Loading...
CAS-43_HIGHCREST MEADOWS (AKA YOBERRY FARM) (3)0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN L 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 December 23, 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 Rezoning from RR to RSF and subdivision with variances, Yoberry Farm — Planning Case No. 04-43 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. Karet J. Eng hard , DepuQ Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,t day of �).� Jbx,c , 2004. I Notary P blic 11,11 111111 1111 11, 1, 101u;Milnrnesota KIM T. MEU Notary Public CARVER CTY My Commission Expires 1/312005 SCAMNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 4 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for rezoning of property from Rural Residential Proposal: District to Residential Single -Family District and subdivision with variances - Yoberry Farm Planning File: 04-43 Applicant: Yoberry Farms, LLC, David Hurrel, and Karen Weathers Property East of Highway 41, south of Highover Drive and north of Location: Gunflint Trail 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 Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saljaff@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, Weiland 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 ail 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 commerciaVindustrial. • 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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, January 4 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for rezoning of property from Rural Residential Proposal: District to Residential Single -Family District and subdivision with variances - Yoberry Farm Planning File: 04-43 Applicant: Yoberry Farms, LLC, David Hurrel and Karen Weathers Property East of Highway 41, south of Highover Drive and north of Location: Gunflint Trail 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 Sharmeen AI-Jaff at 952-227-1134 Comments: or e-mail saliaffUci.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 500 feet of the subject site to be notified 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 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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, lease contact the Plarmina Staff person named on the notification. 0 Subject This me is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, iMonretion and data located in various city, county, Was and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only The Gty does not warrant that the Geographic Infonretion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this into are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other pormse requiring exading oneasurertent of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. H errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-22]1107. The preceding discerner is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subs. 21 (2000), arM the user of this map acknoWedges that the City shot l not be liable for any damages, and evressly waives all darts, and agrees to defend, indenniy, and had hamiess the City from any antl all dams brought by User, its employees or agents, or thiel parfies which arise out of the users access or use of data proyided. Subject This map is neither a legally recorasel map nor a survey and is ret intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, iaonration ane data locates m various dry. county, state and fmmill offices and other soumxs regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference Imposes only. The City does not v2rtam that the Geographic Infortrrelion System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be itself for neylgational, tracking or any Mer purpose requiring enacting neasurenent of distance or direction or precision in the depiction a geographic features. H moors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding decanter is miyom pursuant to lgnnesom Stables §466.03, Solid. 21 (2000), and the rear a this map acknowledges Mat the City shall not be bade for any damages, and expressly waives aH dams, and agrees to d fend. indennity, and hold hamiess the City from any and all darts brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mind parties tMiich arse out of the users access or use of data pmvidM. 0 0 Public Hearing Notification Area Yoberry Farm City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-43 Subject Property 0 THOMAS J DOLL & PAINTING PERFECTION LTD THOMAS L & SUSAN M YEZZI MARY C DODDS 13875 FENWAY BLVD N THOMAS ASL & SU HILL CT EX BOX OR SUITE MN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HUGO MN 55038 MARK & COLLEEN M FELLNER JOHN P & MARGARET G WIEHOFF JOHN F & NICOLE J COYLE 2323 HARRISON HILL CT 2330 HARRISON HILL CT 2333 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY D & KAREN L SANDEFUR MARK R & SHEILA B HAGEN CHARLES T & LORI L DINNIS 2340 HARRISON HILL CT 2343 HARRISON HILL CT 2362 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY E & MARY ANN O'NEIL JON C & DEBORAH S WADDELL CRAIG A & LOIS S SCHULSTAD 2370 HUNTER DR 2375 LONGACRES DR 2378 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN F & RHONDA S DOLAN DANIEL J & KIMBERLY K HANSON PAUL B & KRISTI L NYBERG 2383 LONGACRES DR 2390 LONGACRES DR 2391 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DARIN M & ANDREA J TYSDAL MICHAEL R & BRENDA L WELLNER PHILIP E & PAMELA A BROWN 2399 LONGACRES DR 2424 LONGACRES DR 2438 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK M & LISA L BRUNNER GORDON & ROSALIE NAST KIMBERLY A CALLAWAY 2443 HUNTER DR TRUSTEES OF TRUST 2448 LONACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2448 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN J & PAMELA S COCCARO MICHAEL L & CANDI S MCGONAGILL MICHAEL & LISA M HOKKANEN 2450 HIGHOVER WAY 2451 HUNTER DR 2456 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY G & CINDY A LOVIG JAMES R & MARY E VALENTINE ROBERT H & ANN MARIE MOORE 2475 GUNFLINT CT 2476 GUNFLINT CT 2484 GUNFLINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R BOTH & JOHN H & SARAH E DRITZ RICHARD J & SARAH R PINAMONTI KELLY M FLINTANDT 2493 GUNFLINT CT 2519 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN GUNFLINT N CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE F & JO ELLEN MUELLER 2529 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENDA F KNIGHT 2555 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES B & CAROLYN B AKERS 2613 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RIAZ & SHIREEN HUSEIN 2655 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEONARD V & MARY ELLEN KUHI 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 0 KEVIN W NORDBY & LESLIE HANNA-NORDBY 2537 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH & KIMBERLY SWITALSKI 2563 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANTHONY J & KATHY A LARSON 2631 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS H STILLINGS & DENISE C STILLINGS 2670 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY C & BRENDA L WILLIAMS 2710 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARVER COUNTY MARK ANDERSON CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR -ADMIN 6840 JEFFREY EYHAZMAINE BLVD CH M ASKA MN 55318 4TH E EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CH TOBY & KARIE M TIMION LAWRENCE M & ABIGAIL DUMOULIN 6959 HIGHOVER DR 6966 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN E MACK JON D GRUBB 6984 HIGHOVER DR 6989 HIGHOVER CT N CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PING CHUNG & DANIEL P ENBLOM & ANH TRAN PAMELA M GRIFFITH-ENBLOM 7000 HIGHOVER DR 7010 CHES MAR DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL J HORN, TRUSTEE & MICHAEL P CAUTIN PAMELA A KLINGER-HORN, 7013 HIGHOVER CT S TRUSTEE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7024 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 is R SCOTT & CARA CELESTE ECKERT 2547 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J & JENNIFER A LORGE 2589 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR & CATHERINE L ANDERSON 2645 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY L & NANCY L SCHMIDT 2700 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BARRY G & JENNIFER J FRIENDS 2735 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 E JEROME & LINDA C CARLSON 6950 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD C & LAURA A BRAY 6983 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY A & LINDA R TWEDT 6999 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK JOLSON 7011 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG J & NANCY G LERVICK 7027 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIFER S JOHNSON 7036 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & LISA G WING 7049 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUTH E ROLFS 7056 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN E & TERRYL A MUELLER 7077 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL W & SUSAN L GILBERT 7100 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ANDREW I & TINA M WHITE 7122 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH J WITTERSCHEIN & LESLIE M WITTERSCHEIN 7150 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 0 REZA & BEVERLY M AGHELNEJAD 7041 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN S & TERESA A FINGER 7052 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM D & BARBARA L JOHNSON 7060 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL W & JACKIE M K OTTOSON 7080 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL R & ROXANNE J YOUNGQUIST 7105 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH R & JUDITH M EULBERG 7136 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID W & PENNY J DONELSON 7164 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES G WAYNE JR 7200 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 0 JAMES S & CANDACE L WISELY 7048 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ULISACCHET 7053 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILIP J & LAURA K HAARSTAD 7066 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC J & JULIENNE G LOHSE 7094 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & JENNIFER H RYSSO 7108 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY M & KELLE L STAATS 7147 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID C & GAIL J LACY 7167 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J & STEPHANIE L SEWARD 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK A & BETH A BROWN NEAL W BRIEST, TRUSTEE & STEPHEN J & HEATHER 7210 GUNFLINT TRL LYNNE HOFFELT-BRIEST, TRUSTEE OSTERMANN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7216 GUNFLINT TRL 7224 LODGEPOLE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT T & SUSANNA A SHARP DAVID R WEATHERS & STUART C & MELANIE S 7232 LODGEPOLE PT KAREN EDELMANN HENDERSON CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7235 HAZELTINE BLVD 7240 GUNFLINT TRL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WALTER A & MELBA D WHITEHILL 7250 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRIAN P & MELISSA R THOMPSON 7260 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J OLENCZUK & SANDRA G OLENCZUK 7269 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARTER W & CARRIE A MUENCH 7284 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 L RILE CHERREY MARY P MCGINTY CHERREY 7300 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & AMY K LYONS 7320 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & CONNIE S MOORE 7330 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 MICHAEL P & LORI B ZUMWINKLE 7250 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STANFORD L & WYNETTE MILLER 7264 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAN S & WENDY L SPILLUM 7270 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEROME P & TERESA L FREDERICK 7297 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & SHARON K CERJANCE 7301 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DARYL S & KRISTEN D MCLINDEN 7321 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK S & PAMELA J GOLENZER 7334 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 r MARK W & STACEY A RIECKS 7256 GUNFLINT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADAM E & LEAH S OLSON 7265 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC K & KELLY J DETTMER 7275 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK W & JOAN R LARSON 7298 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J LEWIS & JENNIFER L LEWIS 7320 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT W & MICHELLE K ODDSEN 7325 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN P & JEAN ANN THAYER 7351 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN DAVID G & STACEY R HURRELL INC RICH SLAGLE 7460 BENT BOW TRL C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 935 WAYZATA BLVD E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYZATA MN 55391 0 0 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing 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. 0443 agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- NOTICEISHEREBY GIVEN that lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market amended. Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for rezoning of (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. property from Rural Residential was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said District to Residential Single -Family Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of OnPrictandsubdfvisionwithvariances the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both soonphOf Higoover rive nd nory4l, inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Hirai.. pplve and north of and publication of the Notice: Gunflint Trail. Applicant: Yoberry Favus, LLC, David Hurrel, and Karen Weathers. abcdefghijklmnopgrstuv yz A plan showing the location of the r Proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business IVII hours. All interested persons are Y invited to attend this public hearing Laurie A. Hartmann andexpress theiropinionswithrespect to this proposal. Sharmeen Al-Jaff. Senior Planner Subscribed and sworn before me on Email: sahaffAci chanhassen inn us 4A& //11 Phone: 952-227- qw 1134 this day of 2004 (Published in the Chanhassen OWEN M. RADUENZ Villager on Thursday, December 23, 2004: No. 4325) NDTMVFlSW MWESOiA W Canarron Esp w Jan. 51, 21105 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial uscrs 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 SCANNED 0 a CITY OF CHANhASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, 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 of property from Rural Residential District to Residential Single -Family District and subdivision with variances on property located east of Highway 41, south of Highover Drive and north of Gunflint Trail. Applicant: Yoberry Farms, LLC, David Hurrel, and Karen Weathers. 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. Sharmeen A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on December 23, 2004) SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: PLANNING CASE NO. 0443 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold public newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 33IA.07, and other applicable laws, as hearing on Tuesday, December mber 7, amended. 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. V 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said this hearing is to consider a request Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of for rezoning of property from Rural the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both Residential District to Residential inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition SmgleFamilyDishictmdsubdivision and publication of the Notice: withvariancesonpropertylocatedwest ofHighway4l, southofHighoverDrive and northFarms, LLC, ail. Applicant: abedefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Yoberry Farms, LLC, David Harrel, and Karen Weathers. A plan showing the location of the j proposal is available for public review By: at City Hall during regular business Laurie A. Hartmann hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing a ndexpresstheiropinionswithrespect to this proposal. Subscribed and sworn before me on Sharmeen Al- Jaff, Senior Planner Email: salfafMci.chanhacc-n.mn.us this day of , 2004 m- -----, Phone: 952-227- GWEN M. RADUENZ 1134 (Published in the Chanhassen NOTARY PU6iIC MINNESOTA Villager on Thursday, November 25, My Commww Exgim Jan. 31.2005 2004: No. 4306) L I Notary Public RATE INFORMATION 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 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43 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 of property from Rural Residential District to Residential Single -Family District and subdivision with variances on property located west of Highway 41, south of Highover Drive and north of Gunflint Trail. Applicant: Yober y Farms, LLC, David Hurrel, and Karen Weathers. 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. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on November 25, 2004) 0 • The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. City Council Meeting — Apn`i25, 2005 • Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 4, 2005 oy-µ3 b. Resolution#2005-43: Call Assessment Hearing for 2005 Street Improvement Project 05- 01. e. Fox Den, 6500 Chanhassen Road, 10 Spring, Inc.: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Approve Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 05-10. Resolution#2005-44: Approval of Quit Claim Deed, TH 101 Gap ProjectlJesberg Property. g. Approval of City Code Amendment to Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District. i. Arbor Day Proclamation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. X H. FINAL APLAT APPROVAL, HIGHCREST MEADOWS 1sT, 2ND, 3RD ADDITIONS. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I just want to pull that, I didn't want to vote on it with the consent agenda primarily because I'm going to vote against it on the same basic vote that we did a few weeks ago that, with the cul-de-sac versus non -cul-de-sac and I again want to vote against it primarily because I don't think it's in the best interest of our community to have long cul-de- sacs and I support the comprehensive plan that states that we do try to pull together our individual communities into one and the cul-de-sac system that we're putting through this 1(h) tonight does not do that so I'm going to be voting against that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? With that, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the final plat for Highcrest Meadows 15`, 2°d, 3`d Additions (formerly known as Yoberry Farm). All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson and Mayor Furlong who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Dick Mingo: My name is Dick Mingo, 7601 Great Plains Boulevard. 47 year resident here of Chanhassen. I'm here, I just got back from Florida and, in fact several weeks or maybe even a month or so ago we got a message from one of our nieces that you folks have decided to drop the name of a little street down a road here. It was kind of a crumb dropped in my wife's hand. She worked on this for about a year and a half to establish this where you people now have changed the name of Pauly Drive to the real original name of Market Avenue. I was up here this 4 rI City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 i oq-43 Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske is here as well this evening from the fire department. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. As you see in my report there, don't have a whole lot going on. We're down in call numbers again so that's a good thing. We've been up to a couple things I guess. Basically lately I attended a League of Minnesota Cities class with City Manager Gerhardt and Assistant City Manager Miller regarding fire department issues and didn't find out a whole lot of issues that we have here that come to light so that was good. Probably be recruiting sometime in April here to add a couple new fire fighters with hiring sometime in July. We've got a couple fire fighters who will be leaving this year so we'll be processing replacements on those. Other than that we don't have a whole lot that went on. No fires to report or anything like that so pretty quick report for you this month. Quiet is good. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to add the class we did attend, our fire department does a great job in organizing themselves, managing themselves compared to some other communities. There are townships that are having difficulties so hats off to Greg and his staff in making sure they're well managed over there and I appreciate that. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief. (WITH VARIANCES); LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL: YOBERRY FARM. APPLICANT; YOBERRY FARMS, LLC, DAVID HURRELL AND KAREN WEATHERS; PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43. Public Present: Name Address Uli Sacchet Greg & Linda Twedt Karen Weathers Jesse Larson Steve Johnston Tom Stokes Bill Coffman Chuck Alcon 7053 Highover Court South 6999 Highover Drive Applicant 3440 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis 410 0 Avenue North, Minneapolis 4052 Oakland, St. Bonifacius 600 West 78m Street 6138 76'" West, Loretto • • City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Tim Block 6903 Highover Drive Dan Johnson 6951 Highover Drive Travis Sprague 6888 Highover Drive Rodd Wagner 6915 Highover Drive Joe Thull 6872 Highover Drive Dave Damman 6934 Highover Drive Philip Haarstad 7066 Harrison Hill Trail Brent Kreofsky 2221 Hunter Drive Martin Zielinski 2211 Hunter Drive Scott Muschewske 2241 Hunter Drive Mark Erickson 2216 Hunter Drive Larry Lovig 2475 Gunflint Court Bill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive Todd Rech 2408 Hunter Drive Stuart Henderson 7240 Gunflint Trail Jennifer Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Michael McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Mark Zaebst 2325 Hunter Drive Larry Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Lois Degler 9111 Audubon Dan Hanson 2390 Longacres Drive Chris Rozwadowski 2443 Highover Trail Jacqie Dougherty 2423 Highover Trail Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail Kate Aanenson: As you indicated Mayor, this item was tabled two weeks ago to respond to the two petitions from the neighborhood so in our cover memo to the staff report we broke those down. There was similar issues. We didn't want anybody to think we overlooked an issue we tried to take them, or combine them where it seemed appropriate so I'll go through those briefly. The first one was that the proposed development exceed the capacity of a local road. We explained at the last meeting to kind of put it back in as per our comprehensive plan what the trip generation is. 1,000 trips per day on a local road. We broke the number of lots. Again it's the staff's opinion that the road capacity does work. The other issue was brought up was that there's different lot widths and I think there's some ambiguity of how to measure the streets. We measure the consistent back of curb to back of curb so if you go up the back of that. The 31 feet Highover and Gunflint Trail so they're consistent. There's also some issues regarding the connection of the two streets so on page 4 of the staff report we did go through and identified in both staff reports of Highover and Longacres describing the fact that those streets would provide access because we knew, as I indicated in the last staff report, it's our job to make sure we don't land lock any property owners so we did provide a means for those two streets to be connected, and they were identified in both staff reports and conditions of approval. The other issue was that the streets, again be discourage through traffic and I'd like to refer to the site plan if I can. In designing the site plan, obviously this was the one connection point and the connection point to the north at Highover. Looking at a circuitous T street again forcing a stop and a turning movement. In all the traffic calming manuals that's the way to do it. Instead of it's not a straight shot all the way through to, again looking at the design, working with the developer, our F1 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 • engineering staff, the planning staff, looking at the best way to provide internal traffic calming and circulation, we believe that was the best way to manage that and again consistent with the comprehensive plan. And while I'm talking about the comprehensive plan, I just wanted to reiterate because there was a lot of the staff said this, the staff said that. Our job is to make sure that the comprehensive plan and the city's ordinance is followed, so we go through a project_ That's our job to make sure it meets. It's not Sharmeen Al-Jaff's opinion. It's not Kate Aanenson's opinion. It's does it meet the city ordinance based on that recommendation so again we believe this is consistent with what the city's zoning ordinance says. The third issue was the development fails to mitigate the negative impact on surrounding properties. Again, I believe you spoke to this last meeting too Mayor. There are three zoning options for low density within the city. Just recently added another one for small, for a little bit smaller lots where we've got some unique circumstances, but those are twin homes, a PUD or the third option would be the traditional RSF single family minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Highover was developed with a 15,000 square foot lot minimum. Longacres and the Woods, at the PUD which allowed for lots as small as 11,000 square feet and since that subdivision was developed we've changed some of the ordinance regarding calculation of wetland. Cannot be included in the lot. They are in Longacres so those lots appear larger. These there is no wetland included. It's all upland, so all the lots do meet the minimum and then also we've included bluff ordinance city wide when Longacres came in so this is being held to the current city zoning ordinance. So it is consistent with that as far as negative impacts. Again it's single family. Adjacent to single family. Comparable in size and the homes. Number 4 was to verify the slope. We did do that and it's identified in your staff report and that slope is in this area here. And we broke it down into segments just to make sure that nobody thought we were trying to avoid that but the average slope in that area is 23% so it does not meet the bluff requirement. Number 5 was the Hunter Drive issues. We did attach some studies that were done with the city's speed trailers. It details the number of vehicles, speed, average speed and then the 85's percentile which is used for engineers to determine appropriate posting and that was done the month of February. Again as we've indicated, there's some other measures that we know we need to continue to monitor as this, even after this development's done and continue as we do on all city streets, continue to monitor those situations as we do in other streets, whether it's conflict or perceived conflict. So with that, again we believe that the street can handle that. And again I'll let Paul, the City Engineer identify any specific issues that you may have regarding how to address those traffic issues. And then number 6 was the construction access from 41. The developer is proposing to use existing Hurrell driveway, which is on the north side which is approximately on Lot 3. In order to access that for the entire development the roads would have to be connected otherwise the only one, the way you could benefit from construction purposes would be if the road was, if this development was built in it's entirety. One of the questions was, could it continue to be used for construction traffic throughout? The city staff sat down and looked at you know would it be nice to say all the traffic coming in should go this direction. But then you're forcing the burden on one side or the other, whether it's one direction on Longacres. One direction on Highover, and really splitting and distributing that traffic kind of works the best during that construction, certainly during the construction of the sewer, water, roads. All the improvements. Those improvements would come off of the Hurrell driveway which as I indicated is Lot 3. Again that supposes that the main drive, Highover Drive tying into Gunflint Trail is put in place as one continuous project. Again MnDot's concerned about that, as is the city staff. Those people and the speed on 41, as Councilman Lundquist indicated last time we talked about trying to close 0 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 those accesses on Highway 7 where there's high volume of speed. People know where those two access points are now, Lake Lucy and Highover Drive. We don't want to introduce other conflicts and create an additional situation, a problem. Not only for people coming in or out or someone trying to go north, that would be a resident right here. The other issue was the retaining wall. We showed both directions. This would be this area here. Moving this, flip flopping it back and forth. Again we believe the location of that, the street as it is today is a better situation than trying to put the retaining wall adjacent to the wetland. Additional tree loss. So again that's further identified in the staff report. Examples of local streets connecting more than one neighborhood. We gave you examples of several, four that, excuse me, four. Not several. That showed similar back to back 31 feet that are connecting neighborhoods of more than one type and mixed development. The last one you're looking at Stone Creek Drive is probably the longest one we have. That one, just to clarify. I know Councilman Labatt had asked staff if that would be connected, the staff did recommend connecting that street. It wasn't connected but it is one long, all the way through and it was the recommendation from the council at that time, but there are, there is townhouse projects on that street as well as single family homes so it has a total of 210 so we gave you those examples where we always recommend the connection of those two streets. And then lastly, the last, the change that was made from the application since you've seen it last was the introduction of the totlot located in this Outlot D and the developer had proposed to put in a totlot in that location. So with that, the staff still takes a position that it does meet the city's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and we are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, could you just refresh my memory as to the certain times construction trucks can come into a neighborhood and then they have to stop coming in. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And road restrictions also. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we put together a development contract and there are hours, construction hours regarding that. Typically, I don't believe there's any construction activity on Sundays and then there are hours of construction. I don't have those memorized but. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry, I. Kate Aanenson: That's alright. Paul may know. Paul Oehme: The typical construction hours would be from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 at night. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then road restrictions. Spring. When are those dates? Paul Oehme: They vary from year to year depending upon weather conditions but typically they would come off sometime the end of April. 7 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist, any? Councilman Lundquist: Well I can probably, not on the staff report, no. I'll see what the discussion is and probably ask a few more. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, any questions? Councilman Labatt: I'll wait with mine. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Kate could you just share a little bit about the background of the comp plan and how the comp plan tries to integrate neighborhoods and the rationale for that, just to kind of refresh our memory. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the comprehensive plan's the guiding policy for the city and one of the things that it talks about is providing the internal linkages, that we use efficient use of the land. Again we're working together with the developer as we indicated you know as we did on Longacres, and try to look at those. While we were accused that our street doesn't work because it has some windy, those are the things that we like to do. That's what the neighbors like so if it's a straight shot, which we get critiqued on Lake Lucy, people do go faster so we look at making those streets to handle the traffic but also avoid running the high volumes which is in the land use policy that we try to avoid the speeds and the volumes. Which we believe that this project does. Also as part of the transportation policy is each development should provide and dedicate the public streets which this project does, and that they have provided sidewalks. You know we've changed our sidewalk policy as we moved through the last few years. We kind of realize that there's some connections that need to be made, whether it seems at the time that they will be used but connecting, as we did on Highover, making the sidewalk connection. Getting people moving north up to those collector roads. So this does provide that. Also as we indicated before, as part of the comprehensive plan we want to provide access to all those property owners that also want to connect onto as we've worked with the regional park and that grant is, Todd Hoffman the Park and Rec Director talked about getting that linkage to go underneath 41 over to the regional park so all those people have an opportunity. And the comprehensive plan really talks about creating a community, not just a series of neighborhoods. We're all part of the community as whether we go to school together. Pick each other up for church, whatever the situation may be but really creating a set of communities and this isn't the only neighborhood that's, as we showed on our plan that there's different neighborhoods that are connected and we will have some additional in the future but again because the comprehensive plan says we have to provide access to adjoining properties and we can't sequentially, it doesn't always come in the right order. As long as there's adequate access and we do our best to identify those connections in the future to the best of our ability, to do that. I think I answered your question. City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 • Councilman Peterson: Yeah, what about other issues? You know we talked about safety. Is there a safety issue in a cul-de-sac for public safety or not? Kate Aanenson: Well you know Paul can address some of the length of the cul-de-sac issues. Paul Oehme: You know for longer cul-de-sacs there's issues with emergency vehicles only having one access point to get in and out of. There's some sort of blockage at one end of the cul- de-sac, emergency vehicles would have a hard time reaching properties at the far end, that type of thing. For inefficiencies of cul-de-sacs there's, you know it takes two trips basically for mail and delivery vehicles. City vehicles. One in and one out instead of the connection point through the neighborhood and then around so those type of things we look at. You know for cul-de-sacs in general, cul-de-sacs are really designed for small localized pieces of land that either have environmental issues, grade issues, access issues to be extended to. It's not for the intent of cul- de-sacs to be extended for long distances to service just a few properties. That's in general you know our, the trying to reduce the size and the length of cul-de-sacs. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, one of the questions that falls under item number 7 in the staff report. The e-mail that I received made some reference and maybe this is a question too for Mr. Knutson. Made some reference to, that the Option A here, which is being recommended, is the best one, did not meet our ordinance. Can you, does it meet the ordinance? Kate Aanenson: It's staff s opinion that it does meet the ordinance. We've been questioned on this regarding double frontage lots several times. We have responded to that and reviewed that with the City Attorney. There is a 10 foot buffer and it's heavily landscaped so it's our opinion that it does meet city ordinance. Roger Knutson: That's also my opinion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. You show an access from Highway 41 for the construction period. Reading the staff report, the question is one of safety and as I understand the staff report, there's a concern about the safety for having the construction traffic coming in and out on 41. Clearly the residents on Longacres and Highover are concerned about safety in terms of added vehicles to the roads. What's the difference between those construction vehicles entering the site through say Longacres and then up Gunflint rather than coming off of Highway 41 directly on the property? What's the difference from a safety issue and from a traffic flow issue? Paul Oehme: Well the intersections at Longacres, that's dedicated access point currently. The temporary construction access point is, it's not, right now it's not signed. We definitely could recommend that it be signed properly but it's another access point along 41 that could potentially cause problems, especially with large vehicles, cement trucks, delivery trucks, accessing at that particular location when vehicles aren't aware of that particular access point being at that particular location. It's not something that they're used to. It's something that could potentially cause problems. 91 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Can I just go a little further on that too? People that travel 41 know that Lake Lucy and Longacres Drive, for most people that drive it on a regular, or somewhat regular basis, know those two points are there and keeping those. And those were put in a position that have good visibility. Sight lines. This other access, under temporary conditions is not going to have the same sight lines so at a minimum, in working through MnDot and with the weight of the vehicles and that to the neighborhood, they felt that that would be a good point to kind of make the cut off during the construction of utilities and the streets. The heavier vehicles. But to have all those daily trips, on a point where the residential or the daily driver on 41 doesn't know that that point is there, and the speed on 41. You know similar to what we talked about on Highway 7, it's introducing a conflict that we believe is unsafe. Mayor Furlong: You mentioned turn lanes in your staff report. Are there bypass lanes at those intersections, do you know? Kate Aanenson: I don't believe so. Mayor Furlong: On either side. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: I think there is one at Lake Lucy if I'm not, for southbound 41. Councilman Labatt: For southbound, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Is there one southbound at Longacres too? Councilman Labatt: No. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: We should look into that anyway. Okay. But there are turn lanes for deceleration for cars at Lake Lucy. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Which you wouldn't have at the other, and that's. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: Which you wouldn't have at the temporary access which, that's. Mayor Furlong: Well I guess I wanted to clarify. The advantage of that is, as you get decelerating cars off traffic. 10 • 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Kate Aanenson: But you'd expect someone to slow down and stop and someone's looking for that. Makes a quick stop and you're rear end. Those are the sort of things that we're saying we're introducing that conflict. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the developer here this evening? Good evening. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Honorable Mayor, members of the council. My name is Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 76`' Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. We have very, just a couple of comments to add to the staff comments. We did try to respond to some of the issues raised 2 weeks ago in our letter of 23 February and I believe you have that. But secondly, as we go through the process for platting and our project engineer, Landforms is a very experienced company. What we tried to do is we try to look at the comprehensive plan, the city codes, the city ordinances, the land itself and when that process is finished we submit a plat. We believe, excuse me, we believe our submitted plat is the very best engineering recommendation that we can come up with, given the land, given the comprehensive plan and given the zoning codes and ordinances. As noted earlier, it is compliant without variance. With those just brief comments we'll stand by for any questions you might have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the developer at this time? Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have one. Just as I was leaving for the meeting I received an e-mail and I wasn't able to read it and comprehend it totally. It was from a resident, yeah this one. It was from the Harrison Hill neighborhood and you had been in negotiations about different plantings I think and a fence, is that the e-mail you have right there Brian? Councilman Lundquist: I think the question is on the end of Gunflint, the steep curve or tight curve, whatever we're calling it, and whether or not there's 4 lots there or not. Is that the one you're talking about? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yeah. Chuck Alcon: I believe Mayor the one we're talking about is right here? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes. Chuck Alcon: If you look... we made several changes in this particular area. Drawing this road away from this property line as far as we can go. We also have a sidewalk... on the back of curb. In some areas we've changed our plantings to see that those, the viburnum trees which are a little more dense so we believe that buffering is more than satisfactory. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, did you have any questions? Okay, thank you. At this time, as I said earlier, I'll open it up for public comment. Again my preference would be similar to last time is if there are, similar to the visitor presentations. If we could have representatives of groups come forward rather than multiple people repeating the same issues and to the extent that we can deal with the issues that were presented in the staff report this evening, or new 11 • City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 information that you might have that we need to be aware of, that would be my preference but at this time I would certainly open it up for public comment. Invite people to come forward. State their name and address if they would. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'll be relatively brief this evening. I wanted to speak to how. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, if you could. I know you spoke last time. Rodd Wagner: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, my name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. There's been some discussion about traffic counts and traffic loads and I just want to walk you through some of the math that we've done. How we get concerned that Highover Drive is going to be pushed out of compliance with a local road. This is the same map that we've seen many times at the Planning Commission and at the prior City Council meeting and I've just highlighted the various sections here. The blue section being the existing Highover Drive. I've segregated the lots by those that abut the street and those that do not. There are currently 30 homes, 30 lots along the, in the blue section right now. The Yoberry extension would add an additional 19 onto those that abut Highover Drive, and here I'm making a simplifying assumption, I'll speak to variations here in a second. A simplifying assumption that the lots that are either abut or connect to Highover Drive will go north. Obviously there will be a trade of traffic back and forth but let's start with that as just kind of a simplifying assumption to be able to make some reasonable counts. There is a Street A designated by the developer. That picks up an additional 5 homes. There are 17 homes in the green area. Highover Court North and South that spit out onto the top of Highover Drive. And there are currently 4 homes in the pink area, the Highover Trail area right now. There is also, as I'm sure the council is aware of the Carlson property to the east which is shortly going to come before the city for development as well. I understand that will be in the neighborhood of 50 plus homes that they'll be seeking in that area. If you make the assumption that those on Highover Drive stay on Highover Drive and go north up to Lake Lucy to avoid the weaving traffic to the, or weaving road to the south as staff has made reference to, then you get to 75 homes that are currently on that road and if you add an additional 25 or so off of the Highover Trail extension, you're up to 100 homes. You're already at capacity for a local street and with the first UPS truck, FedEx truck, school bus that goes through there, you are now over the statutory limit of a local street. Now, it is possible of course that more traffic would go south. To the degree it is also possible that more traffic would go north. For example the folks that are on the extension of Gunflint Trail could drive north and I think that becomes more of an issue as development continues west and more things are developed out towards St. Bonifacius on Highway 7 out to the northwest of us. You could assume that more traffic will go south. If so, then you load more traffic onto Gunflint Trail. The statutory requirement for a local road is one of limited continuity that primarily serves the abutting properties and Gunflint Trail would no longer fit by that definition. It would not primarily be serving the abutting properties. We have no problem with the rezoning. We agree that it ought to be single family residential, and however we do have, and continue to have concerns about the traffic and the fact that it goes beyond a matter of art or discretion. That in fact it is as configured here and with the additional development, that it will further either, further exacerbate the problem on Hunter Drive. Take Gunflint Trail out of compliance as a local road, or take Highover Drive out of compliance as a local road and therefore that that through access ought not be allowed. We would urge that the 12 • 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 council rezone and approve the preliminary plat with a condition that there not be through access. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any comments from staff on the comments here? Kate Aanenson: Sure. The situation that we showed in your staff report, for example on the collector street on Stone Creek Drive, which starts on Galpin and loops back up to Coulter. It has 210. That is the recommendation for the managing of traffic, and we put these in to show you. We've got examples. I'm not sure what the use of statutory requirement means but those are the recommendations for what a traffic should hold. I'd let the city attorney maybe address what the statutory requirements would be but we certainly have streets that based on for example when staff recommended connecting those two that handle much more traffic than the city code recommends for a local street. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Tim Block: Mayor and council members. My name is Tim Block and I'm at 6903 Highover Drive. I'd like to start from the beginning saying that the residents here are here and they're not afraid to show you a map of what this Yoberry development looks like with everybody else in it and I think you have not seen yet a map like that but I think that it's important for us to start concentrating on this map and not on just Yoberry on it's own. I'd like to start just to talk about the general area of Highway 41. In the comprehensive plan there is a section about Highway 41. There are many concerns about Highway 41 being a high traffic corridor. If I can read from the comprehensive plan it's on page 1998 it talks about the metropolitan region expanding north/south routes in this area will become more important as destinations are less centered on the Twin Cities urban core. So we see right now in the comprehensive plan already the ideas, that Trunk Highway 41 is going to be important north/south corridor. It says currently there are a lack of good north/south routes that provide connections between major east/west principle arterial routes and major river crossings. And it concludes in that section and I'm sorry, I can put it up for you to see it and read it as well. It says even though it provides an important function for the region, there are no major improvements planned for the facility. As a result other parable routes, Audubon Road and Galpin Boulevard will become more important in distributing the traffic demand during peak traffic periods. So we see right now, we see the comprehensive plan already recognizing that north/south routes along Highway 41, as you see on this map, can become an important part of what we need to look at. What I wanted to point out at the outset is that you've seen a lot of discussion about what was going to happen, and we heard that as this plan went in effect, this was going to be the connection to Yoberry here. But that problems existed that may, that made the design go straight through and so we have already a change from the original plan. You see a lot of quotations about what the original plan was. The original plan has an idea of cutting Highover Drive off. Making people turn onto Highover Trail. I mean Highover Way, and then come north again, and so we have a change and I submit to you that there are at least 5 distinct reasons why this proposed development should be a two cul-de-sac non -through street. That is the first one. The change in the plan already had some traffic calming measures and had to be changed. You are being presented with the staff report. I just would like to talk about two things and they are those that are addressed in topic number one. I've been in Texas too many times and so I have taken on some of the things that they say, so as 13 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 to item number 7, I don't have a dog in that fight but as a resident of Chanhassen I ask you not to do that to anybody. Not to do that to anybody who's in this city. But I'm going to keep my comments to item number 1. There are two basic topics in item number 1 that I'd like to talk about. One as Rodd Wagner had talked about was the evaluation of the potential traffic analysis and the second is the width of the streets. You can see that item number 1 really is two paragraphs and so as I address these two questions I'm going to address them in order, in reverse order. The width of the streets has been a concern of the residents. Highover Drive has been measured by the residents at 261/4 feet of pavement, and so the question became after the first hearing, well what's the ordinance. What is the measurement? What is the right way to measure a street? And so when I heard that we measure streets base to base curb I said to myself well, as an engineer I thought well I can't ride on the curb. I can't put my car on the curb as I'm driving. Why is it part of the measurement so I called the Chanhassen police department and asked them if I could get ticketed and the answer was yes. So I looked at the ordinance and I said well what does the ordinance say? And the ordinance says, roadway pavement. And I agree that that might be up to interpretation so I went further. I said what is the comprehensive plan say? So I went to the comprehensive plan on Chapter 5 and it talks about the road widths and it says urban roadways are required to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for local streets and 28 to 30 foot wide permanent, or pavement width. Again pavement, it didn't give me a definition of what pavement meant. But then it says, rural roadways are also required to have a bituminous surfacing 24 feet wide and I thought what does that mean, also required to have a bituminous surface of 24 feet. I didn't know what bituminous meant so I looked in the dictionary and it says coal. So from the comprehensive plan it indicates that, at least from my interpretation that you need 28 feet of coal based pavement. But it still didn't make sense completely to me so I went to the road design manual that MnDot prepares and that talks about curbs. And it says curbs are used extensively at the outside of the shoulder of urban streets, and that's what we're talking about, urban streets. And curb serve several functions and they provide pavement delineation. So I thought well maybe if the curb is providing the delineation, that you can't count the curb so I went one more page in MnDot and it said, the gutter section can be considered part of the shoulder width. However on low speed urban streets where shoulders are not practical, the curb and the gutter section should not be considered part of the travel lane width. The curb face should be offset a minimum of 2 feet from the edge of the travel lane. I submit to the council that 26'/2 feet, I don't know if it's code or not but it's thin and I'd like to just show you one more thing from the packet that you were given. There was an attempt to give us similar situations and I looked at the first one and I said well, the first one's kind of weird. You really have to go well out of your way to go around there and the local street, West 86th Street, 31 feet base to base. Mission Hills Drive, 31 feet base to base. But then I went to the next one and the next one the local street Lake Susan Hills, 35 feet base to base. And I even went to the next two, the local street, Lake Susan Drive, 35 feet base to base. And Stone Creek Drive, 35 feet base to base, so the residents are concerned. The residents believe that Highover Drive is thin. The residents are worried that Chanhassen has said that local streets can hold 1,000 cars. Everywhere else I've looked in North Caroline, in Georgia, in Georgetown they say 800 cars and I thought maybe it was because the width was bigger that we can hold 1,000. But everything that I can find, just looking at this, I cannot find why it is that Highover is what it is. But it is. We have to deal with that and the fact of the matter is that we have to deal with it because we are now in a position where we've built those streets and we have to do something about it. So I would submit to you that the second reason why Highover Drive and the Yoberry connection should be two cul-de-sacs is because 14 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Highover Drive and Gunflint are thin. They're thin on Chanhassen routes. We see 3 out of 4 examples where the streets are 4 feet more wide. So we go back to the first paragraph in that section 1 and we talk about the traffic analysis and late this afternoon I tried my best to produce to you what I believe to be a traffic analysis for that period, or for these two neighborhoods, and what I think that Rodd Wagner and I are both suggesting to you is that we need to consider 5 different traffic generators when we talk about traffic on Highover. We need to look at Highover Drive. We need to look at Yoberry. We have to look to some extent at Longacres. We have to look at the new development and we have to look at through traffic. And I submit that right now in the plan we're only looking at 2 of those 5. In the appendix to the comprehensive plan there is a travel forecast flow chart and we talked about this last time that maybe the better way to do this would be to see what traffic flow really is instead of trying to estimate it. Ask the residents what they thought the traffic was like, and this traffic flow chart that's part of the comprehensive plan indicates that after you've done what the city staff has done and after you've done what Rodd Wagner's tried to do and after what I tried to do, you can go through these steps and they include doing existing traffic counts and making sure that everything's calibrated and make sure that the traffic that you're predicting is really what's happening. And I understand we can't do that, so we have to go back to what we have right now in front of us and that is, an attempt to look at traffic from the top and that is look at the trip generation model that's accepted and see what we can get. So I gave you in an e-mail my attempt at it and I looked at what it would be like through through traffic and what it would look like with a cul-de-sac approach, and I can tell you right now I agree that you can probably sit here and tell me well, these numbers you probably can play with and these numbers that you can probably play with and maybe that many people from Highover Drive aren't going to go north or south, but the reality is is that if you do it the way that Mr. Wagner did it and do it the way that I do it, you see that these numbers are bumping up on the top limits. And what I wanted to point out to you is that if you cul-de-sac the two areas, 3 of the 5 generators are gone. There's no longer a real issue for most of Highover Drive as to the new extension of Highover Trail. We know that half of Yoberry is not going to be coming through our properties and we know that Longacres isn't going to be coming through our property, but what I think the neighborhoods are worried the most about is that we live where we go onto Lake Lucy. We try to get on 41. There's a bus. There's a truck. Somebody's turning left and it's the through traffic that really is our concern because we know that in the past we've been able to stop residents, ask them to slow down and so what we're worried about is very simply someone coming down Lake Lucy, seeing a bus or truck trying to turn left and saying, I'm going to make it to Longacres before them and I'm going to prove that this is a faster route. And so you can see in the traffic analysis that I put out to you and I think again as I'd say, it's my best attempt at something that I heard at the last meeting, that with the through, with the cul-de- sacs we're going to get rid of Highover Trail, Longacres and through traffic. We know what we can predict for everybody else and that way we don't have an issue like we do at Hunter Drive or at other places where we're looking in the past and saying what are we going to do. If we're going to be limited to the traffic analysis as it is right now without following the rest of the flow chart, this is the safest route to keep us under the 1,000. I would like to conclude then with Figure A6 from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan includes management tools when you're coming upon an area that there's a lot of traffic. And if you look on the comprehensive plan, this is the Chanhassen comprehensive plan. It talks about local urban streets and one of the management tools is cul-de-sacs. So the comprehensive plan gives us the power to go forward and break this into two cul-de-sacs. Make it a non -through street. I told 15 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 you there was 5. I think I've addressed 3 or 4. The width of the street is a concern. The height of Highover Drive. The highest point in Chanhassen a concern. The high traffic that the residents have established for you through their own testimony is a concern. There was a change in the development that took away one of the most critical according to some comments. One of the critical ways to slow traffic down, make them turn on Highover Way and then come up north. That was changed. And so, and then I start where I began at the target area. The comprehensive plan says watch out for north/south corridors along 41. I'd ask that you approve the development for residential use but I'd ask that you set a condition that there is no through street and I'll take any questions if you want. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Block? No? Thank you. Comments. Thoughts. Kate Aanenson: Well I just wanted, just to clarify the change in the plan. There was no change in the plan. There was different iterations of Highover, and what I was trying to demonstrate when we looked at Highover, we looked at based on topography, that's how we have to lay out roads. Topography. Avoidance of wetlands. Those sort of things. You know our first choice would have been to have that street come down. That was never submitted. It was never changed. It was just an iteration. We're meeting with the developer to say you know, so it was never changed. So I just want to clarify that point. And we looked at that. And then the comprehensive plan does state a length of cul-de-sac that's recommended too, so just for the record. Councilman Lundquist: What is that length Kate? Paul Oehme: I think it doesn't, to clarify for Kate. I don't think it will state a specific length. It states that we need to look at the topography. We need to look at the area that, where the cul-de- sac is going in and the impacts to the surrounding community is or the surrounding area is. Kate Aanenson: We discourage the long ones. Paul Oehme: That's correct. So one other comment regarding roadway widths. Highover Drive is 31 feet back to back, and that's our typical standard. That's what our practice is. Other communities are narrower streets even. Eden Prairie for example is 28 feet back to back with their curb so every community sets their standards and that's what we typically design our streets and our local roadways to. Councilman Lundquist So we sort of have autonomy over how wide the streets are. Paul Oehme: Eden Prairie has, you know every community has their own adopted standard street width that the council can change. Or approve. Have approved so, and this council, this city has chosen 31 feet for their standard local street width. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment. 16 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Uli Sacchet: Mr. Mayor, council. Good evening. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South, which is you want to look where this is in relationship to the development is right here. Immediately adjacent to the north of the cul-de-sac of Gunflint Trail. I just want to make sure quick a comment and a half. Before I address my personal interest I do believe one thing is being really missing throughout these proceedings, looking at this proposal, and it's to appreciate what the city staff does. I think city staff has been really between a rock and a hard place as you say in this country. On one hand trying to work with the developer. On the other hand trying to accommodate all the concerns of the residents, and particularly Sharmeen A]-Jaff I think has done a fantastic job, a very ungrateful job and I do want to go on record of expressing that. I also do want to thank all the residents for very eloquently expressing all their concerns, even though I don't necessarily share quite the same extent of the concerns and fears, and we do have a term in city planning that we use, since I'm on the Planning Commission. I want to make it clear I'm addressing you as an individual resident, not as a Planning Commissioner, but we do have a term in city planning which is called NIMBY, which means not in my back yard, and I do believe that phenomena plays somewhat into it. Taking the danger of falling a little bit into the NIMBY pattern myself here, talking about what's going on in my own back yard, I do want to point out that I believe the option with the road to the east versus the alternate option which I understand from the proceedings of your last meeting, you're still trying to decide which way to go. If the road goes up here through the woods, would have a far greater impact on not just my lot but the whole Highover neighborhood to the north there, so I would like you to know. I would want to go on record that I definitely much prefer the road on the east side. I do believe there is a lot of buffer to the Harrison Trail between that utility easement. Between the efforts that the developer has made so 1, since I'm directly affected I want to go on the record that that's what I would like to recommend from, as a resident. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else who would like to make a public comment this evening. See some movement in chairs. Brent Kreofsky: Good evening Mr. Mayor, councilmen. My name is Brent Kreofsky. I live at 2221 Hunter Drive and I want to address a couple of things that were mentioned tonight. One is the temporary access for 41. I believe the proposal was to allow that temporary access only during the construction of the road and the sewer, that's correct? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Brent Kreofsky: Okay. Paul Oehme: The, yeah the 2005 construction season but I think MnDot would just give us a one year window when that temporary construction access would be over. That's their recommendation. That's what they would give, us access for. Brent Kreofsky: Okay. And in the assumption is that the construction for the housing, the cement trucks, that type of stuff would come in through the other, if I understood you correct, would come in the other way. You thought that would be fairly balanced, and I would just ask council to put yourself in our, those of us that live on Hunter Drive, in our position and it's not a very enviable position. You guys have heard a lot of detail thrown at you tonight. You pour 17 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 over the pages and pages that we've got here and as I find myself trying to make this difficult decision, I believe L li mentioned not in my back yard. Put yourself in a position that those of us that are living on that road would be in and will find ourselves in as you're trying to make this tough decision. I would ask that we try to extend that, if at all possible. I don't know if we can with MnDot to last the entire time, or at least as much of the construction as possible. Okay. The second item that I want to touch on is Hunter Drive of course. I'm representing several of us here from the end of Hunter Drive and I haven't seen the results of what the sheriffs department has reported to you for average speeds and things like that but one of the things I like about Chanhassen is it's a small town and when the sheriff is sitting down at the end of the corner of the road, people know about it like that. So I'd be careful to use that fully and understand that that plays a role in this situation. I live at the end. I've had people skid up into my front yard. Had a couple other folks have had the same thing. Four times this winter we've had people coming up into our yard. We're right there at the end of intersection of Galpin and Hunter Drive. So I would ask that the council looks at two things. One is a stop sign at Fawn Hill and Hunter and also further consider 20 miles per hour on Hunter Drive. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Quick question of clarification. Brent Kreofsky: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Your first item you were talking about Hunter Drive and also construction access off 41. Brent Kreofsky: No, no, I'm sorry. I live on Hunter but I was talking about the temporary access into Yober y for construction. Mayor Furlong: And then I thought I heard, so I thought I heard you were connecting and dealing with the issue of construction traffic coming up Hunter... Brent Kreofsky: Yeah, the assumption that staff made, as I understood it was that construction traffic for cement trucks, the lumber trucks would come through Hunter, Longacres, or the other accesses. Highover. Kate Aanenson: Right. If you can zoom in on that a little bit. You know one of our concerns is looking at if we force the construction traffic to go a certain way, now you're forcing the burden on a very small, so if you, could you say no construction past Gunflint and force everybody past this? I'm not sure how happy just those, I'm on Longacres Drive, coming down. Mayor Furlong: Your fingers are off the map. Off the camera, I'm sorry. Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. There we go. So if we're, if we're taking down Gunflint Trail, say no construction traffic. Everything has to go past this. I'm not sure how happy those people would be, so we looked at a lot of different scenarios. Saying no construction down this way. Which is one of the issues if you split the neighborhood, you know the access, as I pointed out, to get construction traffic, even in the first part if you were to split the neighborhood, is coming off of Lot 3. If you split that, not all the construction traffic is going to be able to, and I'm IV 0 • City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 talking sewer, water. The utilities and the road surfacing would not be able to service that entire neighborhood, so some of that utilities is going to have to come down then through this access because that utility construction access services the north portion. So what we're working really hard to do, and it's complex. Is try to move it so it's equally distributed as much as possible, and that's going to be a lot of management on our's and complaint driven and managing that. Being up there and managing, and with the developer who we spoke to about that. Making sure that he's on top of that with the contractors that he's, and in the development contract. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to address the council on this matter. New item or topic related to the staff report. No one? Abight. Very good, thank you. I'll close the public comment period now without objection and bring it back to council for discussion or there might be, based upon the public comment we've received, additional public comment, there may be some questions for staff so maybe we can start with that if there are any immediate questions for staff at this time. Anyone? Follow-up. No? Councilman Peterson: Kate, with regard to the 41 connection that we just talked about, what are the odds? Right now I'm kind of leaning towards pushing and using 41 throughout the whole project just, as I look at the common sense factor, you know is it more dangerous on 41 or is it more dangerous for construction traffic on a neighborhoods? I'm kind of leaning towards it's less dangerous for 41 but what do we need to do to see if we can get MnDot to extend that. Paul Oehme: We just petition MnDot for extension of the temporary access permit to 41 and see if they will grant that to us. We can take it up the chain of command at MnDot and knock on every door to see what we can do to extend that. That permit length as long as we can. Councilman Peterson: Do we have any precedence at all or not? That you're aware of. Paul Oehme: Not that I'm aware of. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Kate Aanenson: I think just to add to that, I think it's, you can tell a lot as we begin construction. You know how it's being managed. I mean we'll figure that out real quick if there's problems. If it's not working so. Councilman Peterson: We can always change it. Kate Aanenson: Correct, right. Exactly, but I'm saying we'll see how it's being managed and that's going to be prudent on everybody to be responsible out there if there's ... and that sort of thing so. But if it's working... Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. I'm sorry, did you have a question? 19 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Yeah a couple please, if you don't mind. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Kate let's talk about two cul-de-sacs, at least on paper. You've got a proposed layout or one that was looked at before. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Before I put it up there I just want to make clear, it's hard to split the baby so somebody's going to share probably a little bit more of the burden, and that's based on topography and how that all works out because the high point's in the center. So, having said that, can you zoom in on that Nann. Councilman Lundquist: Is that a qualifier? For the record. Kate Aanenson: We did look at that. So this cul-de-sac, this is Mrs. Weathers property, would come back down into Gunflint Trail. Then this cul-de-sac, again this is the high point here, would go back up towards Highover. And then again based on grading, getting through there. The orange reflects sidewalk connections. Again the goal is to connect, we're still trying to get up to that trail connection over to Minnewashta. Again the complexity comes in with this is the driveway, to use this. So how do we get that construction traffic down here because you wouldn't cut across the lot. That adds the other layer of complexity. Councilman Lundquist: So, back on the temporary access for construction. Where is the proposed temporary access? Kate Aanenson: Lot 3, which is, let's see if we can focus in on that a little bit better. It'd be coming off of this lot right here. So you wouldn't have access to this portion, the southern portion so that would still have to come. Councilman Lundquist: Okay so Mrs. Weathers driveway isn't, at one time I thought last meeting that were talking about using the existing driveway as the temporary access. Kate Aanenson: No, on the Hun -ell property. Yeah, that's on the Hurrell property. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, she's continuing to live there and being platted into another lot so, and that driveway would be eliminated. Councilman Lundquist: Oh okay. I had seen one of the conditions that it's elimination of the driveway. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was a MnDot condition so that's the complexity is trying to make that all balance. We can look to that but that would be our one concern. Because once you have utilities in, you can't have any driving across the lots just to be clear on that. 01 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Alright. And then on that, the impact of the end of I guess it would be Highover Drive now, against Harrison Hill instead of Gunflint, with the sharper corner there on the northeast comer. Does that essentially the same layout as either proposals? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, it's pretty close to the same. Yeah, this curve might be a little bit tighter to make this connection. This group. So I'm not sure to what level of detail again, just to be clear for the record, this is just an iteration showing a drawing so. Yeah so. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Yep. Okay. Councilman Labatt: Kate what, Brian can I? Mayor Furlong: Yep, go ahead. Councilman Labatt: With that curve on Gunflint, would it have to be a curve or couldn't you just make it a 90? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we could look at that, yeah. Like a, yeah. A T or L. Councilman Labatt: L. Kate Aanenson: It's a construction traffic issue. I guess we haven't solved that whole thing yet. Councilman Labatt: Well I think both plans obviously have construction traffic issues. So there's, the point isn't really, is that good for the south or the north, in either plan you're going to get it both ways. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but this will have heavy construction traffic during this utility portion of it because you can't get that, and if you did, if MnDot let us have the whole year, as you had asked us to do, which we're hoping to continue that, if we could mange that appropriately, then this wouldn't be an option for that. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, explain that again. Councilman Peterson: Would not be the option? Kate Aanenson: Would not be an option because. Councilman Lundquist: They wouldn't get any. Kate Aanenson: They wouldn't get any, yeah. There wouldn't be any way to access that so you couldn't provide that alternative, which we had hoped to do. Councilman Lundquist: You can't have both. Kate Aanenson: Correct. 21 11 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 • Councilman Labatt: Well I think you're dealing with a construction season problem versus a lifetime problem. What's the number of lots in this plan compared to what's proposed right now? Kate Aanenson: They're the same. Councilman Labatt: So the developer's not losing any lots. Kate Aanenson: No. But again it's the, well like I said you know, there's going to be, based on this plan, more of them are going up to Highover based on that topographic break. Again, going back to what I said about how we work through the design, it has to do with sewer flow, water, wetlands, so that's all driving the grades of the street's driving that so. Councilman Peterson: How many again on the upper cul-de-sac? How many lots versus the lower? Kate Aanenson: Again, this is the original, king of first blush at it. The Gunflint access would have 21 and 36 would go towards Highover. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, could you repeat that. Kate Aanenson: 21 on the Gunflint and 36 towards Highover. Mayor Furlong: That schematic that you have or plan or I don't know what title you want to give to it. Who put that together or how long have you had it? Kate Aanenson: Their engineers. Mayor Furlong: The applicant. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Put it together, okay. Have you had that long or how long has that been? Kate Aanenson: No, we just got this in the last meetings. Asked them to kind of look at putting one together. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So staff hasn't looked at, from any detail standpoint. Kate Aanenson: No, but I believe. Mayor Furlong: Or what level of detail have you looked at it in terms of a normal site plan process. 22 • 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Kate Aanenson: This portion is going to be pretty similar. This cul-de-sac. Correct me if I'm wrong, that part is still, yeah... Steve Johnston: Good evening. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm with Landform. We, the plan you see in front of you from an engineering standpoint will work. The eastern most cul-de-sac is in the exact same place. The northwestern cul-de-sac is identical. And the cul-de-sac on the Weathers property on the southwestern corner are identical. There are a few things though that you should make note of. This results in a cul-de-sac that is 1,850 feet long. Results in a cul-de- sac with 86 plus homes on it. There will be 86 homes plus whatever comes in with the Carlson property. Now if I came to you with a new project that says I want to put 100 plus homes on a single cul-de-sac, I wouldn't stand a chance. You would laugh me out of here. This is being done for political reasons, not for traffic safety. Not to meet a comp plan. Not to address the plan that meets all your ordinances. It's being done politically. So I just want to make that part of it clear. Engineering wise this plan that's in front of you I'm confident we can make work. But I would never have come to you with this plan in the first place expecting you to approve it because while your ordinance may not specify maximum cul-de-sac length, I doubt that you would approve 1,850 feet of cul-de-sac with 86 plus units on it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Steve Johnston: And that will guarantee that in the Highover neighborhood they will have over 1,000 trips per day. The analysis we looked at that we were presented with earlier, there's a major piece of it that was missing in that analysis and that is not where the trips are generated from but what the destination is. If somebody is heading south and they happen to live on Highover Drive in our project, they are going to go south. Just because they live on that street does not mean that they are going to go north up through the Highover neighborhood and then come south again on 41. There's going to be a split somewhere in the neighborhood that they're going to view it's easier to go, when they're going north, it's going to be easier to start out going north. And some portion that may view it's easier to go south and then north. You have to look at the destinations in the traffic study, not just where the homes are and what street they happen to be on. I believe that the current plan will split the traffic pretty evenly. It is going to be destination driven, not where you are within the individual projects. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Kate can you address what he just stated about the next potential development being land locked or having trouble if it is a double cul-de-sac. Is that what I heard? Kate Aanenson: No. Are you talking about the Carlson piece? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. Kate Aanenson: This subdivision has access via Galpin. Extension into Highover and the developer is working to try to secure access to Lake Lucy. So it splits the traffic three different ways. 23 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Three ways. Kate Aanenson: Three ways, correct. Councilman Labatt: Kate, how long is the Settlers West? That cul-de-sac that we just made down in that, on the bluff. That was 1,400-1,500 feet. We've done long cul-de-sacs. Paul Oehme: We have in certain situations. This one, it's not 1,800 feet. It's more like 3,500 feet because you have to add in the existing Mghover Drive, which would make this the longest cul-de-sac in our city. Councilman Labatt: Well there's got to be one. We have done, Settlers West was, yeah. We looked at that topographically speaking. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Councilman Labatt: We decided a cul-de-sac and make it long. We could have come up from the bluff and. Paul Oehme: Well access was limited from the bluff area in that particular project we were looking at environmental issues again and access so I mean basically we were landlocked there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Follow-up questions. No? Why don't we move to discussion then. Council discussion. See where this brings us. Who'd like to start? Councilman Labatt, you went last last time. Councilman Labatt: Ah sure. Sure. I guess my position really hasn't changed from 2 weeks ago. I've done some more reading on other issues around metro areas and it wasn't 3-4 weeks ago Bloomington had an article in the Star Tribune about their east/west roads. People are trying to avoid 494 traffic. And the problems they're having down there and what they're trying to do now and they're closing some streets or they're putting signs up, if you don't live here don't drive here. All this kind of stuff. They're experiencing problems today from planning 20 years ago. And I think we need to try to avoid what Bloomington's going through today and those residents are feeling. The two cul-de-sac plan, this is the first time I saw it was right now. It's something that, so the developer's not losing any lots. Still gets the same number of lots. We're going to have a safer area here without the through traffic. The construction north and south vehicles. It's 21 to 36. I really think we need to look strong and hard here at the two cul-de-sac option. What we've seen on paper here and hearing that it doesn't affect the bottom dollar, the number of lots in a developer is an option that we should really look at. For the sake of the Highover people, Longacres people, they've never said not in my back yard. Nobody's ever said we don't want this development. They've liked the development. Let's tweak it. Let's make it a little bit safer. And my hats off to all the residents who have stood by and said you know, this is going to be a nice development but here's our concerns. Unlike some of the other past developers we've had, or developments that come in where people have said not in my back yard. So, I'll leave it at that. My comments are still the same as last time. I would you know 24 • City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 strongly ask that we give the two cul-de-sacs some very serious consideration and I did have a couple amendments to the conditions, but I'll give you those after I hear everybody's comments. Just kind of tweak a few of them if I need to. Mayor Furlong: Abight. Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I was hoping for a sore throat and my voice would and I don't think that's going to happen in the next 15 minutes. You know Steve, I hear what you're saying on the side of the cul-de-sac and it's interesting to see it. What is a little bit scary is that we're talking about essentially doubling the size of our longest cul-de-sac. Not adding a few feet, and that's somewhat alarming to hear that. If we put in that long of a cul-de-sac with 86 homes, that traffic count will even go higher than what some of the residents and what staff is predicting and that's worrisome from a safety perspective so I think what we had hoped to accomplish with the two cul-de-sacs isn't necessarily happening when you have to put that many homes on a cul-de-sac. It certainly addresses it for the Longacres side, but it doesn't seem to be a clear cut decision on the 13ighover side. What we certainly don't want to do is make a decision that puts even higher traffic counts on any road. And I think you also have to factor in the, you know the garage, garbage. The garbage trucks and delivery trucks and the mail and the school buses are going to make double the amount of trips on a very long street, and I think that's just something that we just need to be conscience about. A lot of discussion tonight, and 2 weeks ago was about interpreting the comprehensive plan and the ordinances and I have a great deal of understanding of wanting to interpret that but I really think it's, we can sit and interpret the ordinances and codes and talk about definition of words but I think it's going to come down to, is it really going to be safer for a through street or is it going to be safer for two cul-de-sacs. And we're tasked with interpreting the ordinances because the ordinances and the comprehensive plan are about interpretation. They're not a black and white document that we are respectfully tasked with interpreting that. And tonight, and over the last multiple weeks, what I've read and I feel the passion of all the residents around there but I'm still tasked with making a decision what's best for the residents in my interpretation of the code. I just don't see a compelling reason right now that two cul-de-sacs is going to be safer. It's an opinion, okay. You may agree or disagree with that opinion but I do my best to make an informed decision and listen and we're obligated to adhere to a comprehensive plan and our interpretation of that. We all ran for office, and I think to a person we've agreed that the comprehensive plan is something that we want to use as our guiding principle and long cul-de-sacs aren't part of that, for all the right reasons. 4 weeks ago we made a determination, unanimous determination that the Pinehurst development needed to be connected through a through street for all the same reasons we've talked about tonight. So I, you know, for me to make a decision that is against that decision was 4 weeks ago. It's fresh in our respective minds. There really isn't that much difference between these two developments. Actually there's more common with Yoberry than there would be on the Pinehurst because it was really two different styles of developments that we agreed that it was right to connect those. It goes down to is proper planning the use of cul-de-sacs and I'm leaning towards agreeing with staff that it's not proper planning and it's not safe and it could be more unsafe if we potentially do it as the one option has been presented tonight. There may be other options, and maybe that's something we're going to talk about as a council is that, is that the only option for the two cul- de-sac version, but I don't like hearing 86 homes and over 3,000 feet. That's alarming. I do think that we should work with MnDot you know to get the 41 connection to the length of the 25 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 project and work effortlessly to make that happen. I like what the developer has done with the totlot. Adding that in. The Harrison Bill, you know we didn't get consensus 2 weeks ago. We don't have that tonight. I think what the developer and staff has agreed to is reasonable on there with, if oriented to the east. Hunter Drive, we have an issue. Again as we said last week, those are two different issues and I think we necessarily need to deal with the Hunter Drive but we need to as a council deal with that with dispatch and you know there were things in the staff report that I hadn't seen before that we need to pursue aggressively, but whether that is a stop sign on the comer, I don't know but I want to talk about it soon. So, that being said, it is my qualified opinion that there isn't a compelling reason to change from the comp plan and that I am not convinced that two cul-de-sacs are even going to be safer for the community. Those are my humble thoughts. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Are you ready for my humble thoughts? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Very humble thoughts. I'd have to say that I agree that this development meets the bare bones development requirements of the city. The project contains a maximum amount of lots and with the minimum requirements of our city, and I believe that also happened with Longacres and Highover and that's why we're having the problem right now. Is we're trying to combine three maxed out developments and make them run smoothly together and I think that's what we're dealing with. I think the numbers could be played many different ways. You know one development has 57 homes. One development has, I'm sorry, 58. One has 59. It goes on and on and you can play those numbers which ever way, whatever side you're on. If you want to say that you're going to have too much traffic on Gunflint, you're going to take those numbers and add them to your side of the pile. And if you think that you're not going to, that the traffic will be no problem, you're take those numbers, cut them in half and move them over to your side of the pile, so I think it's all up for interpretation because I cannot guesstimate and no one else can predict how people will live -they'll take and the places they'll go. And so I feel, I don't feel comfortable assuming anything when it comes to traffic patterns and how people are going to live. I'm very, very disappointed that there was never a formal application submitted to MnDot for access for these developments onto Highway 41. I don't believe that we really strong armed them or used creativity and determination to make this happen, and I'm not sure why because I think we wouldn't be sitting here right now if we had worked a little harder on that and maybe, I don't know, strong armed MnDot. Maybe it still wouldn't have worked but I think we all would have felt better leaving tonight knowing we had earnestly put up a fist fight for it. Figuratively speaking, I think these two neighborhoods have brought us to the dance in Chanhassen. I think they're the ones that took a chance on us all. They pay high taxes. They're good families and they're a huge reason why this city is, the city as it is and I want to acknowledge that and I want to make sure that we've all heard and understood them. The concern that these people have for their children. Another issue I have is construction traffic. I find it unacceptable to have huge trucks and construction crews using these roads and sometimes racing through these roads to get home at night. I just think it's imperative that all construction traffic enter and exit off of 41 for as long as it takes for the building process to get done. And on 9 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 a good note though, on a good note about this whole thing, I've been pleased about the parks. I'm pleased that Highover came together, Not, Longacres came together with the developer and discussed the park situation and the developer graciously gave this development a park. I'm not for making developers put parks in. I don't believe in that but I think that was the best solution to this problem, and on that note I want to say that I've learned one thing is I want to make sure our city does not become a city of wrist bands where if my child has a blue wrist band he can play at the blue park. But he can't go to the red park. I just, in the future I hope we all think about that and I understand who's the best solution because that park access on 411 don't think was feasible for a young mother with a stroller to access so. And I think the developer did a nice job by, in welcoming the existing neighbors to the park and I trust that the invitation will be reciprocated with the other two developments. I think everyone worked hard on this development and I think, and I hope tonight that we all leave here knowing that our voices were heard, and it's not always the ending that counts most but the process and how we got there and I think everybody worked hard and they should be proud. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Couple of things hit first. We haven't talked a lot about that northeast cul-de-sac along Harrison Hill. My thoughts on that are, where we've got it now, be it a through street or some cul-de-sac option, that I'm in favor of leaving all 4 of those lots with, as presented. The totlot, I think is interesting. We heard from the applicant's engineer on the political reasons for the cul-de-sac and on the record for that and I'd also go on the record that I think the totlot qualifies under that same political thing. That I find it ironic that the reason we're talking about a totlot and the reason that the city doesn't get into the totlot business and require those is precisely why we're talking about it now. Because we have residents of Longacres that are upset, probably rightly so, that they have funded a park with their homeowners dues and that there's a potential that someone from a new development who didn't have the right colored wrist band would be playing in the park. Now if you look at it and say, if we don't put totlots in altogether, we don't have a problem like that so you know if the developer wants to put a playground into the Yoberry development, then I guess that would be their specific choice. But I guess it's a be careful if you live in a glass house about throwing rocks so. The Highway 41 access into the neighborhood, as a permanent thing, my opinion for the record there is I wouldn't have been in favor of that regardless of how hard we had pushed MnDot. I think it's improper to go on a highway of that speed and that amount of traffic and access a neighborhood directly into that would not be a prudent thing so I think we've got, I feel like we got enough informal feedback from MnDot there and that that wouldn't necessarily have been the right thing to do anyway. I'm in agreement with Councilman Peterson on the Hunter Drive thing. An issue that came up as part of this, but the way I see the Hunter Drive issue, it's something that we need to address whether Yoberry exists or doesn't exist or no matter how it exists, with cul-de-sac or through street. That's an issue that we've got to address and sooner rather than later. On the through street versus the non -through street, cul-de-sac option, seems to be kind of the potentially the biggest sticking point here and I do find it again ironic that we're talking about it now. 4 weeks ago or 5 weeks ago, whatever it was when we talked about Pinehurst, which coincidently the developers are here as well, we had the same process. Residents on Crestview that made their voice heard that they didn't want a connection to a new neighborhood and concern about traffic and all of those things and that it was actually myself that made that motion 27 E City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 • to connect those for the unpopular vote that night. And that I sit here tonight, I think right now in favor of not having a through street in the Yober y, and that particularly evening with the Pinehurst and Crestview, I believe we probably, that that will actually add to the safety of the Crestview neighborhood, the Crestview street. If you've ever driven up and down that street, it can be treacherous on a good day. Whereas connection to the Pinehurst neighborhood provides another outlet to that so I think we can distinguish that one there. This one, the long cul-de-sac, the number of houses, I think where I'm at now is I'd like to talk about a non -through street option on Yoberry but not necessarily the preliminary plan that we've got laid out. 86 houses, 18 to 4,000 feet. However you measure it. Probably is a lot more than maybe the residents on Highover may have bargained for. There's some potentials there that are a little bit scary as well. Now, as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, we can manipulate the traffic numbers any way we want to. It's 1,000. It's 1,050. It's 810. Whatever. We can put experts on either side that will give you any number you want, but something that Councilman Labatt said is really the driving factor for me on the non -through street is the one thing that we can ensure without a doubt is if you don't have a through street you're not going to have cut through traffic. So cul- de-sacs are, don't allow cut through traffic so that's really the biggest thing for me here with Highway 41. I've seen it before. I'm one of those offenders in Bloomington that gets off on 98th Street and goes across so I don't have to get on 494 every day so you know, whether or not I drive the speed limit probably depends on if I'm talking on the phone or not, but so. Mayor Furlong: Too much information. Way too much information. Councilman Lundquist: So where I, summary I think on some of the other. On the through street versus non -through street, I'd like to see us approve the development with a non -through street option and then between now and final plat look at a couple of different scenarios where we can split. Try to make that a little bit more even split. I know that with the through street we come up off of Gunflint and service that northeast cul-de-sac so potentially there's a way, at least to take a look at. I'm sensitive to the number of iterations that have gone through the developer already and don't want to recreate the wheel there but I think we talked last time we're probably looking at 4 to 6 weeks between now and then that we could at least take a look at something like that. To try to even out the traffic flow. I do believe that on the cul-de-sac option that there's going to be, somebody's going to have construction traffic going through their neighborhood because they're only going to be able to service that one way and so that's going to be the Longacres residents are going to have construction traffic going through their neighborhood because we're going to have to work hard to keep the construction access open for 3 years to service one. There's certainly no way we're going to be able to keep two of them open so recognize also that doing that that we would be driving construction traffic through the Longacres neighborhood for that southerly cul-de-sac. So really not a winning total solution here. I think we've got to make compromises on either side. That this is one of those tough ones where there just isn't going to be a cut and dried bonafide, wonderful solution so it's going to be give and takes on all sides here but that's where I stand right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Always interesting when we get to this point. I'm going to say a few things here. First of all I want to start out by recognizing and thanking the residents that have put so much time and effort into looking at this development. What I really appreciate, not just their efforts but the thoughtfulness with which they looked at the issues and how they PRE 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 were respectful in their comments. Generally all the comments were one of trying to be constructive criticism. That's fair. That's part of the process and that's what we need all the time. And understand too, can't speak for my fellow councilors but with regard to responding to all the e-mails that they did, maybe they did a better job than I, but with the volume and other issues, know that if you didn't get a response, it was read and it was considered. I make a very strong point of doing that and some people I try to get calls back to. Rodd, you for one and wasn't able to connect but know that all that is considered throughout the process, as well as the public comments. It's not only that we heard this evening and in our prior council meeting but also at the Planning Commission meetings. One of the advantages of having that and having the verbatim minutes gives us, the council, that, all that input as part of the process. I also want to recognize and thank our city staff for doing an excellent job in terms of trying to work through the details here. This is not an easy development. It's their job as professionals to evaluate our ordinances and city plans. Work with the developers and develop collectively the best development that meets those. I talked last week about really what our issues were. What is the question before the council this evening and there are two. One is whether the request for rezoning meets our land use and our comprehensive plan. And the second, if it does, does the subdivision meet our ordinances and our comprehensive plan and those are the questions in front of us. The ordinances, the comprehensive plan establish the guidelines of how we want our city developed and the objective of the Planning Commission and the council through the process, working with staff is not only to establish those comprehensive plans and ordinances, and modify them when necessary, but also to ensure adherence to them. What we don't want is arbitrary or capricious decisions being made along the process because as we protect the issue is property rights. As the ordinances and comprehensive plan protect property rights or provide property rights, limit them perhaps to a developer. It also protects those of us that are already residents and we need to make sure that we adhere to those ordinances because that protects all of us.' Whenever one of us wants to come and do an addition to our house or add on a deck or put in a swimming pool, our neighbors have the right to make sure that we're doing it to ordinance and to code. And if we are, we should be able to move forward with it. I think that's the, you know one of the issues here as we look at what are we, what's the decision before us. The biggest issue and the biggest objection by the residents that I hear is the through street versus the non -through street. Versus cul-de-sac. I mean that is the issue. We have heard from different people about different numbers and you know, we can, I think it's already been addressed on the issue with numbers. We may disagree on the benefits or the cost associated with the through street versus a cul-de-sac. That, reasonable people can differ and that's fine. I believe that our goal, and what the comprehensive plan tries to do is provide for a comprehensive development of the city. That word is used twice but that's what it's trying to do. Rather than just dealing with a patchwork of individual developments. You'll end up with a different result. We'll end up with a different result as our city in 15-20 years if we look at more of a patchwork and individual items so, as Councilman Peterson said, I know I heard from each of us during our campaigns and time and time again at council meetings, the comprehensive plan is important because it provides that guide, that blueprint for development to occur. My preference is, with regard to a through street or a cul-de-sac in general, speaking philosophically, is to have those through streets to connect the neighborhoods. To connect people so that we have the opportunity to, without getting on a major road, drop the babysitter off at night or pick them up before you go out and or have our children get together with friends in another neighborhood. That's important. I think that builds a city rather than a patchwork of cul-de-sacs and private drives, as I said 29 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 before. The issue with whether we go forward with options, we can talk about options. I think there's, I'm not convinced with what I've heard tonight that the benefit from a traffic standpoint, because that's the issue with traffic, with through traffic and cul-de-sacs, is that there is going to be much of a benefit. I think it's perhaps subject to our opinions. I'm not an expert in traffic engineering. I don't want to become one while I'm sitting up here either. That's what we rely on our staff for and when they need to work with outside consultants to make sure that they get good professional advice for the council, for the Planning Commission. My observations and history with the staff is that they are professional. They try to look at these objectively with regard to the comprehensive plan and ordinance, and that's what we're looking at. My issue here, a vote on my part for this proposal as it's coming forward is not a vote against the residents and what we've heard in terms of concern about the traffic and whether we go with a different design. My issue is, is we have a developer that we have heard time and again, from our staff, from our city attorney, meets the comprehensive plan. Meets the ordinances and that's our goal. As a legislative body to protect property rights and to follow those rules. I think it's incumbent upon us to do that. Is it perfect? Is it what everybody would like? Perhaps not. There are differences of opinion. Do the options we were looking at on the cul-de-sac for Gunflint Trail. You've got differences of opinion. Which side you want that on, north or south. So ultimately what we have to do in that situation is look at what are the options. Look at the different issues and make the best decision possible. Not that we're picking and choosing sides, but trying to take all the facts in and vote for a plan, a development that will help develop our city. That meets the plan and meets the ordinances. You know safety is an issue again with the through street or non through street. There's nobody up here I think that's going to approve any plan that we think is going to put any resident's child or any children or anybody in danger. That's not the issue. When we get, but the key is, are we really providing benefit with the two cul-de-sac option? My sense is no. We're not. But again, we may differ on that so from my standpoint, I'm looking at it, the two questions before the council. Does it meet the comprehensive plan for the rezoning? Does it meet our ordinances for the subdivision? My sense is it does on both accounts and that's the proposal that the developer's putting forward and I think that's, as a council, what we should be doing is looking at it from that side. Fully understand the comments made by my fellow councilors here and you look for ways to accommodate requests. I'm just not sure that the two cul-de-sac option, even though it's been proposed and it's kind of the thing that residents are pushing towards, is going to make a benefit. It's going to cause potentially we've heard tonight, it's going to cause some problems with construction traffic and the flow of construction traffic. I'd like to see us push for construction traffic coming off 41 as long as possible. I concur with that and however we need to do that. It's, we can make it more safe from construction traffic coming off 41 through a through street than we can with the two cul-de- sacs. You know so, my sense is, and I empathize with the residents as well as for my fellow councilors, this is not, it's not a slam dunk decision clearly but that's why we've been spending so much time on it. But ultimately coming back to the questions, does it meet the comprehensive plan? Does it meet the ordinances? My sense is it does and that's what I think we need to do. Could there be some minor tweaks to it within that with regard to construction access and other things we can do and talk with staff about managing the construction traffic based upon the roads? I think we can look at that. Do some tweaks but that's where I am now philosophically as well as subjectively trying to look at the proposal in front of us. I'd be open to other thoughts, comments. 30 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: ... tweaks over there Mr. Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well I'll make a motion. Well I'll make a stab at it. On the first try here, let's see what we can do. I would move that we approve Planning Case 04-43 to rezone 35.7 acres of property zoned RR. Plans dated and received December 20, 2004 with asterisk and plans submitted, preliminary plans submitted on 2128 on the two cul-de-sac option. Subject to the following conditions, 1 through 45 as noted by the staff. Amending number 33. Simply stating that and adding, street cleaning on soil tracked onto public streets Highover Drive, Lake Lucy, Gunflint, Longacres Drive, Hunter Drive and Highway 41. Specifically stating those roads. Should include daily street scraping and sweeping as needed during the construction period. So changing 33 to read that. A little more specific. Adding number 46. The construction access off of 41 shall be maintained for Phase I and II and into Phase III as long as possible. Councilman Lundquist: Steve, how do you define Phase I and II? Councilman Labatt: Well as they, I believe Phase I is going to be the Youngquist property. Is that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: ...maybe we can address exact what phase. Chuck Alcon: Councilman Labatt, the entire project is one phase ... three final plats. Councilman Labatt: Okay, construction access shall be maintained for the total length of the construction project, or as long as practical. Realizing that those lots up on the Hurrell's there on the northern property. Councilman Peterson: It's MnDot's decision, not our's. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, point of clarification. We don't have jurisdiction over that. Councilman Labatt: Well we can force them. Can't we? Carrying that as long as it can go. I realize government works slow at times and we can be slow too. And then adding number 47. That no connection of Highover Drive or Gunflint Trail to exist and make it a two cul-de-sac proposal. Roger Knutson: Council member, does that also include adoption of the Findings of Fact as presented? Councilman Labatt: Yes. Roger Knutson: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one other point of clarification? The map that was submitted was dated February 22od. If you could just refer to that date. 31 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 E Councilman Labatt: I referred to today's date as it was presented to us. Kate Aanenson: Just because it was on here. Councilman Labatt: February 221a Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: So noted the change. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Actually I would like to propose an amendment as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay, it's made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Would propose an amendment to Councilman Labatt's condition that we set condition number 47 as no connection between Mghover Drive and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be determined between now and final plat. Just for clarification of, I don't know if it's two cul-de-sacs or when you look at a plan like that, I guess you could say there's like 4 cul- de-sacs on that too. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: I think the important point is we don't want to connect Mghover and Gunflint. Mayor Furlong: No, I heard and when I was writing it down, maybe somebody else heard it differently. That 47 was no connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail. Two cul-de-sac option. You just want a strike... option and add in specifics to be determined? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So you're proposing an amendment that 47 would be, would read no connection to Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be determined? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Discussion on the motion. Councilman Peterson: A couple questions. Point of clarification mayor. To the first and second. So if it ended up being you know 4,000 foot long cul-de-sac with 86 or, a minimum of 86 homes, are you still a proponent of that if it ends up being that length is I guess one question. I mean is this motion going to cost... 32 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Before we get to that, just for follow through. Hold onto that. We should discuss his amendment and the merits of his amendment of changing the wording. Is there any discussion on changing the wording? Roger Knutson: Mayor, has there been a second to the amendment? Mayor Furlong: No there hasn't, thank you. Is there a second to the amendment? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. So let's discuss the amendment then. Thank you. Councilman Labatt: I think it gives us the flexibility and the length of that cul-de-sac, and maybe make that Gunflint one go up to the east a little bit. I think Brian's motion, or clarification motion gives us flexibility and just exactly how long is Highover Drive cul-de-sac going to be? Is it going to be 36 to 21 or what's the exact mix going to be? And those can be worked out at final plat. Councilman Peterson: So how would you feel if there was no plausible alternative to the 86 homes and the 4,000 feet long cul-de-sac? I mean I'm just trying to get a sense, would that make a difference? Councilman Lundquist: That's a fair question. I think at this point, knowing, not knowing enough about that, that I'm comfortable saying yes. That if that's the way it ends up being, then that's the way it ends up being. I believe that there's a better alternative out there but due to factors that we don't know between now and then, it's quite possible. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Steve, you feel the same way? Councilman Labatt: (Yes). Councilman Peterson: Second question. If we separate the, into 2 or 3 or a dozen cul-de-sacs, how do you deal with the totlot issue? Are we just kind of forgetting about that then? That brings it right back into the forefront that was a pretty big issue 2 weeks ago that we're ignoring by doing this. Councilman Lundquist: By not, myself by not putting it in as a condition, I think I'd leave it up to the developer. I'm not going to require a totlot goes in. If they want to put it in, then that's their choice. If the development were to go forward without it, then I'm comfortable approving it that way too. Leave that one for discretion of the applicant. Mayor Furlong: When you say specifics to be determined, who? Staff? Councilman Lundquist: Between the staff and the developer. At this point. I wouldn't intend on there I guess being any more public comment. Obviously they'll have to be, the submission 33 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 0 of the required notice before we would approve final, but unless we were required to open up for public hearing again, I guess I wouldn't. Kate Aanenson: Just point of clarification. Typically at final plat it goes on consent so I'm back over where Councilman Peterson was. I'm back to, do I need to split the baby because if, I believe in the whole this will work. What we don't have is the civil's, which is where you're going. We need to see all that. So I guess if this is the way you want to go, we would just work this iteration with the developer to get the civil's and make sure that it meets the ordinance and do that. If you're asking us to try to split the baby, then I would like to know that. Because that's a different situation and now we're back to what's the expectation with the neighborhood. I just want to get clear direction so when we bring it back, we're not. Councilman Peterson: Roger, this would not need to go back to Planning Commission if we have a whole different design? It would seem reasonable that it would need to go back to the Planning Commission. Roger Knutson: It wouldn't have to go back because of the change in design but you take your final plats to the Planning Commission or don't you? Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: There's no statutory requirement that they go to the Planning Commission. It comes right back here for final approval. And this kind of change would not require another public hearing at the Planning Commission. Councilman Lundquist: I guess Kate for clarification I would like to see us, or like to see between your department, Paul's department and the developer, see if there's another way. I think the intent is to get a more of an even split. If that's not possible for whatever reason, then you know, leave it up where it is now. That's the way I look at it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just describe, explain to me that he's splitting the baby. Can you split it for me now or can't you? Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, but what I'm saying is there an expectation that there's going to be equal division. Half are going to go one way, half are not. And I can't say that because we don't have the civil's in front of us to say the slopes, the grades of the streets are all going to work, and that's part of what I'm saying so, we will look to see if there's another way to get more equalized. If we can't, well then we'll bring that back and we'll show those iterations at final plat where we're going, and why we recommended what we did. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, Mayor, if I may. If I hear Councilmember Peterson saying is, if you've got to lose some lots in this subdivision, you know lose them to get the cul-de-sac shorter. Is that what I'm hearing you say? Councilman Peterson: I'm just clarifying where, you know, I want to figure out whether I want to vote for this or not and I won't vote for it if it is 86 homes and a 3,500 foot long cul-de-sac. iL! 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Todd Gerhardt: So you know if you can find a way to lay the subdivision out, the same number of lots but shorting the cul-de-sac and pushing more the lots in the southerly side. I know we have this contour issue. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what I'm saying. Try to split it more equally, correct. Councilwoman Tjoimhom: Can you put the map back up maybe so I can see? Kate Aanenson: This one? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, the two cul-de-sac map. Kate Aanenson: So this is the, we have to work through again the geometrics of this intersection. This is Gunflint coming up, and then this would be Eghover. So we'll look at the different iterations. Again, this is the highest point right here so we just need to look at those civil's and the grades and see if we can equalize that more, but I just want to be clear and I think where Councilman Peterson's going is, we need to understand if we can't make it work, you would accept this but we'll see if we can make it a different version. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I'm not asking for a 3 week long, exhaustive, you guys have done this enough times where relatively quickly I think you'll be able to determine if it even makes sense to look at it any further or not. And there's more of a you know, Nann can you put that other one. When you look at this right here again, you know it seems plausible that somewhere on Highover coming down there, that there's a cul-de-sac. In the mix somewhere I guess is more what I'm thinking along the lines of. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to, for this minute, do you want to clarify that staff and the developer that our amendment... Councilman Lundquist: Yep, fair enough. For clarification that specifics to be determined by staff and the developer. Roger Knutson: Obviously it's subject to your final approval at final plat. Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Roger Knutson: They will draft something up to bring to final for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: Determine the proposed, would that work? Roger Knutson: They propose something. You decide. Mayor Furlong: So if I could, you want to do, for your amendment to the amendment, you want to do proposed by staff and developers? 35 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Rather than determined. Councilman Lundquist: Specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second to that amendment? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. So now 47, the amendment that we're voting on is, 47 will read, no connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. Councilman Lundquist: And that is the amendment. Not the full motion that we're currently. Mayor Furlong: That's not, that's the now the amendment that we're looking at. All we're looking at is that amendment. Is that how we want that condition to read? And then we'll deal with the amended motion. Is there any other discussion on this? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, just again. I'm just really concerned that the residents in Highover, if ultimately this goes through and everybody else agrees to that long of a cul-de-sac or that many homes, that they really realize what they're getting, and I think that is a substantial issue that we're ignoring here is, I think we should consider if you do this. But again, I won't vote for it on the basis of that many homes because if they have traffic issues under the through street, I think this is, that long of a cul-de-sac is going to compound that issue. I just, I'm confused as to why we're even considering that long of a cul-de-sac because traffic, we haven't even asked city staff to look at, does that push us well over 1,000. And I'm just, I'm worried that we're sticking our head in the ground and trying to appease the residents and now we're giving them something they haven't even looked at before. Or even considered so I'm worried about that gentlemen and ladies, so. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion on this? I would concur with Councilman Peterson on the issue of the two cul-de-sac option and how fast we're going forward with the plan here. That you know this has been under development for months in terms of the overall development and the, there are a lot of questions that need to be addressed when you start changing this and you eliminate the through street. You've got utility issues. Water. Sanitary sewer lines. You've got storm water drainage. You start moving the roads around. The traffic. Again the extra long cul- de-sac there. On the specifics to, is this amendment to this condition better wording than what was originally proposed, no offense. I think it is better wording. It's cleaner, but if I vote to clean up the language, in case if the overall motion passes, that's no way am I saying that I agree with the implications of that. I just want to be clear on that. I think in terms of the language of this amendment, this is better language than what we're starting with on the motion, so I will vote for this language but I have similar concerns with Councilman Peterson and it's just, it is not an issue of whether or not, whether or not the two cul-de-sac option works or not. I think this design, as we're seeing it here tonight is going to cause some problems. It's just come too fast 36 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 here at the end and I think proper time needs to be looked at it to make sure that everything is there. Any other comments on the amendment to condition 47? Councilman Lundquist: I would call the question on 47 and then let's discuss the larger motion. Mayor Furlong: That's fine. Is there a second to call the question? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other? Roger Knutson: Yes there is. Mayor Furlong: Okay, can I just ask if there's any other discussion? Is there any other discussion on the wording to the amendment? If not, then without objection we'll proceed to the vote. Is that okay? Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. So with regard to re -working 47 such that it reads, no connection of Highover and Gunflint, specifics to be prepared by, proposed by staff and developer, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the amendment to condition number 47 to read as follows: No connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails on that amendment. Excuse me, the amendment. So now we're working with the amended motion. With amended condition 47. Any other discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist: Roger what options do we have, since this was a tabled item from 2 weeks ago, what are our requirements to act on this? Roger Knutson: You're out of time. Not quite. I mean you're appropriate tonight. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion then on or proposed amendments to this motion? Hearing none then, I think our comments were discussed earlier. We'll proceed with the motion as amended. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Planning Case #04-43 to rezone 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family for Yoberry Farm as shown on the plans dated received December 20, 2004, and to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #04-43 for Yoberry Farm for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown on the plans received December 20, 2004, 37 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 and the plan presented February 28, 2005 and dated February 22, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The applicant shall supply the city with a list of the number of trees required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 12/20/04. 2. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. 3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 4. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 12/20/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 5. Tree removal calculations must be shown for lot 3, block 1, Yoberry 2°d Addition. Revised calculations for the entire development will be required before final plat approval. 6. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. 7. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 -year and 100 - year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 8. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. 9. 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. 10. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all areas with a steep slope of 3:1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 11. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 12. On the utility plan: a. All watermain pipes must be PVC -C900. b. Maintain 10 -foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains. c. Sanitary manhole #4 must be with outside drop structure. In 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 d. Show existing sanitary, storm, and watermain pipe type and size. e. Show all existing utilities in Longacres Drive. L Reroute the proposed watermain in the southwest corner of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30 -foot utility easement. g. Add the following notes: Any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. 13. On the grading plan: a. Show the 100 -year HWL of wetlands 1 and 5. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows. The elevation must be 1.5 feet lower than adjacent house elevations. d. Delete the proposed grading on the custom house pad of Lot 3, Block 1, Yoberry 2°d Addition. e. Revise the retaining wall top and bottom elevations on the southwest comer of the parcel. f. Remove existing temporary cul-de-sac pavement and re -sod it at the north on Highover Drive. g. Maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10% on Lot 21, Block 1, Yoberry I" Addition. h. Remove the existing outlet control structure after installing the proposed outlet control structure on the existing north storm pond. i. Show the location of the existing power lines along the eastern property line of the site. 14. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. Approved safety fence will be required on top of all retaining walls which are adjacent to sidewalk or trails. 15. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2005 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,270.00 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 16. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 17. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 18. 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. 9 E City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 0 19. All private driveway accesses for the demolished home sites off TH 41 must be removed. 20. 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. 21. All lots must have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad with a maximum slope of 10:1. 22. The applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the wastewater from the 11 additional homes. 23. A curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit at the eastern end of Gunflint Trail is required on both sides of the curve. 24. Existing drainage and utility easements within the site must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. 25. The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. In addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized. 26. The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for the drainage from the south-central portion of the site. 27. The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of- way outside of the existing easement area. 28. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2, 3, 4 and 5. A wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 29. All structures must maintain 40 -foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges. 30. All bluff areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30 -foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). M 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 31. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 32. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: TTpe of Slone Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 33. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets Highover Drive, Lake Lucy Road, Gunflint Trail, Longacres Drive, Hunter Drive and Highway 41 should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 34. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $97,191. 35. 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 Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. 36. Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval. 37. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. e. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. L The developer must coordinate the address changes of the three existing homes with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. 38. Fire Marshal conditions: 41 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 a. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. e. An additional hydrant will be required at the southernmost tip of Lot 4. Relocate the fire hydrant from between Lots 18 and 19 to between Lots 16 and 17 and add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 8. 39. On Sheets C3.1, C4.1, C5.1 and L2.1 of the plans, a gap appears on the western edge of Lots 4, 19, 20 and 21 of Block 1 and Outlot A, Yoberry Farm. This gap must be eliminated. 40. A windmill appears within the front yard setback on Lot 4, Block 1, Yoberry Farm. The applicant shall remove or relocate this structure prior to final plat recording. 41. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon vacation of existing drainage and utility easements located on Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Yoberry Farm 2°d Addition. 42. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. 43. Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46, 81, 270 and #251. 44. The developer will be required to install a 10 -inch raw water transmission main for future connection to the City's second water treatment plant as a part of the utility construction and provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main. As this is a system -wide improvement, the construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the City from the water portion of the utility fund. 45. The applicant shall provide a permanent trail easement or Outlot dedicated to the City between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Yoberry Farm 2°d Addition as depicted on the diagram:" 42 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 28, 2005 Jr Pamanea't 2 6i `rix ,� O 1 =- sa8 $ ' r- 3 , �t 46. The construction access off of 41 shall be maintained for as long as possible. 47. No connection of Ilighover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong and Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And again, thank you everybody for your involvement. It was a long process but we do appreciate your efforts. Thank the council too for working through the amendments and such like that. Chuck Alcon: Honorable Mayor, just one question. I understand our direction is to work with the staff to come up with a preliminary plat that does not have a connection between Highover and Gunflint Trail. Councilman Lundquist: Come up with a final plat. Mayor Furlong: Move onto the next agenda on our agenda. Councilman Peterson: Can we take a break? Mayor Furlong: Oh certainly. Yep, looking at the time. Without objection we'll recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let's make it about 5 minutes. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #75-2 FOR LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK, PLANNING CASE 4-37. Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February Is` and, to review that conditional use amendment and they voted 4 to 2 and the 2 no votes were based on environmental reasons and I'll go through the rationale for that in just a moment. The subject site is the regional park. Across the street from the subject site we were just talking about. The conditional use was put in place back in 1975 and at this point when the review went through for the beachlots, or excuse me, for the boat launches, there was a lot of concern from the associations that were on the lake as far as what effect that would have as far as the number 43 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 0 (D14 -4-t) discussed with the property owners along this proposed corridor of installing the watermain prior to their development and they are willing to work with us on that issue. The property owners have currently signed an assessment waiver as well for the installation of that. Of this project. And that agreement was brought before you in January, the 2e of this year. The project cost, total project cost is $224,600 and of that we're looking at almost $60,000 being assessed back to the benefiting property owners, and that assessment again was for the portion that would be anticipated in the new development which would run, the new watermain would run between the property line and then on a new east/west public roadway when that development is finally built. The schedule for the project as it moves forward is to approve plans and specs on February 2e. And opening and awarding a contract in March and start construction in April and have the construction completed before the 212 project sometime in May so. At this time I stand for questions and I request that a public hearing be opened at the same. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No? Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Invite all interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Anybody interested in discussing it? If not, without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion? Seems pretty straight forward to everyone. Very good. Is there a motion? Isn't there an action required? Requested action. Paul Oehme: No. We're just opening. Todd Gerhardt: Taking comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you Paul. With that, unless there's any further action on that item, we'll move on with our agenda. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION (WITH VARIANCES); LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER Public Present: Name Address Penny Butsch-Johnson Candice & Mike McGraw Ray Allstadt Jacqie Daugherty Uli Sacchet Michael Horn Jon Steele John Graham Bob Krueger 6951 Highover Drive 2446 Highover Trail 2423 Highover Trail 2423 Highover Trail 7053 Highover Court South 7024 Highover Court South 6941 Highover Court North 6935 Highover Drive 2350 Hunter Drive 9 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Daryl Mclinden Chuck Alcon Bill Coffman Steve Johnston Tom Stokes Jesse Larson Travis Sprague Timothy Block Joe Thull Susan Schneider Mary & Dave Haworth Todd Michels Rodd & Parks Wagner Greg & Linda Twedt Philip Haarstad David & Lauren Damman Adam Lurie Jeff Tritoh Mark Zaebst Leslie Witterschein Jennifer & Michael Rysso Thomas Hirsch Michael McGonagill Lisa Hokkanen Ping Chung Tim McCerio Angela Lurie Jo Mueller Larry Lovig Mark Brown Stacey Riecks Bill Bonell Jon Grubb Larry Synstelien Susan Lombardo Dan Hanson Kathy Koscak Lori Dinnis Scott & Greer Hussey Dale Mueller 0 7321 Hillsdale Court 6138 7e Lane, Greenfield 600 W. 78`s Street 5101st Avenue North, Minneapolis 55403 4052 Oakland Street, St. Bonifacius 3440 Hennepin, Minneapolis 6888 Highover Drive 6903 Highover Drive 6872 Highover Drive 6872 Highover Drive 6818 Highover Drive 2436 Highover Trail 6915 Highover Drive 6999 Highover Drive 7066 Harrison Hill Trail 6934 Highover Drive 6926 Highover Court North 2313 Hunter Drive 2325 Hunter Drive 7150 Harrison Hill Trail 7108 Harrison Hill Trail 2290 Longacres Drive 2451 Hunter Drive 2456 Hunter Drive 7000 Highover Drive 165 Ponderosa Drive 6926 Highover Court North 2579 Longacres Drive 2475 Gunflint Court 7210 Gunflint Trail 7256 Gunflint Trail 2300 Longacres Drive 6989 Highover Court North 6893 Highover Drive 7278 Fawn Hill Road 2390 Longacres Drive 2351 Hunter Drive 2362 Hunter Drive 2235 Longacres Drive 2529 Longacres Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I'd like to break this presentation into two components. One to kind of review the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and it's role that it plays in the development and then move specifically into the subdivision of the project before you tonight, Yoberry Farms. The comprehensive plan that was developed and, that was in place as the majority of the property developed between Galpin and Highways 41 and the northern boundary 4 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 to the city down Highway 5 was put in place in 1991. At that time the comprehensive plan recommended you know the guiding of this area and that was predominantly low density. So the land use, first component of the comprehensive plan speaks to the fact that there is guiding for the piece of property and then the tool to implement how that property is specifically laid out is the city's zoning ordinance. Not all property develops at the same time and I'll kind of go through that scenario in this area, depending on willingness of sellers and that sort of thing so unfortunately sequentially property doesn't fall into a certain pattern. It moves when the market brings it on. The city does have a management tool. I know one of the issues that was brought up at the Planning Commission was, you know this seems like it's sprawl. It's infill development but I just want to comment another section of the comprehensive plan, and that's our MUSA staging area. Again the area that we're talking about here was put in place in 1991. Most of the development that occurred in that. The next area that we brought in was the 2005 MUSA which has pretty much been developed, Westwood Church, Pulte Homes, that area at the intersection of 5 and 41. And the next area that we're working on is the 2005 and that relates to the development of the 212, so we do have an orderly staging plan and that ties back into the city's ability to provide sewer, water and infrastructure and our financial responsibilities for investment that we make. So this to us is land that's development ripe because the infrastructure is in place. Another element to the comprehensive plan is the housing element and the housing element speaks to the fact that there should be opportunities for all different types of residents. Housing for residents. This is reflected in housing choices in the city. We have townhouses. We have apartments. So whether it's rent or owner occupied, or even whether or not you want to live in an association where it has certain restrictions, you want that type of control on you so there's different housing types that we look at when we're reviewing projects. The natural resources is a lot of the reason that people move to the city of Chanhassen which we certainly regard the protection of trees, wetland preservation and certainly topography. Back in 1991 we only looked at areas down along the river bluff for bluff protection and we moved that to the entire city. Anything over 30 percent so we've actually moved further and been more restrictive of protection of some of those sloped areas. Parks and open space, the city's comprehensive plan directs the development of parks by size, type, location, population. Again the city cannot require a private park or extraction but we do look at, a typical subdivision the recommendation goes to the park commission and they make a recommendation, and I'll just take a minute to kind of go through the park plan for this area, or approximately in the same scale. Maybe we can zoom in in this area right here. This is Sugarbush Park, which is just south of the Woods. Hunter Drive. That's the immediate park for that area. There's another park that was taken with the Pulte Homes. There will be a park. It's right now it's just vacant. It hasn't been designed for a park yet, but one of the requests was that a private, a public park or a private park be put in that area. The City cannot request on a typical subdivision a private park. This applicant has chosen not to pursue that. That's a choice that he's made, a housing choice that they've made. And looking at a park in the, in the area, we know there's another piece of property coming in immediately to the north and I'll speak to that again in a minute. But that's kind of where we'd be looking for an additional parkland property. So being consistent again with the comprehensive plan, it ties back into that we're following that. Then another component of the comprehensive plan is the transportation element. Again in 1991 the transportation element recommended three minor collectors between Galpin Boulevard and 41. That would be Lake Lucy. This one wasn't named. It was just shown which is now actually called Longacres Drive. That was shown as another collector in that approximate location, and then the third one is what F1 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 • is now called West 786'. Street capacity on a local street is 1,000 vehicles. On a collector it's 1,000 to 15,000 so when we do the comprehensive plan and do traffic modeling and look at traffic zones, looking at what we need for service in that area, three minor collectors were determined to be adequate to serve. But the goal is to tie a local street into a minor collector so looking at the land use that was recommended, low density, it was determined that those three collectors would provide adequate access to the development of that site. Also I want to point out, typically on a minor collector that we place sidewalks or trails. On Lake Lucy there is a trail. That also is a reason to get up, looking at that, to get up to the school. There's a sidewalk on Longacres and then there's a trail on West 78'". So in looking at how this area kind of came together, the tool that implemented the comprehensive plan is the zoning ordinance so each of these developments as they occurred are driven by factors such as wetlands, trees. The wetlands, there's the setback requirements plus there's the wetland conservation act that has to be permitted. Trees, if you, every subdivision cuts down trees but there's a requirement if it's excessive then you're penalized for that. Slopes as I mentioned earlier, there's a requirement on building on over 30 percent. Then the other critical issue is access and location. So if I can just kind of talk a minute about again what happened in this area and how we ended up this hole or donut. Maybe I can start with the first subdivision to be built in this area was actually Longacres. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? And Longacres had 112 lots. Was built in 4 phases. That actually had a lot of topography in that area. Rolling topography and 24 acres of wetland. Longacres on this site. Then in 1993 also following that was the Woods at Longacres. Again 134 lots and that was built in 5 phases. That had a little bit more severe topography and also had significant amount of wetlands. So with that development, this road was built. With these two developments we had our first minor collector in that area. Following that we had Brenden Pond which built this segment of the collector road, Lake Lucy. That had 21 lots. That also had some steep slopes and some wetland. Woodridge Heights, the Centex development attached to that had 46 lots. And that completed the connection of that minor collector road. Then we had Forest Meadows, which is 19 lots which is a separate subdivision that can only be accessed. A separate subdivision not part of the Longacres. That can only be accessed via the Longacres neighborhood. Then finally we had Highover. That couldn't have been built until that collector road was built because that's how they get their access via that collector road, and that had 54 lots. Well within that there was some other pieces that still left holes. Recently the council has approved 43 lots on the Pinehurst. Can you zoom in on that a little bit Nann? On the Pinehurst. And that we provided a stub street via the Woodridge Heights so they got access. We also stubbed it into the Crestview subdivision. Also this, the Carlson property will be coming forward. We're working with that developer right now. If that gets executed. We did provide a stub street again through Woodridge Heights and it will also tie into Highover. That is the only way you know to provide adequate access. Again it's the city's job to make sure we don't land lock a piece of property, whether through providing sewer, water and streets. A lot of that timing falls into place when you look at subdivisions, if we can look even at Ashling Meadows. These subdivisions came in pretty close together. Two separate developers. Lundgren Brothers and a private developer on this side. This developer couldn't go until the second phase of Ashling Meadows, until the sewer and water came over. While he had the street connections, they needed the utilities. Two separate developments but need access together. Both of these subdivisions also were provided access to the property to the south, which could be land locked because there's no access along Galpin Boulevard. So the metaphor that we like to use is kind of connecting all those little puzzle pieces and make sure they all fit. That's our job to make sure Gi • • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 somebody's not land locked and derived of their rights to develop. In addition there's other subdivisions immediate in the area that we've tied together. Windmill Run with Walnut Grove. This street also connected back up when those subdivisions came forward. So with that kind of context of, we ended up with a hole right here that was not ready for development. Three underlying property owners that weren't ready to move forward. When Longacres came in, we provided a stub street to here, based on the fact that you can get to this collector and based on the fact that you could get to this collector here. When Highover came in we originally tried to get the connection at this point here, but you can see there's an extensive wetland and it's very steep, so the road got moved over here. We knew based on the state requirements access control points on 41, we could end the slope. It's very steep right there. We could not get another connection down onto 41 so at that time we identified those and posted those streets as to be future connections. So with that they ended up with the framework to go through the subdivision. So now I'll move to, if there's any questions on that I'll move to the subdivision itself. Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this time? Kate Aanenson: So this went to the Planning Commission twice. The public hearing was re- opened at the second meeting so there's a significant amount of testimony. On your cover sheet it mentions that the motion at the Planning Commission was 4 to 2. It was 3 to 2 to deny the subdivision. Just want to clarify that. Again the subdivision includes 35.79 acres. It includes 57 single family homes and 8 outlots. The average lot size is 18,962. Again this subdivision in lot size, square footage, the proposed homes is very consistent to what's in the existing neighborhood. It does meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as lot width, depth, etc. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in 3 additions. Again there's 3 underlying properties. Again this required assembling. We talked about timing. It's difficult to get, truly to get a lot yield that works to get, the better lot yield is to work with the 3 underlying property owners instead of one going at a time and then it kind of constrains the layout. So working with the developer over the last 6 months, we've made a lot of changes. He's made some improvements. Dropped some lots. Worked through some tough tweaking issues but we believe again that it's a well conceived layout. There was a couple issues I wanted to point out. One, there's an area here in your staff report it talks about a 25 foot wide strip of land that upon the survey they found kind of a no man's land. So what the applicant did is split that 25 feet. 12 feet he gave to the 3 property owners to the north and kept the other 12 feet as a part of the plat and kind of split the difference. Again for the rezoning, this does need a rezoning. The 2020 land use plan designates this as low density. While it's currently guided differently, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Therefore the staff, and it does have utilities. Therefore the staff is recommending approval to be consistent with the land use plan. I did want to take a minute to talk about a trail issue. One of the things we've worked out in the last couple weeks, the Park and Rec Director has been working with Carver County who is petitioning for an underpass under Highway 41 and just last week we did meet with the developer so this didn't appear at the Planning Commission but we are recommending a trail that will go along 41 to get to the underpass to go underneath 41 to get you to the regional park. And that proposed trail is on the north end, just one lot in from the Highover Drive and that would be platted in an outlot, and that would give access up 41 to the trail and then the trail would continue on the other side of 41 to get you to the regional park. One of the other issues that came up was the cul-de-sac, but before I talk about that I just want to again maybe talk a little bit about how the subdivision got 7 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 laid out. Again we had the touch down point at Longacres and we had the touch down point at Highover. Those are the two connections that needed to be made. This is the highest point in the area. In order again, what we always try to do is minimize or maintain existing topography so the roads switch back around that high point and kind of made a circuitous turn back to get up to that street. Again providing two cul-de-sacs on the extension of that. That's the main layout. We looked at a lot of different iterations of this again as I mentioned over the last 6 months but we believe that this is the best layout for the site, so with that I'll discuss the cul-de-sac that is of concern in this area. These are in your staff report. There's three different options. Option A, which is what the applicant is proposing today and the plat you see underneath this is, he's moved the cul-de-sac over. Reduced or removed the retaining wall, and to save additional trees and there is a separate within the project. If we can zoom in on this a little bit. There's a cross section showing existing house, retaining wall, the tree. This is the project boundary, then there's 13 feet of buffer and additional 15 feet before you hit the street right-of-way so that would relate to, this would be that 13 feet in here. If that makes sense. Councilman Peterson: Kate, what's the distance between that back of the house and the front of the street, approximately there? Kate Aanenson: The back of the house? 28 plus 37 plus 75 plus 13. Plus 15. Todd Gerhardt: 130. Kate Aanenson: Approximately. 130 feet. So that was the option that we felt was best, and I'll go through the other ones. This was asked by the Planning Commission. Again this is variance free with the public street. The other option was to look at a private street which did require a variance to do a private street. Four homes off of a private street. Because the bubble that's required for the end of the cul-de-sac, it forced this lot to be a little bit bigger to make the, so you really didn't pick up any additional separation here in order to make this lot big enough to meet the minimum requirements by making that a private street. And then the other option would have been to put the street next to the wetland. In doing that, that's the least desirable option in the staff's mind. It does require that the calculations are 10 foot, 10 foot, 8, 9, 10. A huge retaining wall plus you'd have to put fill in to kind of balance that back out. Again one of the goals that we looked at, as I explained in all these projects which has a lot of rolling topography, is to work with the landform on that and we believe the superior way to minimize that retaining wall along the wetland, extensive retaining wall is to put the road on the high side. And then it puts these houses will be sitting up looking this way, so you actually have greater separation. So those are the three options that. I believe I addressed the park issue, the 41 issue. The state is recommending the no connection there. Again that was addressed several times at the Planning Commission. All the lots again do meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance so with that, because it does meet all the requirements of the city's zoning ordinance, the staff did recommend approval so we have a motion structured for you on page 20 of the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. 10 • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 0 Councilman Lundquist: Kate on the entrance, the access from 41. We have the letter from MnDot, from Lisa Freese. What is the process if that access was to be pursued further? What action needs to be taken there and what are the chances that? Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think there's two points that we need to look at. One, it's very steep. So if, this is a variance between the separation and that's one issue. The second issue is can you make it safe because there's a certain grade requirement, touch down when you're coming onto a road that you've got that stacking coming down at a certain angle, so I'm not sure it can be engineered to even meet that condition, whether you can get the access point or not. So we'd have to look at both of those. Councilman Lundquist: Well assuming, if we're going to do construction, or some of the grading traffic is going to come in and out of there anyway, if I remember right when I read through this, so let's assume that the engineering piece can be overcome. What's the, in my mind the harder would be the MnDot piece. Kate Aanenson: I'd have to let the City Engineer answer that question. Matt Saam: I can take that one for Paul. On behalf of getting, or to your question of gaining access off Highway 41, the developer would be required to submit an application to MnDot requesting permanent street access off of Highway 41. MnDot has indicated in their review memo that with this plat they are looking to get access control along this property. Along this property's property line, along 41 and that basically means that they do not want any access along the highway. They want to control the access. So it's basically up to MnDot's review and the process would be started by an application to MnDot. Councilman Lundquist: And what's the general timeframe of that process? Matt Saam: I guess my experience has been 1 to 2 months. Something in that. I mean it's timely. They route it around everywhere, so it's not a quick turn around. Councilman Lundquist: And given that Ms. Freese has already given essentially her opinion memo, what's the chances that something like that is going to be successful or get to the next step in the process? Matt Saam: Yeah, we have three documents from MnDot plus my phone conversations to them. The whole time they've been against it so I guess if I was a betting man I'd say chances are pretty slim that they'd look favorably on allowing an access there. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I did have an opportunity to talk to Lisa Freese today and beg that question to her and her response is that in her previous letter and review of this property she went through the variance process in determining if access should be granted or not. If somebody should make application they would do the review again in more detail but I believe the outcome would be the same. N • 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When we were up on Highway 7, as Highway 7 was re -built in the last year or so, how many access points did we lose off of Highway 7? Todd Gerhardt: I don't know that number off hand. I think we lost 2. Shorewood I believe lost 2 or 3 in making those safety improvements between Highway, from downtown Excelsior out to, well just outside of Victoria. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, back on options for the road by the Harrison Hill piece. Option C. To look at that, the drawbacks again are the retaining wall that has to go on the west side of the road or the east side of the wetland. Kate Aanenson: Well more tree loss and yeah, the maintenance of that retaining wall. Councilman Lundquist: More trees come out. Kate Aanenson: And grading. And that means you have to clear away this portion of the road because actually the grade's dropping down towards the wetland. So to get the grades for the road you're actually importing more. So you're kind of working against the natural, and then yeah, the height, the maintenance of the retaining wall. Councilman Lundquist: And how far does that push the road to the west? From that, say the apex of the comer there. From where it was before. Or from where it is on Option A. Kate Aanenson: It's got to be a minimum 125. Councilman Lundquist: So 120 feet or something? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That's all I have, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions? Councilman Peterson: Kate, keying on that same issue, if you look at your, one of the drawings you had. Kate Aanenson: The cross section? Councilman Peterson: The cross section. If you did Option C, and I can't tell the elevations. Would those houses that are now back abutting the other neighborhood, would they be up higher? 10 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yes, you'd be looking down into the other neighborhoods. Councilman Peterson: Substantially? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: So the other neighbors would be looking up at houses versus down at houses? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Peterson: Matt have you looked at, I think one of the things I read was, you did some traffic studies on speed and can you talk a little bit about that, just to help clarify some of the, between the two neighborhoods. Matt Saam: Sure. I don't know if I'd call it a traffic study yet. Just because we haven't been able to get the tubes, or our counting tubes out there in the winter with snowplows and that sort of thing. We usually hold off til May. What we did put out there, and I'm talking Hunter Drive. That was the area that the residents in Longacres were concerned with, where the speeding came up. We did put out our newly bought speed trailer. Coordinated that with our sheriff, or Jim Olson through the County and that was out there for a couple of days. While it's not as scientific as the tubes, just because people see the sign, they can react by slowing down or what have you. We did get 2 days of counts in. 8 hours one day and 6 hours the next. Basically the results were that, what we saw is there wasn't a speeding problem. The 85's percentile speed out there, which MnDot uses to set the speed limits, and that's what we look at, that was about 25 miles per hour for Hunter Drive. So again it's not as scientific as our tubes. We will be putting out the, we will be putting the tubes out there in May. One of the first sites that we'll do. We'll take a better, harder look at it then. But that's what we've gotten to this point. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Kate, was there ever an open house or a neighborhood meeting between the two developments and the developer? Kate Aanenson: I don't think so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So there really hasn't been a formal communication about anything. I didn't see the application from the builder for access to Highway 41. I take it he never intended to apply or even try to gain access on 41? Maybe that's another question. 11 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: We, yeah well we as the, as the jurisdiction that reviews it. Sends it to all other jurisdictions for their comments so we kind of are the—for that so we send it to the Watershed District, MnDot and collect it so we collect all that data. So it was our role, yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I was driving these roads today, on Highover and in Longacres and man, those roads are narrow. Yes, I saw the signs that said you know, a collector street or whatever was going to be you know, will be developed or whatever. And if those streets were meant to be collector streets for the new development coming in, why weren't they built wider then at least? Kate Aanenson: They're not collector streets. They're local streets and they are. Councilwoman Tjomhom: But they're connecting those to this new development. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but that's the same scenario throughout the city. These local streets, as I indicated, local streets can handle up to 1,000 trips and that, so between these two, this street can handle that amount of traffic. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Boy I was parked on one of the streets with my husband's truck. I was talking to a neighbor and the UPS guy came by and it was like, it was a tight maneuver for him just to even get by, and so I'm thinking you know, this woman had a 2 year old out playing in the snow and the narrow streets and I just thought, as a parent you know, I would be sick thinking that all of a sudden I'm going to have 1,000 cars, is that what you said? 1,000 trips? Kate Aanenson: No. That's what they're designed for. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right, okay well then you could probably have 100, 200 cars going by your house maybe. Kate Aanenson: Well if you add up how many houses are currently on the street and how many are coming in, it still would be under for that design. It's similar to Lake Susan, which has you know long local streets that handles that much traffic. Again, I'll go back to the comprehensive plan. When we put this in place in 1991, we did all the traffic. TAZ's, the traffic analysis zone and we said this could handle it. If this piece would have come in first and Highover was coming in, you know so it's hard for us to flip that around because we, you know we don't look at the sequence and we have no control over when it's ready to go, but if that, if this one was in first, and then this one needed to connect. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: That's how we looked at it. Councilman Peterson: Further answer to that Kate, if all of these neighborhoods would have came in at the same time, would the road have been the same width? 12 • 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Exactly, right. And there wouldn't have been access to 41 because these are the two connection points. You know it just so happened that this piece got left out. As is Mr. Carlson's piece got left out which will tie into Highover too, so it's a sequencing issue. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, just one point. I think where Bethany might be getting a little confused, our collector streets are a wider width of roadway than our local streets which will connect, so this is not going to be a north/south collector. It will be a regular urban section. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But these streets are basically the entrance to this new development, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So it's, I mean it's still a lot of cars no matter what the street is called, it's still a lot of cars coming in and out. That's how at least I gauged it to be when I was standing. Todd Gerhardt: Don't disagree. There will be additional cars that will go through Highover and Longacres, and from our engineering standards those streets should be able to handle that traffic that would be generated from there is what Kate is saying. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Now what happens if you know there are accidents or there's speeding problems and they decide the road is too narrow, are we going to come and widen that road then? I mean I'm just thinking out loud I guess. What happens with that? Because I don't think. Kate Aanenson: I know it's a highly charged thing but we can go through and count up other subdivisions that are this long that have this, you know Settlers West. We have this many homes on this wide of a street all throughout the town. It's not the only situation where we've got this many trips on a local street. As Todd indicated, when you do a minor collector they're typically 80 foot cross section. That's what this is, and these are typically the 60 foot, so. It's not the only street handling that much traffic, that's I guess my point. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Councilman Labatt: Well just to, if you look at, and I think we've got to just come out and say the name of the road, Hunter Drive. It's a nightmare to drive. It's winding. There's a hill from the power lines down with a steep curve, and I live in the neighborhood and everybody knows that and we know which neighbors have gotten their mailboxes knocked down. Which ones have lost trees at the top of the hill and the bottom of the hill this year. And if you're going to go and add up to 700 more vehicles a day, that are going to be, some of those vehicles will be using Hunter Drive as a shortcut, we're all humans. We're going to take the point of least resistance. If we leave Yoberry Farms and drive down Gunflint to Longacres Drive, and we're going to go west on 5, we're not going to go out to 41 and go through that nightmare of the stop light there. We're going to go up Longacres Drive to Hunter Drive. We're not going to go up to Longacres and Galpin. We're going to cut across Hunter and we're going to go down the hill. That's 13 # • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 where they're going to go. And Hunter Drive is not a safe road right now. You go and add more vehicles to it, it's going to be more dangerous. So I think that. Mayor Furlong: Ladies and gentlemen, please. Councilman Labatt: I think that we're not addressing the overall impact of what this development is going to do for traffic to the south and to the north. I mean you're looking at the collector road but people aren't going to use the collector road to get from Yoberry to Galpin or to 41, they're going to use these other local streets and they're not capable of handling it yet, so I've got more comments but we'll keep going on. Mayor Furlong: Do you have any questions for staff? Councilman Labatt: I'm trying, Kate help me out here. Realizing that, I think one of the options that this developer missed is, you're looking at the overall impact and the question and concern from both associations and one thing we can look at and encourage them to come back with is the option of making cul-de-sacs that don't connect but come in from Longacres. Come in from Highover. There's no actual connection. That way you're not going to have a huge traffic impact. To go along with that we have developments that we've approved as a city, and I don't believe I was part of them but it was before, Summerfield and Kiowa Trail. There's no connection there between the Lundgren development in Summerfield to Kiowa. Kate Aanenson: There is a condition of approval of that once 212 is built that those streets will be connected. That is a condition of approval. Once 101 gets, which will be in the next couple years. Councilman Labatt: Okay, and then what about Timberwood to Stone Creek? Kate Aanenson: That's the only one I'm aware that didn't get connected. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so I'm just trying to figure out what the rationale is. Kate Aanenson: There's no other access. It's got to be connected to one side or the other. There's no other way to get access. Councilman Labatt: To where? Kate Aanenson: It has to go either to Highover or to Hunter. Councilman Labatt: Agreed. It has to go either one way or the other, or it could go cul-de-sac's and they both share. And there's no through, I'm just trying to think of the rationale when the council decided not to connect Stone Creek to Summerfield, or Stone Creek to Timberwood. And it just dead end's there and there's barricades up there. What the rationale was for not making the connection there. It had to be traffic. 14 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Well I think there was a couple of reasons but the one I'll state is that this large lot development, 2 1/2 acres on a rural section of road, that's not an urban standard road with a current, a subdivision that met current standards. So you had two different land uses. Large lot, RR and you had an RSF. Large lot higher density so that was the main point that they decided not to connect those two. Two different types of neighborhoods. I guess that was my point here at the beginning, similar lot size configuration. Councilman Labatt: How's MnDot going to, if MnDot's saying to us right now we're not going to allow access onto 41, how are they going to apply the same standards to the west side of 41 when that gets developed, Ches Mar Farms. How are we going to, how are we going to treat everybody the same here? Kate Aanenson: There isn't a lot of development potential there. You just have the one piece, the Ches Mar Farms, and there's no sewer and water to there. Tanadoona also is exempt from sewer and water in our comprehensive plan. We really want to protect that as the Girl Scout there. Also is the access to Tanadoona to get possibly down to the other site, the church site. Coming back around, which is long term as that subdivision to the back side of that, which is the back side of Dogwood. Bringing that out to the light. That comes through Westwood Church, which is what we're working on now. So they would come back around as that street gets upgraded. Councilman Labatt: But this applicant has made no formal request, even for, to MnDot to look at even a right-inhight-out into Yoberry. Kate Aanenson: Well I don't want to say the applicant. The City took the lead on that part of it. Again, that's our job is to, in working with those jurisdictions, whether it's the, whether it's wetlands or MnDot. Todd Gerhardt: We've got 3 letters from MnDot. My conversation with Lisa Freese today is that she reviewed the access point similarly as if it was an application for variance for access. Her response probably would have been in more detail if there was a formal variance process, but she followed the same procedures as if a formal application was made. Councilman Labatt: Okay. You can go on. Mayor Furlong: Kate, I might bounce around a little bit here so forgive me for that. Back to the Options A, B and C. I had forwarded you an e-mail that I received where the resident raised the issue of street frontage and the street behind and I think referenced the comprehensive plan or ordinances, I'm not sure where it was but one of the statements you made earlier is that Option A I think meets our ordinance even though it's coming in behind. Typically we have a street going in front of two houses with the back yards connecting. But were you able to determine whether or not this plan Option A does indeed meet our ordinance or not? Kate Aanenson: Yes it does and I did review that with the City Attorney and I apologize. I meant to show some of these. We have other instances. I'll show similar situations and I'll show a true double fronted lot, and again in our opinion it's not a double fronted lot. There's 13 15 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 feet of buffer inbetween. But this is a similar situation. This is Point Lake Lucy where you have lots backing onto a street. This is Mulberry Circle. This is kind of at the comer of Powers and Lake Lucy. This is Knob Hill that went in recently went in existing, up against an existing neighborhood to the south. Again there's the narrow strip. Again not double fronted lots. This, by our code and our interpretation is a double fronted lot and this is in the core of downtown. You can see this is Laredo Drive. This is a cul-de-sac coming in. These lots butt on the cul-de- sac and directly onto Laredo. So that in our opinion is a double fronted lot, and we have double fronted lots throughout the community. Sometimes, again our ordinance says they're not desirable but sometimes again, I was trying to make the point in the beginning, you have to work with not every piece of property's square or flat. Every piece is different and try to work with them to meet the ordinance. Then you have to decide at what, what are your goals you're trying to accomplish. Sometimes you're trading wetlands for trees and trying to work through grading for slope preservation. So we worked through all those issues but these are double fronted lots. This circumstance that you're looking at in this subdivision in our opinion is not a double fronted lot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. You had made the statement that you looked at a number of different layout options. One that Councilman Labatt mentioned where two cul-de-sacs coming north and south. I had my thoughts but from a planning standpoint, from your standpoint, knowing what you know about the comments received, can you comment on that? Kate Aanenson: Well you're double tripping people. We don't know exactly what direction, you can assume, at the Planning Commission people said 75% are going to come our way. The other neighborhood, 75's going to come our way. Well, you know it really depends on trip generation. If you're going to the grocery store north, up to 7. If you're going down to Target and going the other direction, so really what we find in most neighborhoods is there's a pretty good split differential, and by having the two cul-de-sacs you're forcing everybody to go back and forth the same way. Whether it's the mail or the bus, or that as opposed to giving the people the choice of looping back around and making that tum back out onto 41 or onto Lake Lucy. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ahight. The road design, I guess I want to just clarify in my mind there. We talked about roads being designed when Highover was developed, those roads were stubbed there to that property and also to the property to the east. Same with Longacres, when that went in. And I think you said that there were some other neighborhoods that have been added in the Longacres neighborhood in particular off Fawn Hill, is that right? Kate Aanenson: Yes, the, I forgot the same of that. Forest Meadows access directly off of Longacres. That's not part of that. They come in, and that's this subdivision here. They access that. Then as I indicated, if you go up towards Ashling Meadows, which is another Lundgren's subdivision, and not showing up here on the map. This subdivision. Again, it's our job to provide access because this piece could be landlocked. We had to provide a stub to this piece of property. There's wetlands. Again, all those things impinge development potential. For example if you go back to the Longacres, all this property was owned by Mr. Dolejsi when the Lundgren's bought it. There's a large wetland complex that goes through the middle of it. In order, we did make a trail along it, and connected it via a trail but we couldn't get the road across based on that, so they actually, there's natural breaks. So every time a piece of property comes 16 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 in, we have to look at how does this relate to the piece next so you can't look at it in a vacuum. You have to look at the slopes. Does it make sense to put a street here? If it's too, if it's going to be too steep to the adjoining property, so each development as it comes in, they have to modify their plan based on the neighbor's property, whether or not they're going to develop today, tomorrow, 5 years down the road, so that's kind of the mystery part of it, but we worked really hard to, and like we say, we've got these ones that are coming in. The ones you just recently approved, Pinehurst, and now we're working on the Carlson piece again tying into those existing stub streets to provide access. Mayor Furlong: So by that statement are you saying that when Highover was developed and when Longacres were developed, they modified their plans to provide these... Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, to provide those, yeah. As I said, our original goal was actually of this street right here on Highover. Can you zoom in on that please? To have this street on Highover, which is a cul-de-sac to come down, but we couldn't because of the grade change and the wetlands so we, the first few iterations that's what we looked at. Again we field check everything and it just, it wasn't going to work so we had to move it over to avoid the wetlands. And that same circumstance occurs on the Brenden, it's not Brenden Pond. It's the Woodside development where we actually have a piece that's on the neighboring property. Oops, I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: You were off there. Kate Aanenson: This piece right here. You've got a large wetland complex below. Topographically it belongs to this piece, so we have to look at all of those features. We can't just look at property lines. That's, you have to look at how the topography, the wetlands and then the mystery of making it engineer. The roads can only be certain grades and tying all those things together so there are a lot of variables, and that's what I'm saying. We worked with the developer over the last 6 months, working through all those issues. There's existing homes that want to stay on the site so you have to match certain grades and so working through all those issues to try to get a well conceived plan and it takes a lot of effort on both the city side and the developer's side, to get it to meet code and that's our goal. Not to maximize lot but to have it meet code. Mayor Furlong: Okay. You said it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. What would be a request by the developer that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan? Kate Aanenson: If they were to come in with a multi -family project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, much higher density or retail. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So because it's single family residential that's what makes it consistent? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. 17 0 • City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: With the comprehensive plan. Kate Aanenson: And the fact that that's what it's guided for. Mayor Furlong: It's guided for that. Kate Aanenson: It's guided for low density. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Hunter Drive. Councilman Labatt mentioned it. Hunter Drive is a windy, twisty road on a hill. I know the speed trailer, we got that out there last fall. Listening to some neighbors that were talking about it at that time. Are there some other things that we can do, Mr. Gerhardt or Mr. Saam, with regard to monitoring the safety of that road and traffic. Regardless of whether or not this development goes forward, there are issues on Hunter Drive and we've heard about those. I think they're just, they're coming to the head here again because they've been there before so. Todd Gerhardt: As Matt indicated, we will be putting out the tubes once the snow stops and do a traffic study in that area and we can bring back several options to the City Council to consider in trying to make that road a little safer. I think we shared with the council some safety improvements that the City of Edina and Bloomington have been doing in communities where they've seen higher rates of speeds in residential areas. So right now I think our engineering department's looking at those and that potentially could be something we could offer up. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, I think those are my questions. Now does anybody else have questions at this time? Councilman Lundquist: Just one more follow-up Kate. Any variances with this project at all? Kate Aanenson: There are no variances. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you'd like to address the council sir. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Honorable Mayor, members of the council. My name is Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 7e Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. Representing the Yoberry Fames development this evening. With me are other members of the development team, Mr. Tom Stokes and Bill Coffman. And Mr. Steve Johnston, the project engineer and the land surveyor. Also in attendance one of the property owners, Karen Weathers. Just a couple very brief comments supplementing the staff report. This development will have it's own homeowners association be responsible for strict architectural control, maintenance of the entrance monuments and planted areas. We anticipate with the 57 lots, approximately 3 custom home builders with homes ranging from $750,000 to the $1,000,0000 range. All conditions of the staff IN 1J City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 • report as presented are acceptable and I think the most recent development with the outlot and the possible future connection to the regional park for all of the residents east of 41 is a very exciting possibility. As I understand that that park is not, is under utilized. I'll just say it that way. With that, as staff noted, the plat is fully compliant with variances and we would request approval of the rezoning request and the platting action. Stand by to take your questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Chuck Alcon: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Questions for the applicant. Any? Councilman Labatt: Obviously you've, I think Bethany said it. There's been a lack of dialogue, communication between Yoberry and Ilighover and Longacres and it's disappointing. And I'm really disappointed by the fact that if you're going to put in 57 lots of homes of $750,000 to $1,000,000 you wouldn't consider a totlot. I think that your neighbors are going to be utilizing the private parks in the two neighboring homeowner associations is wrong, and by your group not taking advantage of putting in a totlot into your development is disappointing to me as an individual. And a resident of Chanhassen and a councilman. I'll say that to you now. Chuck Alcon: May I respond to that please? Councilman Labatt: Go ahead. Chuck Alcon: Our concept for marketing this, especially with the development of the access to the regional park, we didn't feel it required a totlot. We have had discussions with the Longacres Homeowners Association because there is some concern, it's a valid concern, that the people on the southern part of our development will migrate towards the western most totlot in the Longacres development. We are hoping to arrange with that homeowners association some type of an annual membership fee or an annual fee for anybody, any of our residents who would like to use that park. We didn't feel a combination of homeowners association would be the right thing to do at this time. I'd rather not commit our future residents. Let them make their decision as to what they want to do, but clearly if they're going to use somebody else's park, that's being maintained by somebody else's money, they should help pay for it. Councilman Labatt: Have you entered into conversations with Longacres on this? Chuck Alcon: Yes, we've had one breakfast meeting, several phone calls and a couple of e- mails. We haven't got to an agreement yet but we think we're close. Councilman Labatt: I'm just jotting a note. I'm fine now. I'll just save my comments. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? If I could have my Park and Rec Director just update the residents here on the potential of a pedestrian underpass on 41. I think this is new information that wasn't 0 • City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 presented at our Planning Commission. This is some information that's occurred here in the last 2 to 3 weeks. If I could have Todd give a short presentation on that. Mayor Furlong: Please. Todd Hoffman: Thanks Todd. Members of the City Council and audience members. Minnewashta Regional Park is a park located just to the west of this site across State Highway 41. There's a development of neighbors, neighborhoods in Chanhassen sandwiched between State Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard which will have very convenient access to the regional park by pedestrian or bikes at some point in the future. I met recently with Marty Walsh, our Carver County Parks Director and we talked specifically about that site for the underpass because they're making 121 grant application for that potential underpass and in a county wide perspective, they think this underpass at State Highway 41 for the regional park is the highest ranking application that they'll have in the County. The location of that is just opposite, can we zoom in on that? There's an existing culvert that takes water under State Highway 41 at this location. It's also a very low point on either side of State Highway 41, so this is the location that they're considering for that underpass. Actually Todd Gerhardt came up with this suggestion that we get this outlot at this location to align with that underpass. There was another location farther north that was contemplated earlier so we have a stairway section proposed to come down so residents in this entire area can access regional park which is 340 acres. Has a beach. A large playground. Picnic areas. Trailways in that vicinity. So that's the proposal for an underpass for State Highway 41. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. You can only access that through stairs? Is that correct? Todd Hoffman: At this location. This would be via a stairway. There's really no other way to build that... Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay, so if I have a stroller, how do I get to the park? Todd Hoffman: You would want to go, yeah you'd either have to walk down this, which would be difficult, or you'd want to go through Longacres Drive. Back down here onto State Highway 41. Todd Gerhardt: If you've got a stroller, you're going to drive there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You're going to drive? Todd Gerhardt: You're going to drive. I've got kids. I understand this so drive. Todd Hoffman: There's two at grade, there will be two at grade connections at either Lake Lucy Road or Longacres Drive or this would be at grade... 20 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: So Mr. Hoffman, what you're looking at is extending a trail all the way along the east side of 41 from Lake Lucy down to Longacres to connect, we just made that connection further south of Longacres this last year I know to connect the trail up there so. Todd Hoffman: Correct. The comprehensive plan identifies that trail from Longacres Drive north to a terminus point probably at Chaska Road and then with the underpass. So the trail would be on the east side of the underpass with a trail system winding in. Again, that's a future planned improvement with this County application that may or may not speed up that process, but it's certainly not booked in anybody's budget at this time. This is simply planned. Todd Gerhardt: Todd, the application deadline for this would be? For the grant. Todd Hoffman: This year. This year application so 2005 for a 2006 or 7 timeline. Councilman Labatt: Todd are we, maybe I'm missing the trail here on this one but are we taking any sort of park dedication land or anything or easement along 41? I know Longacres Drive, there used to be a sign that says this trail will be extended in the future but we're not taking or platting or taking any sort of deeded access where that trail's going to go along 41 right now. Todd Hoffman: No we're not. The trail will, you can see the right-of-way in this area for State Highway 41 is very wide. And as a part of that outlot we're taking a little sliver but with the exception of that, we're taking a sliver here. With the exception of that this trail would be a long ways away from these properties out into the state highway ditch. Kate Aanenson: So it would be built in the existing right-of-way. You don't need additional dedication. Councilman Labatt: So how much right-of-way are we, you know as you look at a portion of this property where it has that old railroad bed or some sort of trail bed along 41. Is that where the trail's going to go is on that flat, old snowmobile trail? Todd Hoffman: I don't know where the trail will go. I know that it will be in the right-of-way, but where the exact location, I couldn't tell you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Hoffman, as long as you're here. We dealt with this issue as far as a potential totlot in the Pinehurst development that came through a few weeks ago. That issue's come up again here. I know Kate mentioned a little bit but could you take a look at your map there and show me again where, why do we not get into totlots? Why have we not got into totlots before? Todd Hoffman: City has a comprehensive park plan which identifies park service areas of about one-half mile so the concept is that every resident will have a park within one-half mile of their front door, or that's the goal of the comprehensive park plan. If you take a look at this area as it develops, we have one public park at Sugarbush Park, which is servicing a portion of this property that we're talking about being developed here at Yoberry. We have a second park that Kate mentioned at the Pulte development. It's actually at the head waters of Bluff Creek that 21 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 will be developed as a touch down point on this property. And then we're currently seeking a public park in the Carlson property right at this location which will also service portions of the Yoberry so you have 3, 2 existing parks. This one is acquired. It's not developed, and then a third proposed park which would provide public park services at a neighborhood park service level to Yoberry. Neighborhood park is intended to serve upwards of 5,000 people. 2 to 5,000 people. This 57 homes will generate approximately 175 people. The City has shied away from developing individual totlots or what is called mini parks where you take 1 or 2 or 3 lots. We're simply not set up to go into that business. We would have literally potentially hundreds of those mini parks throughout the community if we were to take those on. Many developers have chosen to do that on their own, especially in homeowner associations or in associations for multi- family housing where they set up a totlot and they pay for it through their association dues, and that's a choice by the developers and the residents to maintain those. Outside of the neighborhood park service areas we also have community parks which provide service to this area. The Yoberry and that's the Middle School West, which is up the street and is certainly accessible once that trail is completed. It will be easily accessible. In the meantime it's accessible by Highover Drive and then up Brenden Court, to get to that site. You also have the Chan Recreation Center which is accessible via a trail system to this property, and then Lake Ann Park, which is currently accessible. Community park service areas broaden out. They go past half a mile to a mile and even greater than that. If you go one step farther you get regional facilities. We've talked about Minnewashta Regional Park. It's 340 acres of public parkland just across State Highway 41. You also have the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum which is close by and Camp Tanadoona. So again it's staff's position that additional public parkland is unwarranted as a part of this development. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? At this time. Or for the applicant. If not what I'd like to do is allow an opportunity for public comment on this. As we do this, I do it with a couple preferences. One, each of us have read the minutes to the Planning Commissions to both public hearings and the Planning Commissioners comments as well as read numerous e-mails and talked on the phone so what I would ask, at the same time I want to make sure that people have an opportunity to be heard. There's been some new information that's been brought up tonight and that we've talked about this evening that wasn't at the last Planning Commission so I want to make sure the residents have an opportunity to respond to that and give us as much information as possible as we talk about this in a few minutes so, what I would ask, just for the sake of everybody's time, try to be brief. Certainly try not to be too redundant and try to cover issues that are germane to this development and the issues we'll be talking about so, with that I would certainly invite residents or interested parties to come forward at this time. If you could state your name and address and feel free to address the council on the matters of concern. Thomas Hirsch: Good evening Mayor, City Council members. Thank you for allowing me to address you. I'm Thomas Hirsch, President of Longacres Homeowners Association. Resident of Longacres at 2290 Longacres Drive. Would like to submit to the record a signed position paper from the Board of Directors of Longacres at this time. Mayor Furlong: Sure. 22 • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 r] Thomas Hirsch: I certainly don't expect you to read that whole packet. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Before you start, is this new information? Thomas Hirsch: It's an executive summary and a board position that's signed by the board of Longacres. Councilman Peterson: We have not seen this before? Thomas Hirsch: You have not seen this particular document or set of documents. I present to you with a little orientation on the package. There are two pages at the beginning of the package stapled to a map and two pictures, that's all I'm going to discuss. The following stapled document is a detailed discussion of that executive summary, if you would like to validate our positions in the executive summary, there's detailed discussion that follows. And then I also attached a two letter correspondence with a solution that we proposed to the developer on shared infrastructure components between Yoberry Farms and Longacres and in that two page letter is a discussion of the history of our communication with the developer at that point. Page 1 of the executive summary summarizes the problem. Page 2 of the executive summary is our proposed solution. In consideration of time I draw your attention to paragraph 4 on page 1 of the executive summary, which lays out how the proposal is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan or city ordinances. I believe there will be a speaker to go into more detail on the traffic patterns and the car loads and the relative width of the streets and connectors and residential, local residential streets being 26 feet or 24 feet wide so I won't cover that. Personally I'd like to focus on 3 items. Parks. We've repeatedly tried to meet with the Board and the developer unsuccessfully. We did have one breakfast meeting following the January e Planning Commission meeting to conceptually lay out some options. Those are covered in the 2 page e-mail at the back of the package, and we did yesterday submit the proposal to the developer. I will now put up the map that we're already looking at with a couple of marked highlights and you have a copy of this in your package. I did mark the black area is the Yoberry development. Our west park of Longacres is the private marking on the left, and the yellow marking on the right is our east private park. As you can see the half mile neighborhood parks are not servicing this new development there. The lower one-third of the development would be serviced by the Sugarbush Park in the center of the lower right circle. We contend that the Yoberry residents will use our parks and infrastructure. It would be natural with strollers, there is I think we heard earlier that there is really no access for mothers with strollers to go anywhere but our parks. Our opinion is that the developer has taken a wait and see what your decision will be tonight attitude concerning this matter. And rather than working cooperatively with us and I think we've made reasonable effort and reasonable proposals to the developer to date. The second item I'd like to discuss or highlight is the need for a construction access off of Highway 41, which I've had discussions with senior people at MnDot also and they are not opposed to a construction access existing for the duration of the project. This is a 3 year project. Be 20 homes estimated built in the first year. 20 homes in the second year. 20 homes in the third year and that's a lot of concrete trucks and a lot of framing material and a lot of hauling of dirt and landscape materials and I think we've all lived where there's construction going on and this is an 23 • 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 extended 3 year period that jeopardizes the safety of our children on Longacres Drive. I do want to point out that 78% of our residents live south of Longacres Drive and must cross Longacres Drive to access our parks, so that's a real safety concern. With all of that construction traffic coming through Longacres Drive. Highover has a similar situation with residents and I believe one of the other residents in Highover will address the number of children and that issue. The third thing I would like to highlight is traffic. There is precedence that was covered earlier with Kiowa and Summerfield and Stone Creek and Timberwood Drives not connecting. I drove those over the weekend and it looked similar to me on a map too, if not identical to our situation here. Longacres Street, Longacres Drive is not a connector based on the definition of a connector in the city code. It is only 33 feet wide of pavement. A connector is defined as 36 feet wide in the code. There is no double yellow line on Longacres Drive like there is on Lake Lucy Road. Gunflint has a maximum capacity of 800 car trips per day as defined as a local residential street. If you count up the number of homes and use the engineering handbook of 10 trips per day per home, there would be 1,200 car trips per day going down that road. It exceeds the capacity of that local residential street. Highover is out of capacity also for the same reasons. There will be other detailed measurements and car counts by a speaker that follows me. The trail, that's new information. Appreciate that addendum to the proposal. For clarification, I'm glad we did clarify that it will run from Longacres Drive all the way up to Lake Lucy Road along 41, because initially it didn't come across that way this evening. Is that true? That was a question. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Thomas Hirsch: Okay, thanks. And the timeframe is 2007. Todd Hoffman: Timeframe's unknown. That's for the application. Todd Gerhardt: And we haven't received the grant. We're making application. There is the opportunity that we may not be successful in receiving that. So I just want to make that clear. Thomas Hirsch: So at this point it's an unknown and if approved it would be the 06-07 timeframe I think I heard. Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Thomas Hirsch: Okay. With that, thank you for your consideration tonight. Request that you deny the proposal as it currently is proposed. I believe the two cul-de-sac solution is the best for traffic and park situation. It makes both of those go away. And with construction access, I think we could fully support this development going in here. We recognize the right to develop land, we just want to do it prudently and I hope I provided you some input to make a prudent decision. Thank you. Any questions at this time? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions? Thank you sir. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive and have for the last 6 years. I would like to share a letter with you that bears 43 of the 55 signatures of my neighbors. Some of the other signature pages were not able 24 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 to be united with the document this evening. Apologize that I could not pass it out earlier. We had an algebra crisis at the Wagner home on Thursday night that delayed the writing of the document. This, I'll ask a little bit of leeway to go through each of these briefly. I hope that will prove to be the most efficient use of the council's time but it represents the views of a number of different folks in the Highover development. You're aware of a number of our concerns through our individual letters. I'll let those speak for themselves. At the outset though I do want to emphasize that we are not against residential development of this parcel per se. Only against the many negative aspects that have been brought up this evening. In fact if we could, with the proper modification we'd be more than happy to welcome some new neighbors, extra places to Trick or Treat, what have you. Having reviewed the pertinent portions of the city code and the comprehensive plan we have some particular issues to raise and we'll try to keep them here. I'll try to keep them here on point to the proposed Findings of Fact and Decision that are before you this evening which I believe are drawn from municipal code, Section 18-38(f). Specifically 4(b) on the paperwork you have in front of you. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. We would disagree that it fits that. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Mr. Wagner, where are you reading from? Rodd Wagner: Well from the very front of the, I'm not. Mayor Furlong: What you handed out? Rodd Wagner. Yes. The very front of that. I'm going through in faster fashion than the actual letter in the interest of the council's time, and on 4(c), that the physical characteristics of the site, not including, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding and the storm drainage, stone water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. As has been mentioned this evening, this situation creates some unique problems given the fact that it's sandwiched between two existing developments, and because there's kind of an expostfacto character to it that in many of the similar situations that have been shared, those streets were laid out in a way that people who were purchasing the homes knew what the street layout was before they made their purchases and this was in many ways a situation that was not anticipated by those who purchased the home. Let me go through our rationale as quickly and efficiently as I might. The proposed development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the proposed Highover Drive, Gunflint Trail through street. The letter that I distributed goes through the city code is to what is designated as an arterial, a collector and a local street. I draw your attention to the definition of a local street as a street of limited continuity which is used primarily for access to abutting properties. Highover Drive is designated a local street. It's roughly 26 1/2 feet wide. That's the measurements that my neighbors took. The city code requires rural residential local streets have no less than 24 feet of pavement. Urban residential streets must have 28 to 32 feet of pavement. Collectors, as has been mentioned need to be at least 36 feet wide. 26 t'2 feet, it's either a residential local street or an out of code urban residential. Urban residential local street. Cannot be nor neither was it anticipated to be a collector. Most planning books suggest that local streets serve more than 80 homes and cant' no more than 800 trips per day. I heard staff's suggestion that in Chanhassen that number is higher, but this connection would be more than three-quarters of a mile long. A 25 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 length more consistent with a collector than a local street. I did some measurements with my GPS on Lake Lucy and Longacres that are shown on the document before you on page 2. The new through street would need to serve 120 homes. These are homes that have to go on that street to access either Lake Lucy or Longacres. Only 56,58 of which, by my count, would abut the street. So the minority of homes it's serving abut the street, therefore it fails the definition of a street which is used primarily for access to abutting properties. That's without taking into account any kind of through traffic. Being situated between the two collectors, Lake Lucy and Longacres, a disputed collector I grant you, it will also attract some degree of through traffic. We don't know how much. Even without the through traffic, as I said it could no longer be said to be used primarily for access to abutting properties and we heard this evening that it is already under consideration that there will be a development in this area east of I ighover Trail and so and particularly the folks who are on the north end of Mghover Drive will be picking up traffic from the through street, a portion of it from Yoberry. They're also going to be picking up traffic from the new development to the east and therefore certainly out of compliance with being a local street. One of the unique facts of Highover is it is a crest at the highest point in the county, and I brought some photographs this evening. They appear as exhibits to your, at the back of the packet that you have. This is, these two photos were taken from essentially the same spot, fairly near to my house. The first one is looking north on Highover Drive. The other one looking south on Highover Drive, and what I'd like to point out is the degree to which visibility is blocked by the slope of the hill. If a car's moving in any speed whatsoever, it will quite frankly I would challenge you to say is there a child over the crest of that hill. Is there a kid on a, with a wagon or a kid with a Hotwheel there, you really, you don't know. And nor does the driver who's moving down the street. And therefore it's even, it has limited width. It has limited visibility and therefore safely can carry only limited traffic. We already have problems with high speed traffic and a letter from my neighbor, Mr. Lee Broadston lays out some of the problems we've had and had to ask the sheriff for some assistance. There are a large number of families with small children who purchased homes on the street with a reasonable expectation that it would remain a local street in character and in fact. These assumptions were fed by the design of Mghover Drive. It has a sidewalk only on one side, and also by some representations, oral though they may be, from the developer that yes, Highover Drive was going to go through but it would only go through to a cul-de-sac of no more than 12 homes. My neighbor Jenny Johnson emailed me. I don't know if she supplied a letter to the council, saying she was one of the first to purchase. One of the last to build but yes in fact that's what the builder had represented and that became commonly known throughout the neighborhood as what folks anticipated when they purchased. I would draw the council's attention to the quote on page 3 from Planning Commissioner Steve Lillehaug who said in his vote against this that when I look at this there are high traffic levels on those local streets period, and truthfully I wouldn't want that in my neighborhood. I'll jump to the end here. As a resident and Planning Commissioner, I don't want to see those higher levels of traffic on those streets. Rationale to the direct connection of Highover and Longacres as proposed conflicts with the city code requirement of discouraging through traffic on a local street. There are a couple sections of code that I cite there that talk about how the alignment of local streets shall discourage through traffic and that location and design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets. I think that would apply to the extension of Highover Trail. Topographic conditions and safety. When you create a connection you create the possibility for through traffic, and there is no way to predict exactly what would happen if a traffic light were put on 41. How people would cut through to try to make the light • • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 to get on. To make it a guaranteed left hand turn onto 41. We just don't know what would happen. We certainly know that our friends on Hunter Drive would pick up additional traffic, as the shortest distance to get to Highway 5 going towards the east. Jumping to the next page, I cite another piece of the comprehensive plan about yes, street linkages are preferred but that same section it said, while linkages are preferred, it said development should be planned to avoid running high traffic volumes and/or non-residential traffic through residential neighborhoods, and I don't think this current plan meets that test. In issue 3, in several respects the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate negative impact on surrounding properties as required by the city code. Speaking specifically about the Harrison Hill, those folks, city staff mentioned that it's not definitionally a double fronted lot. I would argue that that is a distinction without a difference that it is for practical matters a double fronted lot and you will see in the photo exhibit some pictures of the folks that are most affected by this. A photograph of the gentleman who lives on that street and of course we're just approximating, the young man who's standing in the picture, approximating where the street would be and where, and he's standing, the resident there is standing on his property. That is not, I think the definition of a good additional development is that would people purchase it again if they knew full well exactly what was going to be there and would they purchase it for the same price, and I think it fails there as well. As has been mentioned, each neighborhood incorporates restrictive covenants to create a more enjoyable place to live. We maintain at our own expense entrance monuments, lighting, landscaping. In short, the Yoberry development takes advantages of improvement in Longacres and Highover while it's current design degrades the property values of those on Harrison Hill Trail and by virtue of too much traffic the property values and safety of those on Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail. The other problem this poses is there's just simply no neighborly way to draw a distinction on Gunflint Trail and say this is where Longacres ends and this is where Yobeny begins. People interact and how do you say to a brand new development, do you put up a fence, signs? No trespassing. You can't come in here. That's just not the way I believe a city ought to be planned. And also, the developer now is introducing the oddity of monuments to a new neighborhood mid -street which I think is just poor design. Finally point 4. In seeking to crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed development requires dramatic alteration of the topography and vegetation contrary to the municipal code. It strikes me, I'll cut to the chase here. There's an awful lot, in staff's report they supplied to the Planning Commission, there's a lot of references to how much grading. I understand 44 feet of that hill, we don't have that many tall hills in Chanhassen, is going to be taken off. There's a lot of accommodations for trying to run streets up steep directions and it seems to me nearly any site can be made suitable if it's graded. If the trees are cut down. If you put up retaining walls right and left, but that doesn't seem to meet the intent of the code. Rather the code is to preserve the topography and vegetation to make the development lead to, yield to the landscape and not vice versa. Finally, as far as citing code and such, there is an important paragraph in city code Section 18-56 which there's been a lot of discussion about things meeting the requirements of the city code and comprehensive plan. City code Section 18-56 says, the proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and design handbook, but it gives the council wide latitude. It says the design features set forth in this article are minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets, and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided and I would ask you to invoke that paragraph of the city code in looking for a proper solution. We do propose a solution. We are taking for granted, as does city staff that MnDot is most likely 27 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 to deny access so we're no longer pursuing that. Instead we strongly recommend the parcels in question, incorporate a cul-de-sac termination of Highover Drive on the north and a cul-de-sac termination of Gunflint Trail on the south as homeowners anticipated when they purchased. It solves a lot of the problems, a lot of the conflicts with the city code and comprehensive plan. Most importantly the through traffic issue. It makes less distance to gain speed on Highover Drive and less of a traffic load. It creates a natural boundary that fosters the two existing neighborhoods and while I can't speak entirely from our neighbors, based on our unanimity in approaching the council on this issue and how well we work together, I'm certain that we would work well to incorporate those additional homes into our neighborhoods. We recommend the plans be altered to avoid sandwiching Harrison Hill Trail between the two roads, again for the reason that the topography, it's not the folks on Harrison Hill Trail's fault that the topography just doesn't allow what the developer is trying to do without a lot of accommodations. That is just the topography that's on the land. We as the developer be required to route all construction traffic off 41 has been mentioned, and we urge the plan be modified to require far less grading, removal of fewer trees and the accommodation of more open space to match the topography and vegetation of the land. Now I'll end as I began. We said we're not against the development per se. The modifications we proposed would make the difference between a development that is sandwiched between two really disgruntled neighborhoods and a development where we could really welcome our new neighbors and enjoy what the comprehensive plan and the city code anticipate in the way of development. I appreciate you allowing me extended remarks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? Mark Zaebst: Good evening. My name is Mark Zaebst. I live at 2325 Hunter Drive in Longacres. Speaking in behalf for a large number of Hunter Drive residents that are here tonight and would like to speak specifically to some of our concerns on that street. As I'm sure you're all aware, you've heard, we feel that we definitely have some significant problems on our street right now. Those of which are, we feel that the speed limit of 30 miles per hour right now is excessive for the design that that street has. If you drive that short one-half mile street, you'll encounter 3 blind turns, significant grade changes and also a blind intersection which also serves as our school bus stop. So it's a dangerous situation. As Councilman Labatt mentioned earlier, he hit it right on the head. People will take the shortest route they can possibly find. Hunter Drive was never designed to be a connector street and to be the major thoroughfare out of Longacres over to Galpin and therefore into Chanhassen. I've lived on that street for over 7 years and I know for a fact that a great number of people that don't live on that street do use that street to gain access through that area, so we have a large amount of traffic with too high of a speed limit for the type of street that we have there. We have 78 children that Jive on that one half mile stretch of road right now. We are all honestly fearful for our children to go out and play in the front yards. I know that staff mentioned that they put the, I don't know what you call that. I call it the speed wagon but they put the speed wagon out on the street for a few hours for a couple of days. Didn't monitor anyone in excess of 30 miles an hour but they placed that at the bottom of the excessive grade change which is also a blind curve. If you went over 30 miles an hour on that curve you would spin out, which a lot of people do, and end up in our yards. I would ask that next time that the speed monitor is brought out, that they put it on the straight away out in front of my house and I can pretty much guarantee you you're going to find some folks driving in excess. So as I mentioned, we are concerned with the total number of folks `T' City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 driving down the street. We are concerned with the Yoberry Farms development. Staff has mentioned that we could anticipate from that development in excess of 700 car trips per day generated by that neighborhood. We feel on Hunter Drive that a large percentage of those are going to realize that Hunter Drive is the fastest way out and we're just going to end up exacerbating a problem that we have right now. We also are not anti development. We would welcome this development but we would welcome it with some conditions put on the application. One fust of all, the speed limit on our street has to be lowered. 30 miles per hour, if you have not driven our street, please come drive our street. Drive it at the speed limit. 30 miles per hour is ridiculous. Takes almost 200 feet to stop an automobile that's traveling at 30 miles per hour. There are many sections of that road where you cannot see 200 feet ahead. Please come drive it. You will realize that 30 miles per hour is excessive. We ask that that speed limit be lowered to 20 miles per hour and that it be enforced. I guarantee you if we could get a cop out there, write some tickets once a week, word's going to get out. People are going to slow down on that street. We ask that you post additional speed limit signs. There's only one speed limit sign on Hunter Drive and you cannot see it because as you negotiate the tum off of Galpin onto Hunter Drive, it's posted right at the corner there. You are not looking for a speed limit sign. You're on Hunter Drive and people do not know what the speed limit is on that particular street. We must get some stop signs located at Fawn Hill and Hunter Drive. Again as I mentioned that's a blind intersection. It's posted as a blind intersection but it's used as our school bus stop. It's almost impossible to see the children standing there on the corner, loading the buses. Again we are fearful that we're going to end up losing a child there. A stop sign will do two things. It will make that intersection safe for our children. It will also take Hunter Drive away as a totally unimpeded section of road where people can come off of Longacres and go fast and get over to Galpin. If you put a stop sign there, it will slow people down and make that street safer for everyone that lives there. We also ask that the city place a speed bump somewhere along the other section of Hunter Drive. We have to get people to slow down. So in conclusion we ask that the council again, if this development is approved, that it please place conditions upon the development that street improvements be made. Traffic calming measures be made to Hunter Drive. The concern should not be how fast can people drive down Hunter Drive. How convenient can Hunter Drive be for people to get out of there. The concern should be for the families that live on that street. Make it a safe environment. The fact is the street is there. People will continue to use it as a cut through street. Please help us to slow the traffic down. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Leslie Witterschein: Good evening. My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Harrison Hill Trail. In reviewing the documents prepared by both Highover residents, our residents and the document provided to you by city planner Sharmeen AI-Jaff, I looked at the city code, Section 18-57 which states specifically that the location design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets. Reasonable traffic circulation, topographic conditions, runoff of storm water, public convenience, and safety of the proposed land uses of property to be served. If you look on page 9 of the document provided to you by Ms. Al-Jaff, specifically under the streets it says while the minimum radius allowed on public streets is 180 feet, staff is willing to allow the tight curve on the end of Gunflint Trail, which is that street that will back up to our street, because the curve is at the end of the street. Staff is recommending a curve sign with a 20 miles 29 0 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 per hour speed limit be posted on both sides of the curve. Now it's been represented this evening that there are no variances being required but it specifically states in here that it is, that the radius is less than the required radius provided by the city and so I guess there must be some sort of variance specifically related to this curve. If you look at ... up against the edge of the property lines right here and you look at the pictures as provided to you in the earlier packet with the little boy standing by Mr. Rysso, you will see that there is not very many feet between the end of the property where the kids play all the time. There are 36 young children that live in that development, on our street specifically and they run up and down the backs of those houses all summer and winter long. And when you're looking at a tighter curve, particularly during the winter time and they've taken out the retaining wall so there is no barrier really between the back yards, with the exception of a couple little lilac trees as they proposed, to stop any type of traffic. If it's going too fast on a slippery curve and loses control, those homes and the safety of those children are in great jeopardy because of the tight curve. And I know they said that there's only 4 houses on the end but let me tell you our street does not have that many houses on it and there are a couple young teenagers that live up at the end of this street and they can whip up the end of our block at 30 to 35 miles an hour. In fact if you look at the end of our street you can see where coming down that block someone went fast enough that they jumped over Longacres Drive, down the embankment and knocked out a tree. So you know that they can kind of get going pretty quickly along those roads, even if there are only a few homes. And so I think that when you look at the safety of that, you should be very concerned and I think it goes against what the city code specifically requires. And I want to refer back to the fact that city code section allows you to impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being subdivided. When the developer talked about the 3 different proposals, the one that had the houses between the street and the back of our lot, it was deemed desirable, less desirable because of the fact that you're going to have to do a little more change and you might have to have a retaining wall, and in essence I truly believe that the real problem is that, the homes then wouldn't be walkout lots as they desired and therefore worth less money and that's really the true reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they might have to put a retaining wall up and knock down a few trees. When you're looking at the difference I think between knocking down a couple trees and having you know a higher retaining wall, it might be a little more difficult and the safety of the 36 children along that street, I don't think that it's a very tough decision. You know I figured that each of those homes is, being very conservative, each of those homes might be worth, and this is very conservative, $200,000 less because they're not a walkout lot and I think that that's greatly exaggerated. If you multiply that times the 4 homes, that's about $800,000. You divide that out by the cost of our 36 children, you're talking, you're saying that the value of our children are only about $11,000 and I just don't think that that seems to be right, and is not in accordance with the city codes, and the overall comprehensive plan. So I would respectfully request that you look at this very carefully and give strict consideration to the true safety of the children on that street, and any other children within our neighborhood or that we might have coming over to visit us, so it's not just our children but it is the greater interest of the other citizens of Chanhassen too. And finally with regard to the park system, and I'll just say this briefly. While I respectfully am happy about the fact that they're adding that trail, although it seems to be up in the air. It seems to more appease us with regards to the totlot but in actuality be functional because in order for those residents to take their stroller and their 6 year old on a bike to 41, they would have to walk past, they'd have to come down and walk past our park, and I find it hard to 30 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 11 believe that in order to get over to 41, if you're trying to do it in the 21/2 hours between the time your kindergartner leaves for school and your kindergartner gets home, that you're going to get a stroller, and all of the supplies that you need to go to the park, plus you know a 5 year old that's just learning how to ride their bike, down their road, all the way down Longacres and back up, that trail right at 41 to go under that overpass, and so I would respectfully request that you also look at the totlot issue because they will be using our parks. It's common sense to any mother that's ever been in that neighborhood. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeff Tritoh: Good evening. Just a couple quick facts about Hunter Drive because that seems to be one of the big issues here. Mayor Furlong: If I could ask you to introduce yourself. Name and address please. Jeff Tritoh: I'm sorry. Jeff Tritoh. I live at 2313 Hunter Drive. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeff Tritoh: The road is obviously quite curvy and the minimum radius, turning radius for that street, or that type of street is 180 feet, and there is one curve that is 166 feet so it is less than the minimum required by the city. The slope that everyone has been talking about, the maximum slope allowed is 7% and that slope is actually 10%, so it is much steeper than allowed. The driving, stopping your car at 30 miles per hour, which my neighbor just previously mentioned, it's 197 feet to stop your car safely and that's according to MnDot's design standards for safe stopping. Also the building covenants for 18 of the 26 homes on that mad allows the front yard setback to be 20 feet versus 30 feet which is the minimum and that's an encroachment of 10 feet, so that is why that road feels, another reason why it feels so tight and narrow. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, that's, excuse me for interrupting. That's on Hunter you're referring to? Jeff Tritoh: Hunter Drive. All these facts are on Hunter Drive. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, Thank you. Travis Sprague: Hi. My name is Travis Sprague. I live at 6888 Highover Drive. I just had a couple brief comments regarding safety once again of Highover. When I measure it it's 26 feet 2 inches on the pavement and I guess I hear a lot of comments on, from the city staff of here's what it requires or here's, this follows the plan and there's certainly guidelines. We know there's reasons for guidelines and you have to be consistent when you lay out developments but I guess there are also sometimes reasons for exception. I'm just urging the council to take a look at that and look at some alternatives and take some common sense approaches like Mrs. Tjornhom said when she parked on that street. If there's any cars on that street at all it's incredibly narrow and with the amount of extra traffic that's going to be coming down, and I truly think that when you, if you make it a through street, Highover through the development, that it's going to encourage 31 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 people to use that in the future as we get more development and more population as a cut across. Or an alternate route to Galpin, to 41, to Lake Lucy and it's going to be far more traffic than just the homes and from the numbers I'm hearing, I don't think the homes even support the width of Highover. I also heard comment about a precedence that was set at Stone Creek and Timberwood, and I heard, and I apologize for not knowing your name but I heard the comment made, if I'm quoting her correctly that one of the justifications for that was that it was not an urban standard road. And from the information that I have seen, it doesn't seem like Highover is an urban standard road for a local street being the width that it is and what the recommendations are within the code. And so I just want to urge the council to try to take a common sense approach and consider an exception to what the normal guidelines are and give hard thought to the two cul-de-sac approach that has been already proposed from both neighborhoods. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Phil Haarstad: Mr. Mayor and councilmen. My name is Phil Haarstad. I live at 7066 Harrison Hill Trail. It's the property that is at the northeast corner of the Yoberry Farms proposal. Near the cul-de-sac. The fust thing I did the evening I went to look at this property to purchase it was look behind to see if there'd ever be houses built in my back yard, and as an engineer by profession I quickly made the judgment, although I'm not a land development engineer or have any training in that, with a little common sense it was clear to me that this land was highly unlikely going to be developed and have houses directly in my back yard. And seeing from the difficulties that the planning people have had in using different options, it's, I think that's true that this land is being squeezed for homes to be put in there. While I, so also I understand though that it's unfair for me to purchase a home and not expect anyone else ever to build around me. I just wanted to make it clear that I agree with my neighbors on Harrison Hill Trail for the safety concerns of that curve coming up the back of our lots. I would much, however I would much rather, if that land does have to be developed, have the homes further away from my house than right high up in my backyard. So please consider that as well. That I would also just say that I think the better solution would be not to place those 4 homes in that area and use it as a common area or a park or something of that nature. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Joe Thull: Hi. My name is Joe Thull. I live at 6872 Highover Drive. Just a brief comment on, there's been a lot of talk about I believe it's Hunter Drive and all the traffic issues. Living at the T of Highover Drive and Highover Trail, it's interesting, at one point the people who were building and developing their homes on Hunter Drive you know looked around and said, you know what, it's going to be a nice neighborly local traffic. I can deal with that, etc, etc. To me that represents today kind of hind sight now. They're dealing with traffic. They're dealing with, and it's you know what, there isn't a simple solution now. The deal's been done. Now it's systemic and it isn't going to be a traffic cop. It's not going to be all these other things that are going to challenge that. I'm sitting on Highover Drive thinking you know what, Hunter Drive represents my future and that is pretty frustrating future that I don't want to deal with so I would expect that the council have some foresight and to protect the neighbors and the residents and clearly deal with local traffic and local neighborhoods like they should be dealt with, thank you. OA 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I do not live in this neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood just down the street but I've heard some things tonight and having read the report and been at the prior planning meetings, I do have a couple points that no one's brought up yet. I have to collect my thoughts, I'm sorry. I'm trying to keep this really short. I heard Kate said that all requirements of the zoning ordinances have been met but what about all requirements of the subdivision ordinance. All lots from the last report I read said all lots do not meet lot frontage requirements. They said lot lines could be adjusted. Well I think it's wrong to move forward and approve a subdivision with 57 lots if you do not know where those lot lines are. And I know it's preliminary but with so much at issue I think it's a very important point. Also relative to your latitude at making decisions about the change in zoning. Yes we do have a comprehensive plan. However, is there latitude in the density of this development? In other words, there's 57 lots. Could you reduce that? I think you can. I think there's latitude in reducing the net density. And thirdly, there was an issue raised by a resident pertaining to double lot frontage. And I heard it justified by the fact that well here's a lot here in the city. Here's another lot. I've been down that road before. There are lakeshore lots that have 75 feet width that were not approved according to the code, and I submit that you cannot use an existing lot and make that the reason for allowing double frontage. I think double frontage in this instance would be a variance. I hope I made that point. The fact that something exists in the city does not mean that it can be used as a reason to approve it within a new subdivision. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lang Lovig: Good afternoon, or good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council members. My name is Larry Lovig. I live at 2475 Gunflint Court and this is my third time speaking on this matter and still am quite nervous about that. I did send in an e-mail with an attached letter so hopefully you had a chance to read that so I won't touch on those points or any other points that have been covered here tonight but there are a couple things I did want to bring to light. First to me it seems there's a conflict between the staff and the current homeowners, between the staff and the Planning Commission and now between the staff and the City Council. Doesn't appear to me that staff is trying to be helpful with the commission and the council within these matters but rather working very closely with the developer to jam as many lots as possible into this area. The staff admittedly went as far as working with the developer to suggest that there's no need to apply for access to 41 in this case, and there's still not been a formal request for access to 41. And I guess my question to you would be, is there no recourse from the city to work with the state to try and get an exception in this case. We're talking about something that's not even been officially declined yet. Also I noticed in the comprehensive plan, page 21, it discusses mechanisms to protect natural beauty while at the same time reserving certain areas for recreational use. I'd like your attention to the area that adjoins the private park to the west. It's a very, very steep, very vegetated area. So steep that the developer has planned a very long retaining wall so he can develop houses that back up to the park. Those houses will be closer to that park than any of the Longacres residences. I ascertain that that is a bluff. In reviewing these meetings previously it seems to me that the definition of a bluff is made by the current survey 33 0 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 and the survey is a matter of where the surveyor sets the stakes. I would request the City Council to make that minimum investment to get a second opinion by a neutral survey crew to understand better if that is truly a bluff or not. That is definitely a natural area that should be looked at to be protected. It makes a very nice back drop to the park. Also staff has talked at great length about Longacres Drive and it's, whether it's a definition, meets the definition of a collector road or not. I don't think that matters. What matters is the definition of Hunter Drive. These people are not going to be using Longacres if they're heading towards 5 to head east for any reason. So with that I'll close with, I request that you reject the proposal in it's current form. That you challenge staff to meet as many of the current homeowners requests as you see fit tonight and appreciate your guidance in that matter. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Karen Weathers: My name's Karen Weathers. I'm one of the landowners. I live at 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard and I empathize with you all. I went through this when Longacres came in. I bought a 5 acre hobby farm and it was supposed to be zoned rural residential forever. Of course Longacres came in. Very dense. Nobody listened to me so I know it's frustrating. I'm not going to talk about the technical issues. I think it's up to the city to know what's in and out of variance. I do have just a couple comments. The traffic, one question I have had since the beginning of these meetings, I don't understand why you don't make Hunter Drive a dead end. It seems like everybody's got problems already and their problems are becoming our problems. So I don't know, it sounds like we, I don't know Mark you had a suggestions of making that. I don't need you to make you know Hunter Drive restrictions part of our development but I don't see why that can't be dealt with separately. So it seems like that's the issue with Hunter Drive and I empathize with that but I think it's kind of ironic that that kind of becomes our problem. It'd be nice to keep those separate. The only other thing is on the park issue, I empathize with that too. For 10 years I've had kids trespassing, I've got the part that's just north of the park so for 10 years I've had kids trespassing on my land, but I have not really cared. I had 4 boys yesterday, they said they were deer hunting with their eyes. So I said that's fine. Have a good time. So I think it would be great if we could team up with Longacres. I'm all for that but I don't see that that, view that as our issue. So I'd just like to comment on that. So I hope we can get everything resolved. We've seen all this development come around us much to our dismay but it's very hard to stop these things. It's also been good. It's been nice for my kids to have neighbors and all those good things too so I hope we can all meet on common ground. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sara Schneider: My name is Sara Schneider and I live at 6872 Highover Drive. As the developer was just saying, and I think I know especially for Highover, we have no issue with additional neighbors. With additional homes. It's just a matter of how it's going to be handled. We talk kind of about the traffic patterns and traffic studies can't be real conclusive because you don't know if they're going to Target on 5 or if they're going to Cub on 7 and what's going to be their easiest way out. And one of Kathy's comments was just that they don't really want to limit residents to have to go all the way down Highover because it isn't through. I think that would be better taken up with the current people in Longacres and the current people in Highover and a 34 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 good discussion with the developer about, I would prefer to see my own neighbors at the end of Highover cul-de-sac coming down and coming through my neighborhood, whether they're coming through to loop all the way back and going to Target. Whether they could have taken a shortcut if it had been through, I'd rather see it be a cul-de-sac where it would be, where it would limit the traffic. And we don't roll the traffic dice whether someone is going to Target or whether they're going to Cub. So I too would also respectfully request that you would reject the current plan as it is and as Highover has already stated, we would really welcome an open discussion with the developer and you've seem to have indicated that as far as some comments about have there really been any discussions, and the developer has kind of talked about some discussions with Longacres but it's already been kind of mentioned that those have been not as extensive as represented by the developer and I really think none of us have any objection to new neighbors, to new homes, to more kids. We welcome that, but just in a way that's going to make it a healthy, safe neighborhood for Longacres and for Highover and I think there's a way, and I think that we're coming up with some really pretty reasonable options with the two cul-de-sacs. So I would hope that you'd reject this and we could get on with the better plan. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We are coming up as best as I can tell, on about an hour and a half of public comments so I'd like to take one more if we could. If anybody's interested. Tim Block: You'd say a couple more or just one more? Mayor Furlong: One more please. You get to close. Tim Block: Mayor, City Councilmen and women. I've sat here today as a father of 4. Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address please sir. Tim Block: My name is Tim Block. I live at 6903 Highover Drive. I live at the top of Highover Drive. Right at the top. I have 4 children, all 5 and under. Each one of those children if they want to go visit their friends has to cross that street, Highover Drive to get to the sidewalk. Each one of those kids then has to drive down the sidewalk and cross again if they want to visit someone at Highover North or Highover Court. I've heard today a lot of supposition about what that means to my 4 kids. I've heard in the planning report I see, this is all I see, overall the proposed street layout appears to work well. That kind of conclusion is what we've heard here today. We've heard ideas about possibly putting up pads or some sort of tubing to figure out what's going on. We've talked about potential neighborhoods going in at Highover Trail, along with Yober y. Along with Longacres and along with Highover. But nobody has gone through the effort to find out how much houses that were. I haven't heard the city staff say how many are in Highover. How many are in Yoberry. How many are at Longacres and how many are going to be in the new Highover Trail. By our count that's 150 to 170 homes, all potentially. running by my house on Highover Drive. All potentially going over that hill where you've seen pictures where people don't see anything. And now we're talking about, not only serving those homes but we're talking about connecting two collectors. One, a named collector. One, a collector that doesn't make sense. It doesn't have a yellow line between it. Longacres Drive has become a defacto collector. Highover Drive is destined to be that. If we aren't here to stop it. City code, the comprehensive plan tells us don't do this. We've got neighbors and we've got 35 0 0 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 residents and we've got people who are selling their property saying, Hunter Drive isn't my issue. It's our issue today. The comprehensive plan tells us that, it says development, whether commercial, industrial or residential is long term, both economically and physical. Since development is permanent and usually irreversible, the effects of substandard or poorly located facilities will be evident for a long time. Therefore the developer and the city must be aware of natural, physical, social constraints and potential long term effects of the project. Only by paying attention to such detail at the early stages of development can facilities be constructed which are functional and aesthetic to both today and in the future. Today the city, the City Council is being presented with hard evidence by the residents of both of these communities. Not suppositions about the layout works well. Not suppositions about well we might put out something later. These are the people who are living in these areas right now and they've come to the city saying there's going to be a problem. We have a problem right now and there's going to be a bigger problem. We all know how we live. We all know how we might cut through this area and we all know how other people might cut through this area. People are coming down Highover Drive over the hill already too quickly and the only way that we can stop them right now is to follow them to where they live and tell them to stop. And right now you make it a through traffic and we lose that ability. Now I said in my letter to the City Council, this city has told the residents of this community that if you want to stop traffic, if you want to stop speeding in your neighborhoods, it is your job. It is the residents job. I think in the Leadfoot program it says, the key to traffic safety is a voluntary compliance with traffic laws and safe driving principles. The key to developing and maintaining safe driving in neighborhoods is residential support and involvement. That's what these people are here for today. That's why these people have showed up today to tell you that Yoberry right now as it's planned is not good for these communities. And if this people can't go on the web site and read what the city council has told them to do, and don't get the type of relief they get when they are the only ones presenting real facts, when they are not the people who are saying there might be 800 to 1,000 trips by this neighborhood. Instead they know what they're living through and they know what their potential is going to be. When the city comprehensive plan, Chapter 2 Housing tells people what I just read, do it now. Don't do it later. Tubes are too late. Widening the street after it's already in, it's too late. I'd have to say Highover's 26'h feet long. I read the plan, the Yoberry property anticipates 31 foot wide streets. When they get to connecting those streets and find out there's 5 feet of difference, it's too late. When somebody gets hit by a car, it's too late. When someone decides to sit down and count up 54 Highover Drive residents, 54 Yoberry Drive residents, 54 Highover Trail residents, Longacres and the through traffic, count that up to over 100 by the city's standards. 80 by almost every other code in the nation, and that number becomes 150 and 170. That correlates to 1,500 trips on Highover Drive. It's too late. You know people here have come to you with their concerns. I know that I've met with them. I've talked to the Longacres people. When this all came down people said we have to get here. You have to be here and I ask the council to listen. Listen to the people who are presenting the facts. Listen to the council member who had the foresight to go there and actually sit on the street and observe. Alright. I haven't heard anyone in the city staff say that they've done that. These people have come to you, we have come to you with an idea. We think that it's the best idea. We think it preserves our ability to monitor the traffic. We think it preserves our ability to stop unreasonable traffic and that is to create two cul-de-sacs so that both properties can do what they are told to do by the city, and that is be good residents. Be residents that are looking out for their neighborhoods, and be residents who will come to the City Council before the plat is preliminary approved and tell tri City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 them why it is that they think that when you put a piece of paper between two existing things, it's not just paper. It's real life and these people want some help in making sure that their kids are okay. And I have to tell you, from my little boy Michael who told me today, daddy why are you leaving for this. I said because I'm going to tell the City Council about you Michael. Because I don't want you riding your bike across a street to get to the sidewalk when someone coming up Mghover on a hill has no less than 100-150 feet of sight line and that person has decided that they're going to go from Lake Lucy to Longacres because the light at 41 and 7 ... has turned red and now it's time off to the races. That's what's going to happen. Nobody's talking about that. Nobody's talking about what's going to happen at Highover Trail. The code, the comprehensive plan tells us have the foresight to think of it all and get it down and make sure that we stop things from happening that will be preventful. I thank you for your time. I ask that you deny the plan as it's set forth and accept the residents, I think it's a joint proposal by the residents to make it a two cul-de-sac development. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to end this period of public comment and I think before I bring it back to council if I could, Mr. Knutson we've heard a lot of references to code, the comprehensive plan. Your thoughts, comments on what you've heard this evening in your review of the proposal. Roger Knutson: Mayor I think Kate earlier in the evening went through a lot of more the ground work on how the land use process works. Essentially your job tonight is to determine whether the ordinance, or whether the application meets ordinance requirements. If they do you really don't have, if they do meet ordinance requirements you don't have much discretion but to approve them. If you don't, someone else will do it for you and then you lose control of the process. Going back through the two applications. One on the rezoning. The central thing that controls your zoning is your comprehensive plan so the question you have to ask is the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I believe the Planning Director has answered that question yes, but that's a decision that you will have to make. There's more than one zoning designation you could have under this particular guiding, as it's guided, but my review of it, this is the least dense zoning you could have that's consistent with the current guiding. So you might decide looking at the preliminary plat, again the question is does it meet ordinance requirements. Your staff has reviewed it and determined that it has but again that is up to you to make that independent determination. You make the ultimate facts, but if it does meet the ordinances, the fact that someone may like it or may not like it really is not dispositive because it is you know we live under a rule of law. You've established your policies in your ordinances and your comprehensive plan. That's where policies are made. Once those policies are made, we require the developer to live by those policies as adopted in your plan and your zoning ordinance, and likewise the city is required to live by that and you have to make that ultimate decision as to whether those ordinance requirements have been met. But again staff has reviewed it and determined that it has but it's ultimately your decision. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We've heard a lot of public comment this evening which has been appreciated. I guess I would ask at this time if there are any follow-up questions for staff on any of the issues that were brought up. Councilman Lundquist: I do have a few. 37 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the double frontage, if that could be classified as double frontage on Harrison Hill, is that, does that require a variance to proceed? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Lundquist: Matt, talk a little bit about the roads, specifically Highover and Longacres. Their road width. The classification. Collector. Non -collector. Address some of those comments that were brought up. Matt Saam: Sure. The two collector roads in the area, the one to the north is Lake Lucy Road. Highover Drive connects to that. The one to the south is Longacres Drive and Gunflint Trail connects to that. Each of those, which are local roads. Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail as classified in our comp plan, each of those roads are proposed to be extended into this development to route traffic from this development both to the north and to the south to the collector roads which then connect to the arterial, in this case Highway 41. It's the way our street system works. A functional classification system. Going from the local roads, the lower volume to the collector roads, a little higher onto the arterials. As far, if the local roads can handle the traffic that's proposed, we did look at that. As Kate said, local roads classified in our comp plan can handle up to 1,000 trips per day. Assuming, or taking that each lot generates approximately 10 trips per day, that means you have a maximum of about 100 til you hit that threshold. Currently Highover Drive has some 50 plus or minus lots. I counted 50. Somebody said 54 so we're right around that 50 mark. This development has 57 I believe. Now if we can assume that not all of the traffic is going to go to the north. You know it's going to find some split. Some people will go north. Some will go south. That means that we're going to be under that 1,000 trip threshold at least for Highover Drive going to the north. Gunflint Trail to the south currently only has about 9 lots on it so that won't even be an issue. Councilman Lundquist: And the width of Highover, 26'h versus 28 versus 31. Matt Saam: Yeah, now I wasn't here when Highover was approved but I believe it's 28. What we classify is to the back of the curb. Our current standard is 31. Used to be from 28 to 32. There was latitude so I'm assuming based on comments here tonight that that one is the 28 feet, which would make sense if the actual pavement is the 26'/2. So it does, it did meet the code at the time. While it may be 3 feet less in width than we currently go by, we still believe it can handle the traffic that will be generated from this development in addition to the existing traffic. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Talk about the speed limit issue that we heard. Do we have any latitude on speed limits? Less than 30 miles an hour. Matt Saam: Somewhat. Speed limits are set by MnDot. In order to get that lowered we would need to provide hard data, basically a traffic study using our tubes, traffic counts, measuring speed, on the existing road. Present that to MnDot and as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, what MnDot looks at is that 85'" percentile. It's basically the speed that 85 percent of 38 • • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 the traffic is driving at. If that would come in at the 25 miles per hour, which I mentioned earlier from our trailer, our speed trailer, then we may have some data to show MnDot to say hey, we could lower this down to 25. Surely if there's some tight curves, I know there's some tight curves, we could look at posting curve signs out there. Again we want to have some data though to support that. That's why I'm saying we'll put the counters out in May and we will definitely follow up on any issues on Hunter. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Conditions as I read through somewhere I thought I remembered when I read through, maybe it was just the e-mails, about a construction access off of 41. But I didn't see that as I read through the conditions anywhere. Is that in there somewhere and I missed it or. Matt Saam: It may not be and that's simply because they are proposing to utilize the driveway off 41. They're currently showing it on their plans so when they're showing what they're going to do that we want them to, we don't place a condition on it. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that, is that then covered in something in the motion that says refer to plans and specs dated, whatever the date is. Matt Saam: It should be. Typically it is. Councilman Lundquist: Plans dated and received December 20, 2004. Matt Saam: It's shown on the grading plan. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Brian, just to point to that. That construction traffic would only access that area until the road was paved. The new road to Yoberry. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. What else do we got? Kate, options between preliminary and final on street layout. Between how much latitude do we have on say the Harrison Hill piece or whether or not it's a cul-de-sac or a through street or any, how much latitude do we have between preliminary and final. Kate Aanenson: We did notice this with variances because a private street was one of the options too, even though they weren't asking for variances. We did notice it in case there was a request to go to the. If you wanted to give us some opportunity to work through with that with the applicant and the neighbors to kind of understand better the difference. It seems like there's a split with some of the neighbors to understand that, which would be better. We could do that between now and final plat. Councilman Lundquist: And then the cul-de-sac versus through street. Kate Aanenson: We would make that a condition of approval. 39 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Roger Knutson: Right, if you wanted to leave something open like that, you would call that out as a condition and specifically say, unresolved, you fill in the blank. This particular street. We need additional information on whether it should be done this way, that way or the other way. You'd call that out as a condition. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When do you expect final to come back? Kate Aanenson: I have no idea. 6 weeks. Councilman Lundquist: And last one. Mr. Lovig talked about whether or not that area next to that park is classified as a bluff or not. Response to that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. We looked at that ourselves with the existing topog and we asked them to field verify. If you would like us to have an independent field verify that again between now and final plat, we'd be happy to do that. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That's all I had sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: One for Matt or Kate, as it relates to the curve going into Gunflint Trail that we're going to post I think at 20. Was there discussion about changing that curve and changing the road structure and lots. It just seems if we're here and discussing it, we know it's an issue. Why couldn't we re -design a road? I'm assuming that was discussed but kind of walk me through that. Matt Saam: Yes, correct it was discussed. What it would require is basically, let me go to the. The curve in question is this one. That's what we recommending be posted at a 20 miles per hour speed. To get this to be a more gentle curve, we'd have to push this bubble over farther up into this comer. Currently there's already a retaining wall I believe now too to protect the tree. If we push it over farther we start getting into the trail here. Basically we, it would make that retaining wall go up more. More severe grading so we compromised... and let me clarify the 180 feet. It's not technically a variance. We use that as a design guideline here in the city as staff to say we really don't want them to get any tighter than 180 so that's why it's not a variance. But we compromised with the developer that we would lower the speed limit here to 20 and what we did was looked at well how much traffic is going to be in here. We have 1, 2, 3, 4 houses. It's not a through street. If we had a 90 degree curve say up in here, where initially I believe they were under 180 up in here but we got them to redesign it. We think there it would be more of an issue because you'd have more traffic here going through there than the 4 homes. Kate Aanenson: Let me just address the cul-de-sac too which drove that. There was a strong recommendation from the Planning Commission to save a couple of significant trees right there so that's why the cul-de-sac swung back. Councilman Peterson: Okay. One more and this may be a tougher question to answer. Let me first of all preface that I'm a strong proponent of connecting neighborhoods but obviously you 0 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 don't want to connect neighborhoods at a price, whatever that price might be. Particularly when in this case potentially safety. That being said, if we would have presented to the developer that we wanted two cul-de-sacs, walk me through the implications of that from a planning standpoint, knowing that that would preclude the two neighborhoods being connected, which is not ideal. But does that really mitigate the safety issue that has been discussed by many of the residents or is it. Kate Aanenson: It's pretty rare where we've done a subdivision where you split somebody with two different access points. It's a little different. Again, obviously it's highly charged emotionally because everybody's talking about their kids on the street, which I understand. I have children. You know it's that empirical data, the factual, what we tried really hard to do is to make the street, as did Longacres, those streets were designed specifically by Lundgren Brothers to make them curvy so people wouldn't speed. Obviously when people do speed that's where the rub lies. When they don't, they veer off the road but that was really their goal. That's kind of what we took, not to that extreme as Matt indicated. We tried to reduce some of the curves to make those, and the sight lines. That's why those sight lines are such that you have to slow down because you can't see further ahead and that's the goal of traffic calming to provide those so you can't see. Now do teenagers always follow that? Not always but that was really the intent of working the street design as such. Could it be done with two cul-de-sacs? I'm not sure we're going to make both parties happy because the way it lays, somebody's going to end up with more lots you know, just because of the way it would figure out. But kind of an interesting way to do a development when you're stuck in the middle. Again I go back to say if this would have come in first, the neighbors are saying maybe people would have made different decisions. It's the grading and everything is similar to everybody else that's come in around it. We're not treating this one any less. Actually the bluff ordinance is more restrictive here than the Longacres one so we're really a little bit more restrictive on this as far as the bluff. Councilman Peterson: Then one last question Matt. I forgot to ask it earlier. So that curve you pointed out earlier, that is the only 20 miles an hour. No other parts of this new development in Yober y will have any marked curves on it? Matt Saam: Correct. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this time. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: So Matt, we're going to, the slope and grade and the radius of Hunter Drive. Can you just go over that real quick and how we're applying the standards and what the current conditions are for that road to this extension of Gunflint. 41 • • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Matt Saam: Yeah. I talked with Mr. Tritoh numerous times over the last couple weeks. He's the gentleman who mentioned the slope and the radius. He's correct there. Again I wasn't around when that was approved. I don't know all the particulars but Hunter Drive, there is a curve in there. For sure one that is less than the 180 feet curve radius, so that may be a case where I said previously where we'll post that curve at possibly a lower speed. And then the street grade, he was correct there too. We have a street that's right at around 10% there. Currently we allow maximum of 7%. So again I don't know the situations there but that was approved and that's to those design guidelines. Again the fact that I tried to, or the point I tried to make at Planning Commission is Hunter Drive, while there may be issues with it and we should address them and we will, we really think they're separate than this development and that's the point we were trying to make is that we'll address Hunter with anything we can do to make that safer but we didn't see where that was this development's or developer's issue to correct. Councilman Labatt: Well it may not be this developer's issue but it's the city's issue. I mean we've got a road that isn't conforming. We're going to have a development here that's going to be bleeding onto this problem already of Hunter Drive so they do run very parallel tracks. There's a huge impact here. What is the potential impact for the Carlson property? We've heard about that coming down the chute. How many homes we looking at doing and bringing in there and what's the impact on Highover Drive and Highover Trail? Nobody's ever talked about numbers yet on that, as far as how many more are going to be increased up there. I think we have an issue here where we're not dealing with our comp plan. We're not looking forward. Kate Aanenson: Again I'll just comment, when we did the traffic zones and we put those collectors in place, that was based on anticipated development within that. I do believe that when I went through all the different subdivisions I indicated how many lots. Right now the Carlson's are looking at 50. That one does have access via Galpin Boulevard. We're also working, it also has access via the subdivision Woodridge Heights, which has access onto Lake Lucy, and also we are working to provide another direct access possibly onto a collector road to the north, if that can be resolved so trying to give some other access points. Unfortunately on this circumstance, based on topography, there are no other options. Besides the two cul-de-sacs. Councilman Labatt: So that's what I have for questions right now. Mayor Furlong: All of the questions, okay. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? If not, comments. Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: Comments. Obviously this is going to be one of the issues where there will be parties that walk away from the table unsatisfied. No way around that. Some of the things I found interesting in the comments tonight from the residents is, the conflict even among themselves. People along Harrison Hill, they don't want the road there. They'd like to see a park there but then the people that live down in other part of Longacres don't want the Yoberry people to use their park. What's going to prevent the people from Longacres on Harrison Hill to go up to the park that's right in their yard? I've heard people talk about minimizing the grading and don't take out as many trees and use the topography and do all of that stuff and yet when you try to put a road along, on Gunflint Trail, along the Harrison Hill, we hear well let's not put it 42 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 there. Let's put it closer to the wetland where we're going to have to grade the heck out of it. Wipe out a bunch more trees and put a bunch more fill in there. So I think we've got some conflicts there. Hunter Drive is an issue regardless of whether this development goes in or not and I believe that by putting a cul-de-sac there, you have a potential to increase the traffic that's going to go on there more than decrease it because now those people have only got one way out, and that's Hunter Drive. You make that a through street, you've got two ways out. That's not what the people on Highover wanted to hear but again, you've got some conflicts there as well. I heard a lot of talk about safety and again as Kate stated as well, some of the comments I guess I took exception too, especially taking the, putting the cost of a child's life at $11,000. I think that the 5 of us up here as well all have children and you know to think that we would put something into motion that would put anybody's children safety at risk isn't giving us enough credit so hopefully no matter what comes out of this, that people realize that obviously we want all the kids in the city to be safe and to be able to ride their bikes and walk down the street and play in their yards and all of those things without being in danger. So a couple of concerns I do have overall. I think that the park thing is an issue that somehow needs to be resolved. Not something that I really, as a representative of the city want to get involved in. More like something, I'd like to encourage Yoberry and Longacres to work together on some kind of agreement because I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that there wouldn't be residents from Yoberry that would go down to the Longacres homeowners parks because they're convenient, so I'd like to see something worked out there. The cul-de-sac versus the through street. I think having a development with two cul-de-sacs in it, that would be an interesting one to have a Yoberry development, two ways to get in and no way to get through the whole thing so as much as probably everybody in this room doesn't want to hear, I believe that a through street probably is the best alternative for continuity of neighborhoods. And I do believe that we have factors that we can mitigate, especially along Hunter Drive that we've got to do something there and address that as well. Highover, Mr. Block, Mr. Wagner, your comments are taken very seriously and I think especially at the top of that hill there, at the intersection of I believe it's Highover Drive and Highover Trail, that we need to look at some options there to control some of the speed on that as well. Along with Councilwoman Tjomhom, I also spent a lot of time driving around out there this weekend so based on the amount of e-mails and contacts and phone calls that I received, this isn't one I take lightly so for those of you who think that we don't read the e-mails and we don't drive around, I think that you're again underestimating how serious, at least myself, that I take this one so. A lot of conflicts going on and no easy way to resolve but based on what I've seen, I think especially on the zoning, I'm in favor of the rezoning to residential single family there. Again that's the least dense option so for the residents, especially in the surrounding neighborhoods, this property's going to be rezoned one way or another so it's going to be this or it's going to be a PUD you know where lots of crazy things can happen so definitely to protect the continuity of the neighborhoods and that, I'm in favor of that. I would like to see some more exploration on the access off of 41 to be used for a longer period of time than just the grading. Potentially through the majority of construction. Obviously. there's some conflicts there. Tying up a couple of lots and some of that so, but to have 60 homes worth or 40 homes worth or whatever the magic number is, driving on Highover or Longacres and Gunflint, probably there's something we can do there with that access on 41 to keep that open for a little longer. And again the park thing, it's not something I guess that I'm necessarily in favor of putting a condition of approval on an agreement between two private parties but I would strongly encourage the applicant here to work with the Longacres Homeowners Association and also for 43 0 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 the L.ongacres to not hold them hostage so that a good faith agreement can be made there, because I'd hate to see Longacres have to spend money to put a fence up and some kind of keys to their residents so that only they can use the park too. That doesn't seem to make much sense. Neighborly. And as a note to our staff, Hunter Drive is an issue that we need to deal with and take care of so, and rather than hold this development hostage for that, it's an issue that's got to be addressed regardless and if we start on that issue now, there's a lot of things that can be done before there's ever a house put on this site that's going to be affected so that's a problem that I expect will be addressed before any of this stuff happens anyway. So in summary, I'm in favor of where we're at now with the zoning and a preliminary plat. We've got some work to do on final and, but again I think that the staff has done. This is not an easy one to work with all of the different parties at stake here and it really is the staff's job to try to put the best plan together that they can and often that involves working with, directly with a developer obviously as the applicant so that may appear that they you know favor the developer but their job is to put that plan together. Meet all those ordinances as best they can and get that development through. So that's my summary. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I was thinking to go last. Mayor Furlong: That's mine. Councilman Labatt: ... be the dissenting person here but, okay. I'll go last. Mayor Furlong: If I let you. Councilman Labatt: Yeah you will. Mayor Furlong: You think so. I think I'm taking last. I'm taking last. Councilman Labatt: Fourth. Mayor Furlong: Fourth is a better number. Councilman Tjomhom, thoughts. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Alright. I'm going to make this brief. I think this has been a farm for a long time and I think it will be a development for an ever longer time and so I think now is the time to take our time and work these issues out and make sure it's done right for everybody. If that's possible. It might not be possible to please everybody but there's so many issues here that I think we need to at least resolve some of them. You know we've got traffic problems, which I understand it totally. I wouldn't want to live there. We have construction traffic problems. You know I also wouldn't want to live there for 3 years having cement trucks going down my road. We have park issues and I think those can be resolved. I think between the development and the developer, you know if the development and, developer cannot get together, then the developer probably does need to put in a park. I just feel that that's the most responsible thing to be doing for his own development and for his community. And so I just, I 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 11 don't think anything has been solved. I don't think anything's been worked out and so that's where I stand. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson, Labatt. Either one. Councilman Peterson: Sure I'll go. Based upon Councilwoman Tjornhom's question or point, where are we at with the clock on this one? Kate Aanenson: The 120 days, which we've taken all of, would be March 5`h. So you'd have one more meeting to review this application. Councilman Peterson: Okay. You know I've worked on these things for over a dozen years now for the city and taken a lot of pride of being able to find some creative solutions in bringing people together. This one is going to be more of a challenge than probably almost any of the other ones I've dealt with. Primarily because you know as I said before I believe in connecting neighborhoods. We've done that historically. I think it's the right thing to do for the community. It's the right thing for the neighborhoods in the long run. I'm concerned about safety, as everybody else is, but I think the staff has presented that we have other neighborhoods with the same or similar issues and it really hasn't come down to a significant safety issue. The park issue, I do think it needs to be addressed and I think that whether or not this is tabled to address some of these open issues like the park, like the Harrison Hill area, I think that my biggest concern is that, and as Councilperson Labatt said earlier, the developer didn't pull the neighborhoods together. I think that was a mistake. I think that, and it's not staffs fault. That's the developer taking the initiative to bring neighborhoods together, which I think is very important. As to what could come to fruition from that? I don't know but at least a good faith effort I think needed to have been made and I think still can be made and I'd like to give the opportunity to let the developer do that. So with that being said, you know I don't think the idea of two cul-de-sacs. I don't necessarily think it addresses the safety issue. I think you're going to have the same amount of traffic whether you put the cul-de-sac in the middle of the development. It's statistically probably not going to be significant. The traffic's going to go both ways in the same amount because people are going to go south or people are going to go north as often as though it would have been a through street anyway so, and again you compound that with our desire in the comp plan clearly states we want to connect neighborhoods. I think it's important to think about that. I too agree that we need to put a majority of the construction traffic on 41 for the absolute longest period of time that we can. Specifically the Harrison Hill issue, you know I think the way staff has recommended the current option is appropriate. I mean you're not going to get a consensus as to which is right and wrong there from all the neighbors. Lastly I think I just, the bottom line is I think that perhaps tabling is a good answer to give another 2 weeks to let the neighborhoods try to work through some more issues. Ultimately I will more than likely vote for the through street and I think that is the best thing for the community. But I think it's good to get the neighborhoods working and talking together. And lastly, Hunter Drive again we have to address that in some form or fashion at a different meeting and I think we need to aggressively pursue any alternatives we can to calm the traffic there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. 45 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Well I'll start by thanking Craig and Bethany for their comments. Brian . nothing against your's. Take no offense. Councilman Lundquist: Wouldn't be the first time. Councilman Labatt: It wouldn't. Probably won't be the last but yet you have good points. I mean this is actually you know, I mean obviously everybody knows I live in the neighborhood and it's a very big concern. And I had written down on the top of my notes here whether to deny or table. I mean those were the two things, and I think Craig you know, a certain thing's been missed. Certain comments have been made. The developer hasn't done a good job, I've already expressed those points earlier. And as I look at where the two homeowner associations came up with their presentations tonight and where we're lacking and their interpretation of where we're not hitting the comp plan. And I hear staff's recommendation on where we are. There's, where there's a gap there. So maybe tabling it in order to fill that gap in the next 2 weeks here, get the good questions answered. My issues still are, is the overall layout, the safety and the road design. We heard that within Yoberry they have a known road that services 4 homes that's a problem so staff has recommended that we're going to post it 20 miles an hour zone. We've heard of the Hunter Drive problem for a couple years. Carver County's been working with the issue. They've come in before to ask to get it lowered. We've done nothing. I'm disappointed in that lack of progress. I still think we're missing the target on the overall impact that this development is going to generate for traffic safety and joining neighborhoods. The impact with the Carlson property, the Highover, Mr. Block's presentation was pretty powerful. I mean there's some concerns there that at what point with the Carlson development and Yoberry and existing stuff and Highover is that going to push the local street designation out of Highover above 1,000 vehicles per day. It's stretching it now. Longacres and Hunter Drive is stretching it. So I think we're all on the same conclusion with 41. Keep the construction access open as long as they can. Trust me, you know as these neighborhoods have gone through development and growing pains and construction vehicles, we've had a period of several years here now that we're happy to see those trucks not coming through there. Now we are. So if we can keep that, or the 41 construction access. There's two points that you know, if you look at the property that goes up to the north to the Hurrell property, that's a gradual grade there. If you look at the Weathers property, that's a gradual grade. The Youngquist property going up is a steep grade. That's going to be hard for construction but there's two accesses that have gradual grades that can be utilized for I would imagine quite a long time and possibly if the Weathers property is actually the third phase of this, you would think that for a good 2-2'h years they'd be able to use the Weathers property for access. Harrison Hill, and the street back there. You know, somebody mentioned earlier that this is you know, and I've said before, developers are trying to squeeze every possible lot out of a development and I think this is an example here where Gunflint's been extended up there where they're trying to squeeze the blood out of it so I'm really not happy with that location of the cul-de-sac up there and that configuration. So question is as Roger said, is the proposed rezoning consistent with the comp plan? Probably. Does the preliminary plat, does that meet the ordinance requirements? For approval. That's where I think some of us have disagreements or concerns or issues that we're not all comfortable saying yes right now, so the question would then be either we table it or we deny it. Because if we have these questions about whether or not it meets the ordinance requirement, if we can't sit here and say yes, it does, m I '4i 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 0 and I can't, then we have to deny unless the developer's willing to approve it. Approve an extension. I believe that's all I have Tom. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I always enjoy this section of the meetings because as many of you know the 5 of us aren't able to talk amongst ourselves on these projects outside of the meetings. That's good. There are open meeting laws that make sure that decisions are made in public. The challenge to that is, while everybody else in this room has obviously been talking, none of us have so this is really the only opportunity for us to understand what we're thinking. There are a lot of issues here, as Councilman Lundquist said, and there's also a lot of disagreement even among the existing residents and that makes it more difficult. It'd be nice if there was consensus and I think you know in some areas there may be agreement. In other areas you know there's differences of opinion. Traffic is the biggest issue here. That's the biggest one that's been coming up time and time and time and time again on all the e-mails and public comments that we've seen. My challenge is, and I made this statement before on prior developments, you know traffic is an issue but in terns of this development shouldn't go through because it will add more traffic to my road, I don't think that's a valid and a justifiable fact or circumstance to keep the development from going forward. That statement could be true before any development goes through. The challenge is, is it safe? Does it meet our standards, design standards? You know the city attorney we live under a rule of law in this country and that's something that I appreciate very, very much because we set our laws and in the city that means our comprehensive plan and our ordinances up front and say these are the standards we expect people to adhere to. There are, the comprehensive plan deals with land use. How can the property be developed? The benefit there to existing property owners is, it says land use here for this property isn't going to be a convenience store. Or it's not going to be a high rise building. That's where there is some benefit and some protection to existing property owners in terms of that comprehensive plan for land use. The ordinance say how from a subdivision standpoint, how can the property be subdivided and developed? We set minimums. That was raised. I don't think necessarily this word minimum here is a negative because it always means relative to what? We could, as our ordinance say we want an average lot size of X, but if we do that rather than saying as we do that we need a minimum lot size of 15,000, if we put in an average, we could have 13,000 square foot parcels in here and 17,000 square foot parcels and the average would be 15 and we'd be fine. So we set a minimum, a hurdle that has to be overcome. As we do that, those hurdles are in place. Hopefully they find a balance between protecting existing property owners and providing another property owner to fairly develop their property. I believe that our ordinances in Chanhassen, when compared to other cities are either equal to or more stringent than other cities, and I think that's fair because that's how as a city, as a population, as residents we want our city developed. But then when a developer meets those guidelines it's incumbent upon us to allow them to develop, so the question gets back to, are they meeting the guidelines or not, and I'll get to that in a second. Has this received, the other thing that I'm interested in as mayor and I know my fellow council members, and that is has proposal received a fair and open process. I think it'd be silly for anyone to say that this proposal hasn't been challenged from all sides by all people multiple times, so I think it has received a fair and open process. Are there some unanswered questions? Maybe there'd be some different answers to those questions depending on who you ask but at least the questions are there and we get the privilege of determining those answers. So under that backdrop, looking at some of these things, I strongly concur from some specifics here that I'd like to see in regard to maintaining a construction entrance as long as 47 0 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 possible. I would encourage staff to work on that to figure out what that is and work with the developer to say how long can we do that. Having had a home go up next to me this summer, I have young children. Clearly it's more effort when you have children outside and there are construction vehicles around than after the 3 or 4 months and they're gone and then you're just dealing with normal traffic. So anything we can do to mitigate that on the existing neighborhoods, I think we need to do. The Gunflint Trail cul-de-sac, we've heard from Highover neighbors that Option A is preferred. We've heard from Longacres that Option A is not necessarily preferred but neither is Option C and so maybe nothing. I think there, I don't know that we're going to be able to find a consensus, resolution among different people. I can tell you living on a street where the backyards back up to it, it has been my experience that it hasn't been an issue. Does that mean that there will never be an issue with children playing in the street? No. As long as children play in the street, any street, whether new development or old, there are risks that cars will come along. Cars drive on streets. So I, the jury's still out for me with regard to Option. A or Option C on that, and you know I guess I'd be interested in other thoughts but you know if there's a way to take a look at that as well. Connecting the neighborhoods, I'm a proponent of that. I think that's one of the issues that came up was, do we plan for the long term and I think connecting neighborhoods does plan for the long term and is generally the way to go. I would concur with Councilman Peterson that the two cul-de-sac option, not only is a different route to take but in terms of the traffic I'd be interested if it made any material difference there or anything at all. I would be willing to table and I guess my suggestion here at this point would be that we just received from the residents again this evening more volumes of paper. I guess my suggestion to the council would be, and we also received comments where the residents were saying there are inconsistencies between the code and the plan. I think that's something that I'd like to have staff have a fair opportunity to evaluate and you know there may be some things here that again we may have differences of opinion between what a resident things the code says and what staff things the code says and differences of opinion are fine. Reasonable people can differ but at least we'll give staff the opportunity to listen to the public comment that was again received this evening to the extent that there was new information received as well as this information. And to the extent that they can work out some of these other issues again within the next two weeks, that'd be great. One thing I'll say, and this gets back to philosophical standpoint. In this country you know we have the freedom to associate and I get very concerned when a government body forces association. I think that by itself takes away the right to associate. Longacres and Highover both have homeowners association. That's great and that's fine. We have a lot of those in town. Yoberry's talking about having an association too. That's wonderful. I get very hesitancy if we have a governmental body here requiring the two associations to reach some sort of agreement. Clearly they can do that civilly. You know the issue's been brought up tonight with regard to parks and causing Yoberry to negotiate with, or excuse me, with the Longacres association but it certainly occurs to me that as Yoberry's developed, residents from the Highover may have easy access to Longacres parks too. And so you know it's a never ending, it's a snow balling effect so, and you know this is just, if something can be worked out there, I think it should. You know this shouldn't be here in this case. I think people could have worked better together to get this done and I'm not necessarily attributing blame on any one person but I would hope if the council decides let's have a chance to review some of this. Give staff a chance to see and evaluate these, respond to this information. Respond to the comments we heard tonight and give us their thoughts with regard to code and comprehensive plan consistency, because ultimately that's our EE 0 City Council Meeting —February 14, 2005 0 question. And I would be in favor of tabling for that reason. To the extent we can get that done in the next 2 weeks, that'd be fine. And if the associations choose on their own to meet during that period, certainly they're free to do that as well. So there may be some other issues but that's, and it would be my thought that when we brought it back we'd deal with the open questions that have come up tonight on the record from the council to staff. Councilman Labatt: Could we also in these two weeks have our engineering staff come up with some preliminary ideas on Hunter Drive? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. I mean I guess my thought on Hunter Drive is, just like when you hear that there's traffic problems on Highover, that's with the current residents. That's been something that we've talked about. Are we going to come up with solutions in 2 weeks? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: We can't. Councilman Labatt: But ideas though. Mayor Furlong: Well, if they can come back with ideas, that's fine. I think to Councilman Lundquist's point, there is some time between now and when this development is completed that we can come up with some ideas and possibly some solutions that are acceptable. Anything that can be done in the next 2 weeks, let's get it done I guess would be my direct answer to that. But let's not put a 2 week timeframe on something like this where we aren't necessarily working against the clock... development. Let's get some good solutions. Councilman Labatt: Did you watch Larry the Cable Guy? Get er done. Mayor Furlong: I did not. So I guess unless there's other thoughts, Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I'm comfortable with tabling. Mayor Furlong: For the reasons stated. Okay. Is there any other discussion tonight on this topic or is there a motion to table directing, I would guess we'd have to direct to bring it back next meeting unless there's an additional extension. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion that we table this until the 28°i to let staff, give staff the opportunity to review some of the issues that have been brought up tonight, along with council being able to review some of the documentation that was presented new this evening for us to make a determination on the 28'. Councilman Lundquist: Second. nL 0 0 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the rezoning and preliminary plat request for Yoberry Farms, Planning Case 04-43 until the February 28, 2005 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Taking a look at the clock, we'll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let's make it about 5 minutes. REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION AND POTENTIAL LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL -LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL -LOW Public Present: Name Address Steve Buan Arild Rossavik Dana Muller 8740 Flamingo Drive 8800 Powers Boulevard 8880 Sunset Trail Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, before she gets started I'm just going to recuse myself on the possibility of a conflict here so sit this one out. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Alright. This application is before you. You have seen it a couple times before. Under this circumstance the applicant, or one of the subject property owners went to the Planning Commission and asked them, based on some evidence that they believe had circumstantially changed in the area, to re-examine the land use in this area, specifically the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The subject site includes this property here and the two lots across the street. The Planning Commission back in September when this applicant approached the Planning Commission did ask for an application to get on the agenda, which they can do. Presented their case to the Planning Commission and at that time asked the Planning Commission to direct the staff to re-examine the Hillside Oaks development. Again that includes the two lots that are on the east side of Powers, which are guided low density and then the large lots. So with that the staff again, you had seen this previously with an application attached to it so this is just really to examine the validity of the existing land use. Had something circumstantial changed to re-examine those existing assumptions. So again the Planning Commission has the powers to, under the comprehensive plan examine that so directed the staff to review it. So on page 4 was kind of our analysis of the area. Again the area has been developed into large lots, 2.2 to 3.96 acres as shown in the area. The existing topography is very steep. Partially wooded along the western side and adjacent to the city park on the southwestern. I think that's really what led the staff's recommendation to leave that existing zoning in place, or 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2005 0 o4-43 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave a brief introduction of the role of the Planning Commission and how the meeting and public hearings will be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Rich Slagle, Jerry McDonald, and Steve Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive OATH OF OFFICE: Chairman Sacchet administered the Oath of Office to Jerry McDonald. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION _WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER DRIVE, AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL, YOBERRY FARMS, LLC., DAVID HURREL, AND KAREN WEATHERS, PLANNING CASE NO. 0443. Public Present: Name Address Mark Erickson 2216 Hunter Drive Dan Lun 2373 Hunter Drive Lauren Damman 6934 Highover Drive Laura Bray 6983 Highover Drive Michael Horn 7024 Highover Court Karen Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard Dean Simpson 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard Candice McGraw 2446 Highover Trail Kathy Mack 6984 Higbover Drive Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail Larry DuMoulin 6966 Highover Drive Bill Coffman 600 West 78d' Street Steve Johnston 510 1" Avenue North, Minneapolis SCANNED 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Chuck Alcon 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield David Hurrell 7420 Bent Bow Trail Scott Bittner 2398 Hunter Drive Bob Krueger 2350 Hunter Drive David & Kathleen Fulkerson 6900 Highover Drive Larry Lovig 2475 Gunflint Court Philip Haarstad 7066 Harrison Hill Trail Patrick Brunner 2443 Hunter Drive Matt Mesenburg 2428 Hunter Drive Jo Mueller 2529 Longacres Drive Mark Zaebst 2325 Hunter Drive Came Sprosty 7163 Fawn Hill Road Lori Dinnis 2362 Hunter Drive Kathy Koscak 2351 Hunter Drive Kristin Bunkenburg 2300 Hunter Drive John Graham 6935 Highover Drive Jeff Tritoh 2313 Hunter Drive Dave Bordeau 2418 Hunter Drive Todd Rech 2408 Hunter Drive Keith Abrahamson 2403 Hunter Drive Rosalie J. Nast 2448 Hunter Drive Scott Smith 2395 Hunter Drive Dan Hanson 2390 Longacres Drive Julie Lohse 7094 Harrison Hill Trail Bill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive Jennifer Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Andrew & Tina White 7122 Harrison Hill Trail Paul Ottoson 7080 Harrison Hill Trail Mike & Candi McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Ping Chung 7000 Highover Drive Chairman Sacchet excused himself from the Planning Commission for this item due to a personal conflict of interest. Vice Chair Slagle conducted the meeting for this item. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report. Slagle: Why don't we start down, Kurt if you wouldn't mind. Let's start with questions for staff. Papke: Sure. The topo map of the Harrison Hill Trail lot was very helpful. Approximately what is the distance from the back end of that house to the proposed street? Saam: Approximately 170 feet. Papke: So it's almost, okay. 170. And the bushes that are being proposed are lilac bushes, is that correct? 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Saam: I believe that's the last thing we heard but you could ask the developer. Papke: Okay. Slagle: Actually sir, we'll ask you when. Papke: That's all I have at this point. Slagle: Dan. Keefe: Yeah Matt. Can you speak a little bit more what access, I'm not sure when you say we dedicated, what does that really mean? Saam: As I understand it, and I called MnDot and asked them this. They really didn't have a definition. The person I spoke within right-of-way said, he explains it this way. Where MnDot does have not access control, when people want to install an access, they have to apply to MnDot to get a permit for access. So MnDot can either then review it and say yeah or nay. But he said where MnDot has access control, they don't even have to review anything. They just say nay. So basically it's whether by plat dedication or by them buying it. It's like an easement. You can purchase it also. They are getting the right to say no access in this area along our road. Keefe; But they don't have it now but by virtue of platting it they get it? Is that. Saam: And I'm not an attorney on it but that's what they're requesting in their memo. Keefe: Do you know, do we have instances of where we are less than a half mile on 41? Saam: I don't know but I would guess there may be but I don't know off the top of my head. Let me back up. West 78`s and Highway 5 I don't believe are half mile spacing, but there we get into a collector road and then a highway so I think that's what alleviates the spacing requirement. Keefe: Alright, that's it. Slagle: Jerry. McDonald: No questions. Slagle: I've got a couple, if I may Matt. Getting to Dan's question regarding the half mile. Can you, as best you can, tell me what happened with Settlers Ridge, that last addition that we saw with Pemtom where we had the two entrances, exits fairly close together. I think within a half of mile and the city requested MnDot to approve that, if you will. Remember how the talk was, we wanted to send it through the other part of Settlers Ridge and. Saam: Yeah, I don't know that they're apples to apples. First of all Pioneer Trail is a county road and it doesn't carry the same amount of traffic as 41 would. So the county may have less spacing requirements. A quarter of a mile, that sort of thing versus a half a mile. But as far as 4 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 that, in that situation we would have been routing everybody through one access out to Pioneer Trail, whereas here there's two accesses. I think there might be more of an argument if say there wouldn't be an access both to the north and south. Then there might be more of an argument to say hey, maybe we need a second way in and out of this development. Slagle: Going out to 41? Saam; Yes, correct. And then in Settlers West that you referred to, we only have the one, so that's why we were looking to get another onto Pioneer Trail. Slagle: Second question. How much did we, or did the applicant reduce the grade in I believe the option that we're seeing before us. At least the one you're recommending. Saam: Depends on where, exactly which part of the street you look at but just in glancing at it, approximately 4 feet. It's been reduced. I think the retaining wall before was about a 4 foot or so, that would make sense. Slagle: Okay. And then last question, the bushes you're referring to that would add buffering, would those be placed underneath the power lines or would that be on the property to the west. Do you know? Saam: Let me show it. Slagle: Okay, appreciate it. Saam: Okay here's the revised landscaping plan. This shows the bushes in this area. My finger is designating the limits of the utility easement. Now as for where the exactly power lines are, I'm assuming they'd be somewhere in the middle, so yeah in some situations I would guess they would be under the power lines. Slagle: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Well, I think with as many people as I see here, and if I look at my fellow commissioners there's probably would you agree additional people than we had last time. So I'm going to open the public hearing again, if you would, or continue it just because I do think there's some folks here who probably have something new to add, if you will. I would ask all to be considerate of time and repeating the same concerns probably doesn't help the cause but I do think it's fair to have folks have a chance to speak. Oh I'm sorry, applicant. I'm sorry. Let's have the applicant. I'm jumping ahead. Sorry about that. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Alcon, representing Yoberry Farms. I reside at 6138 76`s Lane, Greenfield, Minnesota. With me this evening for the development team are Mr. Bill Coffman and Steve Johnston, the project engineer and land owners Dean Simpson and Karen Weathers. Just briefly, you asked us last time to look at the northeast comer and we have done that. I think the only comment I would add is that the recommended Option A is also the minimum tree removal option. Preserves the tree preservation around that northern bank. Other than that we have no Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 comments. We concur with the staff recommendations and also the findings. And we would stand by to answer any questions. Slagle: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Keefe: Can you just go over the grade a little bit, and I'm trying to understand exactly how that land flows where the road comes out. Can you give me, actually what I'd love to see is kind of like a bisect. You know kind of going north to south, but I mean if you can kind of describe that. Chuck Alcon: Unfortunately I do not have a cross section with me, but in this general area now we have come back and we've kept the road as flat as possible back up into here. So that we were able to eliminate the retaining wall in this location. From a grade perspective, from this spot if you were to draw a line straight through here, the grade rises about 4 feet to the back of this retaining wall. Then it drops down to a walkout elevation that is, I can't remember the exact number. I think it was about 15-16 feet below the street at this location. So we're actually rising, the rise should in and of itself block the headlights. But beyond that the house is set down below this retaining wall so headlights should not be an impact. That combined with this is a conservation easement back here, where the trees have been saved. The natural vegetation is in place and then we are going to augment that with additional plantings. They run from about this location down to about here. Once we get to here the street is set well below the street and we didn't feel that additional plantings were necessary. Keefe: So just so I'm clear, at the point where the road gets to Lot 5 there. Close to Lot 5. The road is on grade. You're not taking it down much. It's sort of on grade at that point or, I'm trying to get a, you know from. Chuck Alcon: The grade right here actually has about 6 feet of fill on the street. If we go to, right about here we match into grade. From this point to this point we're in a cut situation. From this point down, this is fill. And then. Keefe: Sorry for being a little bit slow here but, you're filling to put, you're filling up to 6 feet and then as I look to the east it's still going to rise up to the back of that retaining wall or does it go down? Chuck Alcon: From the street here it will drop down about 3 feet, and then it starts coming back up again. So there will be, end up being a ditch along this section of the property line. Not a ditch but a swale. Where we match into grade we'll actually form a swale down that property line. Keefe: And at the bottom of that swale it comes up approximately 4 feet to the back of that retaining wall, is that what I understood? Chuck Alcon: That is correct. Keefe: Okay. Alright, so neVnet, from the road to the back of that retaining wall you're approximately at that point 1 foot below? 0 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Chuck Alcon: No, maybe I wasn't clear on that. I'm sorry. From the street we drop down 3. We almost immediately come back up that 3 feet, then we continue to slowly rise 4 feet through the back yard. So at this point in the back yard is actually going to be about 4 feet above this elevation on the street. Keefe: That's good. Thank you. Slagle: Kurt. Papke: Ah yeah. The bushes that are being planted along that eastern border there, could you comment on the density of the plantings. The expected height of the plantings. Year round character, etc. Steve Johnston: There's a color representation of where the, where they're being planted. What our landscape architects have selected are viburum. They will get to be 8 feet high and 8 feet wide with a very dense multi stems, so that even in the winter there's a fair amount of coverage in there. Switching to something like an arborvitae or something like that that's evergreen, the problem is this close to the road you start to get the road salts and then they don't do very well. So that was what the landscape architects have selected. Papke: The expected mature height is again? Steve Johnston: 8 feet. Chuck Alcon: The actual representatives from Xcel are Mike Hawkinson and Scott Johnson and they will allow you to go up to as high as 12 to 15 feet, but we felt in this case it was better to keep it down to 8 because of that corridor. McDonald: You'll have to excuse me, I'm kind of coming up to speed on all this myself. One of the major concerns, as I read it, seems to be about the traffic, especially at night on this road. What kind of studies have you done as far as cars coming back in this area? How far in, how remote is it? Who should be back there? Chuck Alcon: Frankly the only people that really, besides these you know from the point that we're concerned on, there's only 4 residents. If we count this, there's 5 residents. Those people are going to generate 50 trips a day. The other people that are going to be there are ones that frankly are lost. They've wandered back into the cul-de-sac and they need to get back out, because those 10 trips include their guests so, and those are spread out throughout the day, so your nighttime traffic should be very low. McDonald: Is this going to be a problem of people from the outside coming in to gain access to the area inbetween? Is that the trail? Between the properties. I could be wrong. I'm just trying to look at why would people be back here. 7 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Chuck Alcon: Other than to local residents, I can't imagine that trail is, as it exists is going to be a very attractive destination. So I don't think you're going to see people driving to come and use that trail. Slagle: Go ahead Kurt. Papke: Kind of a follow along comment to that. Where will the dead end sign be placed that will prevent people from going back in there, and assuming that they can get through to some other spot? Chuck Alcon: I was just going to comment on that. There's a couple options. Obviously this point right here will probably be the best point. No thru street. No outlet, etc. Whatever signage you decide to put there. I think that would take care of this entire area. Slagle: I just have a couple, if we may. I just want to confirm that the sidewalk will be on the east side of the road, going from that north connection down to your southern most property line, is that correct? Chuck Alcon: The sidewalk is on the east side of the road. It's on the south side of the road here, and what we did as part of making up some of this grade and fitting room for the shrubs and so forth, is that this point, after we cross this driveway, we're showing that sidewalk coming up directly behind the back of curb instead of being out at the right-of-way line, and then after get that, past that little bit of a tight spot, we're bringing it back out to a typical location. And I've got more copies of this if you'd like to have. Slagle: Yeah, actually I'd like to see that. So are you suggesting, if I understand you right, that the sidewalk stays off the road completely or it goes onto the road at the curb? Chuck Alcon: You never actually travel on the road. The sidewalk would be adjacent to the back of curb. So you still have that separation for safety but you wouldn't have the typical 8 or so feet between the sidewalk and the curb. Slagle: The park. We received a letter from the Park and Rec Director. I guess just for the record I want to be clear on this. Were you asked to have a, or consider a totlot. Chuck Alcon: I believe we were asked to consider a totlot and as you drive around the neighborhood, both kind of north and south, you look and you will see several Rainbow systems in the back yards of each of these houses, and I think that's going to be our approach here also. Although we are meeting still with the Longacres Homeowners Association to the south of us, we've had one meeting to see if we can work out some kind of an arrangement to share their totlot, and we're going to continue to pursue that. Slagle: And if I may, can I ask for your summary of that meeting. I mean how. Chuck Alcon: We exchanged some ideas. There are some legal issues concerning one association versus two associations. Their request was for a swimming pool to be installed by us 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 on their far eastern park, and we're trying to understand the value of that versus the marketability of our property, and we haven't completed that yet. We certainly will continue the discussions. As I mentioned, both north and south there appears to be heavy usage of the back yard Rainbow systems, i.e. their own individual totlots. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Thank you very much. Chuck Alcon: Thank you. Slagle: Anything else? Okay now, as I was saying earlier, I think we will open it up to comments from the public. What I'd like to ask is, approach the microphone. State your name and your address and again try and keep it within a few minutes and just be courteous of the time and the topic. Papke: Mr. Chair? Slagle: Yes. Papke: May I suggest that we have the Chair of the Homeowners Association start out so we can make sure that we get that from him. Slagle: Good idea. Where is that gentleman? There he is. Tom Hirsch: Hi, my name's Tom Hirsch, 2290 Longacres Drive. I want to orient you in a package that I handed out at the beginning of this meeting. Page 1 and page 2 are an executive summary that has 8 conditions on it, which I'll be talking to. There's a set of pictures which I'll be paging through to exemplify some of the issues that the homeowners have. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I promise I won't use a thousand words. The next section is a 7 page detailed description and quote some comprehensive plan inconsistencies and expands upon the issues that are being presented and those are presented in the same order as the executive summary. And the final 2 pajes of the package are a letter I received from staff dated, that was received by staff December 17 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation concerning the access off of Highway 41. For your reference. I am the President of Longacres Homeowners Association. All of the other members of that Board of Directors are in, present here tonight. And as you see on page 2 of the executive summary, they've all signed this request for your consideration of these conditions for attachment to this proposal. Item number I is access via Route 41. I measured the distance from Longacres to Lake Lucy Road. It was just, I would say 100 feet shy of a mile. The distance from the Longacres Drive to this particular point on Highway 41 was exactly a half a mile on my odometer of my car. So this would be in line with the recommendations of the Department of Transportation. This particular blow up picture is that spot which is a half a mile between the two entrances, Lake Lucy Road and Longacres, and as you can see an existing abandoned road that is, I'm not an engineer but it's not on the bluff or having to destroy a bluff to utilize that type of access. I did want to point out one other item in the upper right hand picture of this foursome, the bluff is on the right side of the picture and you can see where it starts to gain some elevation as it heads south. You're looking east across Highway 41 on these pictures. We would request that you attach a condition that the applicant 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 work with city staff to make application for an entrance off of State Highway 41. And obtain a definitive decision from the State, yes or no. And that a desired type of recommendation but a yes or no. Make formal application. Get a yes, no and if it's a yes, then we would request that the applicant put the access in directly off of 41. If it's a no, the Longacres would like to have a copy of that denial of application. I'll move onto the second issue. Increased traffic on Longacres streets. Shown here are 4 pictures of Hunter Drive. It's a very narrow residential street. No sidewalks and this would be the cut through our neighborhood as it was shown at the last planning meeting where Longacres Drive trends southwest to northeast and Hunter cuts down south so traffic going to the retail corridor on Highway 5 and to the schools, most likely would cut down through Hunter Drive. There's a very narrow, windy road. And several residents are here that are living on Hunter and they'll probably expand on that. We would ask the commissioners to consider a condition where the applicant would conduct traffic studies on the current and projected traffic on Longacres, Hunter, and I did include Highover Drive because I did measure Highover and Highover is a very similar type road in width of road as this Hunter Drive. It's a residential road and the width is just as narrow as this. Applicant to study recommend design and implement all necessary traffic calming measures for the families of Longacres. The third item is actually on the lower right hand corner of these 4 pictures. This is a picture looking north from Longacres Drive up Gunflint Trail. The hill in the background of the picture is where the houses will be going. Slagle: Move that just a bit so we can get the right pictures. Tom Hirsch: This picture right here. These 3 are the Hunter Drive windy street. This is a picture looking north from Longacres Drive up Gunflint Trail. The hill in the very back of the picture is where the housing development is going in. This street is stubbed off at the end of that street. And there's construction of sidewalks on Gunflint Trail. To connect to existing sidewalks on Longacres Drive, I characterize it as depending on the park and traffic issue resolution, but it's an item nonetheless that needs to be addressed for community sake. Item number 4, the cul- de-sac too close to Harrison Hill residents. There's been a lot of discussion on that tonight. I won't expand upon that any more. I believe that there are residents here that are affected out of the Longacres subdivision that will speak to that. Item number 5. Use of Longacres private parks by Yobeny Farm residents. These are 2 pictures of our west park. Private park. The lower picture is looking northbound. Again the hill in the background is where the houses will be from this new development. That is Longacres Drive that has that car on it. The upper picture is looking west at the totlot and tennis courts in the back. You'll notice in the upper left hand picture on the very far left corner, our Longacres houses that are separated from the park by a pond, by design, and similarly on the lower picture on the far right you will see houses that are again separated from the park by a significant amount of distance, again by design to get the houses out of the park. Lower picture again I would point out that setbacks, we would want to look very closely at that and the houses of this new subdivision will in fact have this park as their back yard. And indeed all the residents of this neighborhood because of the proximity of this park, and a significant distance to access public parks will indeed use our parks. I would characterize, expand a little further on the characterization of our meetings with the developer. We had one meeting. We discussed 4 options. We eliminated 2 options. We conceptually talked about 2 other options and the developers are pursuing as they stated with their investors the value that this could provide in marketing materials and value to their residence. And we're 10 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 waiting for a reply back on that. Again I would note that it's a very long, drawn out process. The developers have to work with their investors and get approval from their investors and then our board must conduct a special meeting and conduct a vote. We must obtain a quorum of the residents in Longacres and then obtain a simple majority of that quorum, so if we were given the go ahead tonight, with a proposal, I would guess it would be at least 30 days to conduct that and wrap it up and get approval. We would, in lieu of that agreement we would ask that the applicant have a condition placed on this development to develop their own playground or mini park or totlot within their development. Construct a fence or natural barrier along the south border of the 3`a Addition between the existing Longacres Park and Yoberry to restrict access to the existing private park of Longacres HOA and reimburse Longacres for no trespassing signs, and then I did state, or a condition that if this condition were placed, it could be waived if there were an agreement established in the future. For your consideration. I'll move along to item number 6. These are 4 pictures of the entranceways to the Longacres subdivision on the I believe what's been characterized as a collector street, or connector street. We have a significant maintenance for these entryways with the monuments, the pine trees. The 3 rail fences that you can see in the pictures. Lighting. Christmas lights in the holidays. Just numerous expenses. Water, electricity. It's a significant expense to maintain these 3 entrances. We would ask that the applicant reimburse, a condition be placed that the applicant reimburse Longacres Homeowners Association for the maintenance and repair expenses of these 3 common areas. Payment would be form of an annual assessment, just like we run in our homeowners association. And it would be a prorated formula that we can have accountants figure out what a fair proration is for the 57 of what then would be 264 or 279 homes. I'll move along to item number 7. Again, Highway 41 are the pictures here. Access on an existing abandoned road coming off of Highway 4 that's halfway between Longacres and Lake Lucy Road. It's a half a mile north of Longacres Drive. We would ask that either this location or another location, which is just south of this location, which has a flat grade into the proposed subdivision, be used as a construction site. We would ask that a condition be placed on approval, that construction site access points minimise to a construction site entrance established directly off of State Highway 41 with rock entrance exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction beyond the construction of the road that was suggested at the last Planning Commission meeting, but to maintain this entrance to some critical mass of development in the neighborhood to avoid cement trucks, hauling trucks, sub contractor trucks, just a myriad of very dangerous traffic coming through the Longacres development. I did want to note for reference, and it does lead into item number 8. Again the upper 2 pictures are Longacres subdivision entrances with monuments and common areas. The 3 pictures around the, these 3 pictures here. These are the entrance at Lake Lucy Road, and I present this just for a contrast in looking at the Longacres with the monument and the significant common area and the expenses in a more neighborhood look versus Lake Lucy Road which I would probably agree is a connector and through type street. Again Longacres is about 2 miles long. It only services currently our subdivision so I present that as just a comparing contrast of our entrances to the Lake Lucy Road. And the last item is, it was mentioned several times at the last Planning Commission meeting, environmental impacts. I have not seen in the staff report any significant studies relevant to perhaps chemical, pesticide risks. This was farming land previously. Drainage. Water hazards. Wildlife corridor impacts and I will reference this picture right here and that is the well that would be servicing both Highover and this, I believe it would serve this new subdivision so we would ask for a condition to conduct those environmental studies. That concludes my remarks. Any questions? 11 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Slagle: Questions for. Keefe: I had a quick question on that last point. Are you aware of any environmental issues? Tom Hirsch: Well as it was mentioned in the last Planning Commission, this is a significant wildlife corridor that comes from Lake Harrison, through the north end of this development and into, across Highway 41 and into the Tanadoona property. That would be an environmental impact that I think should be studied, to minimize that impact. I'm personally not an environmentalist. I simply draw a conclusion that if it was farmland in the past, I understand there is a lot of chemicals and pesticides in the 50's, 60's and 70's that have now been deemed very hazardous to health. Leeching into ground water is a risk. I simply read newspapers and I would have to draw a conclusion that stirring up and grading and tipping over all of this earth, that there would be, but I have no specific studies to quote, no. Slagle: Thank you very much. Tom Hirsch: Any other questions? Thank you for your consideration. Slagle: Thank you. Matt, I'm going to ask Matt if you can just in the back of your mind keep that, I want to have folks come and address, but keep that because I'm going to come back to that. Just a question. Okay. Who's next? Please come up. Mark Zaebst: Good evening. Slagle: If you can state your name and address, that'd be great. Mark Zaebst: My name is Mark Zaebst. I live at 2325 Hunter Drive in the Longacres development and as requested in respect of everyone's time I'm going to be speaking on behalf of a large number of homeowners who are behind me here, that live on Hunter Drive. To add a few comments to our association president's comments that are specific to some of the traffic conditions that we're experiencing on Hunter Drive right now. If I could have the overhead briefly. What I'd like to do this evening is first of all just state a number of challenges that we're currently experiencing on Hunter Drive. Challenges that we feel will definitely be exacerbated by the addition of, according to staff's report, a potential of 700 additional trips per day would be generated by the Yoberry Farms, and obviously we're concerned with how that will impact some of the problems that we're experiencing on Hunter Drive. First of all, as a number of people have mentioned, Hunter Drive, even though it was never designed to be a cut over street from State Highway 41 over to Galpin, that is how it's used, and I, you know we truly believe that that's just a function of human nature. Call attention to this particular map possibly if we could zoom in a little bit more. You can see here the Longacres development. Highway 41. Galpin and I've highlighted in red, coming off of Gunflint Court the quickest and probably least impeded route for someone living in the new subdivision to make their way back into the Chanhassen trade corridor area. It's simply to come down Gunflint Court, cut across Longacres and come through Hunter Drive and pick up Galpin. Measure the distances for the 3 possible routes out of there. It's much more circuitous to come all the way back to 41, then come down to 12 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 the light and Highway 5. It's almost double the road distance, and obviously you can see if you used Longacres, which was probably the developer's original intent to be the through street, as is evidenced when you look at that street by it's width and the fact that it has a sidewalk running along it, it unfortunately takes people away from their destination, so the majority of folks that live in Longaeres have made Hunter Drive their cut through and unfortunately it's turned into a Nascar race on that road. Since it is a cut through, no one is even coming close to respecting the, which we feel, which is too high of a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. So as I mentioned, we already have a problem with the massive number of people that are using Hunter Drive as a cut through, and adding this additional traffic is only going to make that problem worst. As I alluded to, Hunter Drive is not designed correctly as a main thoroughfare. If you have not driven on Hunter Drive, I would ask folks from the planning staff and the board to please take a drive down it so you can see how winding it is and how excessive some of the grade changes are. I have a number of photographs here that will correspond to the map, but we have 3 actually blind turns. This is the first turn as you come in off of Galpin and head into the development. As you can see, very difficult to see with the pine trees that are up close to the road. That's heading east, or west and if you're coming east, this is the same tum coming the other way so as you can see, as our president mentioned, a narrow street with very tight curves. A number of excessive grade changes also. This is the second blind curve. Massive grade change coming off of that, and people come blowing up over the top of that curve. We have a large number of families that live on that street with children and have had many near accidents there. This is the same blind curve as you are then heading down toward Galpin. As you can see, very little visibility as you come around that comer, and the third blind curve that we have is actually labeled by the city as a blind intersection, as you can see here, and coming up to, this is going towards Galpin. You're looking at the intersection of Fawn Hill and Hunter Drive, which has no traffic control on Hunter Drive and so people are approaching that blind intersection well in excess of 30 miles per hour. That intersection also serves as our main ... but there are kids lined up to both sides of there so 3 very dangerous curves in our street. Excuse me, I misplaced my page here. As I mentioned, also the blind intersection, substantial grade changes. 30 miles per hour speed limit is excessive. We again ask that you please come to that street. Drive it. The other night I drove it at 30 miles per hour and it is uncomfortably fast, as you go around those corners. We've had numerous spin out's. Numerous accidents on that street. Cars ending up in people's yards, and as I mentioned we have a large number of families. We currently, on that short stretch of road have 78 children live along that street so the solutions that we would like to bring forward are the following. We would like to see the city lower the speed limit on that street to 20 miles per hour. Precedence has been set for that with another Lundgren development which is in the Summit. The Summit has residential streets speed limits at 20 miles per hour. We ask that there are additional speed limit signs posted on Hunter Drive. As you enter the development, the only speed limit sign is right at the entryway, and if you're making the tum off of Galpin into the entryway, your eyes are not picking up that speed limit sign, so people are coming into that neighborhood not knowing what those speed limits are. We're also asking that the City assist us in posting slow, children at play signs so people do understand a large number of homes and a lot of kids playing out along the streets. The next bullet item, I'm sorry we don't have the word stop in there but we're asking that the intersection of Fawn Hill and Hunter Drive have a stop sign put on Hunter Drive to impede traffic flow along Hunter Drive and slow folks down as they go through that blink intersection that's always full of children. We're also asking for an additional traffic calming measure, which would be to place a speed bump somewhere along the course of Hunter 13 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Drive and the reason that we're looking for those 5 traffic calming measures are, we know that people are going to cut through Hunter Drive. There's no way that we're going to stop them. We know that Yoberry Farms is going to cut through Hunter Drive, but what we want to be able to do is slow the traffic down in there. We need to be able to create a safer environment for what was intended to be a relatively quiet residential street, which has now become a busy cut through street, and we are asking for your assistance in that measure. The last two bullet items, forgive me for being redundant but again we feel very strongly that if at all possible to get an additional entry point out of, for Yoberry Farms off to 41, and also make a strict demand that all construction traffic, including subcontractors use that particular entrance off of 41 to keep that construction traffic out of the neighborhood. So again, in conclusion we're asking that if you approve the applicant's plan, that you please place these conditions upon it. Please put yourselves in our place. If you lived on that street, with those speed limits and that traffic amount and you had children, you would be just as concerned as we are, and we do not want to have an accident. We do not want to have a death. It's a residential street. Our concern should not be how quickly can people cut through there. It should be, how safe can we make the people that live on that street yet still allow traffic to flow through. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. Slagle: Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Next person. Somebody else? Julie Lohse: Hi. My name is Julie Lohse. I live at 7094 Harrison Hill Trail. One of the. Slagle: Julie, I'm going to ask a favor. If you can pull that, there you go. Julie Lohse: I have a bunch of notes here. I'm going to try to cut some things out in the interest of time. Slagle: Thank you. Julie Lohse: My main concern tonight are two. One is the road that's being proposed adjacent to my back yard. I know you've heard a lot about it. The first point is, I'm just in awe that it's still on the map, seeing that the last City Council meeting it was said that you did not want to approve a road that was there and you'd like to see it re -worked. Not to mention that the lack of acknowledgement of the safety concerns of our children by adding lilacs is the answer. Regarding Option B, I think it was Option B with the private road. One thing that I wanted to suggest is possibly considering that on the west side of the house. Perhaps that would cut down some of the challenges that are posing the problem for the developer. They said there was a large retaining wall at the end of the cul-de-sac if they did it on the west side of the houses, and if they did a private road there, it might minimize some of those. It appears that Option C is undesirable. The issue that they want walkout's, which I read as more money, what is the issue? I'd really like to know what the challenges are so we can address those. I do not want a road in my back yard so someone else can make more money on a walkout, is my point. I would also like clarification on what the city code says about creating double frontage lots. I know there is an easement behind my yard but ... what is being created. I watched the last meeting on tape and I want to just thank the Planning Commission for consideration it gave regarding approval. My neighbors and I appreciate the common sense approach of what would I want in my back yard. I 14 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 just wanted to thank you for that. ...I'll skip some of these. In one of the pictures that I saw that were reworked was showing lush greenery behind our yards. We do appreciate you know a wooded lot behind our yard and it is very lush for a few months of the year. What you don't see hidden under there are the play yards that we have placed up there, and that is basically where all the kids are on our street. So it's not a buffer. It's where we live. It's where the kids are. I just was curious about why the safety of my back yard is at risk in order to take financial gain that can be made by the developer. What authority are they answering to that is dictating that they must squeeze every last dime out of this piece of land? Surely they could manage a hefty profit without the need of stealing from the neighbors. I also am struck by the weak arguments regarding the park. I want to know why not put a park in. I have two parks in my neighborhood and I still have one of those Rainbow system things. It's just not healthy for people not to get out once in a while. Obviously the answer you get is money and it might make the developer appear greedy. They don't need their own park... because they have our parks that are accessible. This neighborhood as I understand is going to be an affluent neighborhood, yet they're completely creating a dependency on our neighborhood. That does nothing but take from our safety, quality of life and financial investments in our home and park. I guarantee you, any real estate agent will enter this development from Longacres so their clients can see the park they can walk to as they drive to their new home. It will be mentioned as a selling point and as a mom with young kids, a park to walk to is gold. Not having a park in this neighborhood creates an atmosphere of dependency. Where is the reciprocity? I agree in sharing but share it and share alike. Regarding the pool option, I have not heard of this. This has been raised twice in our neighborhood. It has been voted down and I personally do not support that and I also think that with Lifetime Fitness coming in, we all now have a reasonable distance to a pool so I just want to throw that in there. The Park and Recreation Director apparently agrees about the park and said regarding the two lots that were built by our developer, and they're maintained by our association, and this is the quote. The close proximity to such association facilities prompted staff to encourage developers of the Yoberry Farms subdivision to consider incorporating an association totlot in their plans. Sure there are public parks around but none that they can walk to. Do you know where I will find the residents of this new neighborhood? I venture to say that even Highover neighborhood would gain a park that they can now easily access. I predict that many of these visits may also be accessed by car, either on the way in or out of the neighborhood, as some of us do that already. Parking will only add to our safety concerns with kids crossing the street to park cars on a very busy street where we already have speeding issues. At the last meeting the developer was very accepting of the idea of having a homeowners in Yoberry pay our association for the use of parks. By showing such eager interest in building a relationship with Longacres Association, and potentially contributing funds toward the park, they're acknowledging the value their new homeowners will play on having an equally accessible park. Isn't it creative that the developer can provide this? By pushing the expense onto their new homeowners without having to invest in the park of their own and experience higher property values and demand. The developer gets the win/win again. The builders seem more than happy to invest nothing and reap the benefits. They are also assuming that our neighborhood will be open to and agree on the option of accepting these funds. My vote is no. Build a park. I beg the Planning Commission to be true to the community. This new neighborhood will be here long after any of us or the money it makes the developer. Save those who end up buying in Yoberry Farms, I'm asking the question why didn't they build a park here? 15 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Even though, as we know, it all boils down to greed and those who built the homes and moved on. Thank you for listening. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Rodd Wagner: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. I appeared before you at the last meeting and would incorporate by reference my comments from the last meeting in the interest of everyone's time. I did however want to raise anew the traffic issue, given the fact that the commissioners were concerned last time that the traffic ought to be addressed in some fashion by access to 41 and that that was one avenue to be explored. Given the fact that that may not happen, I wanted to raise that anew that somehow, whether by access to 41 with some kind of traffic dampening procedures or some how that that issue is still something that's crucial both to the those in the Highover neighborhood and those in the Longacres neighborhood. Particularly as it relates to Highover Drive I think we run the same risk that we see the folks from Hunter Way seeing that while Highover Drive is designated a local street, and even under the plan as it exists right now according to the staff may fit the definition of a local street, I think it still runs the same risk that it would be, create an unintended collector or connector, whatever that designation is between an artery and a local street, and would create traffic problems that were not part of the original plan for the street. I also concur with the concerns raised by my neighbors to the south about the, how do you make a division between two neighborhoods, both of which have homeowners associations. Slightly different provisions there when you have a continuous street that goes through. I would raise the possibility that, although I know that generally city rules suggest that roads go through for access to buses and emergency equipment, that in this case we may in fact create the need for an emergency vehicle to go through because of an accident on one of those streets if that access in fact happens, and I would recommend that one of the possibilities to be explored is two cul-de-sacs. One coming in from the south and one from the north. One of the advantages of that approach would be that you would have a delineation between homes that could be adopted into the Highover neighborhood, my neighbors consenting, and homes that could be adopted into the Longacres neighborhood, not wanting to speak for them but would at least make that delineation because I don't see how you can put up a sign and say, you are now leaving Highover and entering Yoberry, and you can use this park. You are now leaving Yoberry and entering Longacres, and you may not use this park. And it just doesn't, it doesn't match the way people actually act in the same way that telling people you are now on a local street, don't use this street to drive from two collector streets. One on the south and to the north to cut through traffic. That simply doesn't work. So I would request that the commission recommend that the plan be rejected as it stands right now. That I would concur with the president of the Longacres Homeowners Association. That the 41 access request be made formally and that failing that, that serious consideration be given to a two cul-de-sac solution given the fact that the connection doesn't work for a whole number of reasons. Thank you very much. Slagle: Thank you. Andrew White: Good evening. My name is Andrew White. I reside at 7122 Harrison Hill Trail. I'm just going to mention very brief observations because I think everybody around here has ILS 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 mentioned exceptionally eloquent and I've got to say Julie, passionate. I am shall we say in the business, and I'll give you an example of why this process is both exceptional and not exceptional. I'm involved in a project in downtown Minneapolis where the first thing that the developer did was approach the neighborhood and ask them for their input into the scheme, and that scheme has gone as smoothly and efficiently as you can imagine. I would have asked the development team if they had done the same, then a lot of this conversation may have been moot. One other thing and then I'll leave. It is a red herring to think that the utility easement and the tree conservation at the rear of the homes on Harrison Hill has any relevance to what are the things that these gentlemen are suggesting. That space is exceptional space. Everybody on the hill uses it. The kids are in there all the time. 1 take my kids in there all the time. It is superb space. Nobody here is suggesting that this development shouldn't go ahead. This is really all about the sensitivity that the development team and the owners have to the existing residents. And I don't think I can add any more, thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Paul Ottoson: Paul Ottoson, 7080 Harrison Hill Trail. I spoke at the last meeting. I'll take less than 20 seconds just to reiterate the fact that I looked at seriously over 100 homes before I moved here 3 %z years ago. Not one single residence had a street on the front side and a street in the back yard. Like I said, we worked our entire lives to get to a place like this and we didn't expect that it wouldn't be developed, but to have a road in my back yard and my front yard, for this kind of a neighborhood I just think is ludicrous, and to see the plans revised come back with some shrubbery versus an alternate for that road, I just think is disappointing at least. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Larry Lovig: Good evening gentlemen, Planning Commission. I too spoke at the last meeting so thank you very much for allowing us to speak again and I'll be very brief. I believe it was Matt, our Assistant Engineer that spoke at the last City Council meeting about a development named Pinehurst, and for those who aren't familiar with Pinehurst, it's north of Longacres, along Gunflint. And the discussion was about a turning lane coming from the north into the new development and the statement that I saw on TV was that that shouldn't be a large concern because we are planning on most the traffic coming from the south. Is that a fair paraphrase? Slagle: I'm going to ask, if you wouldn't mind, can you state your name and. Larry Lovig: Oh I'm sorry. Larry Lovig, 2475 Gunflint Court. So my point in bringing that up is, I think we have a very serious problem with the traffic that's going to be going along Hunter and I would like to recommend that the council please find a way to find access to 41. Thanks. Slagle: Thank you. Jennifer Rysso: My name is Jennifer Rysso. I spoke at the last meeting as well. I appreciate. I'm going to be extremely brief. I live at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail. Again the property that has been discussed a significant amount of time today so I did feel that it was worth my due to put my input in as the builder got their input. I do wish to emphasize again that the purpose of this 17 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 proposed road that is lying directly adjacent to my property is to serve 4 to 5 homes and is at the risk of compromising 8 homes that are already existing. I feel that a road, the public road that has already brought up so much public outcry and so much debate and so much participation in the community needs to be re -thought and needs to be considered maybe not appropriate and perhaps rejected. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Uli Sacchet: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South and I'm addressing you as a resident, not as a commissioner. ht addition to the points that we looked at last time and to round off the picture a little bit that we're hearing here tonight, I would like to submit your consideration that my property, as well as the one immediately next door, which I, where are we? Which is this, if you want to? Yep, right here. They are far closer to the cul-de-sac than any other properties. As a matter of fact, I would say that the cul-de-sac is about twice as far away from the other properties because we don't have a utility easement between us and that cul-de-sac. I do want to state that I don't see how I could argue that that cul-de-sac should not be there short of trying to buy that property myself, which I do not have the means to do. However there are a few small things that I'd like to ask that I think are significant for my particular situation. I'd like to ask that a condition be added that the grading limit and tree preservation line is adjusted to, if you can zoom on that please Nann. That, okay. If the tree preservation and grading limit can be adjusted to where the actual grading takes place, which would, everything that's here in red would not be clear cut on that basis. I mean that's a reasonable request to make. And the second request is that it would be considered that these two red things are birches on the planting plan. If they could be replaced with evergreens because with the cars coming up this hill, they're going to be shining into the back of my house as well as my neighbors. Even with the grade changes and the retaining wall that remains there, that's still a concern and I think it would be reasonable to mitigate that as much as possible. 'then finally in view of the Highover neighborhood, I'm not on the board of the neighborhood association so I'm not speaking in any official capacity but I think there is one point that was not brought up or clarified enough at the last meeting, is that drainage pond on the south side of Highover, which was originally a temporary pond and now it's becoming permanent with this development. The issue is who is going to have ownership and maintenance responsibility for that pond? It's my understanding at this point that responsibility resides with the neighbors of Highover. I think as that pond becomes a shared drainage pond between the new development and Highover, and I believe it was the plan originally that the city would take over ownership and maintenance of that pond. That's an issue that I'd like to see clarified in the context of this application. That's all I have to add here. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Okay, let's wrap it up. Is there anything else? Larry Dimlin: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Larry Dimlin. I live at 6966 Highover Drive and I would just like to echo what Rodd Wagner and some of the other people, actually the people of Gunther, or I mean Hunter Street have so eloquently spoke about. I live on Highover. I have 4 small children. Highover Street, being as a connector street or a through street to me is a very big concern and I would like to know further what the City is planning on doing with regard to possible speed bumps or traffic speed deterrents, if you will. IR 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Also I would like to echo what Rodd Wagner said in taking a look at a cul-de-sac on the north as well as the south end of this new proposed development and access from 41 into this development. Keeping the three developments separate and individual entities. That's really all I have. Slagle: Than you very much. Michael Horn: My name's Michael Horn, 7024 Highover Court. I'm right next to Uh. I'd just like to go on record just to concur with what the comments that were made by Rodd. From our neighborhood and also the representatives of the Longacres neighborhoods, and specifically with regard to the traffic and then the access off Highway 41. I think the pictures demonstrate it very well. The access that's already there doesn't seem to be impacted by the grade, and I think that needs to be looked at. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Lauren Damman: Hi, my name is Laura Damman and I live next to Larry on Highover Drive. 6934 and I'd like to concur again with the possibility of an access from 41. We have lived there for less than a year and it's not a street that will deal with a lot of traffic. There's kids everywhere and it's not, I just can't see it going through. It's just going to be, I don't know. A cul-de-sac would be a good idea. An access and what they said. Thanks. Slagle: Thank you. Alright, anything else? Anybody? Last chance. Nora Wagner: One of my neighbors who couldn't be here, I'm Nora Wagner. My husband just spoke. I'm on Highover Drive. A couple of the issues on Highway 41. The traffic, the speed limit has been raised to 55 on there. That is just a scary road any more with the amount of traffic that's going on there and feeding through all of our neighborhoods. We were wondering about some kind of a sound walls for the neighbors who are, who's properties face 41 because if you have all this traffic cruising in our front and on our back, it's just, it's a race track on both sides. 41 has had many deaths, or a number of deaths, let's put it that way with the traffic that's existing there. With adding this extra traffic from Yoberry onto 41 and on our streets, there should be some kind of access from 41 right into their own development, and some kind of sound barriers that will protect the Highover neighbors that are right here along Highway 41. The sound is just, it's getting, it's just getting worst and worst and I'm sure that road will probably eventually be widened. I do not in fact reside along that. I just feel sorry for these people who are being trampled by you know the development and no one's taking any consideration in my opinion on that issue. Another issue is that there's a property, a street on Lake Riley in the Chanhassen side of Lake Riley called Kiowa Trail, and Kiowa Trail has about, I don't know about 15 homes or so on it. Half of them on the lake side and half of them not on the lake side. When a Lundgren development went in, I believe it was in that Lyman Boulevard or Lyman Road, on the other side they fought off having their street connect to the Lundgren development of Springfield. I again would like with that same plea towards our neighborhood of Highover Drive. When this, when Highover Drive was put together, I'm one of the original residences. Many of them are also who are here, and our developer, Jerome Carlson had told all of us that this property would go through on Highover Drive but that it would go through to a 19 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 cul-de-sac with 5 or 6 homes on it and that's where this idea has grown. And I've been told that you know, he's quite a pillar in the community and I'm sure his word is his bond and you work well with him. It would alleviate many of the issues that have been discussed here already tonight and these meetings would not probably even take place if any number of these areas, things would be considered. One, the two cul-de-sacs and Highway 41. This room would be cleared out and we would be able to get on, they would be able to make their development I'm sure with a nice profit, as they should, and the rest of us would be happy and we wouldn't have to come to these meetings anymore. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing, and if I can ask Matt before we ask questions and make comments fellow commissioners. Matt, are there any thing of those points that you can make comment to? Let's, and if we can, let's start with the 41. If we can just have a current situation and is their request that a formal application to MnDot reasonable? Saam: Yeah, the issue of 41. That's why again I brought it up at the beginning was to try to address that. We have a development review memo from MnDot which we get with every development. We called MnDot. We emailed MnDot. We got the same response each time. As far as a formal application, no. That's done by the landowner. So the developer would have to do that. I guess we as a city, we're not in favor of an additional access to 41. I think I've given the reasons why. Unless there's anything else on it. Slagle: Let me ask you this question if I may fellow commissioners and then I'm going to open it up to you. Is there Matt, is there merit to a concern that we have in essence a development that is fairly high, and works it way to the south and to the north on streets, and I use Highover and I use Hunter, that would be not your usual thoroughfares with wide streets and sidewalks and so forth? I mean is there merit do you think of having that concern by the residents that this traffic streaming from the middle... Saam: Hunter, the Hunter Drive residents, sure. I think they even said they know that people use it and I mean it's a public street. But that doesn't mean there aren't issues on it. There's speed limit issues. That's enforcement that maybe we look at the speed. If it's too fast. But I don't believe that's this developer's or the next developer's issue to correct. That's a city issue if we have a speed problem for example on there, and that's something we can definitely look at. Slagle: Okay. I'm going to open it up to fellow Commissioners for questions or comments. Kurt, can I start with you? Papke: From the, just a question from the city's perspective. What if any responsibility or liability do we bear relative to the private parks in Longacres? And other people using them or safety issues. What if any responsibility does the city carry? And if the answer is none, that's fine. AI -Jaffa None. Papke: None. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I'm clear. Are we going right to comments or are we still in questions? Ell 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Slagle: Are there any other questions? Lillehaug: I have questions. Bob and Sharmeen I think and Matt, you guys have been around here a while. A lot longer than I have. With the approval of the Highover development and the Longacres development, and I hit on this before but it sounds like Mr. Carlson was leading the residents of Highover anyway to believe that there would only be a few houses and it would be cul-de-saced on the north end. From a city perspective and what the city has been planning for the past, I don't know how many years. 10 years? 15 years? For this connection. Is it the city's position that it has always been anticipated to be connected with a through road and never be connected onto 41 or a combination of cul-de-sacs? What can, can you give us a better take on that? Al-Jaff: It was always intended to be connected. Never with two separate cul-de-sacs and never with access off of 41. Saam: Yeah I'll just add. As I said at the last meeting, I reviewed the development contracts for both Highover and Longacres to the south. In each of them there's a condition that says the street in each case, Highover and Gunflint Trail will be extended in the future. So it's always been planned to be extended. Slagle: If I may though. Can I just be clear? Do we have or has there been any documents, public papers that would have shown otherwise? Stub to a cul-de-sac? So it always showed that it was a connection to Highover or to Longacres, depending on which way you're looking? Saam: I mean not that I'm aware of. I haven't seen any... Slagle: I mean let's just be clear because extended is different than connection. Al-Jaff One of the things we did when we were working on Highover was we asked the developer to show us how the property to the south could potentially develop, and they did submit a sketch that looked at the roads being connected. Slagle: And I'm just, what I'm trying to get at with the three of you is just, I don't want to think that a resident thinking of buying a property in one of those two developments would have seen any public document that showed cul-de-sacs, dead ending or no connections, okay? Al-Jaff: Not from the City. Slagle: Okay. I'm sorry Steve. Keefe: Are you still going? Slagle: No Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: No, no, no. That was my question. 21 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Slagle: Okay. Keefe: lust a couple. Is an association planned for this development? Do you know? There is? And in regards to, and my concern is in regards to some of the comments from the Longacres people where they're actually maintaining the entrance ways into Longacres which presumably some of these people might get the benefit of because that's one of the entrance ways. And then also the potential for the utilization of their parks, particularly with the visuals that, and the pictures that these people put up in regards to the proximity of some of these homes to the parks, but in terms of the association which is planned, can you speak to that at all? In terms of what kind of association would be formed? Chuck Alcon: We do have a homeowners association planned for two basic reasons. There are a couple of cul-de-sacs and center areas that will have to be maintained. Plantings. Generally we quite frankly are struggling with our own identity a little bit. We'd like to have an entrance monument into our subdivision to distinguish us from Highover and Longacres. So we're still trying to work our way through that. As far as these two associations, we think it makes sense to have two separate associations for architectural control. For neighborhood identity, etc, etc. And for us to have our own maintenance requirements for our own subdivision. Not to say that the argument that will people drift south to that park, the answer is probably absolutely and we're going to have to find a solution to that. That's why we've been talking to the Longacres people. But we do plan an association. Keefe: The second question is in regards to, one of the residents brought up a question regard to the private drive on the west side. When we're talking about that northeast corner. Again was that an option which was, I know we're not crazy about private drives but was that an option that was explored? I didn't see it in the options that were presented. Chuck Alcon: That particular option was not explored and the reason was, when you look at the west road, it's a public road. The total devastation of the trees along that entire corridor all the way up to the north and the retaining wall would be very similar for a private road. Plus we introduced the private road concept versus the public road concept. And we just didn't feel that was appropriate. Keefe: Does the city concur with that pretty much for the most part? Slagle: Jerry. McDonald: I don't have any questions. Slagle: Okay. Let's, we'll finish with questions and I'll open it up for discussion. Kurt, I'm going to ask you to go first again. I'm sorry. Papke: Oh boy. Okay. 41. Access to 41. It sounds like it isn't going to happen. And it also, it seems pretty evident to me that an access to Highway 41 is not going to help Hunter Drive. I mean that's going the wrong way. If people are using Hunter Drive as a short cut to get to the 00 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Highway 5 corridor, then access to Highway 41 is going in the opposite direction so I don't think that's going to solve the problem. So I think eventually here the city is going to have to look at some independent actions as to what do we do about Hunter Drive and this development is certainly going to exacerbate that situation, but I don't think that's a condition on this particular developer, as you pointed out very ably and that. That's a city responsibility and I think we're going to, that's inevitable we're going to have to deal with that. The cul-de-sac and drive on the northeast corner here, it's not a beautiful solution but I think it's within our comprehensive plan. Our city code. Our ordinances. I think the developer has made a good faith effort to try to make the best of an undesirable situation. The only possibility I see is eliminating Lot 4 to move it farther away from the other houses along that far east side. I don't see any other ways of mitigating that problem beyond what the developer has already looked at. It looks like options B and C are just unworkable. I'm disappointed that we couldn't find a way to move the street closer to the pond and have the street go in between the pond and those lots but I understand the topography and nature is nature. I mean the land and the contours are what they are and we can't change those, so I don't see any way of mitigating that situation beyond eliminating Lot 4. That may be our only viable solution and given all the other issues here, that would be the one I would propose. Would be to eliminate one lot and try to cut that comer and move the street a little bit farther away. And with that stipulation I would support this. The parks are going to be an issue. I think our park director ably pointed out the responsibility of the city in this situation. I think the developer is doing, is following the letter of the law, if you will, and I think the residents of Longacres have an issue here that they're going to have to work out with the developer as to access to their park. I think the developer has shown very good faith in working through that situation but I don't see an easy way around that one. And that's about all I have so I would support this development on the condition that we eliminate Lot 4. Audience: Is there something... that you're referring to? I missed that whole. Slagle: Let's, we'll do the discussion. Go ahead Dan. Keefe: I'll go in similar order to what Kurt just said. I'd like to see a formal application to the State in regards to 41. I just, I know I've received a lot of feedback but I think it isn't that big of a step for the developer to go to the State and request. They get rejected, they get rejected. Then we would know for sure and I'd like to know the answer to that. I think Kurt's suggestion on the northeast comer is a reasonable one. To bring that road away from the residents and create an additional buffer. That might also give us an opportunity to do some bemung in that location which would create more of a buffer between that particular road and the residents behind. I don't know how much that road can move but I think it can move some and I'd like to see that explored. In regards to the parks piece of it, I'd really like to see Longacres and this development get together and comment. There's been some movement in regards to that. I think that would be kind of a win/win for everybody if we could get that lined up. And not knowing that, it makes it difficult to sort of resolve the park issue in my mind unless we would make a requirement for them to put a park in place on this particular development. I think in regards to the Hunter Drive and going up on the Highover, I do believe that's a city issue in terms of the speed in regards to, in controlling the traffic. I think that's something the city can resolve. I do think that an access to 41 would help to alleviate some of the traffic off of those two roads. Would it alleviate all the traffic going down to Hunter Drive? No. I still think that's going to be ON 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting —January 18, 2005 a problem as well, but I do think it would alleviate some of the traffic off of there and might be a reasonable request at least from the State in regards to that. I think that's it for now. Slagle: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: Wow. Well, there's a lot of unanswered questions here and I'm not comfortable, totally comfortable recommending something to the council and I guess I'll go ahead with my comments. It's a long connection from Lake Lucy all the way down to Longacres. There's no doubt about it. There's q lot of traffic generation inbetween there. There are higher levels on Highover Drive. Higher levels of traffic. Then I want to ask one question before I get to this, because all of this is planning and some of this, some of this planning was limited because of the topography, but it's not the best planning in this area obviously here and I want to make sure we're not kicking ourselves here. There's another large parcel right to the east of the Highover development and if staff can just quick like give a synopsis of the access points, because I'm looking at the traffic, more traffic in the future possibly going on Highover Drive. So can you comment quick like, and I apologize for being out of the order of questions, comments. Slagle: What I'd like Sharmeen, if we could, can we get that out? I do think that's a relevant question. Lillehaug: And are you familiar with the parcel I'm talking about? I mean it's the undeveloped parcel there. It looks like there's an access off of Lake Lucy, so possibly that would be the main access. There it is? Al-Jaff: Off of Highover Trail? Lillehaug: That's the one. The big empty box there. Al-Jaff: There is an access point, road is intended to be extended at a future date. We don't have... Slagle: If I can, do we know if it's going to connect or is it just going to extend? Do we know? Lillehaug: And are you talking only off of Highover Drive or. It looks like there's, just on the, if you can scoot that over a little bit so we can see the whole parcel. Is there city right-of-way coming off of Lake Lucy and does the City anticipate the roadway connection being from the north there or is that just a long parcel? Do you see the one I'm looking at? Saam: I haven't seen the layout. Al-Jaff: We haven't received a layout for it yet. Saam: I mean with that said, I would anticipate there would be an additional access to that parcel, and not just Highover Trail. I mean that one goes, I think that property owner owns all the way over to Galpin, and just south of Manchester Drive which is also a temporary cul-de-sac so. 24 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Keefe: You've got a big elevation change. Saam: Yeah, that's the other thing. I think there's a big wetland in there so I wouldn't foresee like a huge development coming back through Highover Trail. Lillehaug: Well, I'm not 100 percent comfortable with this. I mean this is quite a bit of topography change on this development also. I mean it has a potential for just as dense as this project and I'm just not comfortable with all the traffic that's going to be on Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail. I want to comment on the traffic on Hunter Drive. I understand the traffic on Hunter Drive. I've got, my kids have friends on the opposite side. On opposite sides there and I used to drive Hunter Drive all the time until I was made aware of this problem so now I go Longacres Drive, so who are the people cutting across on Hunter Drive? It's us, so I recommend the Longacres homeowners association that you distribute a flyer in your own neighborhood and ask people to use Longacres Drive because I do it and I think it's easy enough. For your homeowners association to do also, to minimize some of that traffic on Hunter Drive. It's a suggestion and I hope you take it for what it's worth. The stop signs, children at play. That's a staff issue and they should only be installed if warranted. And I'll leave it at that. I'm rambling on here. I just, boy. I missed the beginning of it with Option C and I don't see a huge impact to trees with Option C. They can still eliminate some of the lots up there. I'm just not in full support with any option that I'm looking at but the dilemma that I'm seeing is, what would we do if we're not in full support of it and if we don't make, if we deny this, they can still appeal it to the City Council and then ultimately the City Council's going to have to make these decisions so I guess we just give our best input. So my further input is I definitely support reducing a couple lots in that northeast corner. I guess that's probably all I have. Slagle: Anything else? Alright, my comments. I'll make them quick. Oh Jerry, I'm sorry. Oh, go ahead Steve. We're going to let Steve go Jerry. Lillehaug: I'm looking down at my notes here and to address one of Mr. Sacchet's questions. Can I call you Mister in this case? Who maintains that pond? Did the City ever comment on that? Did I miss that? It's my understanding that the City could easily have an easement, if they don't already and maintain that pond. Is that not the case? Saam: That's correct. That's what we plan on. Lillehaug: So that's a non -issue. One other questions/comment. Sound walls. Boy, what's the City's policy on that? Is it strictly assessment at this case? I mean if residents want sound walls, especially in this case where we're not really adding or the City's not adding to this, is it strictly a petition process and 100 percent assessed? I mean personally me as a resident, I don't want to pay for a sound wall there. Does the City have a different policy? Saam: The new improvements are 100 percent assessment. Lillehaug: And one other comment, I'm sorry. Speed bumps. I don't support speed bumps. Maybe some other type of traffic calming. The problem I have, speed bumps or other traffic 25 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 calming, speed table or something on Hunter Drive. Again that's an issue that should be addressed with staff. But if we're at this point asking for speed humps within this neighborhood, then we have a problem with our speed limit because this is a new neighborhood and we're asking for speed calming right adjacent to this neighborhood already. The speed limit's 30 miles an hour and that's by state statute so all these requests to lower the speed limit, I think they're unfounded. I mean the speed limit is 30 miles an hour. Audience: Go drive it... Lillehaug: As I indicated to you, I drive it all the time. I mean I understand it. Audience: Somebody's going to get killed and you guys are going to be responsible. Lillehaug: You guys, I'm a resident out there myself so I'm not going to, it's designed to 30 miles an hour standards, just like every other street in the city of Chanhassen and it's an issue with the design standards there. I understand there's higher traffic levels there. Slagle: Fair enough. Actually can I ask Matt one last question before, Jerry if you wouldn't mind. A resident mentioned that there was a location in Chanhassen that actually had posted speed limits of less than 30. Would that be correct? To your knowledge. Saam: Yes. Slagle: Okay, so it is not without precedent? Saam: No, they are, I mean they're few and far between. Slagle: I understand. Saam: There's a process, as Steve alluded to. It's set by state statute. You have to do traffic studies. Present that to MnDot. But yeah, it can be done. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Jerry. McDonald: Well I guess the only comments I have in this, I listened to some of these options. Highway 41 entrance. You know what exactly would that do? It might take some of the load off of Longacres because to go in through that way you definitely got to slow down whereas to just go in another half mile or so, you probably get into that development quicker, but that seems possible so I guess I would support something along those lines. The cul-de-sac at the north and south end. At that point you've landlocked the development. You only have one entrance in. There's safety concerns with that. I wouldn't support that but I would support the Highway 41. I think that would be viable. That may relieve some of the traffic at least on the west end. You get over to the Galpin Road problem, again I don't see a solution that the developer can work on there. That's probably a city issue and that's something that we've got to work on but removing a lot, I'd like to see what effect that has on the circle. Does that move it back so that now it doesn't protrude as far in which then again to address some of these issues on the lots up on the, 26 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 if you'll give me what the development is. Well, it would address some of those issues. It might take care of this issue on this turn. I don't know, what's the effect. If you take away a lot for the developer, is that still a viable area to develop? So I guess I'd like to see some of that. I'd like to see the 41 that they explore it because I think that may really, part of the problem. It's not going to solve everything because it doesn't take care of the stuff over on Hunter Drive. That's still the best route to get in there. I guess that's the only comments I have at this point, but I would like to see something, you know I think we're talking about taking away a lot, that might make that a little bit more easy on everybody so what's the effect of doing that. Slagle: Okay. Thank you Jerry. I'll make mine brief. I have 3 areas that I have concerns about, in no particular order. One is the park situation. I think all of you know my interest in the parks. If a park, which has been discussed, happens at the property to the east, which was referred to just briefly, that would solve a lot of this issue. The problem is we don't know that's going to happen. Secondly with the parks, I'm encouraged by the discussions between the applicant and the Longacres association with the sharing of the two parks, but again that's not a definitive. That could fall apart and then we have this development going in. And on the third point of the parks, I have to be honest. I'm disappointed in the applicant with respect to the totlot because I think the city, and maybe in hind sight would rather have not created private parks in Longacres, but we have a situation where a neighborhood's going to go in without access to their own park and they will use that. And I think that is an issue that is not fair to the land owners of the Longacres Association. If you're able to work out some type of agreement, that's a win/win but again it's not definitive. Second area is the northeast corner, which I recommended initially as looking at that because it is a difficult area to build, as maybe the area for a totlot. And I think that would solve the issues with the folks to the east, and I do think that Option C could work. At the very least I would want to see Lot 4 taken away and bring that road further to the west. And the third thing is, the traffic and again it is not the issue of the applicant to deal with traffic and Matt, you and your group I think do a wonderful job but there's probably not many situations in the city recently where we've tried to put a development in the middle of some developments, because the city has been old enough that we've sort of grown out and it's been I think more organized and so forth, but now all of a sudden we're putting developments in the middle of developments because the land is becoming available. And I would just ask again when we talk about sidewalks and so forth, if we address these ahead of time, we will I think avert some of these situations with speed and the concerns, and real concerns of the residents. So with all that said, I don't know where I stand to be honest with you. I mean I could be swayed either way. Again this is a difficult one. For those who are in attendance, I've been doing this for 5 years now and I can't think of too many that have had the difficulty that this one has, so with that said I would entertain a motion. Lillehaug: Can I make a couple more points? Slagle: Absolutely. Lillehaug: At the previous meeting I mean I personally I gave some specific direction and some specific non -direction and some of the non -direction was not looking at the connection on Highway 41. But that was based off of some facts that it was only a half mile spacing between Lake Lucy Road and Longacres Drive when in fact it's closer to a mile, % to a mile and the 27 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 comprehensive plan and typical planning strategies for the spacing of collector roads I think is anywhere between a quarter mile and % of a mile for the spacing of collector roads, and staff correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of it. So when you look at this, say the spacing between the existing roadway is % of a mile, well the standards are, the Met Council likes to see spacing of collectors every % of a mile so in actuality there could be, this could be midway on 41, there could be another collector road. And I'm going this direction because I'm very concerned about the traffic on Highover and Gunflint. Keefe: Let me interrupt you just one second. In regard to the location about half way through. mean is that where we're really dealing with the bluff or are there some possible entry points onto 41? You know kind of in that middle quarter to third mile, right in the sort of middle. I'm assuming we try to put it halfway inbetween if indeed again that's even a possibility. Saam: Yeah sure, and there's not a bluff along the whole stretch. No. I mean they show pictures of driveways and what not and it's not bluff there. Slagle: Let me clear though to the commission. While we share those questions and concerns, correct me if I'm wrong staff but it is staff's recommendation that you oppose a 41 connection. mean period. Is that correct? I don't want to put words in your mouth but. Saam: Correct. Slagle: Okay. McDonald: Can I ask a question about that because we've got two different pieces of information here. The gentleman from the homeowners association states that he makes the measurement roughly a mile. This is right about in the middle at a half a mile. hi your report what you recommend is that that should be the spacing is a half a mile between the roads. Now if what he is saying is true, that's why I would support we need to look ... his is taken in an automobile. I would not say that's the most accurate but it's got to be close. Saam: Let me try to explain that. Yes, you could install or situate a new access that would be say half a mile south of Lake Lucy but then you're closer than half a mile, you don't have the half a mile spacing to the south with Longacres Drive. And vice versa. You could space one to the north of Longacres at a half mile but then you start to get closer to Lake Lucy than a half mile because the distance between Longacres and Lake Lucy is not a mile. It's not a mile plus. It's less than a mile. The other issue, in talking with MnDot, they did say if we wanted to pursue that then they would look to close one of the existing accesses off of 41. They do not want another access off 41, so now we're talking about closing Longacres and routing the traffic that would be on Longacres possibly through this development. So we don't want to get into, that's why we're... Papke: Are all those minimum distances stipulated just for one side of the highway, because there are also accesses on the other side of the highway like Lake Minnewashta Park. Are the accesses on the west side taken into account at all or do we completely ignore those? IR 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Saam: As far as MnDot is concerned? Papke: Yes. Saam: Well in this case it's the ones on the east side. Papke: So we disregard completely the accesses on the west side and all the safety issues engendered by spacing. Saam: I guess I'm not following you. I mean if there's one on the west side, then we want it to line up or to meet the minimum spacing. Papke: Like the Lake Minnewashta entrance. Lillehaug: If I can add on that too. I mean we have a public street across there in what is it, Ches Mar. Saam: Ches Mar. Lillehaug: So there, and of all people that go this direction, I apologize Matt because I, because access control is one of the main things here. But when I go, when I look at this, there are high levels on these local streets period and truthfully, I wouldn't want that in my neighborhood. Yeah, it's planned but we really need to look at feasible alternatives because these are bumping the upper limits of traffic that are going to be on Gunflint and Highover. So we really need to look at a feasible alternative in my mind and I know personally I didn't give that direction last time but yeah, it's a bluff. There is possibly something that can tie in there, in my mind and I don't just want to shoe horn this in there and say this is it. This is how it has to be. Either there are people at MnDot that, I mean it's their policy. You know a quarter to three-quarter mile. It's not set in stone whether it's a half mile. But, so it is a possibility. I know staff doesn't want it and oppose it and I would also be in their position if I was in their shoes, but as a resident and Planning Commissioner, I don't want to see those higher levels of traffic on those streets. So what's my recommendation and where to go from here? Obviously we probably can't table this one more time unless we were to ask the applicant if he were willing to extend, is that correct? Al-Jaff: He's already extended it. It was tabled. Lillehaug: Again? And this, I mean this is extremely important, otherwise I wouldn't be going this direction, and I apologize but. Slagle: Point of clarification, if I may Sharmeen. Pull this back. What is our time line right here? Al-Jaff: March 5`s is the deadline to process this application. Papke: Through the council? 29 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting —January 18, 2005 Lillehaug: So we have to. Slagle: Here's what I'm going to suggest to my fellow commissioners. I think at this point tabling it, and I'm typically in favor of tabling when we have these issues but I think in this situation it's pretty clear to me that it's, you know we're either in support of this or we're not and we'll let the powers to be at the City Council make the final decision on this so I would personally be against tabling but I'm only 1 of 5. Keefe: Just given the amount of time available yet, if the developer's willing to consider you know re -addressing these issues and I don't know what the timeframe is to get a response back from MnDot if they were to make application. They have to do a study, correct and they have to, I mean would they even have time to pull that together? Saam: You're probably talking 4 weeks. Something like that. Keefe: Yeah, right so would it even, would we really even have enough time to address the issues? Saam: I don't think. I would recommend, as the Chairman said, either recommend denial or you're for it and move it on. Keefe: Yeah. Slagle: So with that said, I will entertain a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for planning case #04-43 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004, subject to conditions 1 through 46 and in addition I would like to add condition number 47. That the developer remove Lot 4, Block 4 to move Gunflint Trail as far west as feasible and to allocate use of that space as a totlot. Slagle: Is there a second? McDonald: I'll second that motion. Slagle: Okay. Point of clarification. Kurt, can you describe that more specifically with respect to the road? If you want. Papke: I'm not sure I can under the circumstances. Slagle: Okay. So you're proposing deletion of Lot 4. Papke: Deletion of Lot 4 and movement of the road as far west as is feasible given grading constraints to maximize the separation from that road and the development to the east and then to utilize that space as a totlot. Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Slagle: Okay. Papke: I don't know how more specific I can be without stipulating the contours. Slagle: Is there any friendly amendments? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for planning case #0443 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004, subject to conditions 1 through 46. In addition adding condition number 47. That the developer remove Lot 4, Block 4 to move Gunflint Trail as far west as feasible and to allocate use of that space as a todot. Papke and McDonald voted in favor. Slagle, Keefe and Lillehaug voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Slagle: The nays have it. It will carry on. Sharmeen, you were going to say? Al-Jaff: It will go to the City Council. Slagle: City Council. And what day will that be on? At least as planned now? Al-Jaff: February. Lillehaug: Don't we still have to have a motion that's approved? Al-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: As in a negative motion. Or not? Slagle: No. AI-Jaff: Yes you do. February4a'. le. Slagle: So February I e will be the City Council? Al-Jaff: City Council. Slagle: Okay. Point of clarification. Addressing Commissioner Lillehaug's point. By denying it, it just automatically goes to council, correct? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: But we didn't deny it. We just didn't approve that motion. Don't we need a motion to deny this applicant? 31 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Al -Jaffa I apologize. Yes you do. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Okay with that, you're correct Commissioner Lillehaug. With that motion not being passed, can I entertain another motion? Lillehaug: I make a motion to deny this applicant. Slagle: Okay. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Slagle: Any additional comments? Leave it at that? Okay. Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application for planning case #0443 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004. All voted in favor, except Papke and McDonald who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) Lillehaug: Chairman Sacchet, can we, a few of us if we want, can we give a quick summary as to our reasons why I... Sacchet: Yes. I think it would be beneficial and I'm going to not participate obviously in that discussion. If you would want to summarize for the benefit of council why you took the decision you just took for the Yoberry Farms proposal, that's what you're suggesting Steve, right? That's good suggestion. Please go ahead. Do you want to start since you made the suggestion. Lillehaug: I'll put on a few of my comments anyways. One would be, I think it is possibly feasible to connect to Trunk Highway 41 and make that connection, regardless of what I previously indicated. I do have concerns with the traffic volumes on the north and south streets from the development. The easterly cul-de-sac, there's other options there that could minimize a couple of lots. Create a totlot. I don't think it was fine tuned enough to approve and make something feasible. There's underlying issues that simply there's not an answer at this point that deal with specifically with the park issue. That needs to be handled. It's my opinion there needs to be a connection from the north to the south to the two developments. That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Any other Commissioner want to add comments for in summary for council to the previous decision? No? Alright. With that we get to the third item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.19 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD, JOHN HENRY ADDITION. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-05. 32 0 • 6L4 -q3 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction on the role and procedures for the Planning Commission meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Deb Lloyd Deborah Zorn Curt Kobilaresik Melissa Gilman PUBLIC HEARING: 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7574 Ridgeview Point 9149 Springfield Drive Chanhassen Villager Public Present: Name Address Bill Borrell Rodd Wagner Karen Weathers Tom Stokes Steve Johnston Chuck Alcon Bill Coffman Dean & Jackie Simpson Stuart Henderson Larry Lovik Rick Pinamonti Stacey Riecks Mark Brown 2300 Longacres Drive 6915 Highover Drive 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard 2200 Shadywood Road 510 1st Avenue No, Minneapolis 55403 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield, MN 600 West 78s' Street 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard 7240 Gunflint Trail 2475 Gunflint Court 2527 Longacres Drive 7256 Gunflint Trail 7210 Gunflint Trail 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Tom Kirsch 2290 Longacres Drive Scott Wosje 7125 Northwood Court Jennifer & Michael Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Rachel Wexler 7200 Madison Avenue W, Golden Valley Lisa Hokkanen 2456 Hunter Drive Kim Keyes 2448 Longacres Drive Abby DuMoulin 6966 Highover Drive Sacchet: Now before I ask staff to give their staff reports, I want to recluse myself from leading this discussion since I do have a personal interest in this development. I'm one of the immediately adjacent neighbors and so therefore I will participate as a resident from the audience side. So I will join you in the audience for this one item and then I will resume leading the meeting after that and pass leading the meeting to our Vice Chair Rich Slagle. Slagle: Alright, staff report please. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Okay, any questions for staff? Steve, you want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a couple and this would be probably more towards Sharmeen. Looking at this e-mail that was sitting in front of us here, it really just raised the pretty important question to me and that is, regarding the proposed roadway on the very east side. How it impacts the 4, 5, 6 parcels so they have a road on basically each side of them, the way this is laid out. And the way these plans were showing it, I guess I really didn't see that until reading this e-mail here. What is your thoughts and opinions on that I guess? Al -Jaffa We do have situations such as this one in the city. In this case it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Lillehaug: What exactly would meet the requirements? Al -Jaffa The fact that you have a city street with homes off of that city street. There is a separation between the street and the neighboring property. The back yards of the neighboring property. Maybe what we should point out to the uniqueness about the situation is the fact that you have an electric easement and that's really what this e-mail is focusing on. The fact that. Lillehaug: Do you have a layout that actually shows this? Shows the, I mean it's good on the rest of the layout. I mean it shows the adjacent parcels and the roadway systems, yet on the very east side, even the layout that you have on the desk there really doesn't show the adjacent road. The next one over to the east and I don't have that name off the top of my head. Slagle: Harrison Hill. Lillehaug: Harrison Hill Trail. Is there a layout there that really shows that? But then this one doesn't show the proposed roadway. Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Al-Jaff: No, well. If you look at the e-mail came from the occupant of parcel number 5. And this is where the right-of-way sits in relationship to their parcel. The house sits further back on the property or more towards the front of the property. There is definitely a separation. There is a conservation easement first and then after the conservation easement there is the electric easement. And of course no vegetation can grow within an electric easement, and I think that's the uniqueness of this situation. That's what the applicant is trying to get across. Lillehaug: Okay. What are the, what would your comments be on, you know this whole meeting the minimum or maximum standards once again in reference to, you know they're impacting a wetland exactly equal to 2,000 square feet which is the absolute minimum before they have to mitigate for wetland impacts. Also on basically laying out the lots on many of these parcels they're meeting the absolute minimum to get a house on these pads. I mean just in general what would your comment be on, I mean are they trying to fit too much into this spot? Looking at the contour and grading issues. Changing the grading drastically. AI-Jaff: Sure. Bear in mind that this application has gone through numerous revisions. We've been working with the applicant for several months and the number, the total number overall lots on the site has changed. Over the course of time. Lillehaug: Increased? Al-Jaff: Decreased. Another thing is the grading. The size of retaining walls. The number of retaining walls on this site. There has been numerous changes that have taken place before this appeared before you, and I think Matt touched upon some of these issues. He also mentioned the limitations as far as there are touch points on this site that include Gunflint Trail, we've got Highover. There are existing homes that need to have access so there are certain challenges and limitations within the site and the applicant has done their best to work within these limitations. As far as average lot size, for instance it is over 19,000 and the minimum is 15,000. Lillehaug: So it's fairly larger then. Al-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: It's not meeting the minimum like I'm alluding to. Al-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: So it's above that. One other question would be the specific question and maybe engineering can help out a little bit would be the, looking at the pads where the houses go on some of these lots, it doesn't look like there's going to be even a minimal back yard with even a manageable like a 10 percent slope. I mean on some of these pads it looks like right out the walkout it's going to be a 1 to 3 slope. Is that fair to say or am I not quite seeing it on some of these pads? • Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Saam: Yeah, the hand full of pads that I mentioned, there may need to be some smaller type retaining walls shown in order to accomplish the quote useable, or the 10 percent gentler slope area. And that's what I was getting at. That I'll have to take a look at that indeed if retaining walls are needed, those should be shown on here so we know about them. Lillehaug: So we need, they need to revise these with retaining walls even to get a manageable or a legitimate back yard. Saam: Well, that's one option. You know the other one would be to lower, if it's possible, lower the street. And by that you'd lower the whole house pad so you wouldn't need then a retaining wall. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Slagle: Dan, you go next. Keefe: Can you speak to the, one of the questions that we had which I didn't hear any resolution to is the radius of the northeast cul-de-sac and whether that required a variance or not and kind of, apparently it doesn't or does or? Saam: I guess technically we could say yeah, it would require a variance. I know, no? It doesn't? Al -Jaffa No. Saam: Okay. Keefe: So it's not less than. Al -Jaffa No, because it's not an ordinance that requires that, and I did go through the ordinance and checked because that was an issue that was raised by actually Commissioner Sacchet. Do they requires a variance or not and I went through the ordinance again. Their requirement, the radius is not spelled out so it's more of a policy. Keefe: Alright. Can you speak to the removal of trees. You know there's a grading, you know there's a lot of grading which is done on this site. Some of them are custom graded lots which I'm assuming they'll be able to save some of the trees but I think the canopy is down to what, 11 percent or something like that. I think final analysis is in, and we're proposing that they would come in and plant more but there's still a lot of trees to be removed. Can you just speak to kind of how they balance the grading with the. Al-Jaff: Sure. We worked very hard with the applicant. There were some significant trees that both the applicant as well as staff wanted to see saved. Some of the trees that were questionable, whether they would be removed or not, they chose to show them as removed. The majority of the trees that the applicant had chosen to save are significant trees. There are some trees that again that are significant but stand no chance of remaining even with retaining walls. One of 4 Planning Commission Meeting —January 4, 2005 0 them is a substantially large oak on the site, and we looked at every possible solution. And we didn't see any that would allow it to stay. Keefe: Is it your opinion that they've done a pretty good job in trying to save the ones that they can given the limitations of the site? Al -Jaffa Yes. We believe they have done a very good job. Keefe: Okay. One last question in regards to, in regards to gaining access off of 41. In terms of just construction traffic. One of the questions that came up previously that I saw was you know construction traffic either coming up Gunflint Trail or down from Highover. I mean is there a way to route construction traffic off 41 for this project or not? Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. The applicant is proposing, it's shown on the grading plan a rock entrance off of 41. They're going to utilize one of the existing driveways to one of the homes that I believe is being demolished. As the construction access point for the site grading, utilities, that sort of thing. Until the streets are in and paved. Keefe: And then at that point to build the homes they might use interior roads from Gunflint Trail? Saam: Yes. Yep, to build the homes I would foresee them using the existing roads. One of the MnDot requirements is to, actually city requirement also before we finalize the project, these existing driveways off of 41 have to be closed off, except for the houses that are outside of this plat but. Keefe: Okay. Slagle: Kurt. Papke. Did any of the existing or previous permutations or plans for this examine the possibility of eliminating the 3 existing homes that are on the site? You mentioned that we have a couple touch points here. One of them are the two existing roads coming down from Highover and then up from Longacres. Those are there. That's incontrovertible. But is there any possibility that we could minimize or decrease the impact here if those 3 homes were scrubbed out of the plan? Saam: Well I think your first question was whether the previous plans showed them being gone? No. They've always been proposed to remain. Papke: So that was never considered? Saam: Well that's a question for the developer I think, but to answer your second question, if they weren't touch down points, yeah I think it could help him. You know it's a restriction basically having those lots there. They have to match into those grades. But that doesn't take, I mean saying that if those houses were gone it might limit the amount of grading, or change the M i • Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 amount of grading doesn't take into account that there's people living there that wish to remain there and want to keep their houses so. Papke: Okay. Second question. My second and third questions both relate to the large hill in the center of Block 1 there that's going to be shaved down. Do we know how close this comes to a bluff? I mean I went out and climbed the hill yesterday and I was out of breath by the time I got to the top. We're saving a couple bluffs there. Do we know how close that hill is to the definition of a bluff? Al -Jaffa We know it doesn't meet the definition of a bluff. Papke: But we don't know. Al -Jaffa But I don't know how close, no. I haven't run those calculations. Papke: Okay. Is there anything in the city code, the comprehensive plan or any other guidance that the Planning Commission should be looking at that would give us any indication about the extent of the grading here? We're eliminating about 44 feet, if my memory serves me correctly off the top of that hill. Is there anything that would give us any indication that this is outside of what the city desires to do, either in letter or in spirit. Aanenson: Maybe I'll just address that. We have had similar circumstances where we've had extensive amount of grading. Again we've indicated we're trying to match a couple of points, for one. And actually as the city has done more development we've evolved and been stricter on grading. For example in Longacres, and the Woods and the Meadows, there wasn't a grading ordinance. There were substantial cuts that probably wouldn't have been made if, you know we changed our bluff regulations to date. But we have done significant, for example Ashling Meadows. Significant amount of grading. Again when you're trying to blend some topography with certain touch down points, you get grades to meet collector roads. That's what drive some of those. There's certain parameters that drive the design so I think in this circumstance we've worked our best to try to blend those. And the high point that we went around actually makes an interesting project because instead of going through the middle of the road to connect, it actually takes a bend in the road which reduces some of the speed and coming down the hill which makes it a more interesting project in our mind. Papke: That's all. Slagle: I've got a couple. Let me go back to the point that was mentioned Sharmeen earlier that the number of homes have decreased as this has gone on. What have they decreased from, just curious. Al -Jaffa I believe they've reduced the number by 3 or 4 homes. Slagle: 3 or 4. Okay. A Matt question. I'm assuming Matt condition 21 is the one you're referring to about lowering the street. I think on page 17. 0 Planning Commission Met — January 4, 2005 • Saam: Yes, that's correct. Slagle: How much are you thinking? You would be happy with. Saam: I'd like to get rid of that wall along the east side so that would be about 3 to 5 feet. Slagle: Okay. And if I can ask, was there a response from the applicant on that discussion? Saam: Not since this report's gone out but as I alluded to earlier, in the previous permutations of the plan, I mentioned that and they have reduced that wall significantly. Before it was in the 11 foot range. Now they have it down to 4. I'm just asking them to go a little more. Slagle: Okay. With respect to traffic, I know this is three stages. Will both the north and the south connecting roads open up at the same time? Basically. Saam: I think the developer can add something but it's my understanding, while it is three additions... Slagle: Okay. I don't know who this is for but I noticed on condition 44. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. Can you tell me a little bit about that. Saam: It's been done. I believe, Sharmeen. It's on the east side now. Al -Jaffa Correct. If you look at, Nann can you zoom in please? The sidewalk is shown on both sides of the street and staff is recommending that the extension takes place on one side only rather than both sides. Slagle: Okay. Al -Jaffa So it's just this portion right here that is a piece of Lot 3. Slagle: Gotch ya. And so we will continue down Gunflint on the east side of Gunflint only affecting 2 lots versus 3 or 4 which would be on the west side. A] -Jaffa That's correct. Aanenson: There is no sidewalk there currently. Slagle: Correct, I understand. But there will be. Aanenson: Someone will have to pursue that, correct. Slagle: Okay. Well I'm only thinking though that in the last discussions from, I thought I saw it in writing from the Park and Rec Director that it would continue on the west side. Aanenson: That would be his desire to pursue that, correct. 7 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Slagle: Okay. Alright. And then one last question. Sharmeen, not to put you on the spot but the calculations of the bluff or not a bluff, getting back to Kurt's question of the hill in the center. We know it's not a bluff but we don't know the, I mean how close is it? And maybe that's a Matt question. Saam: Yeah, I'm just looking at quick, if I can add something. The bluff requires a 3 to 1, I think 30 percent. I just threw my scale on here. Many of the contours are in the 5 to 1 or greater range so that shoots it right there. Slagle: Okay. Alright, anything else for staff folks? Okay, I'm going to ask the applicant to come up. State your name and address and we'd love to hear what you have. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 7e Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. With me this evening, I'd like to introduce Bill Coffman and Tom Stokes, also of the development team and from Landform who's doing the surveying and engineering, the President Steve Johnston and his assistant Jesse Larson. Also in attendance this evening are Dean and Jackie Simpson, property owners and Karen Weathers, property owner involved in the plat. Slagle: Welcome. Chuck Alcon: I think what we'd like to do first is respond to a couple of the comments, if you'd allow us, and then we'll stand by for questions. Just a clarification of the staff report. Item 22 which deals with lift station 27. In talking with staff beforehand we believe the intent of that comment is to pro -rate that upgrade for the 11 lots that are being added, and I just want to make sure we understood that as clarification. I'm going to ask Steve Johnston to address 3 items under item 11(b), (c) and (h) but prior to that, there's a comment made on the back yards. As was mentioned, this is as difficult site and there will be some custom homes for these lots. A couple things that can be done and will be done in order to make these back yards usable, we took a couple of shots over at Ashling Meadows, if I can just put these up here. Not quite as difficult as our site but clearly in order to have a useable back yard, the use of boulder walls less than 4 feet high can be extensively employed and that can help that problem out. And we intend to do that. We talked about the pre-existing homes. The homeowners do plan to stay and the touch down points we touched on also. I want to ask Steve to, as I said, comment on items 11(b), (c) and (h) and also on item 21. Steve will have the technical details but I should point out that in that area our sewer is already 30 feet deep so the more that we lower the road to get rid of the retaining walls, the deeper the sewer goes and Steve will have some specifics on that. So with that I'd like to ask Steve Johnston to step forward. Steve Johnston: I'll just put that up there for reference as well. Good evening. My name is Steve Johnston, Landform Engineering Company in Minneapolis. First of all to address the issue of the street grades in this general area. What's driving that is our sanitary sewer connects at this location. We brought back the sanitary sewer at basically minimum grade up into this point. We lowered the street down until we were about 9 feet deep at this location. We can go another foot and a half or so and still have cover on that sanitary sewer, but beyond that it's going to be very Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 0 difficult to lower it. Be happy to look at it again when we get into final design and look at the street grades and try to minimize it as much as possible in here, but I really am being pushed by that sewer depth issue. What Chuck was mentioning, the sewer as it comes through, this comes up in a hill in this area. The sewer at this point is 30 feet deep, so we're that much higher here than here, and to get, keep, maintain the cover on the pipe is the main driving fact and not pushing that road down, but I'd be happy to try to minimize that as much as we can and work with your staff to do that. The items in the staff report that I just wanted to clarify from our standpoint. This is items I I(b) talks about maintaining 10 foot horizontal separation between all sanitary, water and storm sewer mains. We have one location on the project and that is on the Weathers property in this location. Where the sanitary sewer and water will come down this lot line through these back yards and through an easement that's in this location to connect into the existing system. It was too, much, much too deep to try to run the sewer around it, the street. As we're coming down these lot lines we're proposing to keep those two mains 5 feet apart as opposed to 10 feet apart to minimize the easement area in there. We're also proposing then to use watermain quality pipe for the sanitary sewer which ten state standards allows us then to move those closer than 10 feet so hopefully the city can accept that. That condition. If they will, we'd be happy to work with them on it. Item (c), revise the storm sewer pipe size to maintain a minimum 15 inch. We have a storm sewer that's stubbed into our site at this location. It's only a 12 inch pipe. I can't connect a 15 into a 12 inch pipe without having potential problems so I should, anything that goes upstream of that should be the 12 inch pipe and not a 15 inch pipe. But again I'd look to your city engineer to help make that decision. And finally, item (h). Re- route the proposed watermain in the southwest corner of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30 foot utility easement. I already talked about that. We did relocate it as requested but we're requesting to keep those pipes 5 feet apart and use watermain quality on the sanitary sewer. Other than that we did not have any issues with what was being requested in the staff report. Slagle: Okay. Chuck Alcon: That would complete our comments. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Slagle: Okay. Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, can you talk about your landscaping. I mean since you're doing, you know this is kind of an infill location with a lot of lots adjacent to these properties. You know, if I lived in one of the homes on, adjoining this, I'd be interested in having as much buffering as I possibly could. Can you just speak to how you went about your landscaping plan? Chuck Alcon: Well we have a landscaping plan and that was done by Steve's group and the developer will be responsible for that landscaping plan throughout the development and it was intended to match existing neighborhoods around it, exempt those areas as mentioned where the utility easements are in place. So that was the fundamentals behind it. Slagle: Steve. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Lillehaug: Yeah, I have a few questions and it'd be on some of the comments here. You're indicating that the sanitary is one of the driving forces of the grading, which is legitimate. Could you tell me, what is the depth of the sanitary sewer where you're proposing to tie into on Gunflint? I mean I want to understand, since it's a driving force, I really want to understand how and why it's a driving force. Steve Johnston: Okay, the depth of the sewer where we're connecting to at this location is of an adequate depth to serve the property. The issue is keeping enough coverage over the pipe. When we first came in with the plan prior to the December meeting, we had immediately came out of that main and came up about 5 or 6 feet. Because it was deeper actually than what we needed. We received the staff comments then that they wanted us to try to lower the grade on this end of the project and as we did that, in the last month, we tried to respond to all the staff comments, we lowered that to the point where the sanitary sewer now on Gunflint Trail is at minimum grade to the low point in the road which is here adjacent to the wetland. That is essentially all the further we can push that point down and maintain adequate coverage in this location. By pushing that down though we ended up with a grade in this location. The street grade in this location stayed the same and then now that's gone from 24 feet of coverage to about 30 feet of cover on that sanitary sewer line. And that was all done in an attempt to minimize the height of this wall which we have done. Originally that wall was about 8 to 10 feet tall and now it's in the area generally of 4 feet tall. There's one spot that's 6 feet tall. Lillehaug: I guess I'm not seeing the whole picture but you're saying where you tie into Gunflint Trail, you're stepping up 5 feet. A 5 foot drop and then. Chuck Alcon: Originally we were. Lillehaug: Originally. Chuck Alcon: But now we're keeping the sewer as deep as we possibly can to have the minimum impact in this general location. Lillehaug: Okay, so from where you're tying in back to that other, back to the cul-de-sac, you're at a minimum grade the entire length. Chuck Alcon: Correct. Lillehaug: And does staff concur with that then? Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Another question would be, storm sewer. You're indicating you're not, you point out one of the conditions where the city would like to maintain a minimum of 15 inch diameter storm sewer. Is that, are you talking just for that one small segment where you're tying in or are you alluding further upstream. 10 Planning Commission Meet — January 4, 2005 • Steve Johnston: We have no problem with the rest of the project being all 15 inch pipe, if that's your preference. My point only is that right now we're showing, we're showing this intersection draining into an existing pipe that was stubbed at this part of the project. That stub is only a 12 inch pipe. So if you connect a 15 inch into a 12 inch, it isn't a very good condition. Ullehaug: Okay. And then the 10 foot grade separation that you indicated down on Street B. Is there, what are the grade differences between, is it the watermain and sanitary? Steve Johnston: They're both within a foot or two of the same elevation. The desire there was just not spreading them out. 10 feet apart. Trying to keep them at 5 was only to keep the buildable width of those lots intact. If we were to add, separate the pipe, we need more easement. That reduces the size of those lots. The effective size of those lots. Ullehaug: Does staff, is there another option that you were looking at that they could easily get 10 foot separation to work? Or is that a condition that I guess that we would, that you would like to maintain there? Saam: When we had previously talked with the applicant, we were under the assumption that the pipes would stay at 10 feet and then their concern was the amount of easement area. We told them we wanted a 30 foot, basically 10 feet between all the pipes. Their concern was how that would restrict the house pad size, as I understand it. So we said we could go down to a 25 foot easement. But still keeping the 10 foot separation in the pipes, so at this point that's something we'd still like to do. I think we can work with them on that but, yeah. Steve Johnston: I think we're getting real technical here and we can work this out Lillehaug: So let's not get technical and let's go the other direction. Your cul-de-sac and road that goes up to Outlot D, what have you done for the residents to the east of your development to help this development work in with their development and make this you know more, really fit in with their back yards rather than putting a road right up against their lot line? Steve Johnston: With the, and I think Chuck mentioned this as well. We, our original landscape plan showed re -vegetating this area that you can see where there are no trees planted now, and then we became aware of that Xcel was not going to let us do any of those plantings underneath the power line. So those have now been pulled out of there. It's very limited as far as what we can do. We can't have anything that's going to grow up and interfere with those lines. Lillehaug: As far as possibly pulling that road away and losing a lot or two, is that an option? And creating a bigger buffer between their back lot line and the actual right-of-way for the roadway. I mean I can, I'm sure you understand my concerns here. You're living there. Can you anticipate a roadway being on your back property line? I certainly would not anticipate that. Steve Johnston: There basically is enough room to put lots on one side of that street. We put the road, we kept it 10 feet off the property line with the right-of-way so the road itself was going to be about 25 feet off the property line. To put the road on the other side, on the west side of those lots would mean that all of those lots were above the, above the street. Instead of walking out 11 Planning Commission Meeting —January 4, 2005 they would become tuckunders which is not a very desirable house type. When we first came in we looked at that area with a private drive and for a lot size we were directed by staff that this was a preferable option to placing a cul-de-sac in this location and doing this with a private drive, so we have looked at other alternatives and this one was the best alternative to gain access to that part of the property owner/developer's property. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have for now. Slagle: Kurt. Papke: I'd like to get to resident questions as quickly as possible so I'll limit my questions at this time. Slagle: We might call you back if you wouldn't mind. Steve Johnston: Thank you. Slagle: I am going to open it up now to the public and what I would ask is that you limit your questions and discussion to let's say 5 minutes or less. Obviously some will carry over if they need to. If some of you are from a neighborhood where there's many folks, all we would ask as courtesy is not to repeat the same comments or concerns. We'll certainly get the feel for that as we go forward so what I'd like to do is just invite you up one at a time. State your name, your address and we'd love to hear from you. So whoever wants to go first, you're welcome. Tom Hirsch: Hi. My name's Tom Hirsch. I live at 2290 Longacres Drive in the Longacres subdivision. I was recently elected President of the Board of the Longacres Homeowners Associations and I represent the 222 lots and homes that make up the Longacres subdivision. If we could scan on a picture of the Longacres, I'd like to give just a brief overview of our subdivision. The connection into the proposed property is here on the picture. The road that connects across from here is Longacres Drive. We have monuments and landscaping on a cul- de-sac type arrangement or a center median arrangement that already comes off of Highway 41. And off of Galpin, and we have a connector down through our subdivision that also has a monument and landscaped entrance into our subdivision off of Galpin Road to the south. We maintain two parks, both of which are on the north side of Longacres Drive. Here on the picture and here on the picture. Both of these parks have kiddie playgrounds. A tennis court is in the west one that's adjacent to the proposed development. We spend approximately $71,000 a year maintaining our entrances and our parks for the 222 lots that are contained within our subdivision. 76 percent of our residents must cross Longacres Drive to gain access to these parks. The new subdivision is in the Chaska School District, as I understand. Chaska School District to get to the middle schools and the high school is a straight shot down Highway 41 and Bluff Creek Elementary would be at the comer of Galpin and Highway 5. I would estimate approximately 90 percent of the traffic coming out of this proposed subdivision would be cutting through the Longacres subdivision to gain access to the schools, Highway 41. To go south, or across to Galpin to get to the middle school for school activities. And it's a retail corridor as you're well aware throughout Highway 5. That's the main growth area of retail in your master Plan. I have two issues I'd like to bring to the table. Number one is, I didn't see in the staff 12 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 0 report any traffic studies, environmental impact studies or any application or a rule as to the feasibility from the State on access into Highway 41 that could potentially disperse traffic out away from Longacres to provide that access to go southbound to the middle schools and the high schools. And into Chaska. I think we must conduct due diligence of assessing the risk to our children associated with the increased traffic into our neighborhood. We owe it to the children to conduct these studies and implement any mitigations to this risk. A couple traffic solutions that came to my mind again would be open, direct access to Highway 41 to disperse some of that traffic for the southbound traffic to the middle schools and the high schools. There's, I don't think the State is going to say absolutely no. We are shutting down with this development some of the access that's currently coming off of Highway 41, and there are other accesses that have been granted with the proper left turns and the right turns coming in and out of that access. It would provide a safe access in and out of these 57 lots. A couple other ideas that I had that would, that might come up through an assessment and mitigation techniques would be installing stop signs on Longacres Drive. There are no stop signs on Longacres Drive currently. And perhaps reduce speed on Longacres Drive. My second issue I'll move to now is, I'll reference page 9 in the staff report. In there it's documented that there are no parks planned in the development. There are no trails in the development and the only nearest public park is Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and it's recommended by staff that the neighborhood not gain access to that by walking to it. Therefore the nearest park is our kiddie park, which is right down their street. Park access, it's a private park. We, as I stated earlier, maintain it. It's a beautiful park and has very expensive equipment in it. We do have capital reserve studies that we've done and we maintain a capital reserve to provide maintenance to that equipment based upon it's useful life. I estimate, our first point is park access is easy and direct for these new residents and it's really an unenforceable thing for us to enforce no trespassing into our park. These residents have nowhere to walk to take their children to play. They will come to our's. It creates a maintenance and a cost and a risk and a liability risk to all of the homeowners of Longacres. I estimate about 22, 26 percent increase usage based upon the 57 lots and some calculations of average children per household that would reduce the useful life of our equipment by 26 percent, which would cause us to increase our reserves to maintain that. This really is not an expense or a liability that I think we should be expected to absorb. Possibly mitigations would be to require a kiddie park in the new subdivision. Provide Longacres homeowners with a barrier fence and no trespassing signs to limit our liability and reimburse us for our increased insurance rates. Or possibly join the Longacres Homeowners Association. In conclusion, as a board member I'm obligated to bring these risks to the table. I request your time, cooperation, assistance and guidance to resolve them. If we ever are asked at any point in the future whether we did due diligence on this traffic due to some sort of accident and have we implemented mitigations, I think we all must be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that we did. The safety of our children is the highest priority. Development's a great addition to our city. I'm happy to see this type of development showing in this rural area. We must be responsible, prudent in our decisions and to protect the safety of our children. I thank you for your time and your consideration. Slagle: You're welcome. Any questions? Of this gentleman. Okay, thank you. 13 r 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Papke: I have a quick one. Have there been any conversations with the developer about having this development join your homeowners association? That sounds to me like a very proactive, positive way of going after this problem. Tom Hirsch: I have gotten engaged in this process rather late. I saw the sign that went up on December 22°d at the stub within our neighborhood. I do not live within 500 feet of the neighborhood so I was, I live up Longacres towards the Galpin side and did not see any activity going on so we had about 2 weeks. There were some phone calls made today with my management company and the developer and we've started those conversations. Slagle: Thank you. I want to ask a question of staff if I may. How do we address, and I know you're not the park director Kate or Sharmeen but how do we address this, what I think is a pretty common question and I think a sensible one that here you're putting 57 homes into an area that really there are no parks, at least that we're aware of. Are there others that you're aware that are potentially planned? Aanenson: Well this isn't the first situation where this has occurred. We recently had the same issue come up on Settlers. Settlers West where you had a long cul-de-sac adjacent to an existing subdivision that had a swimming pool and a totlot and there was the same concern of the new people are going to feel like they can come over and use it. We have the same situation on Lake Lucy Ridge adjacent to Ashling Meadows, which also has a private. You know, I guess from our perspective is, if it's tots more than likely they're going to be with parents so it's an education issue of where you can and can't go. If it's children are within that, going to that. Slagle: Let me ask it a different way. I'll use the two examples you brought up. Settlers Ridge, we got the applicant to create their own totlot inside the development, if we're talking about Pemtom. Aanenson: No, they just put a trail to connect back and forth. Slagle: But the last I remember is they were going to add their own totlot on the west side. Aanenson: Their own totlot? Okay. Slagle: So they created their own and as far as the one off Ashling Meadows, if I'm not mistaken, if you go up Lake Lucy a quarter of a mile you're at Pheasant Hill Park. And all I'm trying to say is, is I look where this is geographically situated and unless there's plans to go up the trail, or the power line and connect to potentially the Jerome Carlson land, if there's a park planned for that, I could see that. But if something didn't happen there and it really is Minnewashta or nothing. Aanenson: Right, or walking towards the junior. Slagle: Or going to Longacres. Aanenson: Or to the junior high to the north. 14 Planning Commission Meetting — January 4, 2005 0 Slagle: To the junior high to the north. Aanenson: Up to West. Slagle: That's a pretty far walk though. And I'm not trying to put you in a difficult spot but I'm just trying to say these are fair questions. Aanenson: Well first of all the Park Commission went one, you cannot do an extraction to say you have to put in a private park. You can't ask for that. That's something that this development chose not to do as a part of... That would be an independent decision. The Park Commission looks and makes a decision whether or not they want to take an extraction or take park and trail fees, and they chose to do the park and trail fees. Slagle: And what is that because on page 9 it says the City is not seeking parkland dedication as a condition of this platting. Paying of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. Typically we see what they're going to pay. Aanenson: The City Council at it's last meeting in December just increased those rates based on cost of living so I'm sorry, I don't have those in front of me but they will be. Slagle: Fully. Aanenson: Yep, in force, yes. Slagle: Okay. It's a touch one. Aanenson: It's their decision, right so. Canwe usurp that? Um. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Lillehaug: Rich, can I ask a question before we leave the traffic here since questions were raised. Slagle: Sure. Lillehaug: Gunflint Trail stub, I mean tome it looks like there was a proposed road. I meanit looks like it was going to continue on, as well as coming out of Highover. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: How did Longacres, going through that process and Highover plan review process, how did they anticipate, I mean did city staff and those developments anticipate connecting into this property to serve that? Aanenson: Yes. 15 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Saam: Yeah, I'll take that. Both of the development contracts for both Longacres, I'm not sure which addition it was and then Highover. I researched them both. They both have conditions where it said that the street, these streets will be extended in the future so it was all laid out. It's always been planned. Lillehaug: Thanks. Aanenson: And actually let me just add to that. When Longacres came in, there was a request from the developer at that time to actually narrow the road because that was always shown as a minor collector which typically you make a little bit wider. At that time the developer wanted a request so it had a more neighborhood appearance so actually the city gave relief to that to actually kind of narrow that cross section as opposed to a typical cross section for a minor collector. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Whoever's next. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. I took the liberty of superimposing two documents from the city. This from the back of the pink copy showing these, I believe it's just grade in on the inside front cover of the report that you have. And then I took a copy of the development plan and reduced it down. My concern is primarily around traffic, particularly the number of homes that are being picked up by Highover Drive specifically. As was referenced earlier, there are various levels of road. Arterial, collector, and local but I think as a practical matter sometimes there are short cuts and maybe something that's kind of between a collector and a local road and my concern, a number of my neighbors concern is that Highover Drive in this delineation, based on it's relative straightness compared to the other roads and it's length will be picking up a tremendous amount of traffic in a neighborhood that now, you know 7 years in has an awful lot of kids on it where we already see quite high speeds. We've had to call the sheriff a couple times to bring the sign up there to show people their speeds and try to get them to slow down. And I don't see provision in here for slowing down the traffic or quite frankly just the pure traffic counts. I don't know which way the traffic would split. How much of it would go south, how much of it would go north but I suspect we might have as much as 37 additional homes that might be served by Mghover Drive as they go north to get onto Lake Lucy and to get onto Highway 41 and go from there. While there was a sign, has been a sign as long as I've lived there. I've lived there 6 years or so, that said the road would go through, I think it was a reasonable assumption by the residents that it would either be a cul-de-sac. That there would be access to 41 or if it did go through that we'd be picking up a smaller number of homes consistent with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood like Longacres is, has a homeowners association. We pay dues to the homeowners association to maintain the properties and the common areas and I do have the same concern as my distant neighbor from Longacres that this development will be taking advantage of the fact that they have people both on the north and the south that are paying dues into a neighborhood association to maintain those properties and this is a property that's kind of jumping in, taking advantage of, or enjoying the benefit if you will of those properties north and south and the way they're maintained without being a party to either one of those homeowner associations. My overall impression is that this plan tries to squeeze too much 1V 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 into too small of a space. The applicant himself said this is a difficult site. I think it's a difficult site only if you try to put too much in too small of a space. That creates a difficulty. If you spread it out, put fewer home sites in it, make accommodations either for cul-de-sacs that come into each other or access to 41 or somehow limit the number of homes, then it doesn't have the difficulty. Nature imposes the difficulty. Maybe they're just trying to put too much into one place. And as may be evidenced by the concern that was mentioned earlier about these homes to the east where you do have a road running right up against someone's back yard, it doesn't affect me but I feel for the people that are in that situation. I think that covers my concerns. Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Your homeowner's association dues, do you know what that goes toward in the Highover neighborhood? Rodd Wagner: Sure. It goes for insurance on the common properties. It goes for maintaining the mailboxes. The mailboxes all have a consistent look to them. That kind of, there's a rock wall I believe, I'm not exactly sure what the situation is there. I believe the city technically owns it but we have to maintain the liability insurance there. There's some pools and things, you know standing water and such that we have to take care of. Keefe: Okay. And then you guys don't have a totlot? Rodd Wagner: No, we don't have any kind of common properties or things like that but that's not to say we wouldn't like to build some at some point and this could have an adverse affect on something like that. But my main concern is just the traffic. I don't think Longacres was ever, I think this creates a situation where the road is taking on traffic that it wasn't anticipated to do so when it was designated a local road. That it's becoming too close to a collector and there's going to be people learn short cuts and they'll be going through to move from one collector to another. From Lake Lucy to get to Longacres, or excuse me. Yeah, Longacres to Lake Lucy and I don't think that was ever anticipated. Certainly wasn't by the residents in that neighborhood. I appreciate your time. Slagle: Thank you. Larry Lovik: Good evening. My name's Larry Lovik and I live at 2475 Gunflint Court. It'd be this right here. Slagle: Can we do that again Nann? Zoom up just a. Okay. Lary Lovik: This corner lot. Slagle: You have the fence behind your house. Larry Lovik: Yes. And the two big dogs. I wanted to raise three points if I may. Elaborate really on two, so I'll try not to repeat what's been stated before. But Matt, the engineer spoke earlier about the three types of roads and the two we're concerned with would be I believe the feeder and then local roads. As you see the map here, there's a problem with the way Longacres was originally built. It trends northerly as it heads east. And see where I live and for any 17 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 individuals coming out of the new development, if they need to go to 5 to head east for any direction, 494, what have you, they'll come down past my house but they'll end up coming across the Hunter, and Hunter is a local road. It's a very, very narrow, windy road and our association already has many complaints about traffic going too fast. Too much traffic. There's often times parked cars with kids playing in the road there. I would anticipate that if you look at the total map here that all these homes, including possibly homes from here would travel south and end up going through Hunter to get on Galpin to hit 5. If you look at the map the connection of Longacres to Galpin is so far away it's not even on the map. Now some of the problems with the connection to 41, in discussing this with the staff and engineers is there's a bluff on the west side along 41. And I guess my comments about the bluff is, does the origin of the bluff come into play when you're trying to protect the bluff. If you look at how 41 was cut in, that was it seems to me the creation of the bluff in the first place, and if you walk along 41 there, you'll see where there's already a cut in for a bike trail. It was just never developed so it became overgrown with trees and things. Along the westerly side of the development there's three spots, and correct me if I'm wrong, that are not designated as a bluff. Two of them are the already existing driveways that I think should be explored to expand access into the development. The third one is the dead center middle. Other recent driveways along 41 would include the Wooddale Church which is about half a mile to the south. It seems to me they cut through a very similar looking area as what we'd be requesting occur here. Similar situation where I believe it was a driveway that was expanded to become a regular street, West 78`h. If that's not feasible then I'd strongly urge the council to find ways of lowering the density, installing stop signs, possibly even at my corner and especially along Longacres and Hunter. Two other points. The park. I think that's very important. If you look at the map again, this is the park here. It actually is adjoining to the development. So it's a very hard case to make that we are not going to allow a resident who's back yards back up to a park, not to use the park. If it was just a few incidental extra kids playing in the park I don't think our association members would have too much of a problem if the rest of the association had their, or the rest of the development had their park to go to too. And finally I noticed in the recommendations about street cleaning. Street cleaning daily as needed. I'd like to suggest that you drop the as needed and just include it as street cleaning daily. If that's not dropped, who gets to decide what as needed means? I'm sure that the existing owners would probably have a little bit different opinion about as needed as a developer. And that concludes my remarks. Any questions? Slagle: Thank you very much. Stuart Henderson: I don't have a map. I feel bad. So maybe I'll just use one of these. Stuart Henderson. I live at 7240 Gunflint Trail. I back up on what I now know is a bluff. I live right out here, which actually raised another question because I had, I do have a question at some point on what happens with the whole bluff thing. Slagle: Show me where you live again sir? Stuart Henderson: Here. Yeah, similarly I saw the sign, I've been there 3 years. Sign at the end of the road. Figured it was going to extend at some point. I don't have a problem with development, etc. My issues do so I'm not going to beat on a, other than a couple different points. Whether it's the traffic. I figure if something went in it would probably hook to 41. I IE Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 also didn't necessarily figure we'd be talking you know 57 homes. I don't know about collectors and things of that nature. All I, I just drive and I can tell you that I go down Hunter, which is like this wide. If anyone doesn't park in their driveway, you can't get by. It's only 2 cars wide. No sidewalks, etc. So I'd say perhaps well, and by the way, thanks Matt. Spent some time on the phone with me today. It may have been when the thing's designed that people said oh yeah, this is going to be the road. We always anticipated it. But of course there was no one living there when it was designed. On either end so it's fairly easy to design something when nobody's there. I was a little surprised to hear in terms of the hook-up at 41, that no one has asked. That I guess I thought that maybe it's been checked and you can't so I would suggest that that's a good way to route traffic, maybe somebody should ask. Last thing is on that one little corner, in that circle you see there, there's like 20 kids. With the exception of mine, all under 12 which is good because they're babysitting material for my kids but, and I think there's been a couple more born recently. Yeah okay, 22. So it is, you know it may well have changed in character from what the engineers envisioned when designing this in terms of the whole traffic flow so I'm quite concerned about the traffic piece and appreciate whatever you can do to address it. Slagle: Thank you very much. Dr. Jennifer Rysso: Thank you first for your time and attention in this matter. My name is Dr. Jennifer Rysso. I am a full time internal medicine physician at Park Nicollet Clinic. I live at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail in Longacres which has been talked a lot about tonight. Which is at the bend of this road. This property right adjacent where everybody is saying they are sorry if they were me. That's me. I am also the mother of a 4 year old and an 8 year old daughter and I'm going to talk to you as a mother actually. I enjoy neighbors to the north and south of me also adjacent to the proposed development with children numbering 13 on that side alone, including those of ages less than a year to 9 years of age. My concerns regarding the current plan are multiple. The first and foremost involves safety. I lived in South Minneapolis prior to building in Longacres in Chanhassen. My property bordered an alley way along the back of my house. A very common feature of homes in South Minneapolis but not in Chanhassen. One of my neighbors watched as her young son was hit by a car coming down that alley way. I used to sit at the edge of the alley way while my children were younger, while they were playing in the back yard to keep them safe so they didn't go into that alley way. I moved to Chanhassen in part to allow my children and vision of being allowed to play freely outside without being monitored continuously by a fearful parent waiting for the next flying car to come down the alley way or around the curve. I built on our property understanding up front that a development would follow to border our back yard. My husband and I understood that ultimately another back yard would join our back yard and we were quite content with that thought with a sense of community and neighbors in mind. With the current plan in front of you I am being robbed of my vision. I am not alone. My neighbors had the same vision and built in Longacres for the same reason. The current plan involves a street that provides access to driveways of approximately 5 homes. That street directly borders my back yard and in essence becomes my new alley way. Not only is it an alley way, but it is a street that can be accessed by young children by jumping off a retaining wall an act the children in my neighborhood do over and over every single day I'm watching them play in my back yard. This cannot be prevented, believe me as parents we have tried. The higher the wall along the street, the more challenging it is for the children to jump from. This street makes a curve that appears to be blind to those that might be standing on a wall 19 • t► Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 waiting to jump. I don't see the children seeing the car or the driver seeing the children in this current plan. I see the danger of children jumping and stumbling in front of a moving car and then being hit, perhaps mortally to be too much of a risk. Fences and trees, which of course in this area won't be allowed with the electric easement anyway, will not prevent the challenge of the jump but will make it all the more challenging. The only answer in my view to the safety is that the road not be there. If the current plan is developed it will place the safety of the 15 children on the west side of Harrison Hill Trail and the safety of the 23 children on the east side of Harrison Hill Trail who tend to focus most of their play on our side because there's really not a lot of back yards on their side, will put them at risk. 38 children. That doesn't include the unborn children due in a few months on our road, or the friends and relatives of the children on the street. We are a young community. That number of children is only going to get larger. I am not a builder, nor can I claim to be experienced in looking at plans. However it does appear that this street that will access 5 houses at most, will compromise the safety of over 38 children and drivers using the road. Perhaps one could re-route the road to the west side of the house adjacent to the wetlands which I've heard developers talk about. If not, perhaps the road shouldn't exist and perhaps as mentioned several times tonight a proper use for that area would be a park for the people in that area. Understandably the goal of the developers was to allow these new properties to have their back yards against the wetlands. Perhaps even the property will be able to be sold for more if they are marketed as back yards adjacent to wetland, but at what cost to the community. Compromising the safety of every house hold, at least 19 homes along Longacres/Harrison Hill to place a road to access only 5 homes does not reasonably a constitute a community decision. Others will discuss with you the financial impact that this road has on my property value and on those of my neighbors. Others will discuss with you the destroyed aesthetic appearance of my property and that of my neighbors should this road be built. Others will discuss with you the fact that this new planned neighborhood offers no access to major thoroughfares, I think which has been mentioned quite a lot. I however will emphasize to you the issues of safety and community. Is it a community decision to allow the current road to be built as on your blueprint when it serves only to allow an appealing location of a back yard adjacent to a wetland when they could have an appealing location to my back yard. Is it a community action to approve a road that serves only to access 5 houses when it compromises the 19 homes along the Harrison Hill neighborhood and the over 38 children that live in those homes. My answer to you is that approval of that road will be solely a financial decision and not one that city commissioners should make when their ultimate goal is to serve the community. Thank you. Sorry, it was a prepared statement. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Uli Sacchet: Well good evening from this side of the crowd. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South, which is the property right here. I also represent my neighbor which is the property right here. As a matter of fact I want to address first a point or two from my neighbors that hasn't been raised yet. Before I do that I want to make it clear that I address you as a resident, local resident and not as a member of the Planning Commission. The neighbor over here on Lot 22 of Highover, that's Ruth and Tom Rolfs. They've written a letter I think that was handed out to you this evening, and I wanted to summarize some of their points and focus on two points that have not been brought up yet that they bring up here. Their letter is basically an outcry against urban sprawl. Against the destruction of the existing wildlife corridor. The 20 • • Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 beautiful wooded area on the rolling topography against the extreme grading and the effort to pack in as many lots, as many buildings as possible. In addition their's is a concern about drainage that they're bringing up. But first of all I'd like to point out that there is a major wildlife corridor on, between basically the two developments. On the south edge of Highover, that northern edge of this development in that corner of it is a major wildlife corridor and there is really no reason to believe that that corridor will totally go away. Even with all this development because there will be still significant woodland left, even when the Carlson property will be developed and as we saw at our last meeting also the property north, the Mancino property, there is a significant piece of woods preserved on the west side which will still attract wildlife, so this will remain to some extent a wildlife corridor, which deserves to be noted. Which by squeezing as many houses as close into that, it's going to have an impact. Obviously this neighbor shares the concerns I have about that wildlife corridor. He's concerned about the extent of the tree cutting. The extent of the grading, and then another specific concern that is raised that I share very much is that Lot 1, Block 4 of the Yoberry development is not just a wildlife corridor. It's also drainage path. Basically the whole area of Highover, this southeastern part of Highover drains into that lot and it's not a minimal drain. I mean when there is a heavy rain or snow melt, it's enough to have a little creek. I mean it's enough to wash away a little twigs and little leafs and all that, so what Ruth and Tom Rolfs want to bring to your attention is that, is that good planning? To put in a questionable lot. They point out that it's an irregular shape, which I don't know whether that is necessarily something that can be held against it, if it fulfills the requirements. But is that consistent with good development planning? And just to quote their closing, their interest. They say our interest as adjacent homeowners that are, that the property is not developed in a typical urban sprawl manner but developed responsibly in a manner consistent with maintaining the character of the area. We believe and hope you will agree that this plan should be modified to better fit into the existing landscape. We believe that extreme destruction of wooded areas and extreme grading require it to change the elevations is not responsible development. So that's my word of my neighbors since there were unable to be here tonight. Now speaking for myself, we've heard of several neighbors that are being impacted. Now personally I'm ending up with a cul-de-sac next to my back yard. I'm ending up with a side yard next to my back yard so I get a double hit here. Not necessarily what I was hoping for. I do believe the developer's within their rights. What can be done to mitigate that? It's, there's some things. I've had some discussions with the developer and they actually are open, actually it's scary I start trusting them after a while even. One aspect also that is mentioned, it has not come up so far that's mentioned in the report is that with this development being considered a strip of no man's land was discovered between Highover to the north and the owners to the south. It's still kind of fuzzy a little bit how big that no man's land is, and when I go out there with my measurement, it seems to be like 28 feet or something like that, but the agreement the way I understand it is that it's going to be split evenly between the two sides, so that is not something that the city gets involved with but I do want to mention this here for the record. In terms of the points that I have personally with this as a resident. You know after looking at this proposal, I have to admit that except for the impact it has on this corner, this development is actually pretty solid. It has a lot of qualities. I think it's pretty well cooked. I actually have to commend the developer for their efforts. As you know, those of you that are here that know me, I usually look in some detail at the large trees because I love trees, and I do want to share that with you. Because I think this developer does better in terms of preserving large trees than just about any other development this size that I've seen come before this Planning Commission in quite a 21 i Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 while. To give you the specifics, I looked at the trees on the tree inventory are 24 inches or bigger. Initially with initial grading they save 29 of them. They cut 13. And 3 are questionable, so even if you include the ones that are questionable, and the ones they cut, they're saving 2/3 of them. They are a couple of custom graded lots, which is going to be roughly about 6 more of those significant trees that are going to be cut. Even with that they're still saving half of the really large trees, which is really commendable. Which is really quite remarkable because I don't remember another development that scored that well with that, and I reluctantly make this admission because I'd rather have this held up a little bit and improved a little bit in my corner. But in all fairness I have to point this out to you. My favorite tree, 216 apparently, unfortunately cannot be saved. Which is probably the most spectacular specimen of an oak that I've seen anywhere. I mean this thing is just a beauty so, I'm still waiting for a miracle. Find out how you can save 213. Ah, 216 it is. However, to be specific to my comer of the concern here, there is one tree, 192 which is about right here. Just directly north of the cul-de-sac. At this point, according to the plan it appears about 10-15 feet away from the nearest grading line. I'm not sure it's exactly placed accurately on the plat. I think it's actually slightly further to the south by probably about 2-3 feet. It's not in that Outlot G strip by my estimation that will be transferred to the north neighbors. It's probably about a foot or two beyond that. And it's a really nice tree. I think considering that this whole strip to the north is a tree preservation zone, considering that we get stuck with a cul-de-sac in our back yard, and side yard rammed in next to our back yard, it still hurts that my... You know we get spoiled. You're out there. I may even have to get curtains in my bathroom but. But that aside, I really want to put a plea in for this tree 192. I mentioned that to you before. I do believe it can be saved but according to the staff report it's put into the category of questionable trees. There's a bunch of other trees that I have interest in, in the other parts of the development and I'm not going to go into this in the interest of time. I did mention it to staff so you're aware of it. I also would like to ask for whatever possible to minimize the grading and tree cutting in the area adjacent to this back yard. And also potentially, right now the landscaping plan foresees a number of evergreens on top of the retaining wall, but then birches on the side. Maybe at least one of these birches could be exchanged to an evergreen or two to increase the maximum buffer, because frankly what I'm concerned about is cars coming up this hill. This is steep. They're going to shine right into my bedroom. They're going to shine right into the back of the house so whatever can be done through buffering with evergreens. I mean there's some buffering in place through the retaining wall, which is really good, and to make every possible effort to preserve as much of the trees that are savable there. Now I do have another concern, I used to be a member of the Board of the Highover neighborhood association. I'm not part of that now so I'm not speaking in any official capacity for the Highover neighborhood. However there are three aspects in this that touch on the Highover neighborhood as a whole. The first one is a very good one. Is that pond here actually stays and I don't even want to express the gratitude for the Highover that that stays because it was considered a temporary pond that would be moving south at some point. It's not doing that, that's great. The other thing is the lift station that is currently up here. That is being eliminated. It's important to, and I believe that's being settled that that is not, that that's going to be moved and there is not going to be another lift station. Is that accurate? Saam: Correct. 22 0 i Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 illi Sacchet: Okay. And then the other aspect I also want to point out is that we actually do get a trail connection to the neighborhood. The Highover neighborhood trail there which is very commendable. I want to make sure that stays there. So in closing, one key point. The findings in the staff report say that this development will not cause environmental damage. That just simply is not true. That will have to be modified to state something like, will not cause excessive environmental damage or efforts are being made to minimize it. Since that will ultimately effect me when I'm sitting back up there again, I want to point that out too. And I believe that's all that I want to share with you. Thank you for the attention and again, I address to you as a resident... Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. John Graham: My name is John Graham. I'm from 6935 Highover and I'll use Rodd's map here again. Currently, and it's just with traffic. On Highover there's currently a bus stop there. There is no stop sign. That's pretty much at the top of the hill. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Highover Drive but it's a very steep grade from there on down. With the amount of traffic going down there I think there's got to be at least 80 percent of the kids under 10 years old and I'd like at least a stop sign along that way. The next one down, Highover Trail might be tough because that grade coming up in the winter time might be tough to get going again but again, to reiterate a lot of concerns with the traffic coming through there. The amount of kids for both the north and the south of these. Just want to reiterate that, if there's any way to outlet that traffic to 41 would be preferable. Slagle: Thank you. Stacy Riecks: Thank you again for taking the time. I'm Stacy Riecks and I live at 7256 Gunflint Trail which is right here on the comer of Gunflint Trail and Longacres. We would be adjacent to what is called Lot 5 on the current plat. Like the folks that spoke before me, I am concerned about the traffic that would be traveling, and like my brother and I also travel down Hunter to get out to work and to Highway 5. One of the concerns that has not been brought up, which the gentleman before me just did was the bus stop and currently there are 4 bus stops for various ages of children that do stop right there on Gunflint Trail and Longacres so obviously during our high traffic times of the morning, that's when the bus stops are being used. They start at 6:30, 7:00, continue to 8:00 and 8:30. So that's right there during the prime traffic time. Another concern that was not brought up, which I did learn more about today was the drainage issue that is potentially taking place back there. Currently during any type of rain storm my back yard is already flooded as it already is. Currently the water flows like a river, through the back yard. Goes over the sidewalk and out into the street so considering all the movement that is going to be taking place, I have more concerns about what the drainage issues would be with some of the rigging that appears to be going on back there as well. And then also obviously I would not necessarily be in favor of having a sidewalk in my front yard but I am concerned about the safety on our street so would love to obviously understand how we're going to reorganize those mads to make them safe for our children, which we did mention are 22 just in our little 9 home area so, that's really all I have to say. Slagle: Thank you. 23 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Paul Addiston: Paul Addiston, 7080 Harrison Hill Trail. I'll be very brief. I live here. And I know this issue's been brought up and skirted briefly a couple times but I can't tell you the personal investment and what we've gone through as a family to try to get to a place like we are now, and I have literally looked at over 100 houses before buying this one and I have never seen another house that has a road on the back side of my property and the front side of my property. I've got two kids, 9 and 7. There's got to be something else they can do besides that. Thank you. Rich Bray: My name's Rich Bray. I live at 6983 Highover Drive. To show you where I'm at. I'm right on the comer of Highover Drive and Highover Way and I want to just give a real brief history if I could of the acquisition of my lot and the building of the home and what I was told by Jerome Carlson and our realtors, which may not have any legal precedence any longer but just want to give you some history. We knew the road was going through. We were told there was a cul-de-sac that was going to be developed on the end of that, which I think is becoming a common known twist on where it was. Worst case scenario we certainly thought there'd be access from 41, other than through Lake Lucy coming down our road. If you look at this part of the development that runs along the western side, it's important to keep in mind that those people deal with an extremely busy highway, which is 41 right now. That's very noisy and unfortunately traffic on Highover Drive runs close to 30 miles per hour up that hill, and that's why we've got a lot of issues with regard to the traffic and speed and trying to control it in a dead end community. So we can only understand or guess at this point what the traffic's going to be like to try and feed another 150 to 100 automobiles developing or trying to find a shortcut, not to get onto the traffic. Not to try and go down Hunter but to exit out through Lake Lucy, and that's our concern. A majority of the children in that area are under 10 years of age. Multiple families. Now the history on my lot, the city actually made me move my trees after I planted them on the corner back 2 feet. I planted 3 evergreen trees on the corner and they made me remove the trees, move them 3 feet back for the purpose that at some point there's going to be a stop sign at that intersection and they didn't want a blind intersection. Slagle: If I could ask, would that be on the northwest corner of your property? Rich Bray: That would be, yes. The northwest corner. And so I guess I have a question, is there any intention of putting a 3 way stop at that comer? Slagle: Mr. Saam. Saam: Not that I'm aware of Rich Bray: Yeah, and that would make a blind hill that they would over the top with traffic and that would be a real concern I think for our community and our neighborhood about 25-30 miles per hour speeds going over the top of a blind hill with kids playing out. Right now a number of the neighbors put the little Child Playing out in the driveway. We're a pretty close community and we're concerned that the speed and the development on that road is going to split up the community from that and make people just stay to their back yards solely. So I wanted to bring up the fact that I personally spent a considerable amount of money because the trees died after 24 • • Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 we moved them and I had to put them in again. And I can't remember who's the lady's name was but the developer's called her the tree lady. Slagle: Jill Sinclair. Rich Bray: Could have been. I don't know. I don't know but I was told that one, don't cut one of my 30 foot evergreens down, which we didn't do, and the other one was, move those trees back 2 feet. But at any rate that's, I'm very disappointed I guess to find out that we haven't considered some type of traffic control on that road, and that we haven't looked at Highway 41 another potential entrance. With 50 something homes going in there, to only have 2 routes in and out to me is also a fire hazard in a community issue but you guys know technically whether that meets the exact number of footage or feet between one home to the next and what it requires but would like you to reconsider and possibly at a minimum put a stop sign in on that comer. Slagle: Thank you. I'm going to ask Matt a question if I may before we have the next person come up. Matt, would it be safe in saying that if you use Settlers West as an example where we actually put in two entrances on Pioneer, all within what would you say, a fifth of a mile. Saam: Yes. Slagle: And I mean I remember the discussion of trying to connect it to one because of the desire to not have two entrance/exits into that community. Is it a fair request by folks and I'll say myself to ask that we at least explore that with MnDot? And maybe they say no but maybe they'll come back and surprise us and say, yeah that will work. I mean I'm just throwing that out. Saam: Yeah, sure it is. Slagle: Hold on. Sir, if you could just have a seat for a sec, if you wouldn't mind. Saam: Yeah MnDot has, we received written comments back from MnDot and those comments do say they want access control along 41. What that basically means is they want to have rights to limit no access along 41. With that said and what I said earlier with the existing street system being in place, I don't foresee MnDot saying that a public street can go through there. But I could be wrong. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Saam: But we can definitely yes, check into that. Slagle: Sure Steve. Lillehaug: Further on this. Do you know the spacing because what MnDot will judge us on is the spacing between Lake Lucy and Longacres. Do you know the actual distance between those streets? And then also comment on actual city policy with spacing of collectors and arterials. 25 • 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Saam: I don't know the spacing off the top of my head. It must be something, a half mile. I'm not sure Commissioner Lillehaug. As far as our spacing requirements, yeah. We have certain requirements. In this case 41's an arterial, like I said, so that spacing is a much greater distance than local street spacing is. Slagle: It's got to be at least half a mile I would think. Saam: Yeah, something in that. Slagle: Okay. Anything else Steve? Did you want to say? Rich Bray: Yeah, I actually forgot to mention one item and that's that I was also informed that there were negotiations at the time, this is about 4 years ago in putting some type of a connection between the east side of 41 to the west side of 41 for access to Minnewashta, and that the City turned that down. That MnDot was in support of some type of a, what do you want to call it? It went underneath the road. Yeah, an underpass type concept. Secondly I know I've worked on a process in another community and understand that MnDot really doesn't control that. They give recommendation. If the City wants to put an intersection there with a stop light on 41, they can do that. I don't know what the repercussions from the State are in doing that but ideally at some point it would be nice from a community standpoint to have a stop sign on 41 that allows access to Minnewashta, and from this community which quite frankly once this new development is in, the two developments from last week also will end up being a substantial revenue base for this county and for the city, which it already is I'm sure from a tax base perspective. Slagle: Thank you. Mark Brown: My name is Mark Brown. I live at 7210 Gunflint Trail. It is the lot right next that goes up to 2 on this side and back. And besides the same concerns I have as my neighbors, I also have young children. In addition to those same concerns about the traffic and the lack of access to 41, from just by house alone, maybe it shows up better on this picture right here. It appears I'm going to have, right as people come out of the new subdivision, there's no driveways right here so I'm a little concerned about line of sight. Since my driveway is right at, right where that street cuts over. That's one of the concerns that I have. The other concern that I have that I deal with right now is because of this large hill, there's a drainage situation. A lot of water runs up that particular during the spring thaw when the ground's still frozen. So I'm a little concerned about what that's going to be like after it's developed so, and that all flows down to all the neighbors and everything so, we're all part of that but those are two major concerns that I have along with all the other ones. On a real positive standpoint, the bam's going right? Karen Weathers: Hey. Yeah. Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I just had some questions about the report itself. The format's a little bit different and in the compliance table, in the RSF district, there are 15 lots that don't meet the 90 foot requirement for width, and I'm wondering, there was no plat in here that showed where the setback line is. In looking at the beautiful drawing, you know the development, I think it might be a little deceptive because it looks like all the homes 26 Planning Commission Mee — January 4, 2005 • are set back pretty evenly. I'm wondering if the building setback line could be delineated for these 15 lots and shown, so people realize how far back some of those houses may be. I didn't have a chance to look at the plat beforehand but I think that's a real important point because it looks like it's 30 feet back and I think some of them are going to be quite substantially back. An issue related to that, for those of you that have measurements, I'd like to just out of curiosity to know if any of those run short of meeting a 60 by 60. Curiosity and you know why the question's raised. And then the other issue on that same compliance table is, there are 4 lots that show a rear lot setback as NA rather than not having the 30 feet. I'd like to understand why those 4 lots have NA. And their Lot 7, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2; Lot 4, Block 4; Lot 1, Block 5. 1 just didn't understand that. That seems unusual. Aanenson: They're all corner lots so they have two fronts. Deb Lloyd: Okay. Without again the plat being in here, it's hard to recognize what's going on. So I would like to know though where the lot setback line is for all the lots that do not meet the 90 foot requirement. So how far back is that building setback line. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Matt, do you want to just touch upon that a little bit, just take a couple as an example. Or Sharmeen. Al -Jaffa All the lots meet the 90 foot requirement. They are all on a curve and. Lillehaug: Is it 30 feet or 25 feet? Al -Jaffa It's 30 feet. So basically you take the setback parallel to the radius and they all meet, all 15 parcels meet the 90 foot. If they don't exceed it. Lillehaug: Can you comment on the 60 by 60 pad then also? A] -Jaffa They all have a buildable area that exceeds 60 by 60. Slagle: I'm going to think about that one but anybody else like to speak? Scott Wosje: Just a quick note. Scott Wosje. I live in the Longacres neighborhood so I can speak to that neighborhood only. Lived there 6 years. A board member up until the 31" of December and did not get reappointed. Tom fortunately stepped up to the table with some new energy. We already have an existing traffic problem on Longacres that I've been trying to work with Beth Hoiseth, community representative. Safety and also the Sergeant as well to try and figure out what we can do to slow down traffic. There's so many kids in the neighborhood. What we can do to slow down traffic on that road so it should be noted to the commission that we already know we have an existing traffic issue that's on record with the City. We're only going to add to it with this potential development. The other thing that should be noted for clarification purposes is that the Longacres Association does pay dues that maintain the sidewalks along Longacres as well and we pay to have those sidewalks cleared. Again, is it fair? Is it right? You know no, but life isn't fair but it should be noted that we're paying to maintain 27 • • Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 those sidewalks in addition to the parks. That is going to come into play so, thank you. Any questions? Lillehaug: I have a question of Matt quickly. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: Is there a problem on Longacres? Has it been measured? Has there been traffic surveys done? I mean do we have a speeding problem, because it's a collector road and I, if it's a collector road I would anticipate higher levels of traffic but what about speed? Saam: Yeah, I think that's what Mr. Wosje's referring to is the speed issue. That's what both Jim, the Sergeant and Beth Hoiseth work with, with Project Leadfoot and that. The new speed indicator that we purchased. I forget the name of it but I believe that's the issue and yes, we do take counts since it's not only a collector road. It's a state aid road. Longacres Drive is so we're required every other year to get counts out there which we do. Lillehaug: Do you know of the speeds on that road? Saam: Um no. Not off the top of my head. We would have that info though. Slagle: You know if I can add something. When it comes to that development, Hunter would probably fall into a different category and a sense of speed, the narrowness of the road and the fact that there's no sidewalks. And I certainly think that people who have presented here tonight are correct that people will cut through as they work their way to Galpin because it is a shorter drive down Hunter than it is to go Longacres to Galpin, so I don't know if there's a solution but it's certainly a valid concern. There you go. Bill Borrell: Hi. My name's Bill Borrell and I live at 2300 Longacres Drive. Been there about 7 years and was surprised to hear that I live on a collector road on Longacres. I guess how much narrower is Longacres than Lake Lucy or Galpin? You allowed the developer to make it more. Aanenson: Would have been 80. Saam: Oh in terms of right-of-way, yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, correct. Bill Borrell: So is narrower. I guess if we look at the map you see it's very windy between the two roads and I would not even compare it to, I walk along Lake Lucy, which is a very straight, wide open road and I guess if you guys are talking about Longacres as being a collector road in the same sense that Lake Lucy or Galpin, I don't know how you can. Aanenson: My point is Lundgren, when they developed that specifically for marketing purposes asked to have it narrow to give the appearance that it didn't function as a collector. Bill Sorrell: But the problem is that now it does have the appearance and because of the density of the homes, it is different than a standard collector road I'm saying and that, like everybody E Planning Commission Mee• — January 4, 2005 • speaking about these kids playing out on the street. It's a little bit different than Lake Lucy or, especially Galpin, the way it is right now so I just want to. Aanenson: Right, and I would agree and there is, actually the City is considering changing the profile on Lake Lucy and actually narrowing that and putting the sidewalk, raising the sidewalk. That issue is going to the City Council next, raising the sidewalk so right now when you're on Lake Lucy. Slagle: You walk on the road. Aanenson: You walk on grade so narrowing that and raising the sidewalk for that specific reason. Give a different cross section. Different feel for safety reasons. Slagle: Any other comments? One more. Stuart Henderson: ...I forgot. Does this mean this is a bluff? Aanenson: No. Stuart Henderson: The green, no it doesn't? Aanenson: No it does not. Stuart Henderson: Okay. Then my question is simply, Stuart Henderson. I live right over here. This is a very steep hill. Very steep. I'm not sure what a bluff is, but I'm kind of concerned about the drainage here and our ground stuff comes up and runs through my back yard, which I think ... Stacy's yard. It's not a big deal for me but it is quite a drainage problem. I know, when I called Matt said there is a drainage map somewhere so maybe there's some provision made for it. I didn't get a chance to look at that but I just raise the concern. Slagle: Any other comments? Okay, I'm going to. Oh, Deb you got one more? Deb Lloyd: Yeah I'm not just sure if I made my point so. My point being is lots where frontage is measured at the setback, it's not the street frontage. You've got to measure it at the setback line. Correct? And I just want the residents to see, would you mind pointing out how far back some of these houses could be. You know I just think you owe it to them to know that they're not at the street. Slagle: Sharmeen, just take a couple. And I guess Sharmeen. Al -Jaffa I'll use this as an example. If you look at the frontage, this is Lot 5, Block 1. Yoberry Farm Third Addition. The frontage along this cul-de-sac is 55 feet. At the setback line it is 95 feet. And that's permitted by ordinance. AT the setback line you need to maintain a minimum of 90 feet. This exceeds it. The buildable area on this site is basically, so the home can maintain a 30 foot setback. Does that answer the question? Thank you. 29 • • Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Slagle: Okay. I am going to close the public hearing now. At this point I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anyone want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a few questions before we go to discussion. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Lillehaug: Wow. The, what are my questions now? Parks. Does staff have any further comment on parks? I mean are we doing a dis-service to Longacres because we're not adding a park in this area? Are we, I mean Longacres and Highover, they're not gated communities but I think we need to respect the homeowners association so does planning have any comments or suggestions regarding specifically parks. Aanenson: Not at this time. Lillehaug: No? Okay. Slagle: If I may, I do have to ask Kate ... with the Park and Rec Department, with respect to parks in this area. Any? Aanenson: Well yeah. Slagle: What I'm going to call the general area. Aanenson: Yeah. They've got a map of the areas where the parks are and it was the Park and Rec Director and the commission that made a recommendation not to take that so, if you want to add additional comments, just of your, for the council to consider. Slagle: Well I guess what I'm asking is, is there any, has there been discussion about a park in another location that's adjacent or in the near vicinity of these developments that we've looked at the last 2 meetings? Aanenson: Not an active park, no. I think there may be, when the Carlson property comes in adjacent to the large Lake Harrison, maybe some open space. Some scenic overlooks but probably not another active park. Slagle: Okay. I'm song Steve. Lillehaug: No, that's fine. We heard a couple residents from Highover concerned with the blind hill at the very top, so that kind of alludes me, does engineering get actual profiles? This happened in our 2 weeks ago when we reviewed the other larger development. I had problems with the profiles of the road because they were meeting the absolute minimums for the profile grades. Does the developer give engineering profiles of these roads so we don't have these problem high spots with very limited sight lines, because this is what I saw in that other development, exactly what our residents are complaining about. 30 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Saam: Yes, at the time of final plat, final construction plans. Lillehaug: They give you profiles. Saam: Yep. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all the questions. Well one more question. At the very south end of Street B, the very south end of the D development, Lots 3, 4 and 5. It appears that those contours are a lot closer together. Has that been evaluated to ensure that that's not a bluff on that very south end? You know at the very high point you're saying they're about 5 foot apart so that'd be a 1 to 5, but looking at this, they look about 3 feet plus or minus. I mean are we looking at a bluff for that whole entire south end of that section? Is that something staff can verify and, or has it been. Maybe the applicant knows. What the steepness of the grades are. 30 percent, plus or minus. If it's a bluff, it's a bluff. If it's not, it's not. Steve Johnston: At the very beginning of this process the first thing we did was identify where the bluffs were. The only bluffs that are there are along Highway 41. Those bluffs are about 30 feet high and just while I'm up here, to add to it, besides the access control that MnDot would be looking for, a 30 foot grade change in approximately 50 feet there is going to make it very difficult to try to get a roadway off of 41 anywhere along the west property. Just from an engineering standpoint would be very, very difficult. That bluff being 30 feet, we'd have to come into the site about 400 feet before that grade at maximum street grades would match existing grades so it would be very, very difficult to do. Lillehaug: So you're saying that is not a bluff on Lots 3, 4 and 5? Steve Johnston: No it is not. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all for the questions I have I guess. Slagle: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Withcomments? Is it comments or arewe. Lillehaug: I'm not done with comments. Somebody else want to go first? Another question I guess is that, that cul-de-sac, we saw that in our previous plan. What do you call it, an eyebrow cul-de-sac. Is that our new trend here? We're going to have one in every development now? Saam: They were at the last meeting and they heard you all recommend approval to it. Lillehaug: Okay. Who wants to comment first then? Keefe: I'll start on comments. Slagle: Dan, you want to talk into your mic more. 31 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Keefe: Yeah, sure. Wow, there's a lot of stuff here. Let me start on the northeast corner. I don't know if I'm real comfortable with the layout, and I know they've just been, you guys have hammered this out probably 10 different ways but the way that that street backs up to the neighbors on the right, I just, I'm having a hard time getting comfortable with that. And I don't know, I almost want to see a plan where the street goes on the west side of that, of those lots and see how, because I heard that that was a possibility, or had been looked at. And anyway I'll just leave it, I'm just uncomfortable with that northeast corner. In terms of like the Longacres development and the Highover development, they both have association dues. Do we have, in terms of like neighborhoods stacking up next to each other. One pays. One doesn't pay. One has a park. One doesn't have a park. You know utilization from one neighborhood to the next. Is there any sort of policy or can you comment at all in regards to, it's really just individual developments and how they occur? Okay. Huh. I'd really like to see, you know definitely we need to look at Highway 41 and access to 41. I guess I made the assumption of looking at it but that really wasn't an option. I know that was discussed at length in this but I mean, I think it should definitely be considered and maybe pushed out a little bit more to the State in regards, or the State. What else? In regards to internal traffic Matt, I mean you know, you guys have done studies. Or maybe you haven't done a study on this but in terms of the sort of traffic count coming out of here. If we find that there's more traffic, I mean how do you typically go forward. I mean after it's been built, you do traffic counts at that point and then establish whether you need to put stop signs in in the other neighborhoods or how does that work? Saam: Yeah, if you're talking about stop signs, there's certain warrants that need to be met. Amount of traffic approaching the different legs of the intersection is one of the main issues. So yeah, we'd have to do traffic counts and see if it would warrant a stop sign. Keefe: But your study of this says that you think right now the road as laid out would accommodate it and without putting undue pressure on the extra, or on the roads into Highover and/or Longacres. Saam: We do think Lake Lucy and Longacres Drive can accommodate the traffic coming from this development. Yes. Keefe: Okay. Papke: Okay, there's been a lot of discussion about the parks tonight and the homeowners situation. I think the best solution here and the one I would support would be to only move forward if the developer was willing to work with Longacres to the south, and make this development part of that homeowners association. I think there's plenty of parks here, as was amply pointed out. One of the parks backs right up to this development and it seems kind of silly to force another park in here or, where you have one sitting right there. I think that would be the real win/win scenario here is to have this developer perhaps work with Longacres to see if we can't solve the problem in that fashion. Would you like to comment? Chuck Alcon: Yes. We very much intend to pursue that offer from Longacres. We think it makes a lot of sense. I would comment though that there's going to have to be two organizational entities. 32 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Papke: Sure. Chuck Alcon: The existing Longacres HOA has it's covenants. We plan to have our's. Papke: You bet. Chuck Alcon: Not to say that an agreement between the associations can't be reached. We think it makes a lot of sense for the park and I understand there's a plan for a pool on the eastern side I believe and we fully support that and would move forward and try to make that happen. Papke: And that would give the Longacres development 57 new homes, revenue opportunities. Chuck Alcon: And obviously we'll have to work out a dues arrangement and capitalization and all those things but... Papke: How you work it organizationally is up to you. Chuck Alcon: And we would commit to do that. Papke: Great. Super. I think there's been ample evidence tonight that moving the northeast cul- de-sac to the west over by the wetland I think is the best scenario for all involved. I think the way it lays out right now, the developer can charge a little bit more for the homes along the wetland but I think it really negatively impacts the people to the east to have an alley in their back yard, or however you want to put it. And I think that's too much negative impact to the people who are already there so, unless there's some structural reason or civil engineering reason why that cul-de-sac and road can't be moved so that the wetland would be on the other side of the street, that would be necessary for me to approve this. As to the 41, there's been a lot of issues around traffic tonight. The 41 access. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that that's a long pull to try to get access out to 41 here. So I think if we look at ways of mitigating some of the traffic concerns. Now we've heard from interestingly enough we've heard from both communities, both the Longacres to the south and Highover to the north are both concerned that they're going to get the bulk of the traffic, and you know obviously they're both not going to get 75 percent of the traffic from this subdivision. There's going to be some kind of natural split here so, you know I don't think there's, we really know which way the traffic's going to flow. But I don't see an easy way to solve the access to 41 problem, looking at the drawings and the elevation changes. So that's all the comments. Slagle: I just have a couple. On the 41 connection, as far as an entrance/exit. With that grade I just don't think that's going to be workable but it might be Matt worth at least the actual discussion or actual request, depending on how you see it, just so we have a record that they say either no or not such a good idea. I like the park idea with Longacres. My only concern with all respect is that if something doesn't get worked out, and we all know contracts and those things sometimes can be difficult to have happen, we are now looking at a major development with literally no parks anywhere within walking distance. And if it's quote unquote bike distance, it's across some fairly significant roads. And, if I can add, without even a commitment yet that a 33 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 • sidewalk will be extended either on the east side or the west side of Gunflint Trail. I certainly hope that is going to happen and I would love to put a condition in there. I just don't know if we can put a condition on this case applying to another development. But it certainly would make sense to have a sidewalk going down the side the road and then stopping along an area that has an easement already. The grading area to the north, I think that is a real issue. We've seen too many developments come in that are squeezing parcels and you just wonder how it works with the grade. Lastly, I along with my other commissions have a real issue with that east side and that road. And as a citizen more than a commissioner I think that what's the give and take? Is the give that you move the road to the west and you now have 2 or 3 parcels with back yards facing an electrical easement. Is it the most appealing? Probably not. But certainly is a win/win in the overall what I'm going to call community sense. So I would tend to say that that's something that needs to happen, at least from my perspective. So with that, that's my comments. I will open it up for a motion. Lillehaug: I've got a couple, I have some comments. Slagle: Oh, did I forget you? Alright, go ahead. Lillehaug: I reiterate basically what everyone said. Also on the northeast side there, I think in my opinion that the cul-de-sac is too close to U's property on the north there, so likewise on the east and on the north I think it needs to be pulled away and a reasonable buffer or back yards in that whole area needs to be in place before I would recommend this to the council for approval. Parks, just to reiterate on that. Am I under the understanding that Longacres does want this development to be part of maintaining the parks? Is it, you live in Longacres. Slagle: Well, not really. I'm the one lot next to Longacres, but the point of it I think is that we have to be careful in this in that we've had a representative of the Board speak, but I don't know if that person can speak for the whole Board. There's legal issues and so that's where I'm just saying to all of us, I'm concerned that if we say hey, we'll hopefully the applicant and Longacres can reach an agreement. Not to mention what will happen to Highover. You know, I mean so it's sort of a wishful thinking and hopeful and again, with all integrity assumed that something works out. So I don't know if we can really bank on it at this point. Lillehaug: Okay. I guess I'm okay with most of the development except for the northeast. I think it's too much crammed in there. Too restrictive. But are you guys willing to make a recommendation I guess just to get a feel for it, without seeing an alternate plan of what we're doing up here? I'm not ready to make a recommendation I guess without seeing that. My opinion. Slagle: I would, as guidance just suggest to the 4 of us that someone make a motion, whatever way they feel is appropriate and then we let the vote decide that. Lillehaug: Sure. Okay. One other, two other questions I guess before we make a motion and it's regarding the conditions. Condition number 20 and it's regarding all lots must have a minimal, minimum useable area off the back of the house pad. But it's not defined what that minimum useable area is. Does staff have a recommendation for a minimum useable area such 34 Planning Commission Mee• — January 4, 2005 • as a square footage or a depth as in like 20 feet from the back of the house? Is that something staff wants to make a recommendation on? Because it says minimum. Aanenson: Yeah, I guess a lot of it has to do with the life style choice. Some people like that and we looked at, they showed examples of Ashling Meadows, which coincidentally was the one I was saying because they have different, some people like the choice of not having a back yard. What we want to make sure is that it's done in a way that's not creating drainage problems or long term maintenance problems for those down below but no, so you at least have a patio or deck area. Some flat area that you can walk right out on, so maybe it's 10 feet or ... like that. Lillehaug: Okay, no further comments I guess. Slagle: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion we table this until we see a revision in the northeast comer per our comments that we've discussed. Papke: Second. Slagle: Okay. I have a motion and a second. To table this. Do we need to be more specific Kate? Aanenson: I think we have clear direction that the issue we're trying to resolve is the cul-de-sac on the northwest side. Slagle: And can I also add to that, some, well friendly amendment to your motion. If I may. Can that motion address what I will call the lack of a clear direction of a park. And I use park in a parenthesis. And Kate you know, it's not. Aanenson: You're asking me to usurp the power of the park commission which I'm very reluctant to do. I think at this point, you know if you want to put something in as part of your, what you typically do kind of a summary point, I think if you want to add that you're concerned under summary point, that you want the council to consider that. Because they take your input plus the park commission's going forward. Slagle: How about this? How about if we table this and we ask either the Park Director or someone from the park to come and present to us as to what the thoughts are. Aanenson: You can ask, sure. Slagle: Okay. To me that, because sometimes we're trying to find an answer and the person who has the answer isn't here so. Is that a friendly amendment accepted? Lillehaug: Certainly. Keefe: I was going to add. Just as. 35 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Slagle: Okay, friendly amendment to the table. Keefe: Friendly amendment to, at least have a discussion with the State in regards to access to Highway 41. Lillehaug: Well, I guess stating my opinion. I'm looking at the grade difference and I agree with the developer. It's a very limited factor. And my history with MnDot is, is they're not going to grant that. They'll look at it but I think staff would concur that they will not grant another access point. Especially if it's only a half mile between Lake Lucy and... Aanenson: Just to be clear what their letter said to us, is they want to restrict the access. You know just to be clear, we did look at that. You know this actually has a lot of revisions so obviously it's something that we considered but it was eliminated based on, as the engineer said, the length going back and the steepness. To get the grades to work. The touch down points so you're not coming at a steep angle down to. Slagle: But I think just to be clear to the audience though, it was in essence you're saying dismissed or rejected by the. Aanenson: Right, and a letter from MnDot said that they want to control the access. Slagle: Fair enough. I don't think that was clear. Keefe: It wasn't clear to me. Aanenson: I was waiting for the Assistant to say something so. Slagle: Okay. Keefe: Okay, so in a sense they've already said no. Saam: Yeah, I previously said we have a memo where MnDot wants to gain access control along 41 which means they're not going to allow any access along that stretch of 41. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Saam: They don't want access on 41. Keefe: I withdraw my amendment. Slagle: Okay. And then I just one last one, and that would be Commissioner Lillehaug, if you wouldn't mind, something to the effect of where we can get some traffic numbers, Matt, if I can ask you. You mentioned that Longacres is some type of a classification where you have to get numbers. Traffic numbers every so often. Would be interested to see what that is. 36 Planning Commission Meeting — January 4, 2005 Lillehaug: We know what this is going to generate. I mean there's 54 residences there. It's going to generate between 10-14 trips per day so we're looking at 600 to 700 trips a day from this development, either going north or south so split down the middle. You're looking at 350 going north and 350 south. I mean it's a reasonable number on a local street in my opinion. And so I don't think, in my opinion, I don't want to give staff direction to do that because in my opinion it's reasonable on the local street. On Gunflint Trail to the south as well as Highover to the north. I think the traffic levels that would be distributed on those streets are still going to be within the local 750 to 1,000 maximum. I know that's high but that's city, what's in the city comprehensive plan. Slagle: Well you're within your rights to reject the friendly amendment. Lillehaug: And I reject it. Slagle: Fair enough. So we have a motion on the floor to table this with direction to staff to re- work, if at all possible, the northeast quadrant. Invite the Park and Rec Director to speak to us at our next meeting. Anything else I'm missing? Okay. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table the rezoning and subdivision request for Yoberry Farms with direction to staff to re -work the northeast quadrant and to invite the Park and Rec Director to speak or provide written comment regarding the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Slagle: We're going to take a 5 minute break. Chuck Alcon: Question. Tabled until? Slagle: Well. Aanenson: We can turn it around. Slagle; Sounds good. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES CASE No. 05-01. Public Present: Name Address Jamie Thelen 366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN 37