate? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: Yes, and insert on the top of page 3 I think that is. Kate Aanenson: Right, I ... it's 5. You're right. Councilman Lundquist: For clarification those conditions being an easement required over the whole drainage piece and the survey after the landscaping is completed. Councilman Labatt: Did we want to delete (q)? Because that's been worked out, right? Councilman Lundquist: (q) has been worked out so remove that. Councilman Peterson: And delete 8. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Number 8 is removed. Mayor Furlong: Clarification. What did you do with (u)? Councilman Lundquist: (u) is a right tum lane off Galpin into this will be required and design specifications to be determined. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: Are you scratching out to meet Carver County requirements and you're going to say to be? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Scratch out the last sentence. Mayor Furlong: Carver County and City of Chanhassen requirements? Kate Aanenson: It's a County road. Matt? Matt Saam: Correct. County. 63; City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so they will have input on that. Matt Saam: We'll work with them. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so how do you, how would you, given what you've heard from the concern of the council. Councilman Lundquist: A right turn. Kate Aanenson: I heard what Brian said. I think that all of us just need to work with the Nikolai's to ensure tree loss. That the right-of-way. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, but that's not our issue. Kate Aanenson: It's not but. Councilman Lundquist: I think the understanding is there. If we require them to build a turn lane, they've got to figure it out from there. If that means that the trees are on private property and they've got to take them out, then they've got to work with our concern really is that the tum lane is there. If those trees are in the right-of-way, then they come out. If they're on private property, then that's up to that developer to work with the Nikolai's to figure out how they're going to buy the property from them, replace the trees, both, whatever they got to do. That's none of my concern. Mayor Furlong: So the only thing you're adding to (u), from what's there. Councilman Lundquist: Specifications to be determined. Still determine length of it, as well where it starts. Where it's... Todd Gerhardt: And that would be submitted at final plat. Councilman Lundquist: To be determined by final plat submittal. And number 9. That there has to be a trail connection from this neighborhood to Minnetonka West, that origin point to be determined by final plat. How's that for open ended. Mayor Furlong: Did you take out 8? Councilman Lundquist: 8 is gone. Mayor Furlong: I think you did pretty well. Location of the trail is to be determined. Councilman Lundquist: Whether it's A or B or how that works out with Shivley. So, as a recap. Lot 27 stays in. Turn lane to be determined. Connecting the neighborhoods through Street B into Crestview. No totlot and the trail to be determined. Everybody there? 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Everybody understand the motion? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Clear on that? Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Labatt: Can I make a quick friendly amendment? Mayor Furlong: Why don't you offer your amendment, yeah. 0 Councilman Labatt: It's very minor. In reference to that sliver of land in the Gestach neighborhood. That if there's any cost incurred by the City to, whether we remove the asphalt or whatever we do back there, that Plowshares is responsible for that? Mayor Furlong: This is off Brenden Court? Councilman Labatt: Yeah. But this is in, this was land that was required to be dedicated or outlotted when Brenden Ponds was going to go in there. Brenden Court by the Mancino's requested that so if we're going to be foot with the bill now of removing that, you know they should. Matt Saam: That cost goes with the development. Councilman Labatt: That cost goes with the development. Mayor Furlong: Cost to restore. So you're proposing that as an amendment for... Councilman Labatt: If there's a cost that the City would incur in whatever's decided to do with that asphalt private road. Councilman Peterson: Do we need that as a condition or is that normal and customary? Roger Knutson: I would suggest since it's been raised that it'd be appropriate to vote on the motion. Make that an amendment. Mayor Furlong: Make that an amendment. Amendment's been made and seconded so I guess the question is. Councilman Lundquist: Condition 10? Mayor Furlong: Add condition 10. Your proposing to amend the original motion by adding a condition 10 that any, do you want to re -state that? 65 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Any cost incurred by the City on the donated sliver of land, portion of land, whether we decide to remove that asphalt or. Mayor Furlong: This is on the access off Brenden Court? Councilman Labatt: Yes. That that cost would be paid for by Plowshares. Roger Knutson: Or the work done by Plowshares. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: That's an amendment to the motion. Is there a second to the amendment? Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Lundquist: For clarification that's paid for or removed by Plowshares? We're not requiring them to pay for us to do work? Roger Knutson: I'm a little bit at a loss but normally you would give the developer, you want the developer to do the work so. Mayor Furlong: I guess the City probably hasn't spent the time determining how they want that. Councilman Labatt: No, I'm just saying if there is any cost that we're going to incur. Todd Gerhardt: We're talking about the stub road off of Brenden Court. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Councilman Peterson: The private street. Todd Gerhardt: It's not donated. Councilman Labatt: Okay, the stub road then. Todd Gerhardt: The stub road. Councilman Labatt: Off of Brenden Court. Todd Gerhardt: Not the donated land. Roger Knutson: So you would think you'd want to get this resolved by final plat time to give them direction, so maybe you want to leave this as another open ended issue. To say determined by the time of final plat whether this should be removed. If it needs to be removed, that the developer do it or pay for it. GS: 0 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Sounds good. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And Councilman Peterson you're comfortable with seconding that? Councilman Peterson: Affirmative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Amendment. Just on the amending the motion to include the cost there. I think it's reasonable is my thought. Any other discussion? Let's vote on that. On adding that condition as an amendment. Unless there's further discussion. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to include condition 10 which reads, A determination shall be made by final plat whether to remove the stub road off of Brenden Court. If it is determined to remove it, the developer shall either do the work or pay for it to be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: So that, we now have condition 10 included in our original amendment. Other discussion on the amendment, or on the amended motion. Councilman Labatt: Before we vote can we just briefly talk about the connection real quick. I mean I'm on the fence and you know so help me jump to one side here Brian. Councilman Lundquist: Well interesting because I think that originally I was there too but I think the mayor made a convincing argument about pulling them together. Pulling these neighborhoods together and providing that and the more I think about it, it may actually contribute positively by giving some of the people on Crestview another alternative out of that neighborhood, instead of driving down the narrow S curve, so I think when I look at that, I don't see how there's going to be a mass of cars that are going to be going up and down Crestview because we connected that road. Other than maybe an additional 5 or 6 houses that are along that road may have the option of going either way, but if I'm given the option, I'm going to go with the nice, new road that's wide open and has better access, better sight lines and quite frankly I can go to more places than just right out onto Galpin. When I get through there I can take Manchester and go you know out through Lake Lucy. I can do a lot of different things on that so that's why I changed my mind on that one. So if that helps you or not. Steve if that's. Councilman Labatt: No, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: You know I mean I'm sensitive to the residents. I know that they're not, the residents of Crestview are not going to be happy with that but unfortunately I think it comes with the territory and looking out for the greater good and the precedent that it sets concerns me and that's why I changed my mind so hopefully the residents don't feel like their thoughts were fallen on deaf ears and know that although we didn't allow those people to speak at the meeting, that we do read, I read the minutes from the Planning Commission. Anyway so, we might not have heard them by ear but certainly read them so that's why I think that's a big issue for them but that's why I made the decision the way I did. 67 • • City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion on this motion. I guess my thought as we're coming here, I think this is a classic example of how democracy has been compared to making sausage. You try to do the best you can. It's not always pretty. Sometimes you don't want to know what takes place but fortunately we do it in the open public setting. There was a question raised earlier tonight that I'd like to address too before we vote on this with regard to the purpose of the Planning Commission and what good are they if it comes to the council. I value the process that we have in terms of the Planning Commission. I think it's a very excellent process. I value and respect all the commissioners that serve on the Planning Commission. They put in a tremendous amount of time. More than many residents realize, and we value, I do and I know the rest of the council does, value the effort and the commitment and the participation that the public has at the Planning Commission. Part of the purpose for the Planning Commission as I see is, is to make the process as efficient as you can and at the same time creating some inefficiencies. And why do I say that? Because the Planning Commission, one of their most powerful tools I think is when things aren't ready to go forward, to table them and get answers and get some of the questions. You can see some of the things here that weren't quite done that we struggled with here. The Planning Commission does an excellent job of doing that. To the extent that recommendations come out of the Planning Commission in a single motion, we also recognize that there are differences of opinion, even on the Planning Commission. Not all their motions are unanimous. With a development this size, typically there's some give and take and I think you're seeing that up here tonight too. So I think the Planning Commission has a very important role in the process. I commend Commissioner Sacchet and all his fellow Commissioners. We may not always agree on everything, and I think unfortunately sometimes those are the times we remember. We don't remember all the things we agree on and those by far outweigh everything else, so whatever action this council takes this evening on this or future projects, you know there isn't always going to be agreement. You won't see agreement among the 5 of us. I don't know how people can expect agreement out of the 7 commissioners and 5 of us all at the same time every time. And it just isn't going to happen so I wanted to make sure that people realize that this council, and certainly I individually respect all the information and the work that the Planning Commission does and recognize that they put in a tremendous amount of effort and we do value their opinion. I hope they keep doing what they're doing. So I wanted to add that comment. I think what we're doing here tonight is a reasonable compromise in trying to balance the rights of a developer to develop his property. The goal of the city for the public good and this is a difficult situation with regard to the street connection. It's probably the biggest issue. The thoughts of the residents have not been forgotten by any means. It's what's made it difficult and why I stand by my earlier comments this evening, so. Any other comments or thoughts on this? We've got a motion in front of us that's been amended by adding the condition number 10. Is there any other discussion or proposed amendments? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 9/17/04, revised 9/22104 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. W 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 2. Outlots A and B shall be donated to the city. 3. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on-site. b. All structures shall maintain a 40 -foot setback from wetland buffer edges. c. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback requirements. d. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. e. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (maximum time as area can remain =vegetated when area is not active) worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water. f. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. g. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. h. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $83,465. i. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff -Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase R Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural 69 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 0 Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 09/17/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. e. The feasibility of preserving vegetation along Galpin will be studied and presented at the time of final plat. 5. Engineer's Conditions: a. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10 -year and 100 - year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In addition, the proposed ponding must be sized to accommodate the drainage generated from the property to the north, as shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). b. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. c. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. d. Staff recommends that Type H silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. e. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. f. On the utility plan: 70 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 1. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. 2. Maintain 10 -foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains. 3. Increase the watermain pipe size in Street D to 8 -inches in diameter. 4. Add a storm sewer line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 with a catch basin at the north property line for future connection by the property to the north. Extend sanitary manhole #12 to the north property line with an invert elevation of 1049.0. g. On the grading plan: 1. Show all existing and proposed easements. 2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 3. Maximum allowable side slope is 3:1; revise in the rear yard of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 and the rear yard of Lot 3, Block 2. 4. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows; the elevation must be 1.S lower than any adjacent house pad elevations. 5. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations. 6. Use storm sewer class 5 in roadway; revise note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. h. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. j. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 71 0 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 0 k. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 1. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. in. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH -20 to MH -17, the required easement width will be increased to 50 feet. n. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. o. Street B will be connected to the north to Crestview Drive. p. Lot 27 is approved with the following conditions: 1. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the entire width of the swale on the northwest side of the buildable area on Lot 27, Block 1. No structures shall be allowed within this drainage and utility easement, with the exception of the retaining wall shown on the approved grading plan. 2. To ensure proper drainage, a survey shall be required for Lot 27, Block 1 upon completion of the landscaping. The survey shall be submitted to the City and reviewed by staff to ensure consistency between final grades and the approved grading plan. If discrepancies exist, any inconsistent areas shall be re -graded to match the approved grading plan. Additionally, any property owners should anticipate flowing and/or standing water within the swale on the northwest side of the property (Lot 27, Block 1). This may preclude mowing of the swale during times of above average precipitation. q. Revise Street C to be a standard 28 foot width. r. Lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives. s. This development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way which results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin Boulevard centerline. t. A right -turn lane into the site off of Galpin Boulevard will be required to be constructed with specifications determined by time of final plat. 6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be provided to the city. 72 11 City Council Meeting — January 10, 2005 I* A 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must also be submitted for the private street. 8. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School West, the location to be determined by time of final plat. 9. A determination shall be made by final plat whether to remove the stub road off of Brenden Court. If it is determined to remove it, the developer shall either do the work or pay for it to be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody. Noticing the time or the hour, let's take a 5 minute recess. NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND COULTER BOULEVARD, PAISLEY PARK STUDIO STORAGE: RON SCOFIELD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is a two action item before you. Again it's just, there is a subdivision creating a 7.6 acre lot and one outlot and then a site plan approval. The subject site is located just north of the General Mills site, south on McGlynn Drive, adjacent to the existing daycare. The site is zoned office industrial park. The subdivision itself is pretty straight forward. There are conditions of approval there for the preliminary plat and we really don't see a lot of issues. We are requesting just the radius on Coulter be changed to provide better, right now we have some trucks that cut that corner so we're working on changing that radius but really other than that the subdivision, we did ask for just some additional landscaping but that's pretty straight forward. The layout decide itself. The building is well conceived. It is mostly for storage and does provide additional parking for special events over at the studio across the street. The architect is here tonight to show the colors on the building. Again, the small building for this size lot. Under 5,000 square feet. Again providing some storage and additional parking across at the street. We are recommending approval. There was some additional conditions the Planning Commission added and that was a landscape buffer between the parking and the daycare to the north, and revising the parking lot to better accommodate cars, around the median just so there's better flow through that. The Planning Commission did recommend approval on December 7`s of this and 7-0 so with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And those conditions include the two recommended by the Planning Commission you're recommending as well, thank you. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff on this one? No? Thank you. The applicant is here. Are there any issues you'd like to address to the council sir. Thank you for sticking around. 73 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 7, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 0 MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh, Dan Keefe, Rich Slagle, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive Chairman Sacchet outlined the rules of procedure for the Planning Commission meeting and which items were on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO SINGLE LOTS 1 AND 2, OLD SLOCUM TREE FARM (6620 & 6640 GALPIN BOULEVARD), PINEHURST, PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-36. Public Present: Name Address Nathan Franzen Chris Morrill Damn Labara Alan Nikolai Doris Nikolai Lester Coyer Tom Kuhn Larry Marty Richard Herrboldt Charlie Hicks Steve Buresh John Moberg Troy Bader & Gina Sauer Kim Goers Paul Tungseth Lori Abblett Plowshares Development Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services 6282 Cartway Lane, Excelsior 6570 Galpin Boulevard 6719 Brenden Court 6693 Brenden Court 2117 Lake Lucy Road 6464 Murray Hill Road 1941 Crestview Circle 6651 Galpin Boulevard 6738 Manchester Drive 2244 Lake Lucy Road 6673 Brenden Court 2051 Crestview Drive 2081 Crestview Drive 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Beverly Jackson 2110 Crestview Drive Michael Stachowski 2050 Crestview Drive Jianping Mei & Ruopei Cao 2135 Lake Lucy Road Allen Taylor 2340 Lake Lucy Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Want to go Craig? Claybaugh: Let's see here. One thing that I was a little bit uncomfortable with was the sheer quantity of private streets. Could you comment on that a little bit. Typically it's smaller developments that would put private streets in. There's quite a bit of pavement in this, and the question was, I didn't catch it in the staff report I'm sure identified who was going to maintain those but could you comment on that. Generous: Maintenance of private streets are for the benefiting property owners. The southerly private street provides access to 3 properties. They would have a cross access easement that would be recorded as part of the subdivision and it would have a maintenance agreement as a part of that. The northerly one provides access for 2 properties and they would both be in the same situation. Claybaugh: Does the City have input with respect to the drafting of the maintenance agreement for that private street? Or is that something pretty much... Generous: Yeah, I believe we have a standard. Saam: Yeah, we have a standard agreement and we review it also. Claybaugh: It may be in there Matt, I didn't catch it. Is there any provision for independent testing or reporting to the city per the construction specifications of that private street? Saam: Give me one minute, I'll check. It should be in there though. Claybaugh: Okay. Another question I had, give Matt a chance to find that. On page number 9, for my benefit could you just clarify the footnotes with respect to the lot frontage. Down at the bottom just above recommendation identifies, meets 100 foot width. Meets a 90 foot width. Generous: Yeah, for lots that are on the outside edges of curves, the ordinance says you don't have to meet the 90 foot frontage at the public right-of-way, as long as you can meet it at the building setback line which is. Claybaugh: The 30 foot setback? Generous: Right. So at those points actually they exceed. Claybaugh: That satisfies that code requirement. 2 4130"e Ds j- Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 • Generous: Yes. And then for private streets you have to have 100 feet of width and so in that instance they met it in that case. Claybaugh: Okay. With, you commented in your opening statements on the elevation of private drive D. In your correspondence with the applicant, was any dialogue specifically why the elevation they selected is what they went forth with. Is it a cut and fill issue or is it something else that the City's aware of? Saam: I believe it is a balance issue. That's a good question for the applicant though. One of the issues they did point out is to achieve, to drain that site, storm sewer wise, drainage back to this pond, they need by gravity flow to be so high. So I believe that. Claybaugh: I believe in your review of that was there an alternative way to drain the area to the west? I'm assuming they're looking at draining with that. Saam: Well we want to get that water to a pond to treat it. Claybaugh: Right, but one of the comments bothered me in his opening statements was possibly dropping the elevation on that street. With that recommendation do you have a Plan B to drain that westerly portion of the development? Saam: Sure. One of the options is to increase pipe size. That gives you, you can flatten out the pipe that way to catch, to drain more water versus a smaller pipe size. The course from the other side is more cost, it's a higher cost for the bigger pipes so. Claybaugh: Okay, but there is a Plan B that would assist the development? Saam: Yes. Yep, we believe the 2 to 5 feet can work. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any other questions? Saam: Commissioner Chair? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead. Saam: I just wanted to answer Commissioner Claybaugh's question on the private street. I believe we are missing the easement and the testing requirements so you could add that at the end of your comments. Sacchet Okay. For is that one or both? Saam: It'd be both private streets. 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Alright. Easement. Okay. Any other questions from staff? Slagle: I've got a few. Bob if we may, do you happen to have an overhead that will show the properties to the north. Thank you. And what I'm trying to understand and my first question is the Street B, which looks like it hits. Show me where it hits. Generous: It will come to right at this comer of the property. And connect up to the Crestview. Slagle: So it's on a border of two properties, correct? Basically. Generous: Yeah, it would be on the left side of the one and in the middle of the other. Slagle: Okay. And that's the one you referred to that we received an application? Generous: Yes. We received last Friday. Slagle: Okay. Just one other question. On the western side of this property, I mean just give me your input. Is it a lot of fill? I mean are we, give me a comparison from something we've seen recently. Would this be similar to Ashling Meadows? The Noecker development. Saam: Yeah. I'm not sure Ashling Meadows but Noecker had some significant grading as I remember, and we worked very hard on that one to try to minimize it. There it was I believe more cutting along the west side, and then they did fill the east side adjacent to wetlands so this one appears to be about 10 feet at the north side of this private street cul-de-sac so. Slagle: I guess I just thought of one more. I happen to run along Lake Lucy and often times just to the south of this property, literally the water coming off this property will freeze up, during the winter and during the summer obviously be wet. Is it your belief that with this development and channeling into that storm water pond we will avoid a fair amount of that runoff to the properties in the Crestview division? What is it Bob? Generous: Woodridge Heights. Slagle: Woodridge Heights, yeah. Saam: Yeah, Woodridge Heights to the south. Yes, they are taking a lot of the drainage that would have been going down the hill so to speak to Lake Lucy and routing it to their pond. The pond then discharges or drains out into an existing storm sewer system. And again they're required to meet the runoff rate leaving the site, and they are doing that. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: You have any questions Steve? Bethany? 4 Planning Commission Meeting— December 7, 2004 Tjomhom: I have one question regarding the island, I think it's Street C. And staff is recommending that it just go back to a normal cul-de-sac because of maintenance. Explain that to me a little bit. I kind of liked the island so I want to be convinced. Saam: Yeah, let me add to that. Maintenance is one issue. Of course in meeting with the developer they've brought up the subject that they would sign an encroachment agreement to basically take over maintenance of the island portion of it. The other issue is that the streets in that area actually are less than our 31. They're 24 feet along each side of that big island so that brings up issues with parking. These are public streets so that tends to get rather tight when it's 24 feet and if you have parking on both sides, that sort of thing. If there's parties, whatever. That's another issue. And frankly we don't have one of these in the city and in reviewing it with the City Engineer we really didn't want to have this be a guinea pig so to speak. Plowing issues at the end of this. We'd rather see a normal cul-de-sac. Tjornhom: Okay. Papke: She beat me to the punch on that one. Just one further clarification on that, just to make sure I understand that street configuration. Is it proposed, and this gets to the width issue. Is this proposed to be a one way circular drive or is this? Saam: No. In meeting with the developer, they're not proposing it to be a one way. However it almost looks and acts like that. Papke: It looks like it would act like a one way circular drive. Saam: That's another concern of our's. It's kind of a cross between a round about and a cul-de- sac and we'd like it to go the cul-de-sac route. Papke: Okay, thanks. That's all I had. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Good evening. Sacchet: Do you have any questions? Lillehaug: I do. Sanitary sewer. Staff supports re-routing it a different route but my measurements looks to be a 40 foot deep sanitary, and we may have some in other locations of the city but that's awfully deep and there has to be a different solution rather than putting a 40 foot deep sanitary in there. Are there other solutions that are feasible? Saam: Well they're proposing another solution that we don't feel is very feasible due to the steep slopes that it goes down for maintenance purposes. If you can imagine manholes there. Half of them will be exposed or you're filling around it. And a sheer wall of dirt. Issues like that, we don't want to get into for access purposes. It makes it very difficult. We did review this as a staff. Myself, City Engineer, our Utility Superintendent who maintains the sewer. He was 5 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 fine with the depth of this. Keep in mind we are recommending that the site be lowered so it may not be the 40 feet. You may be in the 35 foot range so. It's still rather deep but it's not as deep. Lillehaug: That's all I have for now, thanks. Sacchet: I got a couple of questions real quick. Bob, did you say that Outlot A would be taken over by the City or by a neighborhood? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: By the City. Generous: By the City. Sacchet: It will go over to City. And, okay. And that Shivley Addition that's mentioned in the staff report, is that, that is actually going to come in? Generous: Yes. It came in on Friday. Sacchet: It's 5 lots as expected or? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: The retaining walls. We don't see how tall they are. Is that something you can enlighten us please? Saam: Yeah. The tallest ones are along the south, in the southwest. That rather long one. That appears to be 14 feet at it's most high, then also on the southeast corner, that one gets to about 14 feet also. Those are the most severe. The others are in the 5 to 6 foot. The one in the rear yard of Lot 13, which is just north of Street D is about 10 feet at it's highest. And then the one adjacent to the pond is about 11 feet also at it's highest. Sacchet: Okay. So what's staffs impression is that they're balanced or is that excessive or is that desirable or not desirable? Saam: I mean whenever we can do without them we try to, and I'm sure the developer would concur because they're costly. Costly to build. That's one of the reasons when we looked at this we thought well, these walls are holding up this dirt all over the place in the south end of the property. Why don't we try to lower this, realizing we would need the one along the northeast corner of the site. That may even get a little taller, but if we could, in exchange for that getting taller, eliminate or shorten up all these along the south. We thought that was a good trade-off. What's the fill balance? Are they actually importing the earth or they can pretty much push it around on the site? planning Commission Mee —December 7, 2004 Saam: I believe they're balancing but I think that's a question we should ask the applicant for their latest numbers. Sacchet: The applicant. Okay. Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, can I ask another question regarding the wall? Sacchet: Sure. Ullehaug: Do we have any other neighborhoods that have 14 foot boulder walls without any protection on the top of the wall in a residential neighborhood as this? Saam: The Noecker development along the west side of that site I believe has a wall. I'm not sure if there's a fence there. Claybaugh: I thought we made provisions to put fencing in there. Swam: Yeah, we can certainly add one here. Sacchet: When we say we want lower the private drives on the western side, both the northern and the southern one, I don't see anywhere, any quantative information by how much. Saam: In Bob's presentation we talked about 2 to 5 feet. Sacchet: 2 to 5 feet. Slam: Yes. And that's based on just looking at street grades and taking them to their maximum. Slagle: Mr. Chair, if I could ask one thing. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: Matt, was in your professional opinion be the reason that they would not want to lower that grade. Saam: One of the reasons the developer brought up was they would have to look at if again they could drain this western end back to the pond, keeping in mind that that all drains by gravity. So if you set the pond at one elevation, you have a target elevation at the other end. And that's where I previously referred to, you can go to a slightly larger pipe size to minimize the slope. It won't have to be as steep then. Slagle: Any other reasons? Saam: Trees I believe was brought up, and that leads also to the walls and there might be a cost factor. If they're balanced now, and they lower the site, they might have extra dirt then to 0 • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 export. However, we think you can balance that with maybe losing some of the southern retaining walls. Sacchet: You touched on the pond being enlarged and that 27 lot, Lot number 27 being given up for that. Is that, that is in the context of enlarging the pond to accommodate the runoff from the Shivley Addition to the north, is that correct? Saam: It's one of the reasons. Sacchet: Partially. Generous: Partially. The other was the concern about the utility of that lot with those houses draining down into. Sacchet: Right, but the pond part is tied in with accommodating runoff from the property to the north? Generous: Definitely. 10 acres to the north. Sacchet: Okay. There is a connection, what is it, a water connection or a sewer connection. No, it's a water connection over to Brenden Pond, correct? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: And that's supposed to be directionally bored. I assume that means we don't have to dig a whole trench. We just shoot it under the ground, is that the idea? Saam: That was our idea. Staff's idea. Again it goes back to cost. In meeting with the developer they would like to go with a trench box, so doing an open cutting operation with the backhoe and keeping. Sacchet: It's less expensive? Saam; Yes, it's less expensive than boring. Sacchet: And then that stub of the private road ... that would remain even though it's not being used? Saam: Yes, at this point it would. Sacchet: At this point. Yeah. And you already answered that it would be able to do this gravity wise without the sewer line to the south. Except it would be deep in the ground. It wouldn't need a lift station. The additional right-of-way that's required along Galpin Boulevard, is an extra 10 feet I understand additional required. Does that have an impact at all? planning Commission Mee —December 7, 2004 • Saam: Just let me clarify that. In meeting with the developer, we met with them Monday, they are saying that they do show it at 50 feet. Sacchet: They actually show it at 50 feet? Saam; Yeah. Sacchet: And that would accommodate also the right tum lane without taking, needing an extra lane? Saam: I believe so. That I'm not sure of. Sacchet: The trees. Do you feel that sufficient effort was made to try to save as many trees as possible? I mean there's a ton of trees, some of them really nice trees. What's staffs position on that I guess? Saam: I'll let Bob. Sacchet: It's kind of a hot potato question but I'd like to hear what you have to say. Generous: They did work hard to do it. The previous plan saved an additional 1.7 acres of trees, but then they were reducing the right-of-way width and having a greater than 10 percent slope on their streets. Yeah, part of the reason they have the retaining walls in this development is to save trees, so that's one of the issues that they have. We were, we wanted to get a contiguous piece of trees that are preserved within this development to create a more natural corridor, so our concentration was on the western end. They did even go to some, instead of having walkouts and rambler style housing units, to reduce the amount of grading, but yeah. With the 60 foot elevation change you're going to have a lot of grading that has to be done for the development so. Sacchet: Isn't there, wouldn't there be a possibility with having more custom grade lots to be able to. Saam: I'm not sure about that. I mean when we talk custom grade initially, yeah the trees won't be taken out but we had to keep it in a context of once a builder comes in, really how much are they going to take out and Bob made a good point. Along the south side here, west of the pond they have ramblers there versus forcing walkouts. And that enabled them to minimize the grading. Keep it off the back property line so they are doing things like that to save... Sacchet: So they made a distinct effort. Saam: Yes. Sacchet: To save trees and minimize grading. Okay. Well, I think that's the main questions I have for right now. Unless anybody else has questions. Yes, go ahead Rich. 0 • • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Slagle: I've just got one more. And it ties in, if I can add, it ties into one of our discussions at our last meeting. And if the fellow commissioners remember, there was discussion about the building sites and where the house would be relative to the frontage, and whether there would be back yard that would be usable. And I'm just wondering, from staff's opinion, if some of these that technically meet Bob the frontage requirements but I mean are they going to have with some of these grades any type of usable back yard? Generous: Well I believe so. Maybe Matt would be better. That's one of the reasons I drew the brown boxes on this. The actual building sites goes beyond this but these are, these are big house pads if you will so the developer would like to have at least a 20 foot area behind the house that they can, the future owner would have area that they can do it. Most of these have more than that. The only issue is the corner of these lots on the western side but then in other spots they do have more area, so they're bigger. They're wider. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, can I pose one more question? Sacchet. Go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: Item, or recommendation (q) on page 13. I believe it's delete the western sanitary line. During your introduction you identified that they proposed that and the city was re- directing that with a little more information that was provided after the fact by engineering. Could you come back and possibly fill in some of the blanks of why you feel that isn't the best solution or a possible solution? Generous: I think I'll leave it up to Matt. Saam: You're referring to the sanitary sewer that they're proposing through the city's outlot? Claybaugh: Right. In the opening statements Bob had identified that they were proposing to bring it down the westerly sanitary sewer line, and that you were recommending that they redirect it to Manchester Drive. You didn't expound on your reasoning why. We've heard a bit of discussion of why not or some of the other stuff, but none with respect to item (q) so from the city standpoint, why do you think that isn't a reasonable proposal? Saam: Strictly maintenance and access of the sewer line. It would go down a 3 to 1 slope down to Lake Lucy. Claybaugh: Is this part of what you were discussing with respect to access to manholes, so on and so forth? Saam: Correct. Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. Alright. Alright, thank you. Sacchet: One more area question. It's condition (g)(3) says the maximum allowable slope is 3 to 1 and that some of the rear yards have to be revised. Lot 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 10 Planning Commission Meeting —December 7, 2004 2. How big an impact would that have? Is that going to, expected to have? Is that relatively easy to accommodate? Saam: Yes. Just looking at the areas on the plan here, yes it can be accommodated. In the southwest what it may mean is increased retaining wall by a foot or two. And then in the rear of Lot 3, Block 2, mainly extending that retaining wall down, or to the west. It can be accomplished. We don't see it as a deal breaker. Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all the questions. With that, yeah Steve go ahead. Lillehaug: Condition 3(c). The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback requirements. With that revision, will there be enough of a building pad for Lot 9? Generous: They actually show that on the plan. The City revised it's wetland ordinance and so now we have a 161/2 foot buffer requirement. It used to be 10 foot minimum so, and they showed it cuts into the corner but as I showed on those pads that ... the ground pad, it is a wider lot. They can probably put the 72 foot wide houses in there. Lillehaug: So then do we even need condition 3(c) if they're showing it? Generous: Well that will continue with the subdivision. So it goes with the land so that they always have to, that lot will have to, when they come in for building, they'll have to show us that they're meeting the wetland setback. Lillehaug: Alright. Sacchet: Alright. Keefe: I have one question. Sacchet: Go ahead Dan. Keefe: Construction site access. Where do we think they would come in off or. Galpin or up Manchester or? Saam: They're proposing or they're showing a construction site rock entrance off of Galpin. They'll utilize existing driveway until the streets are. Sacchet: Alright. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and give us your part of the story. And you may want to state your name and address for the record please. Nathan Franzen: Good evening commissioners. My name is Nathan Franzen. I'm with Plowshares Development at 1851 Lake Drive West in Chanhassen. We at Plowshares are very pleased to be back in Chanhassen introducing another quality neighborhood. Our most recent project in Chanhassen is the Highlands at Bluff Creek, and that was a great success and I hope I1 9 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 you have the opportunity to drive by that and take a look at how it turned out. Our goal with Highlands was to create a high quality neighborhood and I think we accomplished that. In fact just recently we were forwarded a letter from Bob that we received from some neighbors at the Arboretum Village neighborhood complimenting Plowshares on how well the landscaping and trees turned out, and that Plowshares had been a very neighbor friendly developer to work with. It's always nice to receive a little unsolicited praise from the neighbors and I wanted to share that with you to remind you that we are committed to providing quality neighborhoods in the cities we work in. Likewise with the introduction of Pinehurst tonight we hope to achieve that same thing and create a very high quality neighborhood. And to that end we put together a very extensive submission packet and our goal with that is to really help you understand the complex nature of this site. It's got a lot of issues with it and we wanted you to understand why we're proposing what we're proposing. The other thing I would like to bring up is that we've really tried to be proactive with this development. We tried to eliminate as many issues as possible before coming here tonight. Bob and Matt have alluded to the fact that we met yesterday with staff and went over the 50 or so remaining items that are in front of you tonight as conditions for approval and we got down to all but 3 issues that we didn't get a consensus on. And to explain the 3 items remaining for discussion tonight I brought with our site designer from Westwood Professional Services, Damn Labara and our engineer Chris Morrell. But before I invite them up to go over those 3 remaining issues, I'd just like to ask the commission to please take into account of proactive approach on this project and that eliminating the 3 lots on the western side of the property that we talked about briefly off of Brenden Court and the private drive, we think really shows our willingness to be proactive and do the right thing and those lots felt forced and we traded a win/win situation with the development in front of you. I just hope that you can appreciate the balancing of the needs of the city, ourselves, the surrounding neighborhoods and the future residents of this community. So with that I would like to have Damn come up and just briefly discuss the site design and then have Christ come and talk about some engineering issues that remain. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Darrin Labara: Thank you Nathan. As Nathan stated, my name is Damn Labara. I work with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a landscape architect and site planner for the site. I was going to do kind of a small speech on the whole overview of the project but I think Bob did a really great job of it so I think I'll just get down to the nuts and bolts and go over the 3 issues and start off with that right away. Sacchet: Great. Darrin Labara: The one issue I'm going to address is the cul-de-sac, Street C. Sacchet: The wide one? Generous: Yes. Darrin Labara: Yes, the wide one. 12 Planning Commission Meeting —December 7, 2004 Sacchet: We want to hear about that. I'm curious. Darrin Labara: And then I'll have Chris Morrill come up and address the other two issues since they're more engineering based. Is there any way you can zoom in around? After our meeting yesterday, Matt Saam, when we were talking it over in the meeting he was worried about the 24 foot wide drive aisles and he asked me during the meeting, is this a one way circumstance? Is this a one way around, and I kind of waffled on it and I said, no. And really it's designed to be, but the caveat about that is, is that if someone didn't see it as a one way and came in the wrong way, it's not going to kill anybody. The route doesn't really affect it. We have used this standard in other neighborhoods, the 24 foot wide. We take off of what most cities have requested of us for maintenance issues. Plow trucks to get in, make their radius turn, plow over it and be able to get out. And the 24 foot is wide enough to do that and that's kind of the minimum that we used. From Matt's perspective he thought wider would be better, and we have done wider ones in other communities. I did bring some examples of some communities that we have proposed these and they have built them and have been approved. As you can see we used two of them, this is in Chaska, Minnesota. Town Course Heights. We used two eyebrow, we call these eyebrow type cul-de-sacs where we have the things because they look like eyebrows. But the driveways in this site are actually 22 foot wide, and this is the narrowest example that we have used in the past. And they work fine. We have had no complaints with them. To go onto some other projects, some people may be aware of Stone Mill Farms out in Woodbury. They use these a lot. And the benefits that come with these is that they just create a lot more aesthetically pleasing, more neighborhood like feel to this whole thing and everybody seems to like them, and we haven't had one complaint about them. I can see where Matt not had them before and been using them before might be a little bit hesitant. It's something new. Something Chanhassen hasn't done. What we have done in the past, we have been very successful. Here's one of the wider ones, and this is where I've have to give Matt some credit where the city did force us to go wider than 24. This actually at a 28 foot wide driveway and their concerns were the same thing as Matt's. Parking. What happens if people try to park in here? It's only 5 lots. The amount of parking we're predicting on this cul-de-sac is very minimal and the amount, the benefit we can get from this planted green space, especially if you look at the way that the plan is laid out. If Lot 1 here is kind of a double fronted lot. It's allowed by city code on corner lots like that. One thing we wanted to do, why we want to put that green in there is that it's going to really help out with the buffering between someone looking out their back yard on Lot 1. You don't have to look right across a street to the front yard of a neighbors and vice versa. People aren't looking right into the windows of somebody else's basement. It provides that screen. Provides that green and it's just an amenity that we feel the pro's far outweigh the con's and we've really, I am willing to work with Matt. Hopefully we can come to a, if he's not comfortable with the 24 foot wide drive aisles, we can hopefully come to an agreement of how wide those can be. Maintain a good, solid green and come to a happy medium. We just want further review of this issue. Sacchet: Thank you. Chris Morrill: Commissioners, Chair, my name is Chris Morrill with Westwood. I'm the project engineer on the job. What I'm going to do is just go through some of the issues that were raised and some of the issues in the staff report that we wanted to address. One of the things that I heard was the issue of trying to lower the site on the west end. And I should start this out by 13 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 saying we've done a number of different generations of grading plans on this project and as we got into this job we knew the number one concern was trees so every effort we've made and we've done quite a few iterations. It's really all for trees and you can look at the retaining walls around the site. Those aren't in there so that we can keep out grading on the project. I'd say 90 percent of those walls are in there to save trees. We did meet with staff on Monday and discussed lowering that west end and in the 2 to 4 foot range I'm confident that we can do that with construction plans. We have looked at that a little bit. One thing that Matt did say with the private drive that we can steepen that up just a little bit more and that would still be in conformance with the city code. So with that flexibility we can do that to some extent. I don't want to say we can lower it more than that because this really is a balance on saving trees. If we lower this road here it creates problems on the north end on saving trees. I know Matt had talked about the rambler lots on the south end, and without getting too, into too much detail, if we do lower the public street there, that's going to drive that rambler lower and you can see that there are quite a few trees on the back side of that lot that would start to push that grading limit that much closer to those trees and potentially jeopardize them being saved. But I am confident that we can tweak the plan a little bit and get it in that 2 to 4 foot range. I think we can work with staff and work that out. The other issue that's come up quite a few times is the sanitary sewer. We'd like to continue to work with staff but I think we can come up with a could of different options. My understanding is the biggest concern with the connection on the west side is the existing 3 to 1 slopes. We can show some different options. One option might be, instead of having this manhole on that slope, we could push it further to the south. There is an existing bituminous trail along Lake Lucy Road and somewhat of a flat area that I think we can set those manholes close to that trail to facilitate access. And if it weren't something that I think is somewhat important, or at least to look at, I wouldn't be talking about it and it does have to do with the sewer depths of the project. If you go through and look at the site and you look at the grades, basically there's a big hill in the middle of the site, and we need to get sewer service to the lots on the west end. Now I'm not going to tell you that we can't serve all the way to just Manchester. We can do that but we are going to end up with somewhere in the 40 to 45 foot deep sewer range. And it's not something, you know it could go either way. I'd just like to keep working with Matt and I think we can kick around some different options and see what we can come up with on that issue. And then Lot 27. This is a blow-up of the grading plan in that area. It's a little bit hard to see but Lot 27 is right here. And one of the concerns that staff had raised was drainage going to the lot and you can see there are about 3 lots to the north of Lot 27. There is a steep slope there, and there would be back yard drainage coming down towards the lot line of Lot 27. Now in order to design a lot properly you want to make sure that the water's draining away from the pad. In order to facilitate that you normally would see a swale on the side lot line which is what we're proposing, and I understand staff's concern because it is somewhat of a tight area but we feel that that will be a nice lot and we can make that work from an engineering standpoint. We did take a look, I know in the staff report too it also mentioned if that lot comes out we might be able to reduce some retaining wall and shift the pond to the northeast. And this graphic again, it basically shows in the blue is what our current water level area is. In the pink is the additional water level area that we would be able to obtain if we removed the lot. And you can see it's not a real significant portion, and I can't say that it won't lower the wall. It probably would lower the wall maybe in the 1 foot, 1 '/i foot range. But we feel that the lot that we have there right now and how we have it designed does work. Another thing that came up in staff discussions on Lot 27 is the ability to control the construction and to make sure that this lot 14 ' • Planning Commission Mee — December 7, 2004 would get built as designed. And I understand with some of these tight lots, you know I'm not going to tell you that a house goes in and maybe a swale doesn't get graded properly. It happens. That's life, but what we would like to propose to ensure that that doesn't happen, certainly we can add this as a condition that when the house is constructed, the builder would be required to submit the record drawing to certify that everything is graded and in place before they place the sod on that lot to address that issue. There are other things too that I think we can help improve the situation. Some other options might be pulling another catch basin up on that Swale to accept some more of that drainage. But again, we have designed it in conformance with code and I know someone else brought up the concern of the pond. That it's close to the pond. We are holding the basement elevation or the walkout elevation 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. The pond. And also 2 feet above the emergency overflow which means if the entire storm sewer system failed, the water would still have a place to get out before flooding any houses. So I guess it's our view, we would like to keep that lot and that is a significant issue for us and I think we too can continue to work with staff and see if there's some other things that we can make them, or help them to feel more comfortable about this lot and the design. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions for the applicant? Keefe: I've got a question in regards to the west end grading. I wasn't clear to me exactly where you guys would start grading. I was looking at the private drive B and it looks like, at least as it's designed right now, it's got what, about a 7 percent incline on it and I mean are you just talking that street or are you talking further to the east in grading? Chris Morrill: I think mainly that street and increasing the grades of that private drive. City code will allow up to 10 percent on a private drive. On a public street you're 7 percent is your maximum grade. There might be somewhat of a flexibility to, it's a street that connects to the north. Right now we have about a 5 percent grade on that street. We might be able to increase that a little bit to raise grades to some extent, but the problem is, I mean you start raising grades on one end of the site and it starts creating problems. You can see right now these lots up here match in quite nicely with the trees up here so if we start pulling things up here, you know it just kind of reverberates throughout the project and can potentially create some problems in these trees and we don't have a lot of area back here and we were kind of trying to keep this wall more to a minimum. I think we're somewhere in the range of, it varies but I'd say 4 to 7, 8 feet on that wall right now. So again, in grading the site out it's really a balance between saving trees on this end and this end. And maybe we can raise the road 4 feet and we save 2 trees on the north end but we lose 4 on the south so it's really an intricate process and I would say you know in the 2 to 4 foot range again I think we can tweak the plan a little bit and work with staff. I'm confident about that. Claybaugh: Yeah. You touched a little bit with respect to the question you just responded to about touch down points but you said there was a number of generations of plans that you ran through. Could you just briefly discuss the priority of touch down points and what they are. Chris Morrill: Right now essentially we've got grades controlling the site. We've got a connection on Galpin so that's one control. We have a connection on Manchester Drive. We have the future connection to the north. Those are some of the main touch down points and then Planning Commission Meet• — December 7, 2004 0 we've got all these perimeter trees around the entire site, so we're trying to work with those touch down points, and I think if you look at some of the previous concepts that we've pushed around, we actually had less distance from this connection to the connection on Manchester, which actually was driving the grades steeper than what we'd like to be and I think staff had referenced that too in their presentation. We did propose 10 percent grades on a public streets in order to try and facilitate some tree savings, but I think with this plan what we've done is create a little more distance in there so it's giving us a little bit more flexibility and we've been able to stay at those 7 percent grades. When you're looking at this we not only have the street touch down points but then again we've got the perimeter trees up here that we're trying to save. Perimeter trees on the south end. There was also a stand of hemlocks identified early on in the project by the pond. So those were set as a priority. We're also saving some internal trees in the back yard areas here, and then again the west side was of high importance to set aside that areas, existing treed area. And again I think that's why you see the retaining walls on the site is to save trees. Claybaugh: As part of that process of generating plans, were any alternative areas for the NURP pond explored? Chris Morrill: Really if you look, areas for the NURP pond are really driven on the existing topography of the site. If you try to put a pond on a hill it just doesn't work. You can't get the storm sewer there, so we did in the site investigation look at that and if you look at the existing slopes there are basically two low points on the site. One of them is right here. And the other one would be on the west side of the ravine. Another ponding option, and I don't think it's a good option but you could potentially put a pond down in this ravine, but the destruction of trees would just be phenomenal and the clearing of it would be. Claybaugh: Lot 27. Is there a pad elevation available? Chris Morrill: Yes. Lot 27, the garage elevation is at 1040, and the walkout grade is at 1031.0. Claybaugh: Okay. And I'm assuming that was discussed with staff and you still recommended the elimination of Lot 27? With respect to resolving that issue with staff, beyond the discussions you had the other day, do you have anything new to add to that? Darrin Labara: I think again you know if we can show you more detail. If there's anything we can do to keep that lot to make you guys feel more comfortable. Another thing I was thinking, we could also lower the swale that is on the north lot line of 27, which would adjoin the lots to the north that we are, would be getting drainage from. Keefe: So the swale that you're proposing, ...can you kind of draw a line on where on the lot you'd put the swale? Chris Morrill: It's a little bit hard to see here but, here's the side lot line of 27. Basically we'd have a high point here and that swale line would break to the left and break to the right. Water that breaks to the right would go into this catch basin. The water that breaks to the left would go around the lot and then into the pond. As a possible alternative, we could look at maybe adding 16 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 another catch basin in here to increase the comfort level for the drainage control. We could also lower this high point. Right now it's about a foot below the pad of the house. We could lower that another foot. We could also submit more detailed calculations to show that the swale we're proposing will handle the water that's coming from the north lots and we could be conservative in those calculations. Claybaugh: Alright, thank you. That's all the questions I had. Slagle: I just have a couple of ones I just thought of. Touching upon that Lot 27. Was there any consideration given to a neighborhood park? Community park. Nathan Franzen: When we talked to, can you hear me? We were not considering°any park for this development. We approached city staff and that just hasn't been planned in this area so we didn't include it. Slagle: Okay. Second question then, if I'm a potential homeowner and I buy a lot here, any idea where I would send my kids to a park? Nathan Franzen: I guess the Minnetonka West School is directly adjacent to this site in the northwest corner and that has park on it. Slagle: Has playground equipment and such? Nathan Franzen: It does not have playground equipment. It does have ballfields, tennis courts. Stuff like that. Slagle: Okay. And this is, would be the Minnetonka school district, correct? Nathan Franzen: Correct. Slagle: Was there any thought as, any connection between your private street on the northwest comer and the ballfields, similar to the development to the west? Nathan Franzen: I guess I'm not following you. Having a trail connection? Slagle: Yeah. NathanFranzen: We didn't propose anything through that. Through the ravine area because it is a pretty sensitive area. Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's it. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? Tjomhom: No. 17 0 • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Steve? Lillehaug: I have a couple detailed ones. Looking at the profiles I have a couple safety issues with the profiles. Do you have your vertical curves designed for a 30 miles an hour street here? And do you have any safety issues with the shortness of the vertical curves? Chris Morrill: What the city requires is a K value of 20 on all the curves. And then you also require 20 foot landing for 30 feet which we are proposing in this development. Lillehaug: At 3 percent grade? Minimum 20 feet? Chris Morrill: Yep. 30 foot minimum landing at 3 percent, yeah. With a K value of 20, is that right Matt? Saam: Yeah, that's correct. Lillehaug: And you're telling me that's a speed limit designed for 30 miles an hour? Chris Morrill: That is a design probably closer to 25. If you look at MnDot standards. Lillehaug: Yeah, that's all I have. Sacchet: That's it? I have a quick question. First of all the question I posed to staff. In terms of the dirt, does it pretty much balance on the site or do you need to import? Nathan Franzen: We're pretty close to a balance. If anything I would anticipate exporting some. Sacchet: You'd rather have a little extra than not enough. The trees and the amount of grading. That's certainly the two most delicate things in this development. I hear that, and I can see in the proposal you obviously have made efforts to minimize the grading and maximize the tree preservation. Do you think you've exhausted? Nathan Franzen: I think we have. I think when we talk about moving streets up and down a couple feet, I think there are always some tweaks that we can make going to final plans. But I think we put enormous amounts of efforts into this project, above and beyond any other project that I've worked on as far as how many iterations, how many different concept plans we've looked at. I think we've probably made the best effort that I can think of on this project than any other one I can think of. Sacchet: I mean I am curious. Because I looked at some examples of do I see something, do I see a tree that could possibly be additionally saved. And I'm just curious to ask you two specific ones. Just as examples kind of probe you. There is on Lot 18, bordering to what, 19? There are a couple of trees on the south side, specifically I guess it's 8517. Do you see that? It's 8517. It's just, it's probably a couple of feet off where the grading line would be. Something like that, I wonder if it is close to the lot line, what would prevent in a case like that to extend a little bit 18 planning Commission Meet — December 7, 2004 the protection to add a couple trees more? Do you see what I'm talking about? Between, that's south of Street A. Lot 18, 19. And if you want the number, it's like 8517. 8518. Nathan Franzen: 8519? Sacchet: 17. 17 and 18. Yeah, 19 could be lumped in there too. It's right next to it. Nathan Franzen: Outside of the clearing limits there? Sacchet: Right. I mean it's a type of thing like that that I wonder whether you couldn't have done a little more, and I'm not the expert so I don't want to double guess you guys but. Nathan Franzen: I'm looking at, I'm seeing specifically on Lot 18 there are some trees just on the back of the pad. Based on the pad size there, I think anything that's within 10 feet of the building is really. Sacchet: Is not very likely, yeah. Nathan Franzen: Yes. And I wouldn't want to say that we can save this tree and then we go to build the house and it ends up dying because of construction traffic or the branches of the trees extend into the building, you know 20 feet and it needs to be turned and then the tree dies 2 or 3 years later and then it becomes more of a problem then. Sacchet: So you'd rather cut them up front and cut a little more? Nathan Franzen: Yes. I mean generally if they're within 10 feet of that building pad there's not a chance of it being saved. Some of those too, I'm just seeing another one. That is, and I'm not sure if it's the one that you had looked at between 18 and 19, kind of on the side lot line. Right on the edge of the grading limit there. That one you can see it's right on the side line and to facilitate drainage we're always grading swales in on the side lines of the buildings. We also have a Swale along the back there to get drainage to go to the east. And that tree happens to be right in the middle of it. And again that one's relatively close to the pad. It's not as close as some of the others but it is, that one's probably more like 20 or 30 feet. But that one there is caused more by a drainage design. Sacchet: I did have another couple of examples but in the interest of time I'll spare you that. I think we want to move onto the public hearing. We've got a lot of people here. I want to give them a chance to speak. Did you want to add anything else from your end? Nathan Franzen: There are, I mean I could assure you too as we go to final plans that again we'll be working with staff and looking for those individual trees, if we think we can save a couple more we'll make efforts to do that. Sacchet: Okay. So yeah, we could put something in like work with staff and I think that's commonly what staff does when you do the final walk through before you do grading and put the limits and tree protection in. That you would look at it in the detail at that point. That sounds 19 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 0 good. Alright. Thank you very much. Got anything else for the applicant? No? Okay. Thank you. With that I'd like to open the public hearing. Anybody who'd like to address this item, please come forward at this time. State your name and address and let us hear what you have to say. Jianping Mei: My name is Jianping Mei. I live in Lake Lucy. 2135 Lake Lucy Road. There's a small pond on the wetland area. One concern is, I know there's a lot of tree cut. I don't know how many tree cut, but they left some trees... We know the north side of Lake Lucy there's a two neighbor. We know that. They're crying every summer. They get flood in their basement and ... has a year so we are worried about is construction. We are interest not only for them, only for us so any concern or study for this? Sacchet: You're concerned about the drainage? Jianping Mei: Yes. Sacchet: Drainage coming down towards Lake Lucy for the houses that are on the north side of it? Jianping Mei: Yes, that's true. But even south side. Sacchet: Even on the south side too. Is that something you can address briefly Matt? Saam: Sure. Slagle: Matt, where is he by the way? 2130. Saam: I believe he said the south side of Lake Lucy Road? Jianping Mei: South side, yeah. Saam: South side of Lake Lucy so maybe in Manchester south of Lake Lucy I'm guessing. Okay. Sacchet: Sharmeen can point out where he is at. Thank you Sharmeen. Saam: Okay. I think what he's referring to is, and I think somebody on the commission alluded to it earlier, the amount of water that comes off this site and comes over the trail. I think you mentioned it. Again every new development is required to meet the existing runoff rates so whatever water is leaving this site now, it can't be increased based on this development. And in fact most of the time it's decreased because they put in a pond which holds back the water and can store a lot of water. That's basically what they're doing here, so in essence they'll be decreasing the runoff rate for the water during a storm going off the site. Jianping Mei: Yes, naturally treed we have buffer ... so we make it ... but without trees the water's pouring down in big rain days. That's concern. 20 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Saam: Okay. That's true with developments. The runoff curb number. The amount of water that can runoff the site typically goes up, and again that's one of the reasons that through storm sewer they capture that water and route it to a pond which then stores it so it releases it slower off of the site. Sacchet: So it should improve basically. The drainage issues should improve? Saam: Correct, yep. Sacchet: Through the development. That's the aim. Keefe: Matt, is there a pond up there right now or is this going to be a new one? Saam: This will be a new one. Keefe: So they're actually creating a pond for that purpose to capture the runoff. Saam: Correct. They're installing a new pond. Keefe: So there isn't a pond up there right now so this would help that issue. Sacchet: Okay. We have some other people that want to speak up. Beverly Jackson: Hi. I'm Beverly Jackson. Part of the Crestview Drive neighborhood. I know someone on the City Council has received a couple of letters of concern from our entire neighborhood. Sacchet: Actually we all have received those. Beverly Jackson: Okay. And I know tonight it's been referred to as this street here. Sacchet: Can you point out again. Beverly Jackson: Street B. Sacchet: Okay. Beverly Jackson: Would be a future hook-up, and I'm interested, I think we all are in knowing what future means because right now we have a wonderfully private street. We don't worry about safety because everybody on our street knows each other's vehicles so we all watch out for one another. And the idea of connecting up to a neighborhood that's 43 homes, which means in all likelihood at least 86 drivers, is a lot to add to a street that right now has a couple dozen maximum. So that's one concern, and one question as far as what is future. Sacchet: Well we hear future was January. 21 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting —December 7, 2004 Generous: Well they're submitting, yes so the public hearing will be in January. Construction I would imagine would begin in the spring. Sacchet: And that's really out of our control. I mean that's the landowners there that made those decisions. Now do we know whether they would connect to that road at that time? I would expect so since they're developing. Generous: Yes, we'd make them do that as part of their design. Sacchet: Yeah, since they're developing, yeah. And have the extra houses, there would be a justification to connect it so future could mean like a year or less. Beverly Jackson: Okay, and how does that affect Crestview Drive? I heard something about this development having a 31 foot street requirement. Street width, if I understood correctly, except for the one that was discussed with the 24. Sacchet: Would that affect, let me make sure we understand your question. So is your question is something going to happen to Crestview itself? Is that what you're asking, right? Beverly Jackson: Yes. Does that one get widen to the 31 feet as well? Sacchet: Okay, could you address that please Matt. Saam: Sure. At this time the City has no plans to increase the width of Crestview Drive. What I could see happening in the future, and future 10 to 15 years, whenever Crestview Drive, that pavement deteriorates to a point where the city would need to do a project in there to upgrade it, maybe at that time it would be looked at to upgrade it to a current city standard or something more in line with the current city standard but again at this time we don't have any plans to do anything in Crestview Drive other than, if the development to the north would go, that cul-de-sac would basically be moved into that property. Beverly Jackson: I'm sorry, into what property? Sacchet: The new one that's being developed. Saam: Yes. Sacchet: From Crestview. Beverly Jackson: Okay. And as far as it is right now, it would pretty much have to do a90 degree angle to come onto Crestview Drive. Or does that mean eliminating part of some property? I happen to live on the property right here on this side, so that would mean that anyone coming up that street has headlights coming right into my house. 22 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Saam: We, at least I haven't done an in-depth review of the plans for that development to the north. But it would be, like a T intersection is what they're showing. So yeah, there would have to be a turn, a right hand turn to Crestview Drive. Sacchet: I mean to mitigate your concerns a little bit, in a situation like that certainly would be a reasonable request that you ask for some evergreens or some buffering. Possibly even berming. Beverly Jackson: We have those right now but I'm afraid that all of our beautiful Norway pines are going to be eliminated if this comes through and those are something that can't be replaced because I probably won't be in the house in 40 or 50 years to see them look like they look now. Saam: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead. Saam: If I can just address that, and maybe we're getting into the next development but at this time they're not proposing to take any land or anything like that. They're doing all their work either on their property or within existing city right-of-way. Sacchet: Is your concern that partially it would impact your land actually? Beverly Jackson: Absolutely. Sacchet: I mean the development would have to take place on the land where it takes place. I mean they can't put a claim on your land per se. Beverly Jackson: Ahight, but also the traffic is a very large concern. Like I said with as few of us that live on this street, if a car goes down our street and turns around in the tum around, especially at night, I'm sure everyone else, as well as my husband and I are looking out the window to see how it is. Trying to identify if it's a police officer coming to check on our street, which is always wonderful, and if it's anyone else within a few minutes if they haven't moved, one of us is out there checking out to see who it is, so it's very safe. And so the idea of safety being attaching neighborhoods, I can't see how 40 to 60 more cars makes it safer than the little street that we have right now. Sacchet: Well let's do one more now on this. Crestview is not going to be a thru street. I mean the idea is not to have that as a traffic lane. Maybe you can say something about that Matt. Saam: Sure. On the submitted plans it still keeps a cul-de-sac. It just has, as I said, a T intersection, basically a street going to the south to connect with this. And if we think about it for a moment, the traffic or the residents in this area I doubt, at least if I lived on there, if I wanted to go north, unless a road was closed, I would go through Crestview Drive to get to Galpin versus just going out to Galpin. Sacchet: It's hard to imagine why they would want to make a detour through a road that has all kinds of quirky turns. It's not a straight road by any stretch of the imagination. 23 • 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Saam: Right. That's why I'm trying to understand why the connection would be there. Slagle: If I can ask Mr. Chair, can we hear from staff and maybe apologies for not asking this prior, but why are we extending the road? I mean if we're not, if the anticipation is not going to be used as a thru street. We have the access onto Galpin. We have the access south on Manchester. I'm just curious, is that not enough? Saam: Again I think Bob read one of the biggest reasons. It's been adopted in the city comp plan in the transportation planning. He listed off I think 3 reasons. Safety being one of the biggest ones with emergency access. If Crestview Drive was closed or if there was a fire or some sort of thing, there's only one way in and out. It really limits the access to that whole street. Sacchet: So it's access to that neighborhood for like emergency vehicles. Slagle: Mostly Crestview. Sacchet: Crestview, yeah. Generous: Right. Saam: Correct. Sacchet: Not for the other neighborhood. Saam: This development that we're reviewing tonight already has the two accesses set up. One proposed off Galpin and another off Manchester. We, as a city want an additional access off of Crestview for future. Sacchet: So from a city planning viewpoint it's for the benefit of that Crestview neighborhood. We could say to a large extent. Saam: Well, yes. Beverly Jackson: May I make one comment about that? The only time there has ever been a problem with any of us as residents on the street being able to access our own homes on that street is when the lot across from Crestview Drive was being developed. Still for sale but they were putting in, they were raising the grade and all of that, and the people working on it parked on both sides of Crestview so us in the large pick-ups couldn't get through and that was one of my husband and my comment that day was, you know what if an ambulance or a fire truck had to get up here, they wouldn't be able to. Us as residents don't park on the streets because we know that we need to have that access, but when the dump trucks on either side of Crestview, it made it very difficult for us to be able to get in or out without possible damage to our vehicle or taking off one of their mirrors. 24 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Yeah, it's not necessarily in view of the current amount of people that live there, but it's more in view of the development that is obviously already starting to take place. Alright, you may want to put that into the equation as well. But I think we hear where you're at with that. Appreciate your comments. Beverly Jackson: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. We have somebody else. Do you want to state your name and address please for the record. Paul Tungseth: Paul Tungseth, 2051 Crestview Drive. Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Chair rather. You all talk about the fact that Crestview is not at this point affected. That is incorrect. The entire neighborhood has asked that we not be connected because we do not see any safety concerns. We do not anticipate school buses up our road. We like our cul-de-sac. We would prefer to be a private neighborhood. As long as our neighborhood is using the road, we don't have problems. As Bev pointed out, we have problems when other people decide to use the road, and we don't, it's not as if one or two people are parking as you've seen, you know there's a developer or what have you. We just respectfully decline your invitation to participate in the new neighborhood. Respectfully we decline. We would also like to point out the number of trees that you're counting and tagging aren't necessarily even part of that property. You guys really need to review that part as well. Sacchet: Can you be more specific about that? That's important. Paul Tungseth: I'll let the property owner discuss that. Sacchet Okay. Okay, yeah. Paul Tungseth: So that's what I have to say for right now. But I find it interesting that you're willing to talk about all the different pieces except for what the existing neighborhood is concerned about. That you need to think about because that is sense of neighborhood. That is sense of community. Lillehaug: Sir, can I ask you a question? Paul Tungseth: Yes. Lillehaug: What is your opinion when the Shivley property's developed and there's dump trucks parked all up and down your road and you can't get emergency access to your homes up there. Paul Tungseth: They have 3 acres up there. We have a cul-de-sac which is mammoth. We have a cul-de-sac 3 times the size of a normal cul-de-sac which we do like. Lillehaug: You don't have any concerns with any access problems? 25 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Paul Tungseth: No. In fact if you look very carefully at the later, it plainly states that if you added up to 5 houses, maybe even 7 houses up there, you still meet the same requirements that have been laid out in these drawings. Amazingly. I guess those cul-de-sacs in the existing drawings ought to change as well. There's as many houses on any one given cul-de-sac as there is on all of the entire Crestview Drive. If not more. So the density of houses is plainly more here in the new development than it is in Crestview. We don't have a problem. We don't have a problem. Even with additional houses we still don't have a problem. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate your comment. We have some other people. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Steve Buresh: Hi. I'm Steve Buresh. I live directly across Galpin Boulevard from this proposed development at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. I do have some concerns about the fact that we're going to maintain this access on Galpin Boulevard. For several years now with the developments out there at, to the south. The amount of volume of traffic that is coming through there is basically making my property, devaluating my property because of the amount of traffic that is going through there. By adding 43 more houses, and up to you know an average from let's say 50 to 60 cars coming out of that neighborhood, which is going to be nearly directly across from my property and my neighbors, it's going to make it very difficult for me to access Galpin Boulevard. It's also, I'm a little concerned that that's going to be the construction entrance. I'll be competing with all of the traffic going in and out of there during this building process, and our property and Lake Lucy Highlands is zoned large lot residential. The people that live out there on Lake Lucy chose that type of property to have. The large lots and that and you know all of this development is basically destroying what we moved out there to do, and have a you know large lot and open spaces. I do appreciate the fact that they're maintaining the trees on the easterly side. That's appreciated. I understand that the, it's going to go forward and that because everybody agrees that it's to the betterment of the community, although I do have grave concerns with the amount of access, amount of traffic that's going to be coming out of that, the Galpin access. And I'll be competing with that traffic trying to get out of my driveway. Sacchet: Can you say something to that Matt from an engineering viewpoint? Traffic viewpoint. Saam: Sure. First of all I'll mention Galpin Road as I'm sure Mr. Buresh is aware is a county road so this development is required to get a access permit from the County. Again they have an existing driveway off of that road so they already have some argument or right I'll call it to access their property onto Galpin, just like Mr. Buresh does. We did look at it from a safety standpoint. That is the location of the access. It is proposed in roughly the same location as existing driveway and that's actually at the high point of a crest or a small hill, so there's good sight distance to each side, both the north and south. So from that viewpoint, in addition to the right turn lane that the County will be requiring, we feel it will operate effectively. Sacchet: So within reason this should work well? Saam: Correct. 26 • • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: As far as city standards are concerned. Now obviously it will have an impact on the neighbor across the street. Steve Buresh: Yeah, I mean I'm going to have 40 to 60 cars that are going to be going in and out of there in a, you know multiple times in a day possibly and that, and my driveway is directly across from this driveway and so that's going to make it very difficult. The other issue, which I don't know if that's part of this meeting, I would think that, I would hope that and the recommendations we take into account at some point, either here or at the next level, is with the additional 43 homes and the additional traffic. We nearly have zero enforcement of speed limits and stuff out there at this point. We've had a long standing problems with speeding in that area. I have kids. My neighbor has kids and that. You know so with adding another 40 to 60 cars in that neighborhood, there's concerns about that. I don't know if that's beyond the scope... Sacchet: Yeah, you're right. I mean that's certainly related but it's not really part of this development. On the other hand I also want to point out, I mean there is the access to the south, so you wouldn't necessarily have everybody going out onto Galpin. Steve Buresh: Right. Sacchet: And I also wouldn't compare it to Lake Lucy. I mean Lake Lucy is a thru road, while here we're looking at plain neighborhood access so, that makes it a little more bearable I would expect. But you're right. I mean once it comes through to speed considerations, that's obviously something that will have to be addressed with the sheriff. And they do pay attention to that and they're sensitive to requests, complains from residents so that would be the route to go with that. Steve Buresh: Okay. Alright, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much for your comment. Gina Sauer: M, my name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road, and my question for the council is more of a procedural question in terms of how certain guidelines are set and on what criteria you base a decision when you go below your own set guidelines, specifically with respect to the trees that are being lost. And please correct me if I have these numbers wrong but from looking at the report it's my understanding that currently there's about 18 acres approximately of canopy that under the normal guidelines and percentages that the city would follow, this development would be expected to maintain or to continue to have about 12 acres and that what will be left now when it's all said and done will be approximately 7. Sacchet: That's correct. Gina Sauer: So from a procedural standpoint could you explain on what the guidelines are based that 12 out of 18, how that was originally set and under what criteria the city decided to allow the developer to go considerably below that in this case to 7. And I understand the penaltation that they'll be having to replacing trees but I think most people would agree that replacing a neighborhood with new trees is not the same as leaving a stand of continuous mature trees. 27 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Do you want to try that one Bob? Generous: I was here when we first adopted the ordinance. It was one of my first projects was to get that through. The guideline, the City in developing our tree preservation ordinance tried to determine, look at what a potential development would take out as part of their development based on the existing tree coverage. We know that any development that goes is going to remove some trees and so we provided a nature to sliding scale of targets for tree preservation. These are numbers that if the developer meets that, then they don't have to replace them. They don't have, they just have a normal 1 tree per front yard. Now if they go below that, then we penalize them. We say yes, it's true that preserving trees is better than... existing tree is a lot better than planting a new one but you have to permit people to, the opportunity to develop their land and so we use these targets that we encourage them through use of retaining walls, the use of private streets. They came in originally with a steeper grade on the street than the city code permitted to meet these targets, but development by definition will remove trees and those targets, if they can't be met then the ordinance says then you have to replace them. It doesn't say you can't take them out. Sacchet: Yeah, to answer your question I think it's important to distinguish that we do have what we call the required canopy coverage, but that doesn't mean they can't go below it. That means if they go below it, they have to do replacement plantings in addition to the standard amount of planting. Plus that would then be multiplied by 1.2 factor so they have to replace a little more but I mean, it's obvious. If you cut a big tree and then you put a little tree, it's something quite different. Gina Sauer: Right. I have a follow-up question that I do appreciate the modifications that have been made to the plan to, as I understand it dedicate the very western edge which is the water preservation area or the ravine in the western area to the city. I'm just wondering again from a procedural standpoint, for those of us who are new to this whole kind of thing, what kind of protection and assurances is the city willing and able to provide with respect to the preservation of those few remaining acres of mature trees? That there won't be further development. That the city's not going to put some kind of building on there or put a park on there. That the vegetation and the wildlife habitat will remain in perpetuity in it's natural state. Sacchet: Do you want to address that? Generous: Well that's ultimately it's up to council but if it's donated to the city as open space, then the city will have to preserve it as open space. Initially we were looking at one potential city use of the property as a well site, but we're not sure that that's going to work out because of the piping issue. We don't have a watermain in this area so we would just preserve it. It's like other areas in the community that are dedicated. Yeah, we'd like to, the city isn't, tries to create these corridors of green space so that we have habitat area and also because of the benefits that as a community we receive for the preservation of trees. There's value in that so, while we can't, council will accept it as a donation for open space, ultimately for council to do anything else they'd have to go through a public hearing process to change that. 28 r Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Can it not be changed? Of course it can be changed but it would have to be changed in a very public forum. It would have to be announced to the neighborhood. There would be a hearing. There would be discussion about it. And there would be an easement on it. Preservation easement so it's not something that's just on a whim of somebody could be changed so there is some solidity to that framework. Gina Sauer: Okay, thank you for the information. Sacchet: You're very welcome. Anybody else want to address this one? Yes, please come forward. Mike Stachowski: Council, my name's Mike Stachowski, 2050 Crestview Drive. Quick question. Talking about joining onto our street was for a safety reason. What about all the other cul-de-sacs in the city? There's only one access. I think it's more convenience for the new development more than safety for us. Sacchet: Got any comment? Saam: Sure. Yeah, we do have many cul-de-sacs in the city, but whenever we can through developments or improvements we look to, especially the longer ones. When I say longer maybe over 500 feet. Many cities limit the length of cul-de-sacs. We don't do that here. But we do look for alternate access on the longer cul-de-sacs. Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bob. Generous: When the developer originally came in, they proposed a cul-de-sac in this location instead of connecting. It was the city staff that told them to make the street connection. Ultimately it will be up to council to see if they're going to do that. That's part of our job. We want to make those inter -connections. We think that community is more than one neighborhood. It's a little bigger. Mike Stachowski: How would you feel if you lived there, you bought your house purposely for that reason and someone from the outside tells you, we're going to do this because we think it's good for you? Generous: That's rhetorical. Sacchet: Yeah, I don't think we're going to try to answer that one. Mike Stachowski: No, I understand that but you see what I'm saying? Sacchet: Yeah, I understand your point. Mike Stachowski: You know I purposely bought that house a year ago for this reason. 29 9 • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Let me ask you a question back though. Mike Stachowski: Yeah. Sacchet: How about that development that's coming in within a month's time for us to look at? At the very end of your cul-de-sac there's going to be 5 or what additional houses. What does that do to this whole thing? Does that have any bearing? Mike Stachowski: Well I don't want any more travel on that road than anybody else in that neighborhood, to be perfectly honest. I mean people buy houses for certain reasons. You know you bought your's for certain reasons, and then they start to develop something which they have enough access in and out, and we're being told it's for safety reasons. it's for this reason, and I think that's why basically the whole neighborhood's here saying, we don't have these issues. Everybody else does. Sacchet: In terms of the new development that goes in, we really don't want to belabor this here but maybe there is a way that you can make it a win/win. That the new development is more connecting into that and then you have your little windy huge cul-de-sac, windy road. Mike Stachowski: You know it might be. Sacchet: There are ways. Mike Stachowski: It might be a win/win but from what I see everybody's talking about what's best for the new development and once this gets developed and they're saying well we really haven't looked at that. Well once it's developed there's really no choice if you're going to start changing that road, you're going to have to do it because there's no other option. I think this is the time to look at it. Sacchet: Right, this is definitely the time to look at it, and from a city planning viewpoint, I mean as a general rule we try to connect neighborhoods which in general is a good thing. Now you're telling us you don't want it. We hear that and it's certainly going to be considered. Mike Stachowski: Okay. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else wants to come forward? Yes, we got a couple more takers here. One at a time will be just fine. Lori Abblett: H. My name is Lori Abblett and I live on Crestview Drive also and my concern is the trees. I'm actually, the Shivley Addition, there's two rows of pine trees and mine on the north side and their's on the south side. So I'm concerned what's going to happen to my side of the pine trees. Slagle: Help us out with that Bob. a Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 • Sacchet: Can you point it out on the drawing maybe, so we know exactly what you're referring to. Lori Abblett: I'm right here. I butt up to. Sacchet: Over there, okay. Lori Abblett: Yeah, right here so there's two rows of pines. So I guess my concern is what's going to happen to these trees with these homes going in here and a road. I'm actually going to lose, well I've got, you know my side of my yard, the back side of my yard. Sacchet: Do you see the green color part? Slagle: Is she east of the road or? Keefe: She's east of the road isn't she? Lori Abblett: Okay, sorry. I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong spot. Generous: Here's the Shivley property... Lori Abblett: So I might be on the corner. Generous: Yeah, they're proposing to preserve all that. Lori Abblett: All these trees back here? Sacchet: Yep, all that was colored green, and actually on the other side of the street not everything is colored green that they're trying to preserve. Lori Abblett: Okay. So nothing will happen? All those trees are tagged back there. Sacchet: They have to be tagged because they're inventory. That doesn't mean they're slated for cutting. Unfortunately a lot of them are but the tag is just an inventory. Generous: ...the trees as part of this process. Lori Abblett: My trees are tagged too. What is that? Why are my trees part of this? Generous: They must have just went over the line on that. Lori Abblett: But there are several of my trees that have a tag you know. Sacchet: Yeah, that was just inventory. So they were put on a map and I mean if the inventory is accurate, we should actually see those, either not on the inventory or across the lot line. As far 31 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 as I see, the ones that we see on our drawing are all, actually no, they do go across. There are clearly trees tagged on the other side. So that's nothing to be concerned about. Lori Abblett: Okay. Don't they typically contact the homeowner though and let them know they're going to take their trees? Sacchet: Actually I would take it as a positive that they're really trying to do a thorough job to inventory them to know what's there. Yeah. Lori Abblett: And then if that road goes through that we're talking about here, how will that affect all the trees through there? That's all woods. Sacchet: Well there where the road is, obviously trees are going to go. Lori Abblett: And then what will happen to like my property? We've got a pool and swing set and stuff back there. Generous: They shouldn't come onto your property for any of that. Sacchet: Your property should not be touched. Lori Abblett: But how will they be able to get through there? Claybaugh: Has the site been staked at this point, do you know? The boundaries have been staked? Okay. Lori Abblett: Okay. Thank you. Claybaugh: Is there anything as you look at the boundary stakes that you see out there that causes you alarm? Lori Abblett: Well, there aren't really. Some of the monuments have actually been removed out of the ground so we've had it surveyed but we need to have it re -done because one of the comer pins are missing, so that is a big concern because where are the developers going to go from without that, my corner pin? Saam: I can address that Mr. Chair. Each new development is required to certify the city that if there's any pins missing, that they replace them. Of course that's at the end of a development but just. Lori Abblett: At the end of, well how will they know what to go off of? Saam: Well when they put the new lots in, is what I'm saying you know. So when they establish that north property line with all these new lot lines, they have to certify to the city that all about the pins are in for the new lots. 32 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Lori Abblett: But they'll do that before they start? Sacchet: Yeah, when you say. Saam: They'll verify the boundary, yeah. Sacchet: When you say at the end, you mean at the end of the lines? Not at the end of when everything is done so we can distinguish that one. Lori Abblett: Okay. Alright, thank you. Sacchet: You're welcome. Lillehaug: Matt, could you clarify as far as the impacts to her property? Maybe not directly but if that road were extended up to Crestview Lane, there would be indirect because that road would be directly adjacent to her property line, correct? So in essence, her indirect result is going to be she's going to have a road running on the west side of her property line. Saam: Yes, if both of these plats get approved as they're currently being proposed, yeah. Yes, there'd be a proper, she'd be a corner lot then. Sacchet: Actually that raises an interesting question. That proposed development, have we seen a plan and does it have a connection? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: It does have a connection planned for that? Okay, that's important. Alright, we had a couple of other people I think over there. Ann Taylor: Hi. I'm Ann Taylor. I'm from 2340 Lake Lucy Road on the Brenden Pond and my question concern the pond. I wasn't sure if I understood that there's going to be runoff into Brenden Pond, is that correct? Sacchet: There's a different, what we call a NURP pond. A storm water pond on this property. Ann Taylor: Okay, but I thought there was some that was going to the Brenden Pond and some to that pond. Sacchet: There's no drainage into Brenden Pond is there? Saam: I'm sorry, is Brenden Pond... Sacchet: That's the little lake. That's the little lake over towards 41. No, Brenden Pond is to the west. Saam: ...subdivision yes, but where's the actual pond? 093 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: The pond is to the west. You're talking about that little lake. To the west. Next to 41. Saam: The only thing that will drain to the west are the rear yard areas along the western side and that will go to this ravine and follow the natural drainage. It won't go towards that... Sacchet: It will drain south. It will drain south. Never gets into Brenden Pond. Nothing goes into Brenden Pond. Ann Taylor: Oh, okay. Well, that's good. That's what I was... Sacchet: That's all you needed to know? Ann Taylor: Yes. Sacchet: I wish all the questions. Ann Taylor: I'm a little concerned about the traffic but I'm sure that it doesn't matter so. Sacchet: I wish all the questions were this easy. I think we have some other people. Yes, there are a couple more. Alan Nikolai: I'm Alan Nikolai, 6282 Cartway Lane, Chanhassen. I'm here for my mother. She's on 6570 Galpin which is the northeast comer of this development. Where exactly is this northeast retaining wall in relation to the property line? Could somebody address that please. Sacchet: On the northeast. Okay, that long, straight one? The one up there. Alan Nikolai: Exactly how far is it off the property line is that one? Sacchet: Can you measure that for us Matt? What is it, about 10-20 feet? Saam: Approximately 15 to 20 feet south of the property line. Alan Nikolai: How close to the southerly row of pine trees is that? Sacchet: 10, more or less. Saam: Yeah, about 10 feet. Alan Nikolai: Have you been out to the site and actually looked at that? Saam: Yeah, I've walked this site before. 34 • 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Alan Nikolai: That is, the southerly row of pine trees is over 15, or approximately 15 feet from the property line and you're putting the wall right on the trees then. My concern is the root system. If you're going to put a retaining wall right up to the trunk of those trees, they're dead. Sacchet: Right. Alan Nikolai: Somebody else mentioned about, you know like if it's within 10 feet of a house, it will just because of all the excavation will kill a tree. If they're within 10 feet of those trees, it will most likely kill them, if not even you know. My point is, from a point of, from an arborist point of view, what would be the recommended distance from those tree trunks for that wall to be? Sacchet: Probably the drip line. Generous: Yes. Alan Nikolai: Pardon? r Sacchet: The drip line of the tree would be the site. Alan Nikolai: No, well that's not accurate according to arborists though. Arborists say 3 times the drip line is the root system, and did you consult the city arborist at all? Sacchet: It has been reviewed by the forester, right. Generous: She reviewed this plan. Sacchet: But we can certainly make a note that we want that... Alan Nikolai: I'm very concerned about it because you said well 15 to 20 feet from that property line. That's within 5 feet of those southerly trunks of those trees. Sacchet. Well looking at where they're on the plat, the trees are considerably closer to the lot line than to the retaining wall, if that's any consolation. It's something I think, it's a very valid point that we would want to bring to the forester's attention to do a double check on it. Alan Nikolai: Somebody mentioned that basically this wall here ... but based on that northeast side, it said 4 to 7 feet high. Which side is 4 feet, which side is 7 feet? Saam: The taller end, it's tall down at the west and then it starts to go down as you go to the east, but then it does raise up again and that's just based on the elevation change in that area. Nathan Franzen: I think you're asking whether the lots are lower. The lots are lower than the trees. 35 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: The lots are lower than the trees. That's why he's concerned. You're going to cut potentially roots off. Alan Nikolai: Approximately how much are the site pads lower than the trees? Are we talking 2 feet? Are we talking 10 feet? You were talking a lot of grade differences here earlier. Saam: I mean it varies. Again it drops as it goes to the east generally speaking. 8 feet. Some of these are different. I mean generally if the wall is 4 to 6 feet, the trees might be a little taller so you're in that 5 to 7 foot elevation difference. Generally speaking. Alan Nikolai: Okay, thank you. I'd like to explore a little bit about this turn lane which also, there's the trail. Sacchet: Do you want to point it out on the drawing so we know where you're at. Okay. Alan Nikolai: Right here... How is that, there's an existing trail there right now with a curb. How are you going to add the trail and a tum lane without impacting the arborvitae trees? Sacchet: Has that been looked at? Saam: I would pass that onto the applicant. I don't know if they looked at that yet. I don't believe it's on these plans yet so maybe they've looked at it. Alan Nikolai: Well, have any of the people been out to the site and looked at the site? Sacchet: Oh yeah. Alan Nikolai: Okay. If you understand, you have the trail and it's approximately 8 feet from the trail's edge. You have the edge of the arborvitae trees along, all along Galpin Boulevard there. Now how are you going to put a turn lane in and have a trail there without impacting those arborvitaes? Lillehaug: I think there's probably going to be some impact. Alan Nikolai: Is this right here ... trying to be saved or not? Or is it this right here? This is where all the arborvitaes are. Sacchet: Yeah please. Nathan Franzen: This current plan does not show a tum. We just received that request last week and we've just started looking at where that tum lane will be and there will be some impacts in this northern section of the arborvitaes. We don't know how extensive that it but there will be some significant effects. Keefe: And what would happen to the trail then? 36 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Nathan Franzen: The trail, it's all going to be moved. Keefe: It's all going to have to be pushed, yeah. Alan Nikolai: May I ask who asked you to look at that for a turn lane. Nathan Franzen: The County. Alan Nikolai: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Alan Nikolai: I guess, one of the things about the arborvitaes there on that east side, it is a major buffer year round. They're well established. Been there well over 50 years and now you're removing some of the other neighbors across the street, you're removing the buffer strips. You're talking about how much you're conserving the trees and yet you're taking out many of these arborvitaes along the Galpin Boulevard there. I don't consider that conservation ladies and gentlemen. Not nearly. Sacchet: Well unfortunately this is development more than conservation. I think that's the... Alan Nikolai: Well you're conserving on the west end and yet you're not doing anything on this site where there's a fairly high traffic road and you're going to have traffic noise, which is going to affect these landowners. These landowners, they're going to have to be looking out their door and they're going to have all this traffic, and here you have already a natural buffer of trees that you're going to be removing. That does not make sense. Sacchet: I'm with you. I'm with you on that one. Alan Nikolai: One of the things I'd like to see there, how about a conservation easement protecting those arborvitae. I understand you have to have the road coming in, but protect those trees on that easterly side of the new, of that development and also the Norway pines on the north side. What's going to prevent the future homeowner from cutting them down? I'd like to see, if you want try managed development, have a conservation easement that basically it's to be kept in trees, not to be touched by the landowners. Including the Norway's and the arborvitae there. That is a doable thing at this point in time. I think that is something that really needs to be looked at in this development. One of the things was brought up earlier a little bit about is Lot 27 concern and lack of parkland and I'm not so concerned about the kids that they can hop on their bicycles and run up to the school property and play ball. I'm a little bit more concerned, how about the kids that are 6 years old and the mom wants to go, have the kids go play somewhere. You know go down to the swing set and on a slide. There's no area for that. More of that type of park development, not the big you know open areas but a little area that you know the kids can play. The little kids, the tykes in the neighborhood can play. I think Lot 27 would be much better served in that capacity. And as far as the development, as far as this road going up through, up here. Up here, potentially connecting to Crestview, put back into the cul-de-sac. The plan that was originally requested by the developer. There's no need for that road to go up M 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 there. I don't know if any of you've actually went up Crestview or have driven it, there's an extremely sharp curve. Very limited sight. Visibility right about here. And it's very tight. I mean if you go through there more than 15 miles an hour you risk a head on with another vehicle. And now you're going to add 40-60 other people. Crestview's an extremely steep hill. It's very icy this time of year, and what happened the other day with, yesterday morning with the ice, you're going to add all this additional traffic going down that hill and extremely, that's an accident waiting to happen with a head on, to add all this additional traffic. I talked to my mother about it and she's very much opposed to adding additional traffic on that road for safety considerations. Someone's going to get hurt there. If you add that extra traffic up there, so I would request that you reconsider adding that connection to Crestview. Go back to a cul-de-sac. Maybe the developer can add an extra lot up in that area to replace Lot 27 being used as a park area. That type of thing. I think that's all that I have. I respectfully ask that you, especially reconsider the conservation easements for the existing trees on that east and north side. That is something that would have the, lessen the impact upon the existing neighborhood. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Larry Marty: Good evening. Larry Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. I'm also a member of the Woodridge Heights Association representing that neighborhood. Couple of concerns that I have. The two revolve around a big part of what we've already heard tonight. The drainage and the trees. The drainage element, I'm hearing that this is going to improve drainage but I guess I'm not seeing enough information to give me confidence in that. I live just directly south of this development. Directly down the hill on the south side of Lake Lucy. The, we are dealing with a lot of runoff already. If anybody has walked or run the path, they've seen the year round, the drainage that comes across that path now. You will be removing a lot of trees that are directly going to impact that, even though you may put in some swales and try to drain it away from the northern side, the reality is there's still a very steep slope there. Water is going to come down that and with reduced canopy you're going to have greater amounts of water there. I know the one homeowner specifically has had severe problems. They've had, they run two sump pumps. One of them, they're both on battery back-up. They've already burned one out because it was running nonstop. So I'm sure they would have direct concerns with that. To the tree element, I see all of the properties on the north side of the Woodridge Heights development that abut this development have a significant amount of tree cover that will be reduced significantly. When our development in Woodridge Heights was put in, even though there was all of that tree cover there, there were trees that were planted on the north side of our property. On the specific, on the top side along this outlot here. All along here there were evergreens that were planted along the top of that property. Some of them have been cut down, but we'd like to see it, some of them have died but we'd like to see if there is any development that proceeds, we'd like to see additional trees put in there to provide that buffer that was put in, even when our development went in and it wasn't even impacting that particular area so I think it's only fair for any development also to continue to add to that. And I guess lastly, the concern I have is just with regards to the access roads. The concern about the road coming out onto Manchester. That's going to create additional traffic. We do have a bus stop there. There's not a four way stop at that point which has already been raised and we would have concerns about that would increase traffic on that site. And I guess the last piece to our Crestview friends, I think the comments that have been made about the security that's being created by creating the access to Crestview 9E 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 through this development is somewhat of an oxymoron in the sense that we're creating a cul-de- sac that I would imagine is very close to 500 feet in length and has a lot of homes that would be in a similar setting that Crestview is currently in now without having to have any additional access so if security is the reason we're putting, granting that access, then why are we building a cul-de-sac that's creating that same situation. To me, as I look at this plan, I think the access road probably adds for another lot and just another opportunity for the developer and not necessarily the, what's best for the neighborhood and the best for Chanhassen. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Anybody else? Yes. Please come forward. Ruopei Cao: My name is Ruopei Cao. I live at 2135 Lake Lucy Road. My question is regarding the privacy. We live down the south of the Lake Lucy Road and our house is, we're up the field back here and we're, I'm consider of, is it possible that this new houses you there will oversee our house or that you invade our privacy. Sacchet: Well they're going to be up on the hill there, and I don't know to what extent it would have a view down onto Lake Lucy. When I walked the property I, you're definitely going to get to the edge. You can even see down to Lake Lucy. You can see the road so I would assume, from the house, further up you may see the house below but it's considerable distance. Ruopei Cao: Okay. So I mean the house will be like here? This side of. Sacchet: Right, there should be a little bit of a hill but I don't know whether we can be more specific than that. Saam: Yes Mr. Chair, just looking at the grading plan. The houses will be approximately 45 plus feet higher. They're proposing ramblers so their base. Sacchet: So they're not tall. Saam: When they look out their windows it will be even a bit higher than that. 4 feet upwards or what have you so they're going to be considerably higher than the street level down on Lake Lucy is. I would think it would be hard to peer into windows, that sort of thing. Ruopei Cao: But do you have a plan that has like trees block the view so if you watch. Sacchet: Well some trees are being preserved. I mean there is this strip of trees that is being preserved. It's not, we're trying to preserve as many trees as possible. Personally I'd like to preserve more but they definitely made a valiant effort to preserve a good amount. So there will be a buffer from where I understand you're referring to, there'd be a buffer of evergreens actually that's being preserved. Ruopei Cao: And my other comments will be, I, we bought the house, we moved into this neighborhood 5 years ago...the low density of the residence, this residential area and I like this area with all kinds of animals and deers and with those are cut off, my more concern is we're kind of losing the environment. 39 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Well hopefully you won't lose all of it. Ruopei Cao: And with this 43 houses you build there, I'm not sure how, what is the average of the lot size for this? Sacchet: What are we looking, about 18-19,000? Generous: 19.5. Sacchet: 19,500 square feet per lot is the average. Generous: Almost a half acre. Ruopei Cao: Half acre. Sacchet: Half an acre, yeah. Ruopei Cao: Okay. Alright. Sacchet: Okay, thank you for your questions. We got somebody else? Troy Bader: Hello. Troy Bader, 2244 Lake Lucy Road. One question I have really relates to the ravine that would run on the west side of the development. We are, the ravine will actually come out of the woods, out of the nature area. It will run down and actually discharges just on the east side of our property. No problems with it right now. My concern though relates to the construction, the clearing, the grading period and construction period. I know there are some standard protections that have been established to keep the ravine in it's natural state. Keep the debris out of it. I'm concerned though, is that actually sufficient? There's going to be a lot of dirt that's going to be moved. There's going to be a lot of retaining walls going to be in there, and if that silt and dirt and ground comes down into that ravine, that ravine will be changed from it's natural state on a permanent basis. I'm also concerned what it could obviously do from the total drainage going through that area. Who's going to maintain that and who's going to watch for that during the construction period? Sacchet: Do you want to touch on the silt fencing and that sort of stuff Matt? Saam: Sure. Yeah, silt fence is some of the standard types of methods that are used to hold the construction dirt on the site during rain events. We also require temporary sediment ponds basically so if drainage, the drainage that does flow off the site, if it has the dirt in it, it can settle out in a dirt type basin. And then it will be both the City's responsibility but with the new PCA requirements, the contractor is responsible to maintain the site. The City contracts with Carver Soil and Water District to inspect sites around town, so we'll be checking on them but the contractor is responsible. He signs a permit. He's a liable for fines with the PCA if he's not up to snuff. Ell 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Troy Bader: Okay, have those methods proven to be successful, because I'm looking at this grade. You know when I'm looking at a standard building lot where there may be a slight grade, we've got a big grade with a lot of dirt that's going to be moved, and I just want to make sure that we're okay. Saam: Yes, again if it's maintained correctly, the silt fence should hold up. We have a pretty sturdy silt fence. It's not just wood stakes. It's metal posts so. Troy Bader: Okay, and is that the maximum level? Is there anything else that can be done or is this, you know as you look at the levels of protection that can be taken, is this the maximum that can be taken that's reasonable for this type of a development? Saam: Some additional items that we're going to require them to do once they grade a slope is put a blanket on the steep slope to keep the dirt from leaving the site and there will be seed under that. The blanket helps both keep the dirt on there and then the moisture and so the seed can take, so that in addition to silt fencing, temporary sediment basins. Those are the 3 that we typically use. Troy Bader: Alright, because the concern is obviously we're losing a lot of trees in that area. A lot of dirt's going to be moved in that area and I'm very concerned, we talk here about trying to maintain the natural integrity of that area, but I think it's going to be very difficult to actually carry that through. Sacchet: Well if it's any reassurance, I mean the city does inspect those silt fences and all periodically. It's not like they get put in and forgotten and washed out. From my experience usually the issue we sometimes run into is that they don't get removed afterwards so, but while they're there, they tend to get checked and as Matt pointed out, I think it's very significant that once grading is complete, it has to be reseeded. If it's steeper, it has to be done right away. I think there's, if it's steeper slope it's within 7 days or something like that, that it needs to have an erosion protection blanket on it with the seed. I mean I think that concern, we are certainly doing what we can to mitigate. Troy Bader: Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you Sacchet: Thank you very much. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Yes. Claybaugh: Staff may want to get together with them later and they can look at details on Sheet 10 of 11. Sacchet. It actually specifies. Claybaugh: Slope blankets, stabilization as well as silt fencing. 41 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Good point. Thanks Craig. Do we have anybody else that wants to address this development? Yes we do. Charlie Hicks: I'm Charlie Hicks at 19, excuse me, 1941 Crestview Circle. I'm not part of the Drive consortium here. I'm part of the circle, but I have a quick comment and a question. The comment is, I don't live at Crestview Circle but I thought everybody here that does was really far more eloquent than what I would have said had I lived there. This reminds me of kind of a twisted suburban renewal, if you think about it. My comment would be, if it has to happen, I mean development has to happen. We can't stop that but I would like to have you think about messing up their cul-de-sac because it is beautiful. I live on the east side of it and I get to walk my dog up it every once in a while. It's great. My other question would be traffic on Galpin. Galpin's like the Indy 500. If you live there it's like walking down by Daytona. And if we're going to have another 80 some odd cars, how are we going to manage it? Sacchet: Well, I don't want to minimize that but 80 cars on that type of road, does that really have an impact? Saam: Galpin is classified as a major thoroughfare in town. A collector. Arterial type road that's meant to handle the traffic. That's meant to take cars on it. To take traffic. We're not talking a residential street. With that said, I mean we do believe the traffic's going to work. It is a county road. They're putting in the turn lane to help get traffic that's coming into the site off of the main drag so to speak. We think it's going to work. Charlie Hicks: Thanks. Sacchet: You're welcome. Thank you. Now I think there was somebody else. Yes there. Kim Goers: I just have a quick question. My name is Kim Goers and I live on Brenden Court. live at 6709 Brenden. I also own a property at 6673 Brenden Court which is currently for sale. 6673 Brenden Court is right next to the road. There's a road running between. Sacchet: That private drive there. Kim Goers: What will happen to that road? Is that going to be. Sacchet: Well I think we touched on that before that at this point nothing would happen with it. Kim Goers: It will just stay there? Sacchet: It will just sit there for now. That's what I understood what he said Matt. Saam: Yes. We actually haven't put much thought into, you know if we're going to remove... Sacchet: I mean realistically it could go away because it's not being used. 42 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Saam: However there is a sewer line in there and the water line... Sacchet: There would definitely be an easement, a utility easement right? Saam: We may want to keep that for access purposes. The pavement but frankly we haven't really given it much thought as to you know, do we want to keep that or do we want to remove the pavement. Kim Goers: Okay, so as of right now. Sacchet: So definitely it's an easement for the sewer and water line. Saam: Definitely the easement will stay. Sacchet: That is firm, that part. Kim Goers: Okay, so it will still be City owned property. Sacchet: The City would have, at a minimum have access. Kim Goers: Okay. So when you say access, does that mean you would continue the road into the property? Saam: No, it's just for maintenance access. If the City would need to get in, if there's a watermain break or that sort of thing. We're not talking trip, multiple trips per day access. Anything like that. Kim Goers: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Okay? Alright, anybody else? I'm not seeing anybody, last chance. I'm closing this public hearing. Thank you all for your comments. Appreciate it. Bring it back to commissioners. Discussion. Comments... Claybaugh: Out of the public comments something came up and I was wondering if I could pose a question to the developer? Sacchet: Certainly. Claybaugh: With respect to the right turn lane. Do you have any input with respect to how that may impact your Lot number 8? Nathan Franzen: There is enough room within the right-of-way to accommodate the tum lane. We know that at this point. As far as effects on the trees, is that what you're alluding to? Claybaugh: Both. 43 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Nathan Franzen: Both. As far as what's going to be left remaining of that stand, it's probably not going to be the best looking, if there is any that we can save. It is our belief to replant that area with another hedge. Claybaugh: Okay, and that's what I want to get out there. Nathan Franzen: And to get to that comment about the conserve, conservation easement as well that was brought up. Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Nathan Franzen: I did ask Jill about that when we first started this whole process. Sacchet: Jill being the City Forester? Nathan Franzen: Yes, that's right. And it wasn't really looked highly upon because there are some issues, particularly even surrounding this property where people aren't following and there's no enforcement of it, and it just seems like it's another layer of government. We're certainly open to doing that, if that's something you wish to do, but it wasn't approved by Jill. Sacchet: Yeah, unfortunately our experience with conservation easements is not very encouraging. It doesn't get enough respect and it's hard to enforce, so that might be an important... Claybaugh: Certainly we can't get any worst for trying? Sacchet: It certainly well worth trying. Now in that context, I mean there's also the question is Galpin being, did you say collector road? Or. Saam: Yeah, I believe arterial. Sacchet: So I mean at some point chances are it's going to be widen. Is that realistic statement? I mean not to scare everybody out of their wits but in terms of how the city develops, Galpin is considered a road that could potentially get bigger. Saam: Right. Sacchet: Not as a thru road but as an access road for the neighbors, okay. And that's another element to balance. I mean it's delicate to balance all these things. Craig, do you have more stuff? Claybaugh: If we're going to move onto comments? Sacchet: Yes, we are comments and discussion. That's where we're at. cn Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 • Claybaugh: Okay. I appreciate all the public comments. We hear a lot of them on projects like this, and some of them are certainly gut wrenching. Other ones are just a function of a definition. When I moved in on Lake Lucy Road it was a dirt road. There were 100 horses down at the end. If you've driven on Lake Lucy Road recently, you'll know that's not what I have any more. But when we come back to it from a city government standpoint and the engineer's job, city staff's job, they rely upon their engineering. They rely on the city's best management practices. So we kind of get lost in the definition. Your's is very subjective standpoint of what your personal experience is. They function from a different level and I'd like to make that point. I think that having seen Plowshares bring a number of developments in front of this body previously, I hold them in reasonably high regard with respect to the effort they set forth in bringing the development forward. There is always going to be issues that seem that they're not fully baked. Sometimes it turns out that they are and we're just pushing it from the left side to the right side. Other times we do make strides with respect to the public comments and the discussions that take place here and I think some of that is what's going to take place here tonight so. I am in favor, I am concerned with the number of outstanding issues we have regarding this or surrounding this here yet tonight. The least of which isn't Lot 27 drainage, the street elevation. We've got a dialogue present but we don't have any concrete solutions. Sanitary sewer. Street C eyebrow, as well as some of the things that came out from the neighborhoods with respect to tying in Street C. Conservation easements. So on and so forth so I guess I'd sit back and listen to the commissioners, my fellow commissioners comments and see if I can reach some conclusion myself here yet tonight. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Who wants to go next? Any other comments? Lillehaug: I will. Sacchet: Jump over there. Alright, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Well the eyebrow cul-de-sac, I don't support that. It's not a very standard cul-de-sac. Who maintains the middle portion of it, of the cul-de-sac. I mean there are ways to do that but I don't support it. If it does go through though, it should have I think like staff would support is a wider street undoubtedly. There are issues with narrower streets. I don't support conservation easements, for the reasons that Commissioner Sacchet indicated. Lot 27, I think that should be turned into a park or. Sacchet: Totlot? Lillehaug: Or an outlot or increase the pond size. My opinion. The right turn lane versus saving the trees. I weigh the safety of the traffic on Galpin more than I weigh those trees, so definitely if it's a right tum lane versus taking those trees, in my mind it's definitely putting a right turn lane in. And a couple issues I have here. Is it the best for the City of Chanhassen? I don't believe so but it's the people who own those properties have a right to develop it so we're here to get the best development as possible, so that's what I'm trying to do here. A couple issues I have. Minimum versus maximum standards. It seems like every time we get a development we're always right on the edge of meeting the minimum standards and it's one of my pet peeves. As far as you know maximizing the maximum amount of lots we can get out here by forcing a 45 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 swale. Trying to get the drainage to work. I just don't think we need to go that route. If we lose a lot, that's what happens. And I know that's not advantageous to the pockets of the landowners but I think that's something we should weigh in on. As far as the profile of the road, again every single one of them curves is meeting the absolute minimum standard that the City would allow, and actually MnDot wouldn't allow that on their roads because like the designer said, it meets 25 miles an hour. Well this is a 30 mile an hour road so with, I would ask staff when they go back and look at that, when they're lowering the road, don't let them meet the minimum on every single, every single vertical curve. Let's try to get a better fit out there. Not a better fit but a safer fit. As far as the minimum landing area before we get onto Galpin, another one of my pet peeves. We're going from a 7 percent down to a 3 percent. Icy Minnesota winters. It's not the best situation. Yes, it meets the minimum but I think that's another area where I'd like to see staff work a little bit with the consultant and increase that. And I think I've talked enough. Generally I support it. Next. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Okay. In the budding tradition of the Chanhassen Planning Commission I respectfully disagree with Commissioner Lillehaug on the eyebrow. I think it's very creative and I commend the landscape designer for trying to do something different. I understand from the city engineer's perspective this might create some challenges to, with the plowing crews and so on, but they might have to learn how to plow that particular configuration but I think one of the concerns that was raised by the Crestview residents was another McMansion development I believe was the term used that I think this helps mitigate the cookie cutter look that some of our developments engender after a while so I actually support the eyebrow. Regards to Lot 27, I think this is just a disaster waiting to happen here. There's what, a 24 foot grade difference from Lots 23, 24 and 25 immediately behind this and the amount of snow pack, if we ever get snow this year. You know in the spring when that melts, I just think you're going to have horrendous problems trying to keep that basement dry if you build a house there. So I think that one's going to be problematic. In regards to the connection to Crestview, Street B. I think there's real value in looking at this holistically. Obviously many of the residents here tonight are concerned about the connection to Crestview, and to be honest that's what, that's not what we're here tonight to, you know to decide on. All we are going to decide on here tonight is taking it to the border of this particular development, but I think there is value in looking at this together with the Shivley proposal and say let's look at these two at the same time. Let's look at them as one big holistic plan and understand the total impact to the neighborhood so that we don't stall out here. I would also like to point out to residents, or encourage you, one of the reasons we have this conflict here tonight is the city's comprehensive plan is driving city staff to make these connections so the city has a policy that encourages developers to develop this way, so I would strongly encourage the residents of Chanhassen to get involved in the review of the comprehensive plan so that the next time it gets revised, it reflects the desires of the residents of the city. You know you're very vocal in what you're speaking out on and I respect that, but your feelings are in direct contradiction to the city's comprehensive plan and I think the best way to deal with that issue, in the long run, is for the residents of the city to get involved in that comprehensive plan. So with that, I've said enough. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Want to go? 46 9 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Tjomhom: Yeah, I've got some things to say. I just want, first of all to say that I really, I think I have good feelings about this developer. I think that he really will try to work with the city and with the staff in making the right decisions for this development. I think a developer is only as good as his developments are, and so it's in his best interest also to make sure that all these issues we discussed tonight are taken care of and that he has a quality product in the end. Even though tonight we're not deciding access to Crestview or not, I think the neighbors have spoken and I think we have to respect what they've said. It is the city's goal to promote access to neighborhoods, but it's promote. That's what it says. It doesn't say demand. It doesn't say acquire. It says promote and so I think when a neighborhood obviously gets together like you have tonight and you rallied and you spoke your mind, I think we have to listen to that and respect that. Getting on to my favorite thing now is Street C, the island, and I think I'm willing to be brave and throw caution to the wind and say let's go for it. I think that the developer said he would work with Matt to make the streets perhaps a little wider, and to accommodate him any way he can and I think it would just be a new, wonderful addition to our city. So I'm in favor for the island. And Lot 27. Once again, well not once again. No one else has said that but I'm going to say that I'm going to put my trust in the developer that he would work with engineering and he would try to make a building pad and put swales around it to protect water damage or any problems with drainage. I don't think it would be a good park or a totlot, especially because there's a pond right next to it. In my mind that would be a hazard for children. So I think that's all I have to say but I am in support of it. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. We haven't heard from you Dan. Keefe: Sure. Further study obviously needs to occur in regards to the right tum lane off of Galpin and I don't think I'm in favor of a conservation easement, just due to the difficulty in trying to maintain it. It also sounds like, even if we're required to put in a right tum lane which it sounds like we are, I don't know how those reconcile themselves concerning those arborvitaes along with putting in a right turn lane. It doesn't sound like there's room for that anyway, so I don't know if that isn't kind of a moot thought. Lot 27, I actually agree with Bethany on that. I think that they can work on that lot and I think they can work with the city and make the appropriate swales to make that a viable lot. I like the eyebrow lot, or eyebrow street. I think it is a creative solution. I think a lot of thought has gone into looking at that. I think they've worked with the city in terms of the width. I think that can be reconciled. I would like the runoff calc's to be looked at really closely in regards to this, in regards to the properties to the south. We've heard a lot of comments in regards to water, already existing water problems. We don't want to add to the problem. Problems that are already occurring. And is it true that Street B, I think I saw in the staff report that we're going to have a temporary cul-de-sac on that right now, is that correct? Generous: If the two projects don't go concurrently, then yes we'd have to have a tum around. Keefe: Right, so we really won't know the answer to that until we get the proposal in for the other two when we're considering the next one, right? Generous: When they come in for final plat. 47 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Keefe: You know we definitely need to consider what the residents have brought forth and, but I don't think that's going to be resolved probably until the next, until we see the next development come in. That's all I have. Sacchet: Thank you Dan. Rich, your turn. Slagle: Just a few. I guess I'll state a couple of reasons I support the proposal and then I'll suggest a couple reasons that cause me concern. One is, has been stated and I'll make it quick. The developer is solid. To all the folks who are here, if this does go forward I think you'll find they do more often than not than what I've seen, keep people's interest in mind. I support the landscape island, although I would encourage 28 feet or some compromise between 24 and 28. Support the private drive we're asked to consider. I also support a right hand turn, although those arborvitaes are just unbelievable but in safety needs, but I will start to share my concerns and needs I think that our lacking in this development. One is a park. I'm amazed that we now have a development with this many units at this place in the city that I, seriously I can't think of the nearest park. Keefe: Pheasant Hills. Slagle: You would have to go down Lake Lucy. Up Lake Lucy hill, which is a good mile and along a pretty busy road if you're a lady pushing a stroller, so I sit here and say, if you look at the southern part of our city, the central along Highway 5, we've had recent developments that have been in front of this commission that we have requested and almost required neighborhood totlots, and here we have one that doesn't have one. And then I think well okay we'll go with the developer's idea that they'll go to the middle school. Well, there's no really connection to the middle school. Someone would have to go out to Galpin, up the hill. Take a left on whatever, Melody Hill and then work your way back, or go all the way down to Lake Lucy and then over to Brenden and up Brenden. Not 41 but up that little path. So again in the essence of community I think we're missing that. And I would really ask, and for those who are here, the difficulty of this commission is we don't see this until Thursday of last week. So we get a little frustrated in this position as to why this wasn't done before it got to us. So I just want to know if it's something to consider. I am against, even though it's with city policy, the extension of Street B. Only because I really don't sense in the common sense of things, other than safety and fire, emergency, what that really does for us. If Crestview extended to the north, I can work it's way down toward 7 or something to that effect, I could understand it. But to just add this to a cul-de- sac and we have lots of cul-de-sacs that are as long that have one access so I would be against that. And I do think it's appropriate to talk about it now because it'd be silly to approve this and then have the next development come to us at that point, it's already done. And that leads to two more points. Is should this development that we're talking about today, in light of the new development, should they be tied in some sort together because we have had that happen before where we have actually told a developer, hold on. There's other developers who want to develop nearby and we really want to address this all together so I just throw that out as a concern. And then the last one is, with respect to the landowners to the south and the runoff. If we remember the development that we just approved 3-4 months ago on the south side of Pioneer, Pemtom I believe it was, we actually required, or the city did, different mitigation on those lots on the bluff M �J 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 to avoid additional erosion and mitigating the water runoff. I'm just curious as to why we didn't see that here. Maybe it's not needed, but at least it raised a concern that maybe it is. That's it. Sacchet: Alright, I've got a few comments too. First points that the developer brought up. I do like the idea of the wide cul-de-sac personally. I think it's good to try something new. That's just the way I am. Yeah, I think if it gets mitigated with the width of the street, that we can accommodate, we should be able to accommodate something new. The private roads, I think they make a lot of sense. They allow us to preserve more of the natural features. I'm comfortable with the developer wanting to further explore the possibility of the sewer connection to the south. Whether the concerns of staff can be mitigated. I don't think that's a reason to hold it up. Lot 27. You know it's relatively infrequent that staff actually recommends a deletion of a lot. Usually it's us from the Planning Commission that does that and when staff does it I believe there's quite significant reason to it so I definitely support staff in that notion. In terms of the drainage, I think it needs to be further considered. You know it's interesting. I came, when I looked at this I kind of felt like this should be tabled because more effort should be done to preserve more trees and lessen the amount of grading. Because I mean there are no two ways about it. The tree loss is horrendous. There's no two ways about that. I usually spend some time looking at the tree inventory and I want to thank the applicant of submitting a very detailed tree inventory, and I usually look at the very significant trees. The biggest ones. And we're losing 25, or even 27 of the biggest trees. We only saved 4. That trees 28 inch and bigger. I went out there looking at a couple of trees like I hit you with one of them that I felt well if it can be tweaked a little bit, it could be saved. There were a couple of other ones that I noticed. In some places the grade change is just way too big to even start thinking about saving more trees, but having worked with this developer before I feel comfortable that if they work with staff that they will do their best to adjust some of these lines like the example that I gave you where maybe a tree ... but looking at it, I mean if that's an indication out of 25, actually out of what 30 trees, 25 get cut if you look at the most significant ones. Personally I'd like to definitely see more effort there to the point that when I walked in here I was thinking I'd rather send you back to the drawing board and do that effort and want to see it again. Considering the good will that's been displayed, I'm torn. It seems like there's so much we can enforce that, so I'd rather foster the good will. In terms of the Crestview connection, it's definitely clearly a city policy that we want to connect neighborhoods. I mean that's not a staff idea. That's a comprehensive city plan issue as Kurt pointed out very aptly. On the other hand I also want to point out that in the past we definitely have been sensitive to neighborhoods that express a concern. Was it the Melody Hill Lane or what's that called, that was supposed to go through. The neighborhood very clearly expressed they didn't want that and we didn't do it so if the neighborhood really doesn't want it and it seems like it's pretty unanimous, all the power to them. It has to be looked at in conjunction though with this development that's coming in. Because all of a sudden we have, you say what is it, 5 families and we add another 5 so we're only doubling there. It only takes an outlot or two to develop and all of a sudden you have 3 times the people in one cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac that goes a couple of turns, it's very narrow, become an issue. But that's for the residents first to give their input too. Tree preservation, we already touched on preservation easements. They just don't have much teeth. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But then on the other hand trying to preserve these trees along Galpin might be a moot point with the street. With some likeliness extending at some point in the future, we might be better off starting to plant a new hedge where it's going to stay where it has a chance to stay in the long run than Em 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 trying to preserve something that is very questionable and to what extent it can stay. Playground I think would be really important. I think that Lot 27 is forced. Whether it's the right place for a totlot, I have to admit it may not be but not having anyplace for little kids to play in any proximity is a concern that I would like to see addressed. That's probably one of, between that and the tree savings, that's the two most significant points I have. Let me see, do I have anything else? I think I probably talked long enough and we do want to move on. So with that, anybody want to shoot for a motion? Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission adopts the following two motions. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural Residential to Single -Family Residential based on consistency with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with surrounding development and recommendation and motion B. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Incorporated dated 9/17/04, revised 9/22/04 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions 1 through, you know I really like the other way of numbering. Sacchet: 1 through 5 with all the letters. Lillehaug: 1 through 5 with all the letters. With an exception of, jeepers. Give me a little bit here. Revising, please change back to how we used to do it. I don't even have a clue of how to look at this. Page 13, (p). Sacchet: 5(p). Lillehaug: 5(p). Claybaugh: 6(p). Sacchet: Is there a 6 somewhere? Claybaugh: Yes. No. Yeah, he's right. We've got to go back to the old way. Sacchet: We've got double number layers. Lillehaug: Page 13, (p). I want to stress that I agree with staff's position on that. Page 13 (o). want to revise that to say a standard cul-de-sac turn around for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B and then delete the rest of it so in essence they're not connecting up. Generous: No connection. Lillehaug: No connection to the north. Page 13 (r), I would like it to revise to say, revise Street C to be a standard 28 feet width. And then I want to add a condition. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be provided to the city. Someone help me out U11 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 with that easement requirement. I cannot remember. Craig, was there something with an easement requirement? Claybaugh: Yeah, it was in tandem with the independent testing or Matt, go ahead. Saam: Yeah, a 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must also be submitted for the private street. Lillehaug: For the private streets? Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. And there's going to be others here but I'm going to just stop right there. And maybe amend myself in a bit here. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We need a second first before we do amendments. Claybaugh: I'll second. Sacchet: We have a second. Friendly amendments. Well first point of clarification Steve if I may. Your revision to point (r) on page 13. Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: You said to a 28 width, but you deleted standard. So you're supporting the eyebrow or do you want it standard? Lillehaug: I deleted cul-de-sac is what I meant to say, so it should read, revise Street C to be a standard 28 foot width. So I deleted the words cul-de-sac so it is just like shown there but widen it to 28 feet. Keeping the eyebrow. See I gave a little bit. Sacchet: That's I just want to make sure what you gave. Thank you. Claybaugh: It's all that time he spent in Edina, he's grown to appreciate the finer things. Slagle: Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. Should we be voting first on A and then we vote on B? Since there's two motions it says adopt the following two motions. Sacchet: I think we can do it in one here. Generous: You can do them in one. Slagle: Do we want to do it in one hit? I guess I'm just throwing that out. Sacchet: Is there any reason why we shouldn't? 51 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Lillehaug: I'm okay with doing it in one. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Lillehaug: I have an amendment to myself here. And I think this would be page 13 (q). I don't want to just say delete the western sanitary sewer line because I do have concerns with the 40 plus or minus foot deep sanitary line and I want to, I'd like staff to revisit that and I'm not saying that it won't go as staff is saying but just please revisit that and work with staff and come up with a better plan. Sacchet: Work with staff to in further investigate the feasibility of that sewer connection? Something like that? Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Ahight, yeah that's good. So you accept that? Lillehaug: I do. And another amendment is, or another condition would be to work with staff to incorporate a tot or similar type playground on this site, and if that's eliminating another lot, so be it. But it's not necessarily putting that playground on Lot 7, or 27. It's putting it somewhere else within the development because I concur with the concerns that Bethany indicated about having a playground right next to the water, but usually there's safety benches there but. Sacchet: You did leave the deletion of Lot 27 though. Lillehaug: I left page 13 (p) in there, yes. Sacchet: Okay, just to be clear. Lillehaug: Deletion of that Lot 27. Sacchet: Okay. That's clear. Slagle: Point of clarification Commissioner Lillehaug. Would any verbiage that would state sufficient barriers from the pond be adequate? For Lot 27. Lillehaug: Rather than eliminating another lot, I think it would be because another just... Claybaugh: ...in conjunction with a 4 foot fence. Lillehaug: And usually there's a safety bench in the pond, correct? Safety bench meaning shallow area. Claybaugh: Some kind of retainage wall to kind of level off that lot a little bit. 52 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Lillehaug: So revising my last condition it would be, work with staff to incorporate a playground within the site somewhere. Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Could we add to that, some tree preservation. Put it in a place where more trees can be preserved. Because a totlot doesn't need the same amount of grading as a house pad. Just something to work with staff in that context. Nathan Franzen: Some provision perhaps to where we work with Jill. Sacchet: Right. Right, nothing specific at this point. Work with the city to determine, to leverage out some more tree preservation at the same time. Lillehaug: I accept that. Sacchet: Okay. I would actually I'd like to add a general clause on that. Work with city to make every effort to save more trees and minimize grading as much as possible through a detailed look. Detailed walk through when the tree preservation fencing gets determined. Where to fine tune things like the example that I pointed out. Lillehaug: So then maybe we should revise page 11, condition 4(d). Sacchet: 4(d). Preservation..., yes. Shall be, applicant shall work with city to make every effort possible to preserve further trees beyond what's in the tree preservation plan. Something to that point. I think I'm fine to leave it open ended. I would like to specifically however say something about. Lillehaug: I accept that. Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Something about the concern from the neighbor to the north. About this evergreen hedge and the proximity of that retaining wall. I think that's another element that needs to be looked at or with the city. With the City Forester to ensure that these evergreens have a realistic prospect of survival. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense at all. Can we do something to that effect in there? Lillehaug: I accept. Sacchet: That's accepted? Lillehaug: Yeah. Sacchet: Alright. Anything else? Slagle: I've got one more. Sacchet Go ahead Rich. 53 • • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Slagle: Steve, if we could add a condition maybe (v). If we're to (v) or if we're past (v). But it would be requiring an access trail on private road E that connects to the Middle School West property, and I want to just state, the reason I'm asking for that is if you think about this school district, these homes will go to that school, and every neighborhood that I'm aware of that surrounds that school has a connection. You've got the water tower. You've got Brenden Court. I believe to the north, whatever those homes are. There's a connection by the soccer fields and so forth, and yet this neighborhood would literally would have to go completely out of it's way for those kids to get to school and I'm sure they'll be walking to school. Lillehaug: I accept that. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Alright. Is that it? Dan. Keefe: In regards to the buffer on the northeast, very northeast corner where they're going to put in the right tum lane, can we require replacement of the trees that are going to come out? And I don't know where that would go. Generous: Under 4. Keefe: Under 4. Sacchet: Under 4. I think that's a reasonable request. On the other hand we do have a buffer planting requirement from the city, but since there isn't really explicit offer right now, I think it would make sense. Slagle: Well and the way that this developer, I mean in our past experiences, as good as they are, they might be open to larger arborvitaes to plant than what we're calling for. Nathan Franzen: Is it the desire of the council to replant with arborvitae? I guess that's our first question. Sacchet: Evergreen I think is the idea, the way I understand it. Nathan Franzen: I'm sure we can, I know we can accommodate that and we will so. Sacchet: Thank you. Nathan Franzen: Yep. Sacchet: Alright. Lillehaug: That's an acceptable condition to page 11, put it in 4 somewhere. 4(e) or whatever it would be so yes. I accept that. 54 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 Sacchet: So that's accepted, okay. Any other ones? Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF) based on consistency with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with surrounding development. And, Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 9/17/04, revised 9/22/04 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. 2. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the city. 3. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on-site. b. All structures shall maintain a 40 -foot setback from wetland buffer edges. c. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback requirements. d. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. e. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not active) bei worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man 55 • Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 made systems that discharge to a surface water. L Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. g. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. h. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $83,465. i. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley -Purgatory -Bluff -Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 09/17/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. The applicant will work with staff to make every effort possible to preserve trees beyond what's in the tree preservation plan. e. Work with City Forester to ensure that the evergreen hedge in the proximity of the retaining wall survive. L The applicant will replace the arborvitae hedge along Galpin Boulevard if it is lost due to installation of the right turn lane. 5. Engineer's Conditions: a. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10 -year and 100 - year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In addition, the proposed ponding must be sized to accommodate the drainage generated from the property to the north, as shown in the 56 Planning Commission Mee — December 7, 2004 • City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). b. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. c. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. d. Staff recommends that Type 11 silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. )n addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. e. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. f. On the utility plan: 1. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. 2. Maintain 10 -foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains. 3. Increase the watermain pipe size in Street D to 8 -inches in diameter. 4. Add a storm sewer line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 with a catch basin at the north property line for future connection by the property to the north. 5. Extend sanitary manhole #12 to the north property line with an invert elevation of 1049.0. g. On the grading plan: 1. Show all existing and proposed easements. 2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 3. Maximum allowable side slope is 3:1; revise in the rearyard of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 and the rearyard of Lot 3, Block 2. 4. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows; the elevation must be 1.5' lower than any adjacent house pad elevations. 5. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations. 57 Planning Commission Meeting — December 7, 2004 6. Use storm sewer class 5 in roadway; revise note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. h. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a pem-iit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. i. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water -main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. J. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. k. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 1. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. in. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH -20 to MH -17, the required easement width will be increased to 50 feet. n. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. o. A standard cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north end of Street B. p. Eliminate Lot 27 and shift the proposed pond to the north to eliminate some of the retaining wall. q. The applicant shall work with staff to further investigate the feasibility of a sewer connection before action is taken to delete the western sanitary sewer line; all sanitary sewer must drain to Manchester Drive. r. Revise Street C to be a standard 28 foot width. 643 Planning Commission Mee — December 7, 2004 s. Lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives. t. This development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way which results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin Boulevard centerline. u. A right -turn lane into the site off of Galpin Boulevard will be required to be constructed. The tum -lane must meet Carver County design requirements. 6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be provided to the city. 7. A 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must also be submitted for the private street. 8. The applicant will work with staff to incorporate a totlot or similar playground facility within this development which will help preserve trees. 9. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School West. All voted in favor except Papke who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good luck with it. Now, in summary for council. In summary for council. Can we just say as discussed in the interest of time? As discussed. Before we take a brief recess I want to ask the councilors, the commissioners are we willing to extend our curfew of 10:30? Are we willing to go later than 10:30? Otherwise we should inform the Yoberry Farms proposal that we're not getting to them today. Claybaugh: Preferably not from my personal standpoint. Sacchet: One nay. Tjomhom: I agree. I think there's no quality. Sacchet: One nay. I mean I'm still on Europe time. You're going to get glazed eyes. Keefe: When is it going to come back? Sacchet: The trouble is, what's the time line on Yobeny? Lillehaug: Is there a point where we might have to have another meeting? I mean with all this development I mean because the way I'm looking at it. Sacchet: I asked Kate about that today. She didn't want to think that was a good idea. Keefe: So we're going to run into the same problem in January aren't we? We're just going to keep backing stuff up. 59