Loading...
PC 2005 01 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2005 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 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 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. 04-43. 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 Highover Drive Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail Larry DuMoulin 6966 Highover Drive th Bill Coffman 600 West 78 Street st Steve Johnston 510 1 Avenue North, Minneapolis Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 th Chuck Alcon 6138 76 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 Carrie 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? 2 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. th Let me back up. West 78 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 3 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 th Chuck Alcon, representing Yoberry Farms. I reside at 6138 76 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 corner 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 4 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 net/net, from the road to the back of that retaining wall you’re approximately at that point 1 foot below? 5 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. 6 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 7 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 pages of the package are a letter I received from staff dated, that was received by staff th 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 1 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 8 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 Yoberry 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 9 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 rd border of the 3 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 minimize 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? 10 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 11 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 Longacres 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 turn 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 corner, 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 turn 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 12 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 13 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? 14 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 15 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. I 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 ½ 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 16 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. In 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. 17 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 Uli. 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 18 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. Al-Jaff: 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? 19 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. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: Okay. Keefe: Just 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 21 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 corner 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 corner 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 berming 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 22 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 a 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. 23 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 24 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, 25 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, ¾ to a mile and the 26 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 ¾ 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 ¾ of a mile, well the standards are, the Met Council likes to see spacing of collectors every ¾ 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. I 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. I 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. In 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? 27 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? th Al-Jaff: March 5 is the deadline to process this application. Papke: Through the council? 28 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. 29 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 #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. 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 totlot. 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. thth Al-Jaff: Yes you do. February 4. 14. th Slagle: So February 14 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? Al-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? 30 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Al-Jaff: 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 #04-43 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. 31 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Public Present: Name Address Richard Herrboldt 6464 Murray Hill Road John DeLuca 6484 Murray Hill Road Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road Greg Nelson 2165 Murray Hill Court Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Keefe: I’ve got a question. Sacchet: Go ahead Dan. Keefe: In regards to the lot immediately to the east, I believe it’s the east of that. I didn’t see any sort of landscaping or berming or anything associated with the backs of these. I mean are we going to require anything or is there any landscaping or, that would be on the back side of these homes essentially. Metzer: We are requiring they plant, each new lot plant one tree in the front yard. There is significant tree coverage in this back corner here. No significant tree canopy in Lot 2. Keefe: Okay. Al-Jaff: If I might add. Sacchet: Go ahead Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Our ordinance does not require a buffering between one. Sacchet: Is your mic on? Al-Jaff: Pardon? Our ordinance does not require buffering between low density and low density so. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff? No? With that I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward and present what you, if you have anything to add. Do we have an applicant here for this one? No applicant here for this one? Well that makes for a very short applicant presentation. If we don’t have an applicant presentation, I move right on to the public hearing portion of this. This is a public hearing so I’d like to invite any residents that want to speak up to this, to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Tell us what you have to say. 32 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Gil Kreidberg: My name is Gil Kreidberg. I live at 6444 Murray Hill Road. I own the property that would be opposite Lot number 3. Sacchet: Opposite on which side? Gil Kreidberg: On what would be the west side. Sacchet: Across the street basically? Gil Kreidberg: Across Murray Hill. The lack of, the fact that the applicant is not here is slightly distressing to me because it makes it difficult to really determine the nature and the character of what they’re going to construct there. Currently if you go from Melody back up Murray Hill Road there, there’s sort of two separate cul-de-sacs. One that’s directly west of this property and north of my property. Slagle: You can bend your mic and pull it over there and show us on the. Gil Kreidberg: Okay, on this thing. Basically you have this project right in here that has 4 homes on 2.2 acres. And then as you come further down, I own the property, the water tower is right across from what would be where proposed house #3 is going to go. I own that property along with another ¾ of an acre to the south. Everything in that area as you come from Melody south is on a minimum half acre lot. The 4 homes are on a little over half acre. The 6 homes on the cul-de-sac straight ahead from that are on ¾ acres to an acre and 1/3 acres that I have. Nothing in that area is under 600 grand. We would be very disturbed to see somebody come in there just because the technical rules allow it and build something that’s sub-standard to the neighborhood, which I think is just as important as whatever the technical rules are. And you know there are a lot of very mature trees run along Murray Hill there. Mostly pines. Have been there a long time. Clearly in order to access this stuff, some of that’s going to have to come down. We’re not very excited about that. When they put the 4 homes in here a few years ago, they fairly mitigated the number of trees they took out to do that by making one entry and putting the 4 homes off the one entry. Clearly there will have to be two entries here logistically here because of the size of the space. So without the applicant here to discuss what’s going on, kind of leaves it a little open ended. Cite lack of professionalism, I don’t know what your normal plan is but how often does an applicant not show up to Planning Commission here? Sacchet: Actually does the staff have anything to say to that? I mean if the applicant is not here, is that like in court when the cop is not there when you have a speeding ticket and the speeding ticket gets thrown off because the cop is not there to tell you were speeding, even though you know you were speeding? Do we know? Al-Jaff: Our ordinances do not demand that. Sacchet: There is not a requirement for the applicant to be present. That’s my understanding too. Yeah, I mean you’ve worked with the applicant. We don’t have a requirement for the applicant to be present in order for the process to proceed. Okay. Is that accurate? Okay. 33 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Gil Kreidberg: Based on the information that we have here, which is simply a drawing with a little red box where the houses are going to be, I don’t think we have sufficient information. Based on that, I clearly would not support this, your approval. Sacchet: You’ve got to be careful though because this is a plat submission. Not a building permit submission so at this point, we customary do not know what type of house goes on there. We may know is it a full basement, which I believe we know at this point, isn’t it? They’re two full basement houses. It’s not a walkout. It’s not a lookout. And that’s usually how far we go. At the point when you look at the subdivision step, what this is. Gil Kreidberg: Alright, do you take into account the nature of the neighborhood in which something’s going to be constructed? Sacchet: As far as is possible within the framework of the ordinances and the code of the city, yes. Gil Kreidberg: I understand. Because I could knock my house down and put 5 houses up on it… Sacchet: If you have enough space, and it meets the ordinance, yes indeed you could do that. Gil Kreidberg: Yeah, but it just, I mean it just seems counter productive in a lot of senses and seems like it could affect the value of the other property in the region which I think would be something to take into account. Sacchet: And we try to be sensitive to that, absolutely. Gil Kreidberg: Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you for your time. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. And I’m going to move pretty fast so if you want to speak, please stand up and do it. John DeLuca: My name’s John DeLuca. I’m at 6484 Murray Hill Road. Directly adjacent to the piece of property that we’re talking about here. Sacchet: On which side? John DeLuca: On the east side. Sacchet: East side, okay. John DeLuca: I’m right here. Slagle: You’re south. Sacchet: South. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 John DeLuca: Right. Not having seen anything other than this drawing, this larger drawing here, and hearing for the first time square footage, which I can’t compute. I don’t know what that means to me. But looking at this drawing, it looks like almost half of this is, property’s being given to existing house, and at 1.1 acres, that’s going to bring these 2 pieces of property right down to the minimum I would guess. Sacchet: Correct. Yes, they’re down to the minimum. John DeLuca: Alright. Well. Sacchet: To meet the code. John DeLuca: As Gil said, I think you know as a resident there, I’m very concerned about what exists there and then what is going to be put there alongside of it and I’d appreciate any consideration you have going forward. Thank you. Sacchet: We do what we can. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, I will close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. Who wants to give it a start? Hit on Kurt enough tonight. Maybe start with Jerry. Go ahead. McDonald: I’ll jump into it. I have some concerns too about when you bring up the neighborhood, the existing house. The footprint of that. The fact that we’ve now got, and I don’t have the drawing. It was like 4-5 lots stacked up across that way. What’s going to happen with those? I mean you could do the same thing there and you create access problems. What are those homes? Do they fit within a neighborhood? Do we have enough information to really go on because again, as you say, this is an upscale area and the lots are quite large. I understand that with code you know you can do that but when it all came down to the final vote, yeah I might vote on it too but based upon the fact that you can do it but I would like to know how you’re going to put houses on these lots. Access in and out. There’s not enough information here. I think you need to go back to the developer as to what he intends. Sacchet: So that’d be a reason for the developer to be here. McDonald: Yes. I understand what you say that we’re not asking for house plans but again, the footprints that are there, when I look at how it fits on the property versus his and all the other’s, is that in character to the neighborhood. Sacchet: If I may interject a question for staff. We have neighborhoods where we ask two houses to have a common driveway. For instance on Lake Lucy. There it’s because of the traffic situation, the way I understand it. Could possibly be a reasoning here that in order to minimize the tree cutting into that hedge type of row of trees, to make it one driveway. Is that something that could be considered possibly? That’s a little unfair to ask that but if the applicant would be here we would ask the applicant that but. Saam: Yeah, well I guess I’d look to planning. Would that be a private street then? 35 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Al-Jaff: Yeah. Saam: And would that need a variance then? Sacchet: Well, are those private streets on Lake Lucy? Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Every single of those driveways is a private street. Al-Jaff: Anything that’s shared by more than one household would become… Sacchet: So every pair of those houses has a private street variance? Al-Jaff: Exactly. Sacchet: They didn’t need a variance at the time. Thanks for clarifying Bob. Saam: Mr. Chair, again on Lake Lucy it is a different animal because it’s a collector road. Higher traffic count and we have it in the code where we can limit direct access to collector roads. Sacchet: So we have some foundation for that, what we don’t have here. Saam: Yeah, it’s apples and oranges. Sacchet: Okay. Sorry for jumping in. Do we want to move this way? Jerry, were you done with your comments? McDonald: Yes. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Do we know why the applicant isn’t here? Metzer: No. Lillehaug: No idea? Truthfully, this is questions right? Sacchet: This is comments and questions. Discussion. This is wrapping up as quick as possible. Lillehaug: Okay. I don’t see anything here that I would change on this development, but why isn’t the applicant here. It doesn’t take any time to come here and state his case. I mean I think it’s very irresponsible for that. Sacchet: Yeah, we just run into a question where we would like to have the applicant, definitely. 36 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Lillehaug: That’s all I have. Sacchet: Okay. Any comment? Comment? Anybody want to make a motion? Slagle: I’ll make a motion. I move that, where are we here? Sacchet: Page 7. Slagle: I make a motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-05, John Henry Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans received December 17, 2004, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 16. I won’t add it as a condition but I would make a strong recommendation that staff contact the applicant and make sure he or she certainly appears before the City Council. When it goes to there. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-05, John Henry Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans received December 17, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: a. A minimum of one planted tree shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. c. All trees shown as preserved and outside of the grading limits as shown on plans dated Received 12/17/04 shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Submit drainage calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 3. On the plan: a. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. b. Call out the proposed house types on Lots 2 and 3. c. Show silt fence around the grading area. d. Show the existing access drives on the western side of Murray Hill Road. e. Show the locations of the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lots. f. Show the location of the proposed driveways for the new lots. g. Show existing topography and structures within 100 feet of the property line. h. Show the existing sanitary manhole rim and invert elevations along with all of the existing utility pipes in Murray Hill Road. i. show 30 foot rear yard setback. 37 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 4. All sanitary services must be 6” PVC-SDR26 and water services 1” copper. 5. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (3) than what the property had been previously assessed for, the additional two units will be charged the sanitary sewer and water connection charge. The 2005 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are each $5,118 for a total per unit or per lot cost of $10,236. Based on these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional two lot units will be $20,472 (2 @ $10,236.). 6. Add the following City detail plates: 1005, 2001, 5300, and 5301. 7. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 8. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hook up charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 9. As part of the development improvements, the developer will be required to extend water and sanitary sewer services to the property line of each new lot. 10. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA. 11. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign the plans for the utility improvements. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year found, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days 38 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 14. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.19 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,301; the water quality fees are approximately $3,219. At this time the estimated SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $4,520. 15. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. The 2005 park fees rate is $4,000. Park fees for John Henry Addition will be $8,000. 16. Building Official conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Separate water and sewer service must be provided for each lot. All voted in favor, except McDonald who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: Basically it was within the zoning. Our task is to establish does it meet the ordinance and it does. Next we have our fourth item on the agenda. 39 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISOIN AND POTENTIAL LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-06. Public Present: Name Address Keith Buesgens 1300 Oakside Circle Dana Muller 8550 Sunset Trail George & Jackie Bizek 8750 Powers Blvd. Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard John Hill 1360 Oakside Circle Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Margaret Tran 1330 Lyman Boulevard Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: One question just up front before I pass it my fellow commissioners. The neighborhood to the west, just north of Lyman, is that large lot or single family? Generous: That’s residential low density, so RSF would be appropriate. Sacchet: That whole Sunset Trail area is RSF? Papke: But the lots are what size? Generous: Oh, they’re larger than 2 ½ acres. Sacchet: So that could be considered too. Alright with that, questions from staff. Papke: Okay, I’ll start. I have two questions. First of all could you clarify the proposed zoning just to the south of this area on the other side of Lyman that’s part of the AUAR. Generous: Yes. Make sure the zoning’s not in place. It’s currently zoned A2 which is agricultural estate. It’s guided in the comprehensive plan for low and/or medium density residential development, so it could be density ranges of 1.2 up to 8 units per acre. Papke: Okay. Second question. In the staff report, first paragraph of background. The last sentence asks or states, however as part of the original plat it was envisioned that when urban services become available this property would redevelop but with larger lots, 1 acre or larger. What evidence do we have of that? How do we know? Is this folklore? Is this a plat? I mean what does envision mean? 40 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Generous: Well it came from as part of the discussion of the property. There was some talk about when we get urban services down here, we should maybe at that time allow them to go to more dense development, but in this instance they’re still looking at something above an acre or more with these lots. Sacchet: If I may interject. Do we have the zoning between, up to 4 units like RSF and large lot? We do not, do we? Generous: No. Sacchet: But we’re talking about one here, so how does that fit together? Do you see what I’m saying? Generous: Yes. We wouldn’t, until the city adopted it’s comprehensive plan and made that 1.2 to 4 unit per acre density, you could have under RSF, you could have an acre and a half lot. There’s nothing in the ordinance that would strictly prohibit it. However the comprehensive plan, because of the net density requirements would preclude that. Sacchet: Okay. Sorry for interrupting Kurt. Papke: That’s all I have. Sacchet: Dan, you want to jump in? Keefe: Yeah, just one quick question. It looks like maybe it was Mr. Rossavik who polled the neighbors in regards to what their thoughts were. Did the City talk to any of the neighbors and sort of concur with the thoughts there in regards to rezoning this or? Generous: Only indirectly. Mr. Rossavik has presented that information to us. We know 2 that have said no, but no one’s done it formally. Keefe: Yeah, alright. Good enough. Slagle: I just have a quick question. Bob, would it, again from a, I don’t want to say common sense standpoint but you decide how I say this but if one is traveling southbound on Powers 8 years from now, and you have the apartments. You have townhomes. You have sort of a gap of Lake Susan Hill houses, as they start to go up that road. What road is that on the west side? Help me out. Goes up into the development. By Flamingo and. Generous: Lake Susan. Slagle: Okay. And then you have these large lots, then you hit Lyman which will be a very busy intersection, and then potentially we could have medium density units. Generous: Yeah, townhomes. 41 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: So I’m just again, trying to think of the consistency as you see the landscape of the city in this area. It seems to me, and I’ll go back to the very first time we had this, the question about if everybody was open to developing their land, would the city be as, would the city take the same position it is now? I know it’s hypothetical but I mean it’s a real question. Generous: Ultimately that’s up to council. From the staff standpoint we do believe there is one area within this development that is more re-developable than the rest. And so it may. Slagle: And which one is that Bob? Generous: Well it’s that central, north central. It’s this north central area to Lot 4 approximately. The eastern part of it. Once you get a third of the way through that lot, then you start running into more topographic issues and the wooded areas start to come out. And so, but the rest of this is more open. It’s been planted trees that go in there and so it makes some sense that you could look at that as a fairly easy to redevelop. Slagle: Okay, and then let me follow up by, with your comments by asking then if that is the area that you would deem at least most plausible to develop or redevelop, is it staff’s opinion that collectively the owners would need to agree or can individual landowners. Sacchet: That’s a tough one. Slagle: Yeah, well that’s why I’m asking staff. Generous: For the southern two to work, you would collectively, Lots 3 and 4. Lot 2 could come in by itself and provide, we’ve seen examples where he’s provided access for the abutting property and extended a private street down and that would work on his property. Now that, since all this started that now requires a variance process to have a private street rather than a public street. Slagle: I guess let me ask it in a different way. Has staff’s position changed with respect to being able to redevelop one of those lots without the other lots acting upon the same plan, if you will? Generous: We’d still like them to work together so. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Generous: We think it works best that way. Most efficient. Sacchet: Okay, Steve. No questions? I do have a few questions. Just in terms of the time line. It says that in 1980 this area was part of the planned residential area to the north. How much of that was actually included in that? Do we know? Generous: This whole thing. 42 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Sacchet: The whole thing. Generous: It was part of it originally and then they didn’t go any further and then because of property ownership and the change. Sacchet: Okay. So, because I want to make sure I understand this because the way I read this history line is that it was approved for rezoning but the rezoning was never filed. What was it approved to rezone to? Generous: Part of the planned residential development for. Sacchet: Which means single family like to the north? Generous: Yeah, very typical to the… Sacchet: Like the north, okay. That’s what I want to be clear about. And then in 1991 it went back to large lot. Alright. Then my other question, I’m struggling with this one. On page 6 there is a statement that basically as a traffic calming feature we want large lot. That’s the first time I hear that as a strategy to keep traffic low is to keep the number of residents of low. It actually makes a lot of sense. I’m surprised that this shows up for the first time here all of a sudden. Slagle: We haven’t used that arguments in other developments. Sacchet: Yeah, we’ve heard them the other way around. Like the more traffic, the more it calms it down because they can’t go fast because it’s clogged up. Now here we have it’s the other way around. The less people that live there, the less traffic, but there’s already a lot of traffic so we don’t want to add more. It seems a little funny. I guess that wasn’t a question. Sorry for that. With that, do we have an applicant? Yes we do. Would you please give us your part of the story in expedient way please. Wait a second. Hold it. The City is the applicant, so I’ve got to ask you to sit down again because I have to open, well the applicant already spoke. Yeah, the applicant already spoke. So the City is actually, now I have a question. This is a significant question. What is the City applying for? Generous: We’re reviewing the land use designation of the property to see if the existing land use is appropriate. Or should we make a land use amendment to residential low density consistent with the two properties to the north and west of this. Lillehaug: Could I have a clarification? Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Can you tell them why you’re doing this? Because the Planning Commission directed. 43 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Generous: Directed us to make the study. Hopefully we can preclude, we’ll find out is it appropriate. Have things changed enough since this was designated large lot in ’91 that we think a land use change is appropriate. Sacchet: Okay, because I want to be very clear about that because it’d be kind of funny if the City would apply for low density, for single family residential and then recommend basically against it. You see what I’m saying? Generous: Hopefully that wasn’t precluded as part of the study. Sacchet: Sure, I understand. Yeah, you explained it well. Keefe: Based upon how you kind of stated it, as to whether anything has changed to make, you know go from large lot to low density. And you’re recommending no change at this point. What would sort of trigger a change in your mind in regards to timing? In regards to timing and/or? Generous: Well it could be community need. Do we see a need for different housing types? That would be something. Definitely the provision of sewer and water might be one. Do we want to utilize that things have been made available but are not being used. And you know going from, before this was a 2 lane roadway and now it’s a 4 lane roadway. Does that make a difference? Should we put you know, another issue you can say, no. Low density’s not appropriate. Maybe this should be high density or medium density too. Sacchet: Well, moving on with the fun we have here. I’d like to open the public hearing and invite any resident that wants to come forward and address this issue, to please do so now. State your name and address for the record. Arild Rossavik: Gentlemen, commission members. My name is Arild Rossavik, 8800 Powers Boulevard. The water and sewer was brought down here for 10 years ago and just to, if I can focus in. This was the tax projection that came with this in here. Is it upside down? But this is cast 17… This is cast 17. City project 93-29. Estimate assessment of property ownership. This is related to Hillside Oaks, Block 1 then water sewer was brought down there. And we go down assessing units here. So Lot 1, Lot 2 and such and such all the way to Lot 7. And existing units is 7 units. And potential future units 32. That’s what the city projected could be totally units under RSF. So in this I’m just indicating, this indicates RSF guidance. December of ’95 I got this letter here from the city and I presume the rest of the property owners got the same letter, and basically it comes down to the bottom line because water sewer’s been made available to us, that my property, your property is proposed for special assessment. Based on this thing I stated well you know, these two figures here. This is RSF zoning. This is water and sewer’s coming down here and that puts sewer in my driveway here. So yeah…so this is 10 years ago so the markings here. This was water sewer’s available in a joint driveway with my neighbor here. So I will just show that. And the lift station’s that on the other side of the street. And as the Generous said, it’s standing in use for 10 years. At a cost of $250,000. Now with 6% interest, it’s more than $400,000. As a matter of fact the City has to come down and fill water into the lift station to, so it doesn’t run dry. So we’re not using the lift station is basically condemning the whole investment improvement. September ’97, got another letter from the City which is in 44 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 conjunction with the first one, and they say the City has elected not to assess the trunk charges to your property at this time. That property will be assessed at the time you do make the connection. They don’t give any reason. It was RSF or large lot or anything like that. They just say the City has elected without no more explanation. So needless to say, no assessment charges have been made. Hillside Oaks, just to show that, is 4 fractions. It is Oakside Circle which is the southbound part. It’s Lyman Boulevard which, one of the lots faces Lyman Boulevard and then we have the eastern part which is, what he said. It’s RSF guidance for it and we have my guidance here where my property is which is Lot 2 and Mr. Bizek’s Lot 1. As you can see, the driveway here doesn’t allow any turn around’s. So we have the problem here, trash is being picked up on the street every Thursday the truck, pick up truck stops in the street there and on th December the 16 last month, a car came down Powers Boulevard, crossed over the mid section here. Went over and just by the lift station, front to front collision. This was not caused by anything like that but what I’m pointing out to, delivery trucks come to either my property or Mr. Bizek’s property, who has a commercial business there. They have to back either in or out. Sacchet: Just to clarify Mr. Rossavik, on this photo it looks like two driveways come together at a pretty open angle so a truck couldn’t go back into the other driveway and out on the road? Arild Rossavik: Yes. Sacchet: But I guess either of the neighbors is very much in favor of that. Arild Rossavik: Yes, so and I own most of the property. I have this 4 acre property I own there. My property can facilitate a turn around, no problem. It’s big enough for that and I’ve drafted a proposal to the City for that, and my last proposal, my eleventh proposal, my eleventh revision, the $30,000 I spent so far. Sacchet: You kept count. Arild Rossavik: Yes. Assessed on it. We’re down to 2 more extra houses on my property and including too a cul-de-sac to the south. A turn around so we can facilitate that lane there too. I have talked to my neighbors, let me see and okay, you can focus on here. I’m not quite sure where Mr. Bizek is, but I guess you can hear from him yourself. A couple of years ago he was trying to sell his property. He entertained but it was subject to rezoning and he wasn’t sure about… Sacchet: Let him talk for himself. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, so either way I talked to…and I’m not sure if he’s here, just today so he is interested in facilitating another house on his property. And I talked to Keith Buesgens on corner lot there today and he said he was in favor of our said guidance for his property and the two properties over here, on this side here, well you have a written statement for they support that. They are already RSF and they would like to stay like that because they have plans around that area. So with that said, I think that’s it. And also by giving, I think it was. Sacchet: You know you can come back more than once if you need to think. 45 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Arild Rossavik: But with that said, I think there’s a majority right now in 5…and actually that property owner Brenda Hill there, they have no objection. They’d like to keep their place as it is but they have no objection. I showed my plan to her and she has no objection to it. It’s only 2 more houses coming into my side. And so I have found in 2003 the city staff came up with a recommendation. City staff recommends approval of the land use amendment from residential large lot residential to low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. That was my lot. This was 2 years ago and that was actually for 5 lots. Now we’re down to 3 lots. There’s no cul-de-sac involved anymore. That was the cul-de-sac was the issue…caused all kind of problems last time. The cul-de-sac is out. It doesn’t pose any conflict. And the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning from A2 to RSF. That was the city staff’s recommendation since that. Since that time, what has happened is basically we got AUAR 2005. We got and we have coming down there, 1,500 new housing units. 700,000 square foot office space. A public school. And of course the connection to new 212. They’re going to start thinking on the new 212, this picture here. Yes, here picture here. That hill there, they’re going to start digging in in a couple, say 90 days. That hill will, and Powers Boulevard’s going to be turned around to a construction zone. There’s going to be a stop light in this intersection here. Lyman Boulevard’s going to be increased to 4 lanes. Powers Boulevard, it’s kind of a four fraction pieces right now within large lot zoning doesn’t make any sense. There is residential zoning proposed all around it. And this is kind of coming in the middle of 5 I would say actually in traffic wise actually. He has said 15,000 cars a day. It’s 20, that’s subject to the, a collector road being built. They haven’t funded that one yet and we don’t know who’s going to fund it. If the collector road is not being built, the proposal as far as I understand is 27,000 cars a day. On, down on Powers Boulevard and that’s significant change. It doesn’t fit the character of the large lots which is kind of a state property that’s included, except maybe that lot was maybe one of the lots that fits the stand… My lot, my neighbors lot that facing Powers Boulevard, and we’re going to have all this traffic. And land use guidance change will allow me to put…if something had to come up my own pocket. The city will not build a sound wall to shield me from that noise. So I will just ask this Planning Commission to find the most and least for my property and the other owners will have to speak for themselves and since the Planning Commission, the city staff recommends what 2 years ago. Now my lot can be a transition place and we will solve the traffic issue but we can have a turn around so we don’t have any accidents coming down on Powers Boulevard and we can open up for the city a sewer investment so that certainly now can be facilitated. If not, it’s a taxpayer pay for that thing. Sacchet: Thank you. Arild Rossavik: Thank you for your time. Sacchet: Appreciate your comments. I’d like to invite anybody else who wants to address this item to come forward at this time. Tell us what you think about this situation. What, how it affects you. What you recommend. State your name and address for the record please. George Bizek: Hello. My name is George Bizek. I’m at 8750 Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: So you’re the northern most lot, Lot 1? 46 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 George Bizek: Right. Yeah, we have the joining driveway at the bottom. This is the fourth time been in front of you with this rezoning and regards to his petition to the city to rezone this. I’m against it. That cul-de-sac that he’s got on there would be a detriment to my property and developing my property. What was found, one of the members here asked what needs to change for this and it was decided at all 3 meetings that this has to be done with more than one property owner. It’s kind of a unique piece of property. He keeps referring to the road and how dangerous the road is. We do have a turn lane in front of our house. The garbage truck that has to pick up our trash has a full lane to get off the road with. You’re dumping more traffic onto a road that now, to go to Chanhassen we have to go down and make a U turn and if you ever tried to go down to Lyman Boulevard and Powers and make a U turn at Lyman, you cannot see around those corners, so we make the U turn whether it’s no turn lane to make a U turn because I feel it’s a safer. I don’t know some day I’ll probably get a ticket for doing it but that’s the way I do it because I feel it’s safer and he wants to dump more traffic onto this road to have to do that. In regards to these people on this list, I strongly suggest that you talk to all these people because the only, one of the two strong supports I talked to today and she signed off that she did not sign this. She did not agree to it and I have her signature right next to where she supposedly was on the list and I think some of these people that he’s got on here that have no objection, they’re here to speak for themselves. And I thank you for your time. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Let us know what you have to say. George Bizek: Do you want a copy of this? Sacchet: You can give it to staff if you want. Please, good evening. John Hill: Thank you. My name’s John Hill. My wife. I live at 1360 Oakside Circle. Sacchet: You want to, this is what lot number? John Hill: Lot 4, Block 1. My wife Brenda and I live there. And in your packet it states that we do not object to rezoning and I don’t know where that information came from but we do not support and never have supported rezoning of our area. Mr. Rossavik did talk to my wife last fall, but she said, at that time she said she would consider allowing 2 homes to be built but nothing was ever, but she needed to talk to her husband first, and nothing was ever mentioned in that conversation about rezoning. Sacchet: So you’re vetoed. John Hill: Well she’s not in favor of it either. And what drew us here 10 years ago was the elbow room and the openness of that area and we do object to the rezoning and support the staff position of leaving the zoning as it is. Thank you. 47 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Sacchet: Thank you for letting us know. Anybody else want to speak up to this item? Please come forward. And if you want to state your name and address please. Margaret Tran: My name is Margaret Tran and my husband and I own the Lot 6. My husband asked me to come tonight to represent us and just to tell you that we are not in favor of any change. We want our lot size. We built back in ’86, back when there was just, what was it, a gravel road in front of our house and we’ve never wanted to change and at this point, because we have such a large wooded lot, we feel that if we rezoned it to smaller, that it would just decrease the value of the homes in the area and this zoning that he’s proposing is just going to benefit his property at the risk of the surrounding properties and that’s my view. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comment. Anybody else wants to talk to this item? Arild Rossavik: Just a comment. I did show Brenda Hill and she said actually, she didn’t have any problem with me rezoning. It should be no problem. I never heard back from the husband or then after that so yeah, I gave them a copy of the suggestion they have already got all the copies which is gone to you for the process of this is. Like I said, I don’t see Jamie is my neighbor to the south but he, I talked to his wife today and take my word for it, they seemed to be, they should be here today but I did talk to Mr. Buesgens. He called me as a matter of fact. He would like to have RSF zoning on his property, and either way, the concern of Tran here, she is, this is the property of Tran. They’re facing Lyman Boulevard so it’s a fraction up there. Mr. Tran also, the city can correct me if I’m wrong but he has a commercial business there. Sacchet: Arild, excuse me. I would strongly recommend you speak for yourself and that everybody, if everybody speaks for themselves, everybody will be covered and property represented. If we start talking for each other we’re getting nowhere. Arild Rossavik: Okay. That’s the only comment. And if Mr. Bizek, we can probably accommodate, we can move the cul-de-sac to accommodate him but he just has to come and ask and I will facilitate anything he wants to have so… I’m not against it so, but I can facilitate the whole cul-de-sac or turn around on my property. If he wants to participate in this, then we can share it… Sacchet: …at the overall zoning. I mean, and I would. Arild Rossavik: Rezoning issues. Sacchet: But it’s a different issue in front of us. I mean if you have a proposal, I would strongly recommend you work it out between you before you come in front of the city with it. But that’s not the issue in front of us right now. Is there anybody else wants to address this item? Please. Keith Buesgens: Yeah, I’m Keith Buesgens. I live at Lot 7, 1300 Oakside Circle. I bought this lot back in ’85 and I bought it for the size and for the room and so forth. Currently I have no interest in subdividing. That’s not to say 15 years down the road I might when I’m 60. It’s a possibility. 42. Not interested right now. But I think like you say, the approach on this has just 48 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 been, hasn’t been correct. I think that, like you say, it’s got to go from within and then come to the city and it’s been quite the opposite on that so, but that’s basically my feeling on it right now. Sacchet: Thank you for comments. Anybody else? Yes. Steve Buan: Yeah, I’m Steve Buan. I actually live on Flamingo Drive, 8740. I love the property and my comment is, is that if something looking at this 20 acres, there ought to be a comprehensive plan of how the whole 20 acres is going to develop, not piecemeal. 3 acres here, 2 acres there. It adds to the aesthetics of the entire area, not just the 20 acres. There are extreme safety issues with so many accesses to Powers Boulevard within a quarter mile and the speed of Powers Boulevard and the amount of truck traffic and things that are coming. I’m sensitive to the issues of the property owner’s right down there of what that’s going to do, but I’m also sensitive to the safety of me pulling out from Lake Susan Hills Drive onto Powers with another street potentially coming in there. I think that should not happen. They have driveways now. I would be completely against a street there. There should be one street and whether it’s at where Oakside Circle is now or somewhere else, up the line, halfway between, that’s for somebody else to decide but there’s a lot of issues that are not going to be solved by just blanket changing the whole thing over to residential single family in 2005 and then having 2 acres here, 4 acres here and then having a bunch of arguments about each of those so I think there ought to be a larger more comprehensive idea of what the whole 20 acres is going to do before we jump the ship and go down to the low density zoning. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, so I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Looks like you’re ready Steve. Lillehaug: I’ll start. I’m going to start right off by saying my position, I do not support a re- guiding and it was based on what we discussed back in what was it, 1993 for two main reasons. The land use amendment is premature without redeveloping the entire area, and without having those other landowners on board. We discussed previously back in ’93 what’s the percentage? Well I don’t know but right now we don’t have that percentage. One or two out of 7, it’s not it. The other reason, the land use amendment creates an island. If the land use amendment went through, it does create an island of low density a large development lot and it’s simply put, we shouldn’t do that. And one other thing I want to kind of throw out to commissioners. We directed staff to do this, but nothing’s changed. Nothing has changed since we, since Mr. Rossavik brought this to us previously so going forward here, I think we need to be real critical on when we direct staff to re-look at land use changes because in my mind this, it’s good to go through this exercise but we just did it a little while ago. So recent there hasn’t been enough changes and we shouldn’t be wasting staff’s time to re-look at this when we know that a decision was just made on this. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Jerry, do you want to make a comment? McDonald: Well I’ve got, yeah some comments and some questions. The issue of, about the lift station being brought up as a reason for doing this because it’s under utilized. What was the plan there as far as that lift station? Is that to take care of future development across Lyman? 49 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Generous: No. It would just be for this area. McDonald: Okay, so it’s only designated for this area. There’s no future benefit build into it then? Generous: Correct. McDonald: And with the capacity it has, it would support the smaller lots? As far as adding to the area. Generous: Yes, it would have accommodated, based on the assessment roll that they could have subdivided at a RSF density. McDonald: Okay, so it has a future capacity if the land as a whole is rezoned to something else? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Then the other question I’ve got is, okay. A lot’s…Lyman Boulevard and the future use of that and everything and future plans. Going to 4 lanes and everything. If that begins to happen, what happens to these south lots? I mean what happens to those as far as encroachment of road, berms. What kind of problems do we end up with there that we have to solve as far as dividing up these lots at higher density? Generous: Well that’s only if you do a land use amendment. As it is they wouldn’t further subdivide. McDonald: Okay, well I’m, I guess that’s all. Sacchet: Okay, Rich. Slagle: The only question I have to staff is, if, again I’m throwing out a hypothetical but if we had 4 or 5 of these land owners in front of us suggesting that they wanted to develop their land, I’m not sure that we would feel the same. I think part of the issue is there’s some acrimony amongst the folks here and if I can comment to Commissioner Lillehaug’s point that nothing’s changed. I would say the fact that Lyman and southward is going to change dramatically. And again as I mentioned, you’re going to have this pocket of 7, 8, 10, whatever it ends up being, large lots surrounded by traffic and development. I mean it’s just going to happen. And so I think, I don’t want to say anything more. I just think that I just raise that as something to consider. Sacchet: So something did change is what you’re saying. Slagle: I think so. I think so. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Dan. 50 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Keefe: Sure. I think the area is definitely going to change. I think it’s going to change dramatically but sort of where I come down on this is, at least I’m looking at the list that Mr. Rossavik sent in and given the people who spoke up, I’m not finding anybody on that side of the street who supports it other than he did. You know you’ve got 3 different times for plans for rezoning. I’ve got 2003, objected. I’ve got the 2 that had no objection, are now objecting. I just, other than him I don’t see any other support so I think at this time you know, I think at some time in the future it would make some sense because I think big change is coming to this area but I don’t know that now is the time. Sacchet: Kurt. Thanks Dan. Papke: The only thing I would add is, Mr. Rossavik has gone to some considerable expense already to move his agenda forward and city staff and now Planning Commission has spent a fair amount of time on this. What I’d like to do is make sure that we come out of this with some sort of crisp criteria so that Mr. Rossavik doesn’t incur further expense, and staff doesn’t spend further time on this until it’s quite clear that this has a reasonably high probability of moving forward. So if we can, I don’t know how we formulate that or what action we can take make that happen, but I think that’s in the best interest of everyone involved. Sacchet: Well my comments are a little different. I’d really like to stick with the matter in front of us, which is the aspect of rezoning. Changing the land use designation. I really want to stick with that because that’s the issue in front of us. And I’d like to take a different position altogether. I think this large lot right now is a spot zoning. I would like staff to look at, if we have this large lot also, the two lots on the east side of Powers, and the Sunset Trail neighborhood to be also large lot, then we have actually a reasonable block of large lot and we, and I think it can be justified in terms of what I consider good planning. Alternatively, it’s a tricky thing to deal with, but that’s where I stand with it. I’d like to direct staff, like one of the options staff made was to direct staff to review Block 2 for land use amendment to residential large lot. I would go one step further and also include the Sunset Trail area. Because currently the Sunset Trail neighborhood, I think they are large lot and that, and it would be consistent with the sense that there is parkland and wetland around it, and it would be a large enough block that it would make sense, this designation at that point. Otherwise I consider this large lot thing a spot zoning. That’s the position I take. Slagle: Mr. Chair if I can add, 100 percent in support of that. I concur. I think that we are being a little bit inconsistent with how we’ve approached this. I don’t know the reasons for it but I’d like to know. Again to Mr. Papke’s comment, what do we need to get to? Sacchet: Let me ask one more question. What’s west from Sunset Trail before it gets to the wetland? To the Bluff Creek area. Because it’s. Generous: Residential low density but they’re large parcels right now. Sacchet: So I would say that also needs to be included in that consideration. All the way over to the Bluff Creek wetland or what that’s called. 51 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: Basically south of the park. Up in Lake Susan Hill. Sacchet: That’s I think would make it a consistent sizeable block of land use, of guidance to really have hand and feet, as I call it. Kurt. Papke: May I make a comment? Yeah, I’m somewhat concerned that if we open that Pandora’s Box, the people who are currently zoned residential single family, we would be taking away their ability to develop if we were to rezone that and. Sacchet: That’s right. Papke: …see some opposition to that. Sacchet: And then these people would have to come speak up. I’m not saying we can do it. I’m saying we need to study it. Papke: I just think we need to be, you know, we all need to conscience of what we’re precipitating by making that call. Right now it seems pretty straight forward that there is not public support among the local residents to change this zoning, but I would guess that there would be some opposition to, for those other property owners to limit their freedom. Sacchet: I would expect so too actually. Any other comments? Discussion. Somebody want to venture a motion please. Lillehaug: I’ll make a motion as staff recommends, the Planning Commission affirms the land use map designation of Residential-Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission affirms the land use map designation of Residential-Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. All voted in favor, except Slagle and Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20-615 TO AMEND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOT WIDTH REQUIRMENTS. Public Present: Name Address th Dennis Wolt 4291 West 200 Street, Jordan Michael Callies 937 Shumway Street, Shakopee 52 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Ronald Jabs 217 Juergens Court, Jordan nd Scott Rosenlund 622 West 82 Street, Chaska Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Just to clarify up front. We’re saying that the 100 foot width you’re proposing applies to all lots? Generous: For future development. Sacchet: And for those on a curve, at the setback. Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay, because I was confused when I read this. I start wondering whether it only applies to the ones on the curve. Generous: No. Sacchet: It applies to all of them? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Slagle: So again, following up on that. So we’re saying on a curve where the building setback is, if you will, where it’s going to be built, it’s 100 feet. Minimum. Generous: Right. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Otherwise it’s on the frontage. Generous: Right, if it’s on the straight section of roadway. Slagle: Correct. So let me ask you this, is it your opinion that that will help alleviate these concerns we’ve seen recently with houses being pushed back to make that minimum of being pushed so far back that there’s really no back yard? Is that going to help this? Generous: That could be part of the resolution to that. It’s more to fit the houses that we’re seeing now, with the 3 car, 3 and 4 car garages and spread them out. It’s getting tough to accommodate. Sacchet: Any other questions? 53 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Keefe: I had a quick one, just in regards to the 100 feet. I mean, is there any relationship between that 100 feet and the 15,000 square foot lot area that we would want to consider potentially increasing the 15,000 as a minimum, if we go to a 100 foot up front? Is there any relationship? Generous: No, because the depth hasn’t been a big problem. 100 feet, you’re going to need 150 feet of depth. Keefe: Okay, and so we’re comfortable if we had 100 by 150 as a minimum? Generous: Yeah, we’re not seeing the housing. Keefe: As an issue at all, yeah. Generous: Yeah, deeper, it’s getter wider it seems is what’s happening. Keefe: Okay. Papke: Yeah, just one sketchy question here. Sometimes when we change codes and so on there’s unintended consequences to those changes that we hadn’t envisioned. Is there any potential here that the 90 foot exception could be exploited by developers in a fashion we didn’t intend to work around the 100 foot width? Where they might, are we unintentionally encouraging cul-de-sacs and curves in order to provide opportunities for developers to get around the 100 foot width? Sacchet: Well there is no exception for 90 foot. Generous: Yeah, no. And I see there was an error in the way the ordinance is drafted too. Papke: Okay. Maybe that’s where my question comes from because the ordinance, the way it’s drafted says the minimum lot frontage is 90 feet. Generous: Yeah, but it should be 100 feet. Papke; Okay, okay. Sacchet: Oh, that’s where I got confused too. Alright. Papke: Okay. So even on a curvilinear, at the cul-de-sac it’s 100 feet? Generous: No. On curves the 100 foot starts at the building setback line, but the 100 feet width. Papke: So then my concern perhaps is valid that by putting in a curve or a cul-de-sac a developer can get around the 100 foot width because with lots of cul-de-sacs. He can make lots of little bubbles and make sure there’s a curve everywhere and now you’ve worked around it. 54 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 I’m just, maybe it’s completely ludicrous. I don’t know. I’m just trying to make sure that we’ve thought through all the things that could happen. Lillehaug: It’s no different than what we have today. We’re just changing it from 90 to 100. Generous: 90 to 100 is making it wider. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Alright. The applicant for this is the City, right? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: So we can open the public hearing. This is a public hearing so if any residents want to speak up to this proposed ordinance change, this is your chance. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you think about this. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman, council. My name is Scott Rosenlund I live nd at 622 West 82 Street in Chaska. My son and I are small builders, small contractor and we have recently have under contract a property on 6500 Chanhassen Road. Right before you hit the Lundgren development. We have had the property, we have it under contract. We had Otto Associates go through the preliminary concept stage. We met with the city planners and you know have been proceeding along at that point. We got an early indication that possibly, and our lots are, the 100 foot will either make or break the entire development for us. Slagle: I don’t know where we’re talking, just curious. Sacchet: Can you specify where this is? Al-Jaff: It is one lot south of the intersection of Pleasant View Road and 101. Sacchet: Okay. Now another question, we’ll get right back to you. How quickly does something like this take effect, because that’s basically what this gentleman is worried about. If this comes in and he’s made plans based on how it was so far. Al-Jaff: If you approve it today, it goes to City Council for a vote and then it gets published. Sacchet: So once it’s published it would be applicable to every application that comes in at that point? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: And you have not made application yet? Scott Rosenlund: No. We’re in the process. We have moved forward. We have the surveys being done so we’ve spent about $5,000 at this point in surveying, wetland studies and started 55 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 the soil boring tests for the roadway and just you know it will, the property won’t make financial sense if the ordinance changes midstream for us. Sacchet: What’s the time line for your project? Scott Rosenlund: Our planning was to be to make final application of the Planning Commission in the end of the this month and then be in front of the council based on that preliminary approval. Sacchet: So you were thinking to submit an application in the next couple weeks. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, we planned on developing the land and building on there this summer. Sacchet: Okay. Keefe: So in his case it would be a variance. He’d have to come in under a variance. Al-Jaff: Correct, but do you want to approve an ordinance amendment and then immediately grant a variance for that? Sacchet: Or could we approve an ordinance with the stipulation that somebody who speaks up in time. Al-Jaff: You know I have. st Slagle: You just said a time line. I mean if this takes effect February 1, that type of thing. Al-Jaff: Well it says effective date of publication. You haven’t seen the plans that the applicant is proposing. Scott Rosenlund: I have a preliminary concept plan that we’ve covered if you want to. Al-Jaff: The one that we. Slagle: I guess my point, I don’t need to see it personally but I’m just asking, does it have to be st at publication or can it be May 1? You know anything that happens after a date. I’m just throwing these out. Generous: It could be set up that way. We did amend the ordinance recently to have something st take effect January 1. Slagle: That’s fair. Then I think it’s fair. Lillehaug: Before we go that direction, a point of clarification if I can? Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. 56 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Lillehaug: This is one applicant that is indicating this. Does staff know, is there any more out there or is this the only one that this is going to affect or can we appeal for that? Al-Jaff: You might get an application for the one immediately next to Highover. I mean we’ve heard that an application might be submitted. Lillehaug: How about north of Highway 7. How does this apply to that tabled application? Al-Jaff: That would. Generous: Affect that if they don’t meet the. Sacchet: Good point. Do you want to add anything to this? Scott Rosenlund: No, I was just wondering if there was anything that we could do because right now it’s set up for 6 lots. When we started the process we thought there was 7. We’ve had to re- negotiate to the landowner to 6 and we have currently, it will work at 6 with no variances or nothing that’s outside the existing code. It won’t work at 100 feet. Sacchet: Okay. And you say you’d be ready to submit an application within a few weeks. Okay, thank you. Anybody else wants to address this item. This is your chance. Yes. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Hummm. I just have a question. Is this for every lot will have 100 feet in width whether they’re on a cul-de-sac or curve? Sacchet: Any new lot in a new subdivision, is that accurate? Al-Jaff: Correct. Janet Paulsen: And a cul-de-sac it will be. Sacchet: It will be 100 feet but as it was so far measured at the 30 foot setback instead of on the curve. Janet Paulsen: At the 30 foot setback? Well right now it has to go back as far until it gets to be 90 feet. Sacchet: Yes, it was 90 feet at the 30 foot setback. Now with the new change it would be 100 feet just the same as it is at 100 feet on the straight line. Or not on a…so in that sense it’s the same approach that we have so far, is that we have a 10 feet more. Janet Paulsen: Well right now that’s really not what the law says. Get the original. Well first of all in the report it makes the case for cul-de-sacs mainly. And then the recommendation says, 57 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 be changed to 100 feet at the 30 foot front yard setback. It doesn’t say anything about cul-de- sac. And then the ordinance change, it says the minimum lot frontage is 90 feet. Sacchet: Yeah, we already established that was a typo Janet. It’s supposed to, basically Bob and Sharmeen, can you please verify. What I understand from your comment a minute ago is that the correct wording of the proposed ordinance is that the minimum lot frontage is 100 feet, except that lots fronting a cul-de-sac bubble or along the outside curve of a curvilinear street section shall be 100 feet. Is that? Generous: That was my understanding of how it was written. Sacchet: Otherwise it really doesn’t make sense and I agree with you. You can’t have it one way in one case, another way in another. We have to be consistent. Al-Jaff: The intent is to have it 100 feet. If you have just your typical 100 by 150 lot, the intent is to have a minimum of 100 foot frontage. If it’s on a curve, on a cul-de-sac bubble, then you measure the 100 foot at the 30 foot setback. Sacchet: Correct, which is the same way we’ve always done it except we did it with 90. Now we’re proposing to do it with 100. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Sacchet: And I was confused about that too Janet because this misprint that it talks about 90 in the ordinance threw me. Janet Paulsen: So it has to have 100 feet at the 30 foot setback? Al-Jaff: Correct. Yes. Sacchet: Yes. Janet Paulsen: Are you sure that isn’t, it says in the lot it says, shall be 100 feet in width at the building setback line. Is that the definition of the building setback line? Al-Jaff: Yes. Janet Paulsen: Because I know currently, like on private streets you have to go further back until you reach 100 feet. Al-Jaff: Well the design of the parcel, in this case the design of a lot located on a cul-de-sac and the location of the said property lines would have to achieve the minimum of 100 foot at the 30 foot setback. Sacchet: I understand it. Is it clear to you? 58 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Janet Paulsen: No. So I have another question. Then what is the effect of this? Does it mean that we’ll have wider cul-de-sacs? Because right now the standard width of a cul-de-sac is. Sacchet: Well it’s my understanding the aim of staff is to have more space from experience, observation, they see that we have 3 car garages versus 2 car garages when the 90 foot, so the 10 foot basically accommodates the extra width. Is that an accurate representation? Generous: That’s the intent, yes. Janet Paulsen: So then we’ll have fewer homes on a cul-de-sac? Sacchet: It effectively would reduce the numbers slightly. Janet Paulsen: So that’s what we’re looking for basically? Sacchet: Yeah. Slagle: Or probably, if I may add, fewer units per development. Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: I don’t think the key word is cul-de-sac here. It’s just 100 foot lots. That’s the key. It’s changing from 90 to 100 foot lots everywhere and then the verbiage addresses cul-de-sacs just like it did before. At the setback line, so really it’s wider lots for larger houses. Less lots per development. Al-Jaff: Also bear in mind that there are times when the lot depth is right at 125. You need to make that up with the lot width, so I don’t believe you’re going to impact development overall in the city. Sacchet: That’s an interesting point Sharmeen. Would that then translate into potentially the lots being more shallow? Al-Jaff: No. With 150 feet, that’s plenty depth. Janet Paulsen: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Janet. Anybody else? Yes, we have somebody else. Please come forward. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. In the staff report there was another, there was a notice to builders and that notification also read 95 feet, if you read it. It does not read 100 feet. You have that in front of you? Sacchet: Good point. Debbie Lloyd: So the notification that was sent out… 59 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Sacchet: Good point. Thanks for bringing that up. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, another question I have is the requirement for lot width was changed in 1996. Do we know what it was before 1996? Sacchet: Do we? Debbie Lloyd: It was changed according to the report, it was changed I think in 1996. It could be 1998. I read through it once. I’d like to know what it was beforehand. I have, you know I’m in a residential single family neighborhood, RSF. R1. That was established in 1959. My particular lot has enough width. But I’m really curious how many lots within Chanhassen would become non-conforming because of this change in regulation. Was this a short period of time that we had smaller widths or did we have wider widths before? I’d just kind of like to know that information. What are we creating for existing RSF neighborhoods? And on the staff report, again I don’t have it in front of me, we talk about the need for creating wider lots because of the demand for more garages, but yet on that same, on the front of the report you’re looking at, it looks as if those developers have provided wider lots. Slagle: In some cases I would say. Debbie Lloyd: Well they still have to meet the required setback and then it kind of goes into, have we created the need for 100 foot widths because we’ve allowed extension of driveways into the side yard that we’ve realizing we’re encroaching on a neighbor. We’ve let private driveways into that 5 yard setback that are encroaching. I mean have we created this? I mean if people want big homes, then maybe they need to purchase more land. Question mark. I don’t know. If we put the 100 foot width on that 15,000 square foot lot that you mentioned, okay. We’re not, you know the impervious surface coverage still is what, what’s regulation 25 to 30 percent, but you know we could be pushing that house back more. You said something about the rear lot. We have a rear lot requirement. We still need that depth in the rear lot. I don’t know if this needs a little more looking into. I mean I’m just full of questions because the report just seems to be missing clarity. Doesn’t have a lot of background. Seems to be done quickly. Another thing came up about hammer head cul-de-sacs in one of these meetings. Are you familiar with hammer heads? And then they have little islands in them. And then you know what happens? You technically have fewer homes on these, maybe you have more homes on a hammer head cul-de-sac than you do a traditional round 60 foot. I don’t know. There’s just been a lot of discussion at different meetings about different things and the mayor just got through saying on the Monday meeting that he was not an advocate for cul-de-sacs that didn’t connect the city, and this is a cul-de-sac issue. And maybe I’m getting paranoid but I would just like to know a little more. Sacchet: Thank you. It’s very good points. As a matter of fact, could staff maybe shed some light. How this affect all the many 90 foot lots we have created in the last years. Generous: There’s an exemption for lots created prior to adoption of the ordinance. 60 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Sacchet: Would it mean that they’re exempt, like if they want to do something, they would have to come in and have a variance from this? They would not? This exemption would exempt them from. So the 90 feet is clean. It’s 90 feet because it was 90 feet. Now in the thing that went out to developers, it says 95 feet instead of 100 feet. I think that’s a little bit of a confusion. Slagle: Can I just add? Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Yes. Slagle: If indeed that is a typo, Bob I think, or a mistake, my recommendation is that we just table this because that’s going to have to be sent out again. Sacchet: Gives you a little more time. Anything else you want to add Debbie? Debbie Lloyd: That’s all. Thanks. Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this item? Don’t see anybody. I close the public hearing. Comments. We already started comments. Rich made a comment that he recommends tabling. Any other comments? Jerry. McDonald: I have a comment. The gentleman came up and talked about the property on Pleasant View and 101. I’d like to know what are we creating? I think this is part of what’s coming out because are we going to basically foreclose development on older places because of this? I understand why you want to do it, and I’m all in favor of that but you still have to address, what are you going to do with the current places. If somebody wants to develop those lots, what happens there? You’ve already mentioned a couple of places that might have to do a variance. I agree with, we don’t want to pass something and then all of a sudden everybody’s coming in here and I need a variance to do development. Are we creating a problem by doing this? Al-Jaff: Just remember though one of the reasons why we brought this before you is because we’re noticing a pattern of one house after the other they’re coming before us. And we’re constantly having to go back to the builder saying, it doesn’t fit on this property. Sacchet: So you’re seen a problem that you’re trying to solve? Increasingly. Al-Jaff: A year ago you approved a subdivision for, it’s on the corner of Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. Burlwood subdivision. The builder came in. There were 4 lots on one end served via private street, and the applicant came in and they wanted to put in the homes and they just couldn’t make the homes fit. We were able to address this issue administratively. The 4 lots were consolidated and turned into 3 lots, and again it’s the lot width that created this problem. McDonald: Yeah, I understand all that but I mean, there were some valid points about older land within the city that now comes up for development that’s not what the problem you’re trying to get at. I understand the newer houses are coming up and they want to have the 3 and 4 car garages, and that’s fine and we should find a way to accommodate it, but at the same time what 61 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 I’m hearing, I’m afraid you’re foreclosing older development that now, they’re going to have a problem. It doesn’t become viable to develop the land because of this. I just need to have that question answered. I mean it was brought up and I think it is a viable point. That’s all I’m trying to address. I understand what you’re trying to do, and you’re right. You should be looking forward to that, but at the same time you can’t foreclose development of land that’s kind of land locked in around other developments and everything that maybe it’s only good for 3 or 4 lots but if you now put this in, you’ve just squeezed that down to 2 or 3, and it’s not economically developable land anymore. Scott Rosenlund: Could I just address one more thing? Sacchet: Let’s keep it up here for now because we’re past our curfew. Steve, you… Lillehaug: Quick comment. I support changing it to 100 feet but it sounds like we’re moving in the direction to table it and I would like one question answered that Debbie brought to the table is, when and what did we change from to get to 90 feet, so if it’s possible to get a little history on that. If we do table it. I’m interested in that also. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, just a follow along comment on the consequences here. I suspect what’s going to happen here is this is going to be self fulfilling. Okay, what we’re going to see happen is in order for these things to be economically viable, people are going to have to put 3 car garages on the lots, and that will raise the price. So just as long as we all know what we’re doing, there’s a likely consequence here that we’ll see fewer 2 car garages in Chanhassen, and as long as we’re okay with that as a Planning Commission, then that’s okay. But that’s a likely consequence. Sacchet: Any other comments? Issues. I have a comment. I do think in order to be fair we need to table it because it was published as a 90 foot and we’re saying we want to do 100. I think it makes a lot of sense to put this, make this type of step. Be very careful that we don’t overlook any hidden side effects. Be very careful about this exemption of the current lots so we don’t all of a sudden everybody has to come in for a variance. It’s trick to make a step like that but basically I support it. But I think, in all fairness to the developers that have been told about this, they think it’s 95 feet. We should table it and let them know that really what we’re shooting for is 100. Because like this gentleman came forward with a very pertinent situation and I think people should have the chance to do so and that it gets published in the Villager for anybody to see so we have a clean due process here. With that I’d like to have a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion to table the application and address the issues as discussed. McDonald: I’ll second that. Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second. 62 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded to table action on the code amendment to Chapter 20-615 to amend single family residential (RSF) lot width requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20-904 TO REGULATE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this issue. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, what affect would this have on greenhouses? It’s possible to construct a greenhouse with non-rigid windows in the greenhouse. Would this in effect bar that kind of greenhouse construction? Al-Jaff: Greenhouses are typically in nurseries. Papke: But I could put one in my back yard. Al-Jaff: Yes you could. Sacchet: There are residences that have greenhouses attached. I mean that’s. Al-Jaff: Technically, yes. Sacchet: So it could not be made out of plastic. It would have to be made out of glass. Metzer: Some rigid material. Al-Jaff: Unless you want to make an exemption for temporary plantings related structures. Sacchet: Any other questions? This is a, yes. Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: Yeah, for just a clarification. Okay, docks and those things are exempt, the way I read this as part of a, it looks like 904(a). It does say docks on lakes would be exempt. So if I put up a structure there for a boat and everything to go into, which is one of these canvas type structures, that is exempt? Am I correct in that? Al-Jaff: Correct. McDonald: Okay. Metzer: We made a provision for that. 63 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Sacchet: Any other questions for staff? No? This is a public hearing. Anybody want to speak up to this item, please come forward now. Seeing nobody I close the public hearing and bring it back to commissioners for discussion, comments. Where do we go with this? No more greenhouses out of plastic. Slagle: I’m fully in support of it. Sacchet: Okay. Any other comments? Alright, anybody want to make a motion? Slagle: I’ll make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission adopt, let’s see here. I recommend that we amend Section 20-904, Accessory Structures of the city code by adding subsection (d) to read as follows, as shown. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of amending Section 20-904 (Accessory Structures) of the City Code by adding subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Accessory buildings constructed primarily of canvas, plastic fabric or other similar non- rigid materials, as determined by the Building Official, shall be prohibited. Accessory structures shall be built of materials compatible and comparable to those of the principle structure. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Lillehaug noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 4, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 64