CC Staff Report 2-28-05
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone 952.227.1100
Fax: 952,227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone 952.227.1125
Fax 952.227.1110
Web Site
\'NlI'l.ci. chan hassen. m n .us
3
MEMORANbUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Shatmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer ~,
February 28, 2005
DATE:
SUBJ:
Update on Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary
Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8
outlots, Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zonedRR, Rural
Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide
35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a simple majority vote.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 4,2005 and January
18,2005 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted
3-2 to deny the proposed development.
CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY
On February 14,2005, the City Council reviewed and tabled action on this item.
The City Council minutes are enclosed as attachment la. A number of issues
were discussed. The City Council directed staff to study and respond to these
issues that includes the Highover and Longacres Homeowners Associations as
well as issues addressed at the City Council meeting. The following constitutes
our responses in summary format:
1. The proposed development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the
proposed Highover-Drive/Gunflint Trail through-street.
Response: Per the City of Chanhassen's Transportation segment of the
Comprehensive Plan, a residential street can be expected to safely handle
1000 trips per day. An engineering guideline for the amount of traffic
generated from a residential lot is approximately 10 trips per day. This means
that most residential streets can handle traffic from 100 lots. Currently, there
are 51 lots from Highover that must use Highover Dr. and there are 9 lots that
The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28,2005
Page 2
access Gunflint Trail. It can be logically assumed that not all of the 58 proposed lots from
Yoberry will exit the site to the north. With this assumption, there is no way that the number
of lots using either Highover Dr. or Gunflint Trail will approach the 100 lot maximum.
As for street width, in the City of Chanhassen the street width is defined or measured from
the back of the concrete curb on one side of the street to the back of the concrete curb on the
other side of the street. A review of the City as-built plans for both exists. Hunter Drive and
Gunflint Trail show that the streets are 31-feet wide from back-to-back of curb. This meets
the current City code requirement for local street widths.
24· RC PRON w/TRASH GUARD
2 7 12.0 C.Y. CL. II RIP RAP
6.0 C.Y. RANULAR FILTER
STREET UGHT
-
c
4
3
HIGHOVER DRIVE
Highover Drive As-Built Plans showing a 31-foot Back-of-Curb to Back-of-Curb Cross-
Section in a 60-foot Right-of-Way
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 3
1-
o , "
17TC
"-10 . 3
Zt-
-a:
~:)
20
INTERSECTIONS TO
CONSTRUCTED AS P~R
STD. DErAIL 5204 I ì]
R-20' 1 I ~
GIN C&G, MATCH EXIST. /
A. 0+37.91 "tJ
o
6 0°/
~ CURVE :i1
Gunflint Trail As-Built Plans Showing a 31-foot Back-of-Curb to Back-of-Curb Cross-Section
in a 50 foot Right-of-Way
2. The direct connection of the Highover and Longacres neighborhoods as proposed
conflicts with the City Code 18-57 (a) & G) requirement of discouraging through-traffic
on a local street.
(a) Streets shall be dedicated on the plat to the public. The location and
design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets,
reasonable traffic circulation, topographic conditions, runoff of
stormwater, public convenience and safety and the proposed land uses
of property to be served.
(j) The alignment shall discourage through traffic.
Response: The issue here is the idea of through or, more precisely, cut-through traffic on a
local street. Staff's interpretation of what the code is trying to discourage is the use of local
streets as an easy or enticing cut-through route to avoid certain traffic control devices (ie.
signals, stop signs, etc.). Staff does not believe the code means to discourage the connection
of local streets to serve local, residential traffic. That is what the Hunter Drive/Gunflint Trail
connection will achieve through the Yoberry development. In staff's professional
engineering opinion, it is doubtful that traffic on Lake Lucy Road to the north will turn down
a winding residential street with a stop sign and a tee-intersection (which Hunter Dr. will
have) to go south to TH 5 instead of simply taking either TH 41 or Galpin Boulevard. Either
of these latter roads is a more direct route and has a faster speed limit than the local street,
Hunter Drive.
Also, staff studied the access issue to the subject property (Yoberry Farms) concurrently with
Longacres and Highover Subdivisions as required by section 18-57 (a). Streets were planned
in a fashion to accommodate future planned streets (the extension of Highover Drive and
Gunflint Trail). Also, to meet the requirement specified in section 18-57 Cj), the streets were
aligned to provide traffic calming measures with no straight street alignments.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 4
In reviewing the Highover staff report dated July 14, 1997, staff found the following
language:
"In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the property to the south. While these
property owners (the Harveys [currently David Hurrell] own the parcel located southwest of
the subject site and the Y oungquists own the land located south of the subject site) are not ready
to develop or subdivide at this time, they have been asked to give consideration as to how their
property will be developed. Staff wanted to ensure that they are not land locked. Highover
Drive will be stubbed to the northern property line of the Harvey's parcel. When they are ready
to develop, the street will extend through the Harvey's property to the Youngquist site and will
eventually hook up with Longacres Drive. "
A corresponding condition was placed in the development contract which read:
"Temporary cul-de-sacs will be required at the ends of Highover Drive and Highover Trail.
Traffic barricades shall also be installed with a sign indicating "This street shall be extended in
the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to notify future
property owners of the street extension. "
In reviewing the Longacres PUD staff report dated May 4, 1994, staff found the following
language:
"The major thoroughfare, Longacres Drive, is designated as an east/west collector street
providing future connection from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard. This segment of
roadway is also listed on the City's MSA system. The applicant has submitted detailed street
construction plans to MnDOT's State Aid office for review and approval. It is necessary to
receive at least preliminary approval on the street alignment from MnDOT prior to having the
final plat approved and recorded at the County. Staff believes that the street alignment will
meet the State's design criteria; however, should the State request a modification the applicant
should be required to comply with their requirements. "
A corresponding condition was placed in the development contract which read:
"The applicant shall construct a 36-foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street
A [Longacres Drive]. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards
(31-foot wide back-to-back). "
In reviewing the Longacres 4th Addition staff report dated May 7, 1997, staff found the
following language:
"With this phase, Gunflint Trail is also being constructed north of Longacres Drive to
provide a future connection to the property to the north. A temporary turnaround will not be
required on Gunflint Trail due to the length of the street. Barricades with a sign indicating
"This Street Shall be Extended in the Future" will be installed at the end of Gunflint Trail. A
condition will also be placed in the development contract to notify future homeowners of the
street extension. "
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 5
A corresponding condition was placed in the development contract which read:
"Gunflint Trail is a temporary dead end street which will be extended in the future when the
adjacent parcel develops."
3. In several respects, the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate negative
impact on the surrounding properties, as required by the City Code. In seeking to
crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed development
requires dramatic alteration of the topography and vegetation, contrary to Municipal
Code Section 18-39(f).
Response: The proposed development is compatible with surrounding properties. The Land
Use Plan guides the site as Residential Low Density with a net density range of (1.2-4) Units
per Acre. This type of land use allows for single family detached housing and single family
attached housing (duplexes). The applicant is proposing single family detached housing
which is the same as both Highover and Longacres Subdivisions. The subject site is variance
free with all lots meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of the City Code. The
Longacres development has a zoning of Planned Unit Development-Residential. This zone
allows for lots to be as small as 11,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,000 square
feet. The Longacres development included the wetlands in calculating the lot area and was
granted variances to allow for private streets and street grades. The Yoberry and Highover
developments did not include wetlands in calculating the lot area. Staff imposed stricter
regulations.
All three subdivisions had challenging grades and limitations: these include wetlands and
bluffs. The Yoberry site has additional limitations which include, existing homes that are
proposed to remain, and two stub roads that this development must connect to. The plans
protect the existing wetlands and bluffs on the property. It seeks to minimize loss of
vegetation by introducing retaining walls and custom graded lots.
4. Verify that the slope located along the southwest portion of the site is not a bluff.
The City Code states "Bluff means a natural topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or
embankment having the following characteristics:
( 1) The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the toe of the bluff; and
(2) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five (25) feet or more
above the toe of the bluff averages thirty (30) percent or greater.
(3) An area with an average slope of less than eighteen (18) percent over a distance for fifty
(50) feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff. "
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28,2005
Page 6
The City Code measures a bluff at a 25-foot
rise in elevation and a slope of 30% or more.
Staff measured the slopes at the steepest
point and found that it has a grade of 26.3%.
We then measured a 10 foot rise which
resulted in a grade of 28.6%. Finally, we
measured the entire length of the slope with
a 50 foot rise, which resulted in a 23%
grade. We found no bluffs in this area.
5. Hunter Drive Issues
Currently, Hunter Drive does not meet the following engineering design guidelines for
streets:
. Exceeds maximum street grade of 7% with a portion of street at approximately 10%.
. Contains a horizontal curve radius of 166-feet which is less than the minimum radius
of 180- feet.
In addition, Hunter Drive has a blind intersection at its crossing with Fawn Hill Road. As
eastbound traffic approaches the intersection from the west, it is difficult to see the Fawn Hill
traffic approaching from the south due to a rock retaining wall. Residents at the Council
meeting also commented on Hunter Drive's use by motorists as a cut-through street from
Longacres Drive to Galpin Boulevard and about the excessive speed by motorists on the
street.
Attached are printouts from the city's speed trailer. It details the number of vehicles, speed,
average speed, and 85th percentile which is a term used by traffic engineers to determine
appropriate speed limit posting. In the month of February, the speed trailer was on Hunter
Drive five separate times. The highest average speed was 22 miles per hour. The lowest
average speed was 20 miles per hour. There was a total of one car over the speed limit at a
rate of 35-39 miles per hour. The Carver County Deputies conducted seven separate special
traffic details on Hunter Drive since February 14, 2005. There were no warnings or citations
for speeding; however a citation was issued for a stop sign violation. Attached are the speed
trailer reports from April, 2004.
In an attempt to address the above-mentioned issues, staff has compiled the following list of
ideas that will be evaluated for use along Hunter Drive. As a reminder, these are ideas of
possible solutions. Not all of the ideas listed will be implemented. Additionally, staff will
not be able to gauge the effectiveness of most ideas until after a traffic/speed count is
completed in May, 2005.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28,2005
Page 7
· Additional signage:
1. This could include a lower speed advisory sign in combination with a curve sign.
2. Stop sign warrants will be evaluated for the Fawn Hill intersection.
3. Posted speed limit will be evaluated along with the number/placement of signs.
· Curb chokers which are defined as a physical reduction in road width by using curb
extensions to narrow or "choke" down the roadway. This is a traffic calming technique
with the primary purpose of helping to reduce speeds. It may also reduce traffic volumes.
6. Construction Access From TH 41
The developer is proposing to use the existing Hurrell driveway off ofTH 41 as a
construction access for the project during the site grading, utility and street development.
Questions have been raised about the possibility of continuing to use this access after the site
development for the home construction on-site. The following is a list of concerns on this
Issue:
· Preventing Home Construction - The existing driveway goes through or across two
proposed lots. If the driveway is used during the entire home construction phase, the two
lots which the driveway crosses will not be able to be built on until the other 56 lots are
completed.
· Traffic Safety from TH 41- Once home construction begins; the amount of traffic into
and out of the site can be expected to increase. This daily traffic will include carpenters,
laborers, and painters in addition to cement trucks and lumber deliveries. All of this
traffic would have to utilize an existing driveway from TH 41 that has no turn lanes and
poor sight distance. This could be a potentially dangerous situation.
· Driveway Removal - As is typical with developments that have existing driveway
accesses, the developer is required to remove and restore the existing driveway area upon
overall project completion. If the driveway will be used throughout home construction,
the project timeframe and approval/acceptance of the project by the City will be
significantly increased. This will also require that the developer's letter of credit remain
in effect for a longer period of time.
· MnDOT Permit Approval - Use of this access, even for the overall site development
work, will require a temporary access permit from MnDOT. While MnDOT has
indicated to the developer that a temporary access permit can be obtained for a single
construction season to facilitate the overall grading/utility construction, they will not
allow a multi-year permit to be granted for access through the entire home building
phase.
Based on the above concerns and MnDOT's denial of an access permit from TH 41 for home
construction, staff is recommending that the construction access from TH 41 be used for only
the grading and utility construction.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 8
7. Location of Gunflint Trail Cul-De-Sac
Staff evaluated two locations for the Gunflint Trail cul-de-sac. These locations are referred
to as options A and C.
Option A:
· Has no retaining walls along the wetlands.
· Maintains existing vegetation along the wetland.
· Allows for a tot lot to be located within Outlot D.
· Allows for a trail connection.
· The developer received approval from Xcel Energy to install vegetation within the
electric line easement along the east side of the road in exchange for allowing them
alternative access to their easement. This proposed vegetation will provide a buffer
between the roadway and the exiting homes along Harrison Hill Trail to the east.
Y~!".loR'1
Lc); .4
,¡::
.
q
~
r-HE~ II,T L~6
¡.or .
...::....
.:~ -"-
:;~JL" . '--
?--;2-,
--' ~--~ L-f<-~'1-
;... ¡~~-G-J¥-!E
6f~~~N'!AA'¡..
"f"<1G'<~-'-.o><DcC1'tO'_~...,
~.'''~-a.:
OPTION A
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28,2005
Page 9
Option C:
· Has a retaining wall along the wetland.
· Removes existing vegetation along the wetland.
· Excludes Outlot D and subsequently a tot lot.
· Does not allow for a trail connection.
· Requires extensive grading.
· Xcel Energy loses their improved access to their easement.
,
,
,
,
/'
>¡
'I¡
~J
'I
l¡
"I
I
I
I
I
I
I~-'
'.:.~~~~__J---~
~
THE WOODS AT LONGACRE5
LOT £;
,...-;r- "'=--"'~._
~J
~'--'-~
--:.....,!
,~ tJc )
-- I~' - --1- "I--------! --
z 'w :-.~~'Y-)1
Stafrs representation of Option C
OPTION C
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 10
8. Following are examples of local city Streets connecting more than one neighborhood to
a collector street. Staff selected different neighborhoods with different make up (some
are composed of several subdivisions while others were built by a single developer).
Collector Street
Highway 101
Local Street
West 86th Street (60' ROW 31'B-B*)
Mission Hills Dr. (60'ROW 31'B-B)
3 Subdivisions (252 Total Units)
· Mission Hills (208 Units)
· Rice Marsh Lake (9 Units)
· Marsh Glen (35 Units)
Future Neighborhood Commercial
* Back of Curb to Back of Curb
Collector Street
Powers Blvd
Local Street
Lake Susan Hills Dr. 60'ROW 35'B-B)
2 Subdivisions (180 Total Units)
. Lake Susan Hills (146 Units)
. Prairie Creek Twhms (34 Units)
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 11
Collector Street
Highway 101 & Lyman Blvd
Local Street
Lake Susan Drive (60' ROW 35'B-B)
1 Subdivisions (161 Total Units)
· Chanhassen Hills (161 Units)
Future High Density (61 Units
Collector Street
Coulter Blvd & Galpin Blvd
Local Street
Stone Creek Drive (60' ROW 35'B-B)
3 Subdivisions (210 Total Units)
· Stone Creek (141 Units)
· Creek Side (44 Units)
· Town Homes at Creek Side (25
Units)
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Fann - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 12
9. Tot Lot
The applicant is proposing to locate a tot lot on Outlot D. There are sidewalks proposed
throughout the development as well as trail connections to Minnewashta Regional Park and
the trail located within the electric easement east of the Highover and Yoberry
Developments.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions:
REZONING
"The City Council approves Planning Case #04-43 to rezone 35.79 acres of property zoned RR,
Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, for Yoberry Farm as shown on the plans dated
received December 20, 2004 (see attached ordinance)."
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #04-43 for Yoberry Farm for
57 lots and 8 outlots as shown on the plans received December 20, 2004, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The
applicant shall supply the city with a list of the number of trees required on each lot as shown
on the landscape plan dated 12120/04.
2. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and
side yard areas.
3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
4. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 12120/04. Any
trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1
diameter inches.
5. Tree removal calculations must be shown for lot 3, block 1, Yoberry 2nd Addition. Revised
calculations for the entire development will be required before final plat approval.
6. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval.
7. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10- year and 100-
year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) standards.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 13
8. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer
sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval.
9. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood
level.
10. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the
existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be
installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all
areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater.
11. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
12. On the utility plan:
a. All watermain pipes must be PVC-C900.
b. Maintain lO-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains.
c. Sanitary manhole #4 must be with outside drop structure.
d. Show existing sanitary, storm, and watermain pipe type and size.
e. Show all existing utilities in Longacres Drive.
f. Reroute the proposed watermain in the southwest comer of the parcel to be between Lots
5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 3D-foot utility easement.
g. Add the following notes: Any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled.
13. On the grading plan:
a. Show the 100-year HWL of wetlands 1 and 5.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows. The elevation must be 1.5
feet lower than adjacent house elevations.
d. Delete the proposed grading on the custom house pad of Lot 3, Block 1, Yoberry 2nd
Addition.
e. Revise the retaining wall top and bottom elevations on the southwest comer of the parcel.
f. Remove existing temporary cul-de-sac pavement and re-sod it at the north on Highover
Dri ve.
g. Maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10% on Lot 21, Block 1, Yoberry 1st Addition.
h. Remove the existing outlet control structure after installing the proposed outlet control
structure on the existing north storm pond.
1. Show the location of the existing power lines along the eastern property line of the site.
14. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer
and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition,
encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement.
Approved safety fence will be required on top of all retaining walls which are adjacent to
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 14
sidewalk or trails.
15. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge
will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per
unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2005 Lake Ann
Interceptor charge is $2,270.00 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these
charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan CounciL
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance.
16. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
17. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
18. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
19. All private driveway accesses for the demolished home sites offTH 41 must be removed.
20. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a Development Contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval.
21. All lots must have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad with a maximum
slope of 10: 1.
22. The applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the
wastewater from the 11 additional homes.
23. A curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit at the eastern end of Gunflint Trail is
required on both sides of the curve.
24. Existing drainage and utility easements within the site must be vacated prior to recording of
the final plat.
25. The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to ensure it
meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and
outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. In
addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 15
26. The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for the
drainage from the south-central portion of the site.
27. The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future
encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of-
way outside of the existing easement area.
28. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2, 3, 4 and 5. A
wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas
should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
29. All structures must maintain 40-foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges.
30. All bluff areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 3D-foot setback
from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
31. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
32. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
33. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
34. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $97,191.
35. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-BIuff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering),
Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with
their conditions of approval.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28, 2005
Page 16
36. Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval.
37. Building Department conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance
with State Law and City Code.
d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
e. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
f. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the three existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
38. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of
new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
d. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
e. An additional hydrant will be required at the southernmost tip of Lot 4. Relocate the fire
hydrant from between Lots 18 and 19 to between Lots 16 and 17 and add an additional
fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 8.
39. On Sheets C3.1, C4.1, C5.1 and L2.1 of the plans, a gap appears on the western edge of Lots 4,
19,20 and 21 of Block 1 and Outlot A, YoberryFarm. This gap must be eliminated.
40. A windmill appears within the front yard setback on Lot 4, Block 1, Yoberry Farm. The
applicant shall remove or relocate this structure prior to final plat recording.
41. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon vacation of existing drainage and utility
easements located on Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Yoberry Farm 2nd Addition.
42. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail.
Todd Gerhardt
Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43
February 28,2005
Page 17
43. Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be
removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46,81,270 and #251.
44. The developer will be required to install a lO-inch raw water transmission main for future
connection to the City's second water treatment plant as a part of the utility construction and
provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main. As this is a
system-wide improvement, the construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the
City from the water portion of the utility fund.
45. The applicant shall provide a permanent trail easement or Outlot dedicated to the City
between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Yoberry Farm 2nd Addition as depicted on the diagram:"
ATTACHMENTS
1. Traffic Counts.
2. Consolidated Petitions with location of staff's response.
3. Petitions from Longacres and Highover Homeowners Associations.
4. Rezoning Ordinance.
5. Letter from Charles A. Alcon, Project Manager, Yoberry Farms Development, dated
February 23,2005.
6. City Council Staff Report dated February 14,2005 with attachments.
7. Plans.
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry farrn\cc staff report 2-28-05.doc
City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement
Speed Trailer Report
OCA TION : 2300 BLK of Hunter Drive Site:
'IR & SPD ; Eastbound Traffic @ 30 MPH Date: '1(,02:1+8/05
itle3 Direction:
egin Total 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99 Avg
ime MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
12:AM * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
12:PM 7 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
01:00 24 0 II 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
02:00 18 0 6 II 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
03:00 37 0 17 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
04:00 37 0 11 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
05:00 49 0 17 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
06:00 27 0 7 19 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
07:00 32 0 21 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
08:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09:00 * * * * * * * * - * * * * * *
·10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
lailv 231 0 93 127 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
otals
ercent 0.0 40.3 55.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
[Total
ercentile Speeds 10% 15% 50% 85% 90%
16.3 16.9 20.9 24.1 24.5
o MPH Pace Speed : 15 - 25
lumber in pace 220
ó in pace 95.2
peed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
ercentage 0.0 0.0 0.0
'otals 0 0 0
Data Fj1e :
STMS0005
Plinted: 2/18/2005
Page:
City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement
Speed Trailer Report
OCATION : 2325 Hunter Drive Site:
IR & SPD : Westbound (â) 30 MPH Date: 02/17/05;
itle3 Direction:
~gin Total 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99 Avg
.me MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
.2:AM * .. * * * .. * * .. * .. * * .. *
01:00 * * .. * .. .. * .. .. .. .. .. ..
02:00 * .. .. .. .. .. * * * * * * * * ..
03:00 * * * * .. .. .. .. * .. .. ..
04:00 .. * * .. .. .. .. .. * .. * .. *
05:00 .. .. .. .. * .. .. .. * * .. * *
06:00 * .. .. * * * * * * * .. * * * *
07:00 .. * .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * .. * * * * * .. .. * ..
09:00 * * * * * .. * * * * .. * * .. *
10:00 * * * * .. * .. * .. * * * * .. *
11:00 * * * * * .. .. .. * * * .. .. * *
12:PM * .. * .. * .. .. * * * * * .. * *
01:00 .. * * * * .. * .. .. .. .. * * *
02:00 * * * * .. .. * * * * * * *
03:00 10 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
04:00 35 0 13 21 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
05:00 31 0 17 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
06:00 48 0 18 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
07:00 30 0 15 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
08:00 8 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
09:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10:00 * * * * * * .. * .. * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * .. .. * * * * .. .. .. .. ..
)ailv 162 0 71 84 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 O· 0 0 20
'otals
ercent 0.0 43.8 51.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0;0
fTotal
'ercentile Speeds 10% 15% 50% 85% 90%
16.2 16.8 20.6 24.0 24.5
o MPH Pace Speed: 15 - 25
Jumber in pace 155
{, in pace 95.7
:peed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
'ercentage 0.0 0.0 0.0
~otals 0 0 0
Data File;
STMS0004
Printed: 21\ 7/2005
Page:
City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement
Speed Trailer Report
.oCA nON : 2300 BLK OF HUNTER DRIVE Site:
)IR & SPD : Westbound Traffic (a¿ 30 MPH Date: "Ø2116/05
'itle3 Direction:
egin Total 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99 Avg
ime MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
12:AM " " " " " * " " " * *. " " "
01:00 " " * * " " " " " " " " " "
02:00 * " * " * " * * * " " " * "
03:00 .. " " " " " " * " " * " "
04:00 " " " " " " " " " " * " "
05:00 " " " * * * * * * " * * "
06:00 * " * " * * " * " " * * * "
07:00 " " " " * " " " " " " " " " "
08:00 * " " " " " " " " " * " * * "
09:00 " " " " " " " " " " * " * *
10:00 * " * " * " " " * " " " " "
11:00 " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "
12:PM 7 0 3 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
01:00 14 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
02:00 20 0 9 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
03:00 32 0 13 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
04:00 32 0 12 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
05:00 46 0 21 22 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
06:00 31 0 10 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
07:00 27 0 6 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
08:00 6 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
-
09:00 " " " " * - * " " " " " * " "
10:00 " " * " " * " " " " " " " " *
11:00 " " " * " " " " * " * " * * *
'ailv 215 0 87 113 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
otal5
ercent 0.0 40.5 52.6 6.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
fTotal
ercentile Speeds 10% 15% 50% 85% 90%
16.3 16.9 20.9 24.2 24.7
J MPH Pace Speed : 15 - 25
umber in pace 200
; in pace 93.0
peed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
ercentage 0.0 0.0 0.0
otals 0 0 0
Data File:
STMSOOOJ
Prjnted: 2/J 6/2005
Page:
City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement
Speed Trailer Report
OCATION l'i3.Q9J3LI¥; H4I1ter pre , Site:
IR & SPD : EãStbo'(ïn:d Tràffic~30MPH Date: b~!.ß41ß$;·,
itle3 Direction:
ô.gÏn Totat 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99 Avg
'me MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
l2:AM .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
01:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
02:00 .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
03:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. ..
04:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " " .. ..
05:00 .. .. " .. .. " " .. '" " .. " ..
06:00 .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. ..
07:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
08:00 '" .. .. '" '" '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
09:00 '" '" '" .. .. .. " " .. " .. .. " ..
10:00 .. .. .. .. '" " .. .. .. .. '" .. " ..
11:00 .. .. .. .. .. '" '" .. .. '" .. .. '" .. ..
12:PM .. .. '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" ..
01:00 8 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
02:00 14 0 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
03:00 18 0 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
04:00 25 0 7 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
05:00 22 0 9 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
06:00 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
07:00 .. '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" ..
08:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
09:00 .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. '" .. .. .. ..
10:00 .. '" .. '" .. .. .. '" .. .. .. .. '" '" '"
11:00 .. .. .. '" .. .. .. '" .. .. '" .. .. ..
'aily 90 0 33 48 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
otals
ercent 0.0 36.7 53.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
íTotal
ercentile Speeds 10% 15% 50% 85% 90%
16.4 17.1 21.3 24.6 25.6
o MPH Pace Speed : 15 - 25
[umber in pace 81
ó in pace 90.0
peed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
ercentage 0.0 0.0 0.0
'otals 0 0 0
Dma File:
STMSOOOl
Printed: 2/412005
Pag,e :
City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement
Speed Trailer Report
ICATION : Hunter Dr Site:
R & SPD : Westbound Traffic (a} 30 MPH Date: ~t't%@@;IO'1"/Ø¡5j\'iif'
le3 Direction:
dn T olal 1-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99 Avg
1e MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
;:AM " " .. " " .. " " .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
H:OO " .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. "
)2:00 " " ,- .. .. .. .. " .. .. " .. .. .. ..
)3:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. " ..
)4:00 .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
)5:00 .. '" .. .. .. .. .. * .. .. .. .. .. ..
)6:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
)7:00 .. '" .. .. '" .. " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
)8:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" .. .. ..
)9:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" '" .. '" .. ..
10:00 .. '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " " .. .. .. ..
11:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. '" '" .. ..
2:PM 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
01:00 12 0 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
02:00 18 0 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25
03:00 18 0 3 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
04:00 27 0 6 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
05:00 35 0 7 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
06:00 23 0 5 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
07:00 8 0 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
08:00 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09:00 '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " ..
10:00 .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. " " .. .. .. " "
11:00 .. " " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Üly 144 0 29 100 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Jtals
:rcent 0.0 20.1 69.4 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
'Total
:rcentile Speeds 10% 15% 50% 85% 90%
17.6 18.8 22.2 24.7 25.4
) MPH Pace Speed : 15 - 25
'umber in pace 129
; in pace 89.6
peed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
ercentage 0.7 0.7 0.7
otals 1 1 1
;ì." ~ <'\ 1: ~ 1 "" .
ç:.f\l!<l.:fì()nì
Printed: 211 12005
Pa¡;:e:
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS
DATEd-de9-OS" TIME: START CA IS END OQ4S
LOCATION JJw -4£ 7Y< I M()..{) JJ J ! J
( í()p 9¡m-J d9 ')
CONTACTS: WARNINGS
BADGE# ~d'1
CITATIONS
REVISED 01110/05
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS -
\ S \.)D
^
DATEOd-~\l-oj TIME:STARTllIL¡S END~
LOCA TI 0 N \t'-)f\~ r ~\ ., VC-vW [', \-\'.\ \ ~,'ú -
YG..-'il¡-t~~ SQp¿~ ',^)vS -'(}."\.f'ç"^'
~
CONTACTS: WARNINGS O' .
BADGE# <61 ~
CITATIONS ()
REVISED 01110/05
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS
DATE ((;}-¡l]·OS TIME: START ChSO END 07;)û
. . I
LOCATION f/Ufìk£.D£/b4L>pr/v BJud
(SmD f;.'/bÀ)" V ,oLcrroe0 .
I
CONTACTS: WARNINGS 0 CITATIONS I
BADGE# e/5?7
REVISED 01110/05
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS
DATE {j'd--'! l-D S TIME: START [1 JS END ¡ lJ S
LOCATION \-\-h{\'~"'í '\\\ :, Y:c_,^^~ \\,\\ ç~~~
CONTACTS: WARNINGS 0
CITATIONS ð
BADGE# 3C]'~
REVISED 01110/05
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS
DA TE03.·-IL;- ()5
TIlVIE: START 1í-2) S
END I 0 ('
tl_~)
I \o....j~J
LOCATION.~)Î\¥'r \')(' " '~~Ul\ l--L~l [t0J
CONTACTS:. WARNINGS C5
CITATIONS 0
BADGE# 'O~"s
REVISED 01110/05
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS
DATE;? -/S- ò-S- TIME: START f3..o~û END d./}c
LOCATION /-fv,,+er [) f + r;..t-~ ¡l,'}1
4- 11:s6 Sff?f') /J<~
CONTACTS: WARNINGS
BADGE# 8"1;)
~~ {11 PHf
"
o CITATIONS 0
REVISED 01110/05
CHANHASSEN
SPECIAL TRAFFIC DETAILS
DATEd-d3~OS' TIME: START /8éJ() END JUdO
LOCATION )/WTl:s'R DI< //lJíU1J J/tf! æJ
/
CONTACTS: WARNINGS Q
BADGE# eD7
CITATIONS 0
REVISED 01110/05
¡
City Of Chanhassen
Carver County Sheriffs Office
(952) 227-1601
Location 2300 Block Hunter Dr. Site:
Cross St Date: 04/29/04
Spd Limit : 30 Direction:
---~._~ 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-99
Begin Total 1-14 Avg
Time MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
12:AM * " " * * * " * *
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * " * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * " * * *
06:00 * ,;. " " " * * * " * *
07:00 " * * * " * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * " * * *
09:00 * * * * ~ * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * *
12:PM 21 0 16 5 O· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
01:00 30 0 23 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
02:00 37 0 25 II I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
03:00 41 0 3] 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
04:00 64 0 31 20 2 " 4 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 22
-'
05:00 46 0 22 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:00 " * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * " * * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * *
----------------------~~- 4 3
Daily 239 0 148 73 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 20
Totals
Percent 0.0 61.9 30.5 2.9 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
of Total
-~------------_. - ---..--------..-
Percentile Speeds N% 15% 50% 85% 90%
15.8 16.2 19.1 23.8 24.7
10 MPH Pace Speed: 15 - 25
Number in pace 221
% in pace 92.5
Speed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
Percentage 0.4 0.0 0.0
Totals I 0 0
_ _____u__ _ ___________._______..~______
Printed: 4/30/2004
Page:
Data File :
... .' - . -. ----
2300 Block Hunrer Dr
----. -- --.--
City Of Chanhassen
Carver County Sheriffs Office
(952) 227-1601
Location : 2300 Block Hunter Dr Site:
Cross St Date: 04/27/04
Spd Limit : 30 Direction:
---~----~-- ---------~---~ 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70~99
Begin Total 1-14 15-]9 20-24 25-29 30-34 Avg
Time MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH
_._----~...~----*~-_._----- -.----------------
12:AM * . . * * * * * * * *
':' ':'
01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * *
02:00 * * * * * * * * * * *
03:00 * * * * * * * * * * *
04:00 * * * * * * * * * *
05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * *
06:00 * * * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * *
12:PM * * * * * * * * * * * *
01:00 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
02:00 14 0 2 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
03:00 16 0 2 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23
04:00 16 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
05:00 19 0 2 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
06:00 * * * * * * * *
07:00 * * * * * * * *
08:00 * * * * * * * *
09:00 * * * * * * * * *
10:00 * * * * * * * * *
11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * *
~_.--- - - -----.-- .---.---.----- ..----------.-----
Daily 67 0 13 41 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Totals
Percent 0.0 19.4 61.2 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
of Total
Percentile Speeds 10% 15% 50% 85% 90%
17.7 19.2 22.6 26.2 27.7
10 MPH Pace Speed : J 5 - 25
Number in pace 54
% in pace 80.6
Speed Exceeded 45 MPH 55 MPH 65 MPH
Percentage 0.0 0.0 0.0
Totals 0 0 0
___ __ ________ . ______ .___u _...__ u"______
---_.~-----"
Printed: 4/30/2004
Page:
-----
Data File.
2300 Hunter Dr
Consolidated Petitions with location of staff's response.
· The physical characteristics of the site, particularly the topography, are
totally unsuitable for the insertion of 57 large, single-family homes.
See Response to Issue #3 in the staff report dated February 28,2005.
· The proposed subdivision does not make adequate provisions for streets and
traffic, and is not therefore served by adequate infrastructure.
See Response to Issue #1 in the staff report dated February 28,2005.
· The proposed subdivision is premature in that its planned density of homes
into the limited and difficult terrain creates inadequate roads in existing,
adjoining, and already populated residential neighborhoods.
See Response to Issue #1, 2, and 3 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
· The proposed subdivision is not in conformity with the City's
Comprehensive Plan (page references are to the Plan):
o It does not contain adequate open space
See Response to Issue #9 in the staff report dated February 28,2005.
o It does not "avoid running high traffic volumes.., through residential
neighborhoods"
See Response to Issue #1 and 2 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
o It does not "devise mechanisms to protect natural beauty while at the
same time reserving certain areas for recreational use"
See Response to Issue #3 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
o Its thoroughfares are not "planned to reduce conflicts between... local
traffic";
See Response to Issue #1 and 2 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
o There is no provision for the upgrading of existing roadways of
Highover and Longacres that are admittedly going to be significantly
impacted by the subdivision in terms of volume and safety
See Response to Issue #1 and 2 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
o Its streets are not "designed to discourage through traffic", but rather
seem to be designed to create such through traffic into 2 adjoining
neighborhoods.
See Response to Issue #1 and 2in the staff report dated February 28,2005.
o The street connections do not "maximize safety"
See Response to Issue #1 in the staff report dated February 28,2005.
· The proposed development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the
proposed Highover-Drive/Gunflint Trail through-street.
See Response to Issues #1 and 2 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
· The direct connection of the Highover and Longacres neighborhoods as
proposed conflicts with the City Code 18-57 (a) & (j) requirement of
discouraging through-traffic on a local street.
o Streets shall be dedicated on the plat to the public. The location and
design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets,
reasonable traffic circulation, topographic conditions, runoff of
stormwater, public convenience and safety and the proposed land uses
of property to be served.
o The alignment shall discourage through traffic.
See Response to Issue #2 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
· In several respects, the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate
negative impact on the surrounding properties, as required by the City Code.
See Response to Issue #3 in the staff report dated February 28, 2005.
· In seeking to crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the
proposed development requires dramatic alteration of the topography and
vegetation, contrary to Municipal Code Section 18-39(0.
See Response to Issue #3 in the staff report dated February 28,2005.
L
c:::> J:'..J ,.. c;- '" -^- ". ~ IZ ,,. E
C ~---~
s
To: Mayor - Tom Furlong
City Council - Bethany Tjornhom, Steve LaBatt, Brian Lundquist, Craig Peterson
Re: Application of Yoberry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Detailed Discussion of Executive Summary
Mayor Furlong and Members of City Council:
1) The physical characteristics of the site, particularly the topography, are totally unsuitable for
the insertion of 57 large, single-family homes.
All of the following is contained in the Staff Report.
The site has 5 wetlands, two bluffs, meandering topography with a wide variety of severe
elevation differences, an impervious surface, several right of ways and easements, 45% tree
cover with many mature trees, and plentiful wildlife. Construction will require grading of
80% of the site (reportedly including the removal of an amazing 44 feet off the top of an
existing hill), the creation of2 permanent ponds (plus a temporary one), numerous retaining
walls, and diversion of drainage off site (topography prevents all drainage being handled on
site, even with ponds, etc.). Even after this all is done, a large number of lots will apparently
have steep rear yard slopes and very little useable rear yard. Some will come dangerously
close to existing Harrison Hill and Highover homes (and those Yoberry homes will be
serviced by roads that the City recommends have reduced speed limits of20 mph).
2) The proposed subdivision does not make adequate provisions for streets and traffic, and is not
therefore served by adequate infrastructure.
This plan makes no provision for streets and traffic except internal traffic only. The developer
nor City staff have conducted a detailed study to the effects of traffic on the streets they plan
as connectors for this subdivision.
The Planning Commission opinioned that the expected traffic per household is between 10
and 14 trips per day on average. With 57 homes, and even 12 trips/household/day, about
250,000 trips per year are to be made. Without access to a major arterial, the traffic will go to
either Highover or Longacres. And in reality, even a brief visit would show that Longacres
traffic actually exits to Hunter Drive, a windy, hilly, narrow and minor street without
sidewalks that was intended to serve abutting homeowners only. Dumping another 100,000
trips a year on streets with known problems of traffic and speed today will endanger the
residents of both adjoining neighborhoods. Add in those who may wish to use this shortcut
versus Route 41, and it gets worse.
No doubt the developer and City Staff, in total engineering good faith, thought that "Overall,
the proposed street layout appears to work well" when Longacres was built. Real life tells us
something else. This proposed subdivision would not be served by adequate infrastructure
given its current street design and its current planned size.
2/13/2005
Application of Yoberry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Detailed Discussion
page 1 of5
L
<=> J:"':f ,. c:;- '" ~ "' <= ,~ ~ .. E
C ~------~
s
3) The proposed subdivision is premature in that its planned desity of homes into the limited and
difficult terrain creates inadequate roads in existing, adjoining, and already populated
residential neighborhoods.
The above conclusion is reached for an ofthe reasons stated above as to paragraph numbered
2. Given the concern for safety, it would seem within the City Council's discretion to require
traffic studies to be conducted before squeezing this development in between Highover and
Longacres - and to that extent Yoberry is "premature."
Alternatively, the streets could be extended from each of Highover and Gunflint Trail, but not
connect - instead ending in a cul-de-sac. This design limits through traffic, and forces the
division of traffic north to Highover and south to Longacres. However, we would still suggest
that traffic impacts to existing family neighborhoods should be required before approval of a
development with this level of traffic creation. Once it's approved and built, it's too late.
4) The proposed subdivision is not in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan (page
references are to the Plan):
a. It does not contain adequate open space - in fact, there is no planned park nor any
readily accessible connection to recreational facilities (page 4).
While the original plan apparently did call for a "tot lot", it feU off the page in a
subsequent revision for undisclosed reasons. Nor are there any trails in the proposed
development; rather, a connection is to be attempted to an existing trail (although it
will have limited accessibility due to the topography requiring steep stairs).
A further complication is the close proximity of existing private (albeit unfenced or
supervised) parks in Longacres. It is reasonable to assume that such parks will be
used by Yoberry residents (given the lack of alternatives). While not wanting to
appear unfriendly, the current residents all had a sizeable initial, and continuing
annual, financial contribution to the parks. Therefore, we suggest a condition be
added to the plan, if approved, requiring the developer to either reach an amicable
agreement with the Longacres HOA for park use and maintenance, or, if they cannot,
be required to dedicate park space within the confines of the subdivision.
b. It does not "avoid running high traffic volumes... through residential neighborhoods"
(page 12).
This is clearly another requirement of the Comprehensive Plan and a requisite to
approval of any development. In the interests of economy of space and time, please
refer to the discussion above.
c. It does not "devise mechanisms to protect natural beauty while at the same time
reserving certain areas for recreational use" (page 21).
This requirement of the Plan is referenced for its support of the City's desire for
parks or trails, and open space in general, including the preservation of trees and
wildlife. While reference is made in the Staff Report to a visit with Kjolhaug
2/13/2005
Application of Yo berry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Detailed Discussion
page 2 of5
2/13/2005
L
<=> :J:"'J
~",--^-~c: ~u'E
~--- ~
s
c
Environmental Services, it is unclear if they were considering this subdivision's
effects on the environment of the area, or only looking at the wetlands. The City Staff
report does contain a conclusory statement indicating, "the proposed subdivision will
not cause environmental damage... This was modified a bit in a later report edition,
after Planning Commission Board member Vli Sacchet (testifying as a citizen due to
his conflict as a Highover resident) chided staff for such an obviously erroneous
statement. How can one do this much grading, tree cutting, water diversion, etc. and
say that there will not be environmental damage? This question is not entirely
rhetorical, as it would seem prudent to require some study of such impacts. However,
and given the complicated topography and extensive grading, etc., it would at least
appear that the site's natural beauty is not being protected, nor are any recreational
uses planned.
d. Its thoroughfares are not "planned to reduce conflicts between... local traffic"; the
roads are not "planned and designed to be compatible with the surrounding
environment," and they do not "limit access to collector streets" (page 54).
This is another portion ofthe Plan that reinforces the requirement of thoughtful
consideration oftraffic issues. Clearly the implications on adjoining neighborhoods
such as Longacres and Highover are contemplated in this Plan mantra.
e. There is no provision for the upgrading of existing roadways of Highover and
Longacres that are admittedly going to be significantly impacted by the subdivision
in terms of volume and safety (page 54).
The Plan indicates that, when areas are to be significantly affected by a subdivision,
there may be a need for upgrading of existing roadways. Here, the Yoberry traffic
will significantly affect Highover and Longacres. At least that result seems likely,
and in the absence of any other inquiry, an abundance of caution regarding the safety
of our children would tell us to not proceed until we are sure of the effects. It may
well be that upgrades are now required, given the unplanned consequences of traffic
in Longacres, and even without the addition ofthe Yoberry traffic.
f. Its streets are not "designed to discourage through traffic", but rather seem to be
designed to create such through traffic into 2 adjoining neighborhoods (page 54).
Again, the issue of traffic arises in the Plaq, as it does in the proposed Yoberry
development. From the standpoint of its neighbors, Yoberry certainly is designed to
increase traffic.
g. The street connections do not "maximize safety" (page 55).
Connecting this development to large existing developments via existing roads that
are already arguably unsafe does not maximize safety.
Application of Yoberry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Detailed Discussion
page 3 of5
L
<=> J:'.J c;- ". -^- ~ c: .~ ::R.. ,~ E
C ~----~
s
The following are suggested conditions (in addition to those already proposed) that would, in our
opinion, help to address the current plan deficiencies:
I) Extend both Highover and Gunflint Trail to serve the development, but end each in a cul-de-
sac, versus in a through street.
This limits at least half ofY oberry residents (and all of Longacres residents) from increasing
traffic on Highover to the north. It limits half ofY oberry residents (and all of High over
residents) from increasing traffic to the south. Not allowing the 2 streets to be through streets
will also improve traffic versus the alternative by stopping residents from outside of these
neighborhoods from using Lake Lucy/Highover/Gunflint/Longacres/Hunter/Galpin as a
"shortcut" from the north to route 5 (and vice versa). If Route 41 is to be as busy in the future
as estimated, as is the connection at Route 5, people will use our neighborhoods in this
fashion. Precedent for this type of alternative design (a lack of connections when the
consequences of connecting are so obviously damaging to current neighbors) has been set in
Stone Creek/Timberwood and Kiowa Trail/Summerfield.
2) Either reach an agreement with neighboring HOA's as to facility use (such as Longacres
Parks), or, if they cannot do so, to dedicate a lot to be open space with a park.
Brief and inconclusive talks have finally occurred between Longacres and the developer, but
no agreement has been reached on park use - and one may not be reached (especially if the
plan is approved as is!). To protect the obvious interests of Long acres private parks, to meet
the Comprehensive Plan's intent for local parks, trails and open space in any new
development, and to improve the safety of future Yoberry residents (who may try to cross 41
to Minnewashita, or walk a distance elsewhere for recreational opportul1íties that are lacking
in their own back yard), the developer should be required to dedicate space and create an
appropriate size park in his own development. Park fees is not the right solution because this
proposed neighborhood is not currently served by the City park system.
3) Reduce the number of total homes to the degree necessary to fit in the space without
encroaching on existing/adjoining neighborhood lots, to reduce the traffic volume output, and
to decrease the need for radical topographical and environmental changes.
As noted in the Staff report, at page 6, this site is a "challenging one" to develop. The number
of homes that are planned does obviously not make this any easier. The result is greater
traffic, limited open space and massive environmental change, but also crowded conditions.
For example, proposed Yoberry home locations are very close to the backyards of existing
and adjoining families in both Highover and Longacres (especially Harrison Hill). The most
recent proposal to buffer that proximity (with lilacs, of all types of available plantings - a
seasonal in Minnesota!?) is laudable if not also laughable. But what is wrong with a number
of homes that fit without such encroachment' with lot placement such that one subdivision
actually fits well with another? The Comprehensive Plan's intent is to control development so
as to create good neighbors - not to fit maximum homes in a development. The concern of
the developer may be to meet minimum requirements and create maximum density (and
profit), but this City Council has shown that their stewardship is guided by a different
standard, which we hope they will apply here.
2/1 3/2005
Application of Yo berry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Detailed Discussion
page 4 of5
L
c=> T"'J ,. c;- ,,, ~ ~ c: ~ ". E
C ~----~
s
4) Require that all construction traffic be routed through existing access directly off state
highway 41 and not through either Highover or Longacres neighborhoods, in the interest of
the safety of the residents and their families.
In the event that this development is approved in some form, major construction with large
vehilces will occur over an extended period of time. There has been some mention of this
traffic using existing access off of Route 41 for these vehicles during construction, but such is
not stated in the Staffs conditions. We would think it wise for resident's safety, and for the
City's investment in existing Longacres and Highover streets that this traffic be required to be
sent elsewhere.
We trust that the City Council's stewardship of the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan will result in
a denial of the rezoning of the Yo berry subdivision, or its approval only when the above
conditions (or others that address these issues in your professional opinions) are included.
2/13/2005
Application of Yoberry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Detailed Discussion
page 5 of5
L " <=> J:'.J '" <3- ,,. ~ .. c:: .. IZ ,.. E ,.. S
C ~---~
To: William D. Coffman, Jr.
Fr: Thomas J. Hirsch
Su: Y oberry/Longacres Infrastructure sharing
Bill,
Based on our conversation and deliberations with the other board members of the
Longacres Homeowners Association, INC., we propose the following discussion and
recommended solution to the usage of Longacres infrastructure including parks and
common areas by future Yoberry Homeowners.
Our first and only face-to-face meeting occurred on January 7,2005.
Present at this meeting representing Longacres were Tom Hirsch, Bill Borrell, and 2
representatives from our management company. Present from Yoberry were Bill
Coffman and Charles Alcon.
Charles proposed 4 possible alternatives to the situation. The following describes the
alternatives and the position of the Board of Longacres:
1) Do Nothing
This will result in Yo berry Farms residents utilizing Longacres infrastructure and parks
creating added and unfair burden, liability, and expense to Longacres. This is
unacceptable.
2) Voluntary Usage Fee by Yoberry Residents
This creates an unenforceable situation and one that will produce the same results as
option #1 resulting in an unfair burden ofliability, cost, maintenance, and infrastructure
upgrade requirements (security systems, fences, keys) to be functional. We don't have
funding for these upgrades. This is unacceptable.
3) Separate HOA's with a mandatory usage fee from Yoberry residents payable to
Longacres HOA annually
Annual fees are currently $318 for Longacres residents. We are prepared to offer
unrestricted use of all Longacres infrastructure for a mandatory annual fee equal to 59%
of the annual fee that Longacres residents pay. (Adjusted annually in accordance with our
by-laws). This percentage was derived by a detailed analysis of our expenditures and
those infrastructure components that would be shared by our new neighbors. This option
is most appropriate. If deemed of value to your development, we can discuss an upgrade
to option 4 in the future.
2/14/2005
Y oberry/Longacres Shared infrastructure
Page 1 of2
/.
Lu~ ~-~-~-~~~-E~S
C ~-----~
4) One single HOA with proportionate capital contribution:
Longacres offered a capital contribution of 22 acres of significant infrastructure including
3 entrances w/monuments and 2 parks complete with tennis courts, 2 kiddy parks,
basketball courts, a gazebo, trails throughout, and many other infrastructure amenities
and common areas. Ownership would be granted toYoberry residents including board
representation. Longacres suggested that the capital contribution from Yoberry Farms
might be a pool installation at the east park of Longacres that might provide marketing
value to new Yoberry residents. In addition, Longacres offered to absorb maintenance
costs on this pool addition until Yoberry was built out completely so that the amenity
could be put in immediately (July 2005). Longacres further offered modification to its
monuments at its entrances to accommodate Yoberry individual identity.
This would result in Yoberry living in harmony with Longacres as one community.
This option is a difficult one to gain approval with both Yoberry investors (since one of
the investor's Florida home doesn't have a phone) and Longacres residents having to
approve this agreement (a vote is required on both sides). Therefore, we suggest we leave
this item open for future consideration but select option 3 because the Longacres Board
can act upon it immediately.
In summary, the Longacres Board recommends option 3 at this time, leaving option 4 as
a future option for you to exercise if you deem it to be of value. We expect you to pay
any legal fees associated with implementing either option.
Please provide your feedback to me by Monday 2/14/2005 at 17 :00 so that I may address
the City Council appropriately at 21 :00 on Monday night.
Thanks for your consideration.
Tom Hirsch, President, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc.
952-474-5402 home
651-269-2416 cell
651-205-0911 work
2/14/2005
Y oberry/Longacres Shared infrastructure
Page 2 of2
c
~ '''-A-w C:'~ :R.'~ E
~----- ~
s
L
c::> ::I:"'J
To: Mayor: Tom Furlong
City Council: Bethany Tjornhom, Steve LaBatt, Brian Lundquist, Craig Peterson
Re: Application of Yoberry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Mayor Furlong and Members of City Council:
I write on behalf of the 222 families comprising the Longacres HOA, as a Chanhassen resident,
President of the Longacres Homeowner Assoc., and as a father. In all of these capacities, I request
that the Chanhassen City Council exercise its high level of discretion and deny the Preliminary Plat
to subdivide the land known as Yoberry Farms, as currently presented.
Despite the promotion of this development by City staff, the Yoberry development is not consistent
with City, County, Regional Plans, and in particular the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning
Commission recognized these inconsistencies by recommending denial at the 01/1 8/2005 planning
commission meeting. More specifically, we note the following:
I) The physical characteristics of the site, particularly the topography, are totally unsuitable for
the insertion of 57 large, single family homes;
2) The proposed subdivision does not make adequate provisions for streets and traffic, and is not
therefore served by adequateihfrastructure;
3) The proposed subdivision is premature in that its planned density of homes into the limited and
difficult terrain creates inadequate roads in existing, adjoining, and already populated
residential neighborhoods;
4) The proposed subdivision is not in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan (page
references are to the Plan):
a. It does not contain adequate open space - in fact, there is no planned parks nor any
readily accessible connections to recreational facilities (page 4),
b. It does not "avoid running high traffic volumes... through residential neighborhoods"
(page 12)
c. It does not "devise mechanisms to protect natural beauty while at the same time
reserving certain areas for recreational use" (page 21)
d. Its thoroughfares are not "planned to reduce conflicts between... local traffic"; the
roads are not "planned and designed to be compatible with the surrounding
environment," and they do not "limit access to collector streets" (page 54)
e. There is no provision for the upgrading of existing roadways of Highover and
Longacres that are admittedly going to be significantly impacted by the subdivision in
terms of volume and safety (page 54)
f. Its streets are not "designed to discourage through traffic", but rather seem to be
designed to create such through traffic into 2 adjoining neighborhoods (page 54)
g. The street connections do not "maximize safety" (page 55)
h. It does not comply with traffic volumes for the existing streets (800 trips/day).
I. Precedence has been set to deny connection of Highover to Gunflint. Kiowa Trail and
Summerfield, Stonecreek Court and Timberwood Drive
2/1 312005
Application of Yoberry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Page 1 of2
, .
.
L
C=> J:'.J ," ~ .n --A- - <=:: ,~ ~ ~. E
C ~-------~
s
We recognize the landowners' rights to develop, and do not wish to complain of issues, without
offering possible solutions. The following conditions (in addition to those already proposed at
planning commission meetings on 01/04/05 & 01/18/05) could address the current plan
deficiencies:
1) Extend both Highover and Gunflint Trail to serve the development, but end each in a cul-de-
sac, versus a through street.
2) Either reach an agreement with neighboring HOA's as to facility use (such as Longacres
Parks), or require dedication of a lot to be open space with a park.
3) Reduce the number of total homes to the degree necessary to fit in the space without
encroaching on existing/adjoining neighborhood lots (Harrison Trail), to reduce the traffic
volume output, and to decrease the need for radical topographical and environmental changes.
4) Require that all construction traffic (for duration of all construction) be routed through an
existing Hwy 41 access and not through either Highover or Longacres neighborhoods, in the
interest of the safety of the residents and their families.
We respectfully request that the City Council deny the rezoning of the Yoberry subdivision, or
approve it only with the above conditions included.
Please see attached detail discussion for additional background and detailed justification for denial.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tom Hirsch
President
Bill Borrell
Secretary
Dan Hanson
Vice-President
Matt Messenburg
Treasurer
2/l3/2005
Application of Yo berry Farms - Planning Case 04-03
Page 2 of2
o 1/2 Mile Neighborhood
o Community Parks/Scho
D Regional/State/Federal
Parks
_ Schools'
')
,-,
'. .
:4t~~'lþéf¡
.. .-_..
..
..
- ..
~--~~-~~~~~..::~::=~;-.-:
. - . ~
.... . .-". ~~~..~-~~--~.
.:·~~r>:~~~-:·':; ":. -:~~.: ~: '-0. '~.~.
::,·r: __..
..
. .
.....
".:.: /"
....
- ~/.;, ~
. .
" -- ~
.....,^~ .
'/;.-:. '....,.9, .
"
~-. _, - ,. ":c-;,-::":". .':.~,. . .'
}:f.V!;ô;'j?r)~;,;-
<-<" .~~-~_·:~:;;i{f~:~;¿:. '.
- ." ...~. -
':IIs
pe
m
1 Coach Cowt
2 Coach Lane
~~bF"
~==
7 Centl!ly Ci1:Ie
8 AIboretum ViDage
14 February 2005
Mayor Tom Furlong
Council Member Bethany Tjornhom
Council Member Steve Labatt
Council Member Brian Lundquist
Council Member Craig Peterson
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
IN RE: Application of Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
Mayor Furlong and Members of City Council:
You are aware of many of our concerns from our individual letters on the subject of the proposed
Yoberry development. This letter outlines our most sincere attempt to find a solution that allows
the Yoberry property owners to develop their land in a way consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan and with the greatest traffic safety for Highover, Yoberry and Longacres
residents.
At the outset, we want to emphasize we are not against residential development per se of these
parcels. Our focus is strictly on the traffic and other adverse impact issues the proposed
configuration would create, and we are willing to be actively involved in finding a solution that
serves the developers and those of us whose options are limited by having already purchased
homes in close proximity to the parcels in question.
Having reviewed the pertinent portions of the Chanhassen City Comprehensive Plan and City
Code, we assert that the proposed Yoberry subdivision fails to meet two crucial requirements of
Municipal Code Section 18-39(f) which is reproduced in the proposed Findings of Fact and
Decision before the Council this evening, namely:
4(b). The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans, including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan.
4(c). The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and
storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Our rationale is as follows.
1. The proposed development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the proposed
Highover- Drive/Gunflint-Trail through-street.
The City Code (§ 18-1) delineates three types of streets:
Arterial street means a street or highway with access restrictions designed to carry large
volumes of traffic between various sectors of the city or county and beyond.
Collector street means a street which carries traffic from minor streets to arterials.
Local street means a street of limited continuity which is used primarily for access to
abutting properties.
Highover Drive is designated a local street. It is roughly 261;2 feet wide. The City Code (§ 18-57)
requires rural residential local streets have no less than 24 feet of pavement. Urban residential
local streets must have 28 to 32 feet of pavement. Collectors must be at least 36 feet wide. At
26Y2 feet wide, Highover Drive must be considered either a rural residential local street, or an out-
of-code urban residential local street. It cannot be nor was it anticipated to be a collector.
Comparison of local and connector streets
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
Most planning books suggest local streets
serve no more than 80 homes and carry no
more than 800 trips per day. The Yoberry
proposal would create a Highover-
Drive/Gunflint-Trail through-street of more
than three-quarters of a mile, a length more
consistent with a collector than a local street.
The new through-street would need to serve
120 homes (only 58 of which abut the street)
and bear 1,200 trips per day to serve the
immediate neighborhood. Being situated
between two collectors (Lake Lucy Road and
Longacres Drive) it will also attract through-
traffic. Even without through traffic,
Highover-Gunflint could no longer be said to
be "used primarly for access to abutting
properties."
Highover Drive is destined to serve even
more homes when development continues to
the east of Highover Trail. Highover Drive
already experiences substantial problems
with high-speed traffic, made more
dangerous by the fact that it, in cresting at the
highest point in Carver County, there is
0.50
Length (miles)
0.70
0.90
1.00
0.60
0.80
limited visibility of children playing near or crossing the street (see attached photo exhibits).
The traffic threat is made more serious by the large number of families with small children, who
purchased homes on Highover and Gunflint based on reasonable expectations it would remain a
local street in character and in fact. Several Highover homebuyers were told by the Highover
developer that although the street would continue, it would terminate with a cul-de-sac of less
than a dozen homes. Their assumptions were fed by the design of Highover Drive - its
narrowness and the fact it has a sidewalk only on one side of the street, requiring children to cross
the street to ride their scooters or walk their dogs.
This traffic issue was the primary objection voiced by the Planning Commission before it voted to
recommend denial ofthe subdivision as currently drawn. As Planning Commissioner Steve
Lillehaug said during the January 18 meeting:
"When I look at this (plan), there are high (traffic) levels on these local streets - period-
and truthfully, I wouldn't want that in my neighborhood. . . . 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. . . . As a resident and planning commissioner, I don't
want to see those higher levels of traffic on those streets."
2. The direct connection of the Highover and Longacres neighborhoods as proposed
conflicts with the City Code requirement of discouraging through-traffic on a local
street.
The City Code (§ 18-57) states, in part:
a) The location and design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets,
reasonable traffic circulation, topographic conditions, runoff of storm water, public
convenience, and safety and the proposed land uses of property to be served.
j) The alignment (of local streets) shall discourage through traffic.
The proposed Highover-Gunflint connection creates a through-street, thereby making through-
traffic possible. Although the bend in the middle of the current Yoberry plan could be seen as a
discouragement over a "straight shot" connection, the Highover-Gunflint connection would still
bridge two collectors, and would be a convenient short cut for considerable traffic. Highover
Drive would become a relatively straight and long speedway for many cars, as it already is for
some vehicles headed to Highover Court South and North.
As they testified before the Planning Commission, residents of Hunter Drive in the Longacres
neighborhood are already dealing with an inordinate amount of traffic diverting off Longacres
Drive as the shortest distance to travel southeast to reach Galpin Drive and Highway 5. This
configuration would further encourage through traffic on their local street.
MnDOT makes clear in its correspondence that it reserves options of adding traffic signals on
Highway 41. A signal at either 41 and Lake Lucy or 41 and Longacres Drive could make
Highover-Gunflint the back way for hundreds of commuters to either avoid the signal or reach it
for a guaranteed left turn onto an ever-busier Highway 41.
While one section of the City Comprehensive Plan indicates a preference for "street linkages,"
the same section requires that new developments avoid precisely the traffic issues we seek to
head off.
Development should be planned to provide adequate internal street linkages. The land
use should also seek to direct growth in a manner that makes the most efficient use of the
area's highway system. Development should be planned to avoid running high traffic
volumes and/or non-residential traffic through residential neighborhoods. (Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan, page 12 - "Land Use Goals.")
3. In several respects, the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate negative
impact on the surrounding properties, as required by the City Code.
The Plan states that new subdivisions must:
Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in
a manner that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family
neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar
quality. (Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, page 11.)
The proposed development seeks to squeeze as many lots as .
possible into the three current parcels. This creates the necessity
for substantial grading that was the subject of Planning
Commission scrutiny. It creates a particular problem for the
homeowners on the west side of Harrison Hill Trail, who would
find themselves sandwiched between two roads, decreasing
their property value and affecting their ability to enjoy their
back yards.
We have no assurances from the developer that Yoberry will be
consistent with the "character and integrity" of the Highover
and LongAcres neighborhoods. Neither homeowners
association was contacted by the developers.
Each neighborhood incorporates restrictive covenants to create a more enjoyable place to live.
Both neighborhoods maintain, at their own expense, entrance monuments, lighting and
landscaping that create a pleasing entrance for potential buyers of Yoberry lots. (See attached
photo exhibits.) In short, the Yoberry development takes advantages of improvements in
Longacres and Highover while its current design degrades the property values of those on
Harrison Hill Trail and, by virtue of far too much traffic, the property values of those on
Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail.
There is no neighborly way to restrict Yoberry residents from using Longacres' privately
maintained parks. The Yoberry plan makes no provision for a "tot lot." This may force Longacres
residents to erect barriers and "No Trespassing" signs to delineate the Y oberry-Longacres
boundary.
4. In seeking to crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed
development requires dramatic alteration of the topography and vegetation, contrary to
Municipal Code Section 18-39(0.
These parcels feature established woods across much of the land and incredible changes in
elevation. The City Staff Report notes numerous challenges caused by trying to squeeze 58
"house pads" into such hilly terrain. For example:
The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site
elevations range from a high of 1084 to a low of 992. These severe elevation differences
make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading:. (Staff Report to
the Planning COIllllÙssion, page 6.)
The developers estimate they will need to grade 80 percent of the site to fulfill their plans. Even
then, the city staff "is concerned with the large number of lots that have steep rear yard slopes off
the house pad and very little usable rear yard."
While the site has many lowland forest species such as box elder, ash, willow and
cottonwood, there are a number of very large, upland hardwood specimens as well. Oaks,
maples, some black cherry and a tamarack that range in diameter from 20 inches up to 55
inches dot the landscape on the western side of the property. Many of these are in direct
conflict with street and home construction, but a handful of them will be left within
custom-graded lots. (Staff Report to the Planning Commission, page 6.)
A Highover resident who toured the subject property when snow was on the ground noted the
tremendous number of established wildlife runs through the woods.
This area also features one of the highest hills in Chanhassen. The developer's plan reportedly
requires that 44 feet of soil be shaved off the top of the hill. This begs the question of whether
"physical characteristics of the site. .. are suitable for the proposed development." (Municipal
Code § 18-39(f).) Nearly any site can be made suitable if it's graded, many of the trees cut down
and retaining walls are erected throughout. But the clear intent of the code is to preserve the
topography and vegetation, to make the development yield to the landscape, not vice versa.
Although various aspects of the plan may meet the City's minimum standards for that aspect of
the development, when combined, the current Yoberry plan simply shoehorns too many "house
pads" into parcels too small and steep for so much development. As such, the current plan seems
the intended application for City Code Section 18-56:
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and
design handbook. The design features set forth in this article are minimum requirements.
The city may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size,
streets and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the property being
subdivided.
Proposed Solution
During the Planning Commission stage of this process, we recommended access to Highway 41
be pursued as a means to relieve the high levels of traffic that would be on the Highover-Gunflint
connection. We are aware of MnDOT's rejection of the proposal. That leaves the traffic issue
solely in the city's hands, and we respectfully request the Council not approve any plan that
creates such a serious hazard.
Instead, we strongly recommend the parcels in question incorporate a cul-de-sac
tennination of Highover Drive on the north and a cuI-de-sac tennination of Gunflint Trail
on the south.
This solves many of the aforementioned conflicts with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan,
most importantly the through-traffic issue, part of the speed issue (less distance to gain speed) and
the traffic load issue. It also creates a natural and more neighborly boundary between
neighborhoods. Based on our unanimity in approaching the Council with these issues and the
solution, we are quite certain the two neighborhoods would work closely with the developer to
incorporate the new homes into Highover and Longacres, respectively.
We also recommend the plans be altered to avoid sandwiching the Harrison Hill Trail
residents between two roads.
The test of a good solution for existing homeowners is whether they would purchase the property
again with the adjoining development in place. Several Harrison Hill Trail residents testified
before the Planning Commission they would not have purchased their current homes if they had
any inkling there would be a road abutting their back yard. It's clear that comer of Yoberry makes
an accommodation to the developer's hoped-for return on investment and his plans on paper at
the expense of existing residents' quality of life and unavoidable loss on an investment set in
concrete.
We urge the developer be required to route all construction traffic off Highway 41.
We understand MnDOT is not adverse to such temporary access. Driveways off Highway 41
already exist on these parcels. And, obviously, this provision would dramatically reduce the
chances a child would be struck by a heavy-duty vehicle during construction.
We urge the plan be modified to require far less grading, removal of fewer trees and the
accommodation of more open space to match the topography and vegetation of the land.
We are eager to work with the City, with the developer and to continue to work harmoniously
among ourselves as neighbors to find a solution that will work for all involved. We very much
appreciate your attention to our concerns.
Respectfully Submitted,
The residents of Highover and Longacres whose signatures appear on the following pages.
"
r--...
Photo taken from the crest of
Highover Drive looking south.
Photo taken from the crest of
Highover Drive looking north.
In both cases, notice the limited
visibility a short distance ahead.
Highover monument and
landscaping maintained by the
association dues of Highover
neighborhood residents.
One of three Longacres
monuments maintained by
association dues in the
neighborhood.
Mike Rysso (right) stands in his
back yard while the boy at left
stands where the current Yoberry
plan shows the eastern edge of
Gunflint Trail.
The boy at left stands in the
Rysso's back yard in a photo taken
from where the current proposal
puts the edge of Gunflint Trail.
The crest of the hill in the Yoberry
parcels. Notice how the current
termination of Gunflint Trail is not
visible, suggesting the dramatic
amount of grading that will be
needed.
Photo taken from Gunflint Trail
looking north at the hill from
which the photo above was taken.
Signature Page
Letter to the City Council from concerned residents of High over and Longacres
IN RE: Application of Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
/J. . tik' 0 0
~ .1d-1~
Name
Í1 c¡ ð'3 J-I, i h o~¡;¿ J:>t<..
Address (2~4.~~eVJ
~~
Name
dY /,! ¥,;vv,1J:/
Address
N~~Þi-1~~
L t3b Hl61to\ÆíZ.1WL I
Address C ~(Q'\J ') f1 rJ .
N!!~
,
2- ~f'3 ¥íf4qv"r' 7/-_1 /
Address ·
r3 <t 3 D t-t-unfcr l:w-.
Address
N~~ (to 0'
J.- "B 5 ttJ!!J.:h~ :cl r.
Address
~~~
Nmne :;>q[í ~~ DIt,~
Address
1)1~
Name, L . ./L:>./
~ðT- ~ 1Jv\JJL
Address
atdl1rt) FbQlr5( r- r{u~y
Name .-=:J
~ l-f¡C¡/1UJWr' J)r/~--e
Address
Signature Page
Letter to the City Council from concerned residents of High over and Longacres
IN RE: Application of Yo berry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
~1;l
NatTIe
f\\l, T (C,\.,,,----
iJ iJJ! Ú
A /~ ' t¡l i&V!di~
N aiIi..e iJ !
V I
~ ~ ~ I~ \ ¿ l-\-OV'ç~ D(L\ V f...
Address
Wbu~j¿Æ
NatTIe
1ilJ?Ydg ho \J e V ~ ¡Je-
Address
.Ä-ðÞ£,-'\- /7:7a.r-<
NatTIe
(ÍJ 9 B 4 H16)./0V' f; P.. J)¡:v v F
Address
70 elL) cit' (tI'1kO\/-f '1.1) r .
Address
øJo ~ ¡(j§J, L '
atTIe .'
foe¡ (dç f/¡jhõ'Jr:.r 'Dr.
Address
L)~~~ (!Ai /íd..L ~5~<L~
NatTIe
&dß/l íh~hv{,'t". <\....!)Ñv.v
Address
~j~\ct^- ~~
NatTIe
ÌÀ
Lot) /.7L/ +h~ 'D~~
Address
%r~ ~ -
,,--:ç~ ~ 0.-:1:[<-<-1- þ--.
Address
~ ~ P&vi 1Sl~
G ~!>" !i, ~ Ð"
Address
NatTIe
Signature Page
Letter to the City Council from concerned residents of High over and Longacres
IN RE: Application of Y oberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
~-
-
Name
&93j- Jh9fðtJ-vr ~~
Address
11~- ,~
Name ~
roc, D~ -1-\; ÔboJ"zl y ,
Address
Penny ~ELh- ~blmYl
Name
Mb! I!tJ nöœ;¿ (;m' ¿}e. f!ÁuJns5elJ
Address /
~~S'1~
b%G3 I-{fS~PU;'~
Address
t8~9? ~dk~" ~(~v-e
Address
$'------ ~.' _. C/C2h
Ñame . N~~.
t 'l"t~ µ"7~Ø~ D~ I.J¿
Address
e:;2j4?'I ~ýLc....._~ /-_
Address
~~~
fo81/ l-Ir'8h O1Jer dr.
Address
N~~/ /;c:~~~/
Name·
r:-:?c7J H~ ~
Address
Signature Page
Letter to the City Council from concerned residents of High over and Longacres
IN RE: Application of Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
/d/ic1Ø1 C/l'vI/lGe/L
,
Name J J 1
{; J'l' ¿(IY/Cll)cJJe;$ ìJt
Address
~ ~~WC
Name
2t1'f3 flð~ 1;e
Address
Address
(1'. e¡~ùu'-(
I
/ l) -;¡¿ f11ìctd-
Name
[,f1,( ,1«3? flr14W€V -¡;(
. Address
./1, {. fÆee Ý1'7-4N
Name
ç; '7 g þ !/tj ÁÒ f{/L--
Address
Name
Address
..~m.~~
Name
&q15 ~ )X.
Address
Name
. Address
\'~oA0 Gw~
N~e
E}r'l +h1k 1r~< \
Address
Name
Address
Signature Page
Letter to the City Council from concerned residents of High over and Longacres
IN RE: Application of Yo berry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
~¡f..~
Name
Hq<j ;J,'7~ iJ.A..
Address
~ð-~
:}oIl 4~~ /)µV-£
Address
~~«i~
Name
6q ¡¿:;- H '~Hðt./EJ.. -of</~
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
ame
7At)!;ÞVJ~ý!h~
Address I
~I'-~\J~
("
N e
¿q. \ r ~\oI vrqL btt\ ve .
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is
hereby amended by rezoning 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single
Family Residential District within the plat of Yoberry Farms.
Section 2. The rezoning of this property is subject to all conditions of City Council
approval.
Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the
aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office
for the purpose of indicating the rezoning herein above provided for in this ordinance, and all of the
notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference
and made a part of this ordinance.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 28th day of February,
2005.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
)
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry farm\ordinance.doc
BRENSHELL
e Im.'&I ~.I~~\YJlI~~B~
February 23, 2005
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Attn: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Subj: Yoberry Farms Preliminary Plat
1. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments and responses to the
major issues discussed at the initial City Council review of the subject plat;
as noted in our previous verbal remarks to the Council, we have worked
with the Staff and have incorporated several comments from the
neighbors over the past several months which has resulted in a plat that is
fully compliant with the ordinances and codes and which does not require
the approval of a single variance.
2. Our comments with respect to the issues raised at the City Council review
are as follows:
a. Neighborhood Meeting - We did discuss the plat with several of the
neighbors after filing the application and prior to the first scheduled
Planning Commission review; we were also able to discuss the plat
at the conclusion of the first Planning Commission meeting, with
those neighbors present, after the Planning Commission re-
scheduling action. In retrospect however, and even with the
numerous mandatory touchdown points for the roads and the
existing residences, a neighborhood meeting would have provided
the adjacent neighbors with additional visibility and rationale for the
approaches used for the plat design and design alternatives
considered.
b. Traffic and Neighborhood Connectivity - Clearly this development
will add some measure of traffic to the neighborhoods north and
south of our development but the overall level appears very
manageable and within the design standards; the connectivity and
sense of community that will result from these road connections will
be very beneficial to the City.
c. Hunter Drive - We concur with the comments noting the traffic and
site conditions in this area but this appears to be a case of a pre-
existing condition which our development did not cause and cannot
remedy. Possibly the discussion generated by the Yoberry
development will precipitate changes that can improve the situation
in this area.
ßREtJSI1ELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION' 4057. OAlíLANO STREET · ST. BONIFACIUS, MN 55375· OFFICE: 952.446.1284 · FAX: 952.446.1568
d. Cul-de-Sac Adjacent to the Harrison Hill Residents - This area has
received many hours of design revisions as we attempted to react
to both Staff and neighborhood comments. Two design options
were considered in addition to the original submittal and after these
were evaluated and rejected, the original design was further
modified as follows:
1. The cul-de-sac was re-Iocated further to the South to
provide additional buffering for the Highover neighbors
to the North.
2. The roadway was shifted as far as possible to the
West to provide additional buffering for the Harrison
Hill neighbors to the East.
3. The street elevation was lowered as far as possible,
consistent with sanitary sewer cover requirements, to
create a natural berm and minimize line of sight
impact to the East.
4. The retaining wall was eliminated.
5. The sidewalk was revised to locate to the back of curb
for a short distance, again to maximize the vegetative
buffer to the East.
6. The vegetative buffer approach was revised to provide
for maximum plantings consistent with the Excel
easement requirements for the transmission line; this
buffer will provide excellent screening for the
neighbors to the East.
7. Traffic signage in the form of "No Outlet" at the
intersection of Gunflint Trail and Highover Drive will
minimize traffic to the cul-de-sac for the four home
sites, their deliveries and their guests; in addition, the
speed limit will be posted at 20 MPH.
8. A tot lot has been added to this area to accommodate
all residents in the area; non-Yoberry Farm residents
will be considered guests without charge.
9. In summary, the present design is a compromise that
results in a public street and provides an outlot buffer
in addition to the substantial setback distances to the
current houses. Our landscape buffering plan in this
area will also minimize the impact to the adjacent
residents.
e. State Highway 41 Access - We have discussed the possibility of a
new access directly with the MNDOT staff representative that
authored the latest MNDOT letter, in which an additional access
was noted as "not warranted". She advises that part of the
consideration for this determination, in addition to the separation
distances not meeting required minimums, is the fact that the
current West and East access roads do not line up, which further
exacerbates the problem. She advises that if a variance is
formally requested, then the City will be asked to eliminate at least
one existing roadway access (not driveway access) (Lake Lucy
Road or Longacres Drive) which is not in conformance with the
City's transportation plan. We are continuing to work with MNDOT
and the City Staff to develop plans to use the current Hurrell
driveway for as much of the development construction and home
construction period as possible and to employ special traffic control
measures when incoming traffic must switch to Gunflint Trail and/or
Highover Drive (it should be noted that a MNDOT permit will
required for the temporary access prior to the abandonment of the
driveway as MNDOT has access control in this area); see comment
below for latest MNDOT position on temporary access.
f. Agreement With the Longacre and Highover HOA's - We had an
initial breakfast meeting with the President of the Longacre HOA
and one board member, plus two representatives of their
management company, immediately after the first Planning
Commission tabling action; at that meeting we were asked to install
a swimming pool as a part of our becoming associated with their
HOA and using their tot lot to the South of our development; this
$400-600,000 expense was considered extraordinary and without
the necessary value added to support the cost to our development.
At a later date there arose some question as to whether the
Longacre residents even supported the idea. We have had
additional discussions with the President of the Longacre HOA
relative to use of the tot lot for an annual fee of 59% of their annual
membership fee which would be approximately $188 per year for
each of our residents. This fee is considered excessive. We also
met with both the Longacre and Highover HOA's on February 19,
2005 at their invitation. This meeting produced five areas that we
agreed to explore further:
1. The HOA's requested that the State Highway 41 temporary
access request to MNDOT include both the development
construction and the home construction which could last until
Fall 2007. If the Highway 41 temporary access remains until
Fall 2007 then the owners of Yoberry Second Addition will be
required to restrict the sale of two of their six lots (33%) during
this period; this is not an acceptable marketing restriction for
their property. The use of this temporary access in inclement
weather is also very questionable for the concrete trucks and
the larger home construction delivery trucks due to the unstable
nature of the driveway (even with the addition of rock) and the
current grades. We plan to formally request MNDOT approval
of a State Highway 41 temporary access for ingress and egress
during the development and a portion of the home construction
period; however, informal discussions with MNDOT indicate that
the temporary access permit will be issued for only the 2005
construction season and will expire in the fall of 2005. This will
cover the development construction period only. In the event
that weather or driveway access becomes an insurmountable
problem for the larger trucks, for any temporary access permit
approved, then access will switch to Gunflint TraillHighover
Drive for incoming material and the temporary access will
continue for empty truck exits to eliminate one trip on existing
roadways. Construction traffic through the existing Gunflint Trail
and Highover Drive roadways will be managed, pending City
Staff approval, through the use of additional signage, notice to
neighbors for scheduled periods of hauling, temporary reduction
of the speed limit to 20 MPH and on-site security personnel for
periods of heavy hauling. In addition, we plan to add a special
provision to our general contract to provide for fines if trucks do
not comply with the speed limit and general driving conditions
required for the residential streets.
2. The Longacre HOA requested that we continue to consider their
proposal for all Yoberry Farm residents to have membership in
their tot lots and other facilities as they still expect trespassing
and policing issues to develop. The membership fee proposed
is not considered equitable and clearly all of the future Yoberry
Farm residents may not want to use their facilities. Our
approach will be to advise all of the new Yoberry Farm
residents about the private nature of the Longacre facilities and
to caution that use would be considered trespassing; at the
same time, however extending the Longacre HOA offer of an
annual membership should they desire to voluntarily accept this
offer on an individual basis for annual membership.
3. Both HOA's ask us to consider a re-design of the current plat to
essentially evaluate a "two cul-de-sac design option" that would
eliminate through traffic, the concern being that a parallel route
will be established to avoid State Highway 41. We have
considered this option and cannot recommend this alternative
as it may establish a poor precedent for the City and really does
create exceptionally long single access cul-de-sacs. The
Highover Drive roadway will have a stop sign at Gunflint Trail
and additional traffic control measures could be employed
including a controlled pedestrian crossing at the entrance to the
future regional park outlot access trail.
4. A Harrison Hill resident asked us to provide survey stakes
noting the position of the proposed roadway to the cul-de-sac
relative to her property; this will be completed this week and we
intend to meet the resident on-site to explain the stakes and
other setbacks in the area. For the reasons noted above we do
not recommend any changes to the current roadway design and
location except the tot lot addition.
5. Both HOA's expressed concern over future traffic loads in the
area and indicated they would do their best to influence or
otherwise request traffic calming measures in the area. To the
extent that we can support this initiative with our development,
we would look to the City to specify any additional traffic
calming measures, such as signage, that we can employ within
our current design at the time of completion of the development.
g. In summary, we believe the present Yoberry Farms plat will provide
an excellent addition to your City and will integrate the adjacent
neighborhoods into a single community. The possibility of an
access point to the regional park on the western side of Highway 41
for all of the neighborhoods is also very exciting. Hopefully this
letter will clarify or otherwise establish our position on the issues
discussed. City Council approval of the plat as submitted, and
modified for the trail access and tot lot is respectfully requested.
Charles A. Alcon, Project Manager, Yoberry Farms Development
Cc: Yoberry Farms Property Owners ( Paul & Roxanne Youngquist)
( Dave & Karen Weathers)
(Dave & Stacey Hurrell)
(Dean & Jackie Simpson)
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
vl\'fW.ci .chan hassen. mn .us
óL/~-43
V,;,1'_~-=""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
DATE:
February 14, 2005
r:"lvfei
\,/>
I . ,
SUBJ:
Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary
Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8
outlots, Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide
35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 4,2005 and January
18,2005 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted
4-2 to deny the proposed development.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the preliminary plat and
rezoning as specified in the staff report dated January 18,2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Staff Report dated January 18,2005.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated January 4,2005.
4. Planning Commission minutes dated January 18, 2005.
5. Plans.
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yo berry farm\executive summary for preliminary plat and rezoning.doc
SCANNED
The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place 10 live, work, and play.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
INRE:
Application of Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43
On January 4, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57
single-family lots and 8 outlots, and Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural
Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family - Yoberry Farm. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed development on January 4, 2005 and continued
on January 18,2005 which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District, RR.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density (1.2 -
4.0 units per net acre).
3. The legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A.
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven
possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and
our findings regarding them are:
a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and
regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to
topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation,
susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the
proposed development;
d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other
improvements required by this chapter;
e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
1
f) The proposed subdivision wil1 not conflict with easements of record; and
g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if
any of the following exists:
1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
2. Lack of adequate roads.
3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
5. The planning report Planning Case 04-43, dated January 4,2005, prepared by
Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et aI, is incorporated herein.
6. The proposed Rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive plan.
DECISION
1. The preliminary plat is approved subject to the conditions set forth in the planning
report.
2. The rezoning of the property to RSF, Residential Single Family is approved.
ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 2005.
ATTEST:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Todd Gerhardt, City ClerklManager
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry fann\findings offact for city counci1.doc
2
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January 4,2005
January 18,2005
CC DATE: January 21, 2005
February 14,2005
REVIEW DEADLINE: March 5,2005
CASE #: 04-43
BY: AI-J aff
~
Z
<
U
~
~
~
~
<
<
~
<
Q
~
~
~
7JJ.
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential
Single Family.
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots,
Yoberry Farm.
LOCATION:
East of Highway 41, South of Highover Drive and North of Gunflint Trail.
APPLICANT:
David Hurrel,
7460 Bent Bow Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 202-0692
Yoberry Farms, LLC
7105 Hazeltine Blvd
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612) 202-0692
Karen Weathers
7235 Hazeltine Blvd
Excelsior, MN 55331
(612) 202-0692
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 35.79 Acres DENSITY: Gross 1.59 Units/Ac Net~ 2.3 Units/Ac
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned
RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79
Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm. Staff is recommending approval with
conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If
it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial
decision.
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting
in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Location Map
Yoberry Farm
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-43
SCANNED
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 2
This staff report has been revised to reflect changes made to the plans. All new information
will appear in bold.
PROPOSAL~UMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 35.79 acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots. The
property is zoned RR, Rural Residential, and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential
Single Family. The applicant is also proposing to fill 0.05 acres (2,000 square feet) of wetland. The
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, through the de minimis exemption (MR 8420.0122 Subp.
9), allows wetland impacts of 2,000 square feet or less without requiring an alternative analysis
or wetland mitigation. The proposed wetland impacts equal 2,000 square feet, so no wetland
replacement is required. A wetland exemption will be issued administratively by City staff prior
to the commencement of grading on this project.
The average lot size is 19,16118,962 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.59 units per acre
and a net density of ~ 2.3 units per acre. The site is located east of Highway 41, south of
Highover Drive and north of Gunflint Trail. Access to the subdivision will be provided via
Highover Drive to the north and Gunflint Trail to the south. All lots are proposed to be served via
internal residential streets.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The subdivision is proposed
to be developed in three
additions. The central
portion will be developed
as the first addition, the
north piece will be the
second addition and the last
segment - third addition, is
the area occupying the
southwest portion of the
site. There are eight outlots
shown on the plat. Outlot
A of the first addition is
proposed to be deeded to
the neighboring property to
the south, Outlots Band C
will contain wetlands and
storm water ponds, Outlot
D will contain a sidewalk,
and Outlots E, F, and G will
be deeded to the
neighboring lots to the
north (when the applicant
surveyed the land, it was discovered that the northern property line of Yoberry Farm 1st Addition
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 3
did not abut the rear property lines from the Highover Addition lots. A 25-foot wide strip of land
was created. The applicant chose to split it equally between the Yoberry Farm 1st Addition and the
Highover addition property owners). Outlot A ofthe 3rd Addition will contain a storm pond.
The site consists of several parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided.
These parcels are owned by four individuals. Single-family homes and accessory structures exist on
these parcels. Only the single-family homes are intended to remain. Five wetlands occupy the site.
The site has bluffs and a meandering topography. The site has some mature trees.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be
required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
REZONING
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential
Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family. The area to the south and
east is zoned Planned Unit Development - Residential. The area to the west is zoned Rural
Residential and Planned Unit Development - Residential. All the surrounding property, with the
exception of the area to the west of the subject site, is guided for Residential Low Density. The area
to the west is guided Residential Low Density and Public/Semi Public.
The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential,
1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4 or PUD-R. The applicant's
proposal has a gross density of 1.59 units per acre and~ 2.3 units per acre net after the streets and
wetlands are taken out.
This area is in the MUSA. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and finds that
the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 35.79-acre site into 57 single-family lots. The density of
the proposed subdivision is 1.59 units per acre gross and ~ 2.3 units per acre net after removing
the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an
average lot size of 19,16118,962 square feet.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance with the exception of a few parcels that have deficient frontage. The lot lines Cafl be
easily adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. There are eight outlots shown on the plat.
Outlot A of the first addition is proposed to be deeded to the neighboring property to the south,
Outlots Band C will contain wetlands and storm water ponds, Outlot D will contain a neighborhood
park, and Outlots E, F, and G will be deeded to the neighboring lots to the north (when the applicant
surveyed the land, it was discovered that the northern property line of Yoberry Farm 1 st Addition
did not abut the rear property lines from the Highover Addition lots. A 25-foot wide strip of land
was created. The applicant chose to split it equally between the Yoberry Farm 1st Addition and the
Highover addition property owners). Outlot A of the 3rd Addition will contain a storm pond.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 4
Lots 3 through 8, Block 3, Lots 1 through 4, Block 4, and Lots 1 through 7, Block 5 abut wetlands.
The applicant is proposing to outlot the wetlands. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain
a 40-foot setback from the outside edge of a wetland buffer strip. The ordinance also requires a
buffer zone in addition to the wetland setback. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be
maintained around Wetlands 2, 3,4, and 5. A 20-foot wetland buffer must be maintained around
Wetland 1.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
Existing Wetlands
Five wetlands exist on-site: one Natural wetland and four AglUrban wetlands. Kjolhaug
Environmental Services delineated the wetlands in May 2004. The delineation was reviewed on-
site by staff on October 22,2004.
The wetland numbering is not consistent between the wetland delineation and the plans. For the
purposes of this report, staff used the wetland number from the plans.
Wetland 4 is an Ag/Urban wetland (Type 1) located at the north edge ofthe property. The
wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, spotted touch-me-not and box elder. No impacts are
proposed to Wetland 4.
Wetland 3 is an Ag/Urban wetland (Type 1) located southeast of Wetland 1. The wetland is
dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill the southeastern most portion
of the wetland to accommodate a road. The total proposed impact to Wetland 3 is 1,577 square
feet (0.04 acres).
Wetland 2 is an AglUrban wetland (Type 1) located in the southeastern comer of the property.
The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill the
northwestern most portion of the wetland to accommodate a road. The total proposed impact to
Wetland 2 is 423 square feet (0.01 acres).
Wetland 5 is an Ag/Urban wetland (Type 3) located in the southeast comer of the property. The
wetland is dominated by cattail, reed canary grass, American elm and ash. No impacts are
proposed to Wetland 5.
Wetland 1 is a Natural wetland (Type 3) located west of Wetland 4 near the southeast comer of
the property. The wetland is dominated by sedge and cattail. No impacts are proposed to
Wetland 1.
Wetland Impacts
The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, through the de minimis exemption (MR 8420.0122
Subp. 9), allows wetland impacts of 2,000 square feet or less without requiring an alternative
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 5
analysis or wetland mitigation. The proposed wetland impacts equal 2,000 square feet, so no
wetland replacement is required. A wetland exemption will be issued administratively by City
staff prior to the commencement of grading on this project.
A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2, 3,4 and 5. A
wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas
should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain 40-foot
setbacks from wetland buffer edges.
BLUFFS
Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30%
and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). These areas must be preserved. In addition,
all structures must maintain a 3D-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within
the bluff impact zone (Le., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 25.59 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $27,970.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-
family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This
results in a water quantity fee of approximately $69,221 for the proposed development.
SWMP Credits
This project proposes the construction of 2 NURP ponds and the provision of 2 outlet structures.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $97,191.
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant should apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase IT Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering),
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 6
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
The existing site is about 36 acres and has tree cover over approximately 16 acres (45% of the
parcel). The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site
elevations range from a high of 1084± to a low of 992±. These severe elevation differences make
this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. The plans propose to grade
about 80% of the site for the 57 new house pads, a proposed street system, three cul-de-sacs and
stormwater ponds. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement, look-out and
walk-out type house pads. Retaining walls are proposed in numerous locations throughout the
site. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be
designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be
obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a
public easement.
Staff is concerned with the large number of lots that have steep rear yard slopes off the house pad
and very little useable rear yard. Staff is, therefore, recommending that all lots have a minimum
useable area off the back of the house pad that is relatively flat with a maximum slope of 10: 1.
In addition, the eastern end of Gunflint Trail contains three retaining walls just off the right-of-
way. To better match the existing grades and minimize the wall height on two of the retaining
walls, staff is recommending that the applicant increase the street grades moving west from the
cul-de-sac. This would lower the street in the area of the curve and existing wetland and
decrease the amount of fill that is required.
The existing site drainage is encompassed within three main drainage areas. Under existing
conditions, the eastern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland complex to the east and
south; the northwestern part of the site drains off-site to a western TH 41 ditch; and the
southwestern part of the site drains off-site to the south. Under developed conditions, the
applicant is proposing to capture the street drainage, front yard drainage and rear yard drainage
from most of the lots. The stormwater that is captured will be conveyed via storm sewer to
proposed ponds in the southeasterly and southwesterly comers of the site for treatment. The
proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with
maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
Two storm water ponds are proposed in conjunction with this development. In addition, a
temporary pond that was constructed with the Highover subdivision is proposed to remain.. The
applicant has indicated that he has met with the property owners of Lot 23, Block 3, Highover
who are aware that the temporary pond will not be relocated. The applicant has submitted a
letter from the owners of Lot 23, Block 3 that indicate they understand that the pond will not be
moved. The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to
ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and
outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. In
addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 7
While the applicant is proposing to treat most of the site drainage with on-site ponding, there is a
small area in the central portion of the site which will not be treated on site. Proposed catch
basins at the intersection of Street B and Gunflint Trail will capture this drainage and connect
with the existing storm sewer in Gunflint Trail. This storm sewer drains to an existing pond in
the Longacres subdivision south of the site. Based on staff's review of the existing pond date,
the existing pond is undersized for the proposed development area that will be draining to it from
Yoberry Farm. The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite
ponding for this area.
Drainage calculations for the site have been submitted and some changes remain. The applicant
is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the lO-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm
events. Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted at the time of final plat application.
The storm sewer must be sized for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility
easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including
ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level.
Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty
fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater.
All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion. The applicant should be aware that any off-site
grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. If importing or exporting
material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City
with detailed haul routes. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the
remaining wetland.
All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 8
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Gunflint Trail in the south and
from Highover Drive to the north. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing
watermain at both ends and loop it through the site. The City's Water System Master Plan calls
for a 12-inch diameter watermain to connect the existing 12-inch main in Highover Drive to the
north with the existing 16-inch main in Longacres Drive just south of the site. To comply with
the Master Plan, the applicant is proposing to install the 12-inch watermain connection through
the site. Since the applicant is only required to install an 8-inch main to serve the proposed lots,
the watermain oversizing cost will be paid by the City from the water portion of the City's utility
fund.
With the development of this parcel, staff believes it is an opportune time to extend a raw
water transmission main through the site for future connection to the City's 2nd Water
Treatment Plant. This 10-inch watermain would run from Well 8, just north of the site,
through the property to the northeast corner of the Yoberry parcel. No service connections
would come off of this transmission main since the raw water in the pipe will be
untreated/unchlorinated prior to connecting to the treatment plant. Staff is proposing to
directionally bore a portion of the pipe in order to preserve the existing trees along the
northeast property line of the site. Because this is a system wide improvement, the
construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the City from the water portion of
the utility fund. The developer will be required to provide public drainage and utility
easements over the transmission main and to install the pipe as a part of the utility
construction.
Currently, there is an existing temporary lift station at the south end of Highover Drive. The lift
station pumps wastewater to a gravity sewer in Highover Drive to the north. This temporary lift
station, which serves five homes, has only one pump and is not owned or maintained by the City.
As part of the Highover subdivision approval and development contract, the temporary lift
station was to be removed when the property to the south (Yoberry Farms) was developed. In
fact, the City is holding a letter of credit to ensure this happens. When the temporary lift station
is removed, it was always the intention to have a permanent lift station installed within the north
part of the Yoberry Farms plat. The permanent lift station would be built to City standards and
would be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. This is in accordance with the
City's Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Staff has previously informed the applicant of this
requirement. As an alternative, the applicant is proposing to deviate from the sewer
comprehensive plan and route the sanitary sewer from 11 homes (6 in Yoberry and 5 from
Highover) through the Yoberry site. This sewer, which was originally supposed to drain to the
north, will now drain to the south and eventually to lift station #27 (L.S. #27) in the Long Acres
Development. Because the wastewater from these 11 homes was never meant to drain to L.S.
#27, the existing pumps in L.S. #27 are not sized for this additional wastewater. As such, staff
has no objection to the sanitary sewer layout as proposed but the applicant will be required to
cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the wastewater from the 11 additional
homes.
The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements and
those assessments have been paid. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 9
Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup
charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total
2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All
of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council.
Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance.
All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility
improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. 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 pre-con meeting before building permit
Issuance.
STREETS
Overall, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown
within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets in accordance with City
design criteria. Sidewalk is proposed on one side of all the through streets. The plans propose to
extend two public streets to service the site from Highover Drive to the north and Gunflint Trail
from the south. The proposed streets will provide a connection between Gunflint Trail and
Highover Drive. These types of street connections are always preferred for emergency access
and to provide residents an alternate route to get to/from their homes. While the minimum curve
radius allowed on public streets is 180 feet, staff is willing to allow the tight curve on the east
end of Gunflint Trail because the curve is at the end of the street. Staff is recommending that a
curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit be posted on both sides of the curve.
There is a small portion of the proposed right-of-way for Gunflint Trail that encroaches into an
existing electric utility easement along the eastern property line of the site. The applicant will
need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future encroachment of the
power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of-way outside of the existing
easement area.
LOCA TION OF GUNFLINT TRAIL CUL-DE-SAC
At the January 18, 2005, public hearing, both residents and Planning Commissioners
expressed concerns over the location, lack of buffering, and the retaining wall adjacent to
the eastern cul-de-sac of Gunflint Trail.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 10
The homes located along the
westerly side of Harrison Hill Trail
have meandering terrain. The
homes are placed at an elevation
that is lower than their rear yards.
A retaining all, existing vegetation
(within a conservation easement),
and an electric line easement
separate these homes from the
proposed cul-de-sac.
Option A
In an attempt to address the concerns
raised at the public hearing, the
developer has made some revision to
the public street option (Option A).
This includes revising the grading to
eliminate the retaining wall along the
east side of the road and to save
additional trees to the north of the
cul-de-sac. The developer has also
received approval from Xcel Energy
to install Lilacs within the electric line
easement along the east side of the
road. This proposed vegetation
(shown on the attached Landscaping
Plan) will provide a buffer between
the roadway and the exiting homes
along Harrison Hill Trail to the east.
Option A
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 11
Option B
The developer also looked at the
option of a private street at the
end of Gunflint Trail (attached
Option B). In staff's opinion, this
option does not reduce the amount
of grading versus the public street
option. Also, the location of the
private street is actually closer to
the eastern property line than the
original proposal. Finally, the
private street option would
require two variances to obtain
the four lots that the public option
obtains. One variance would be
for the private street itself and the
second would be for the width
ofLot 1.
Option C
Option B
One of the suggestions at the
hearing was to consider moving
the cul-de-sac to the west along the
wetland and putting the lots on
the east side of the road. The
developer has looked at this option
(shown as attached Option C).
The option does not work for a
few reasons. First, it requires
extensive grading and tree
removal along the wetland. In
addition, it requires the
construction of an ll-foot high
retaining wall along the entire east
side of the wetland in order to
"hold up" the road. Finally, Option Option C
C does not work with the natural
contours of the land as well as the original proposal. Instead of having the rear yard walk-
outs of the lots on the natural low side with the wetland, Option C has it reversed with the
rear yards on the east side which is naturally high.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 12
With these revisions, staff is in favor of the public street option (Option A). With the
public street option, no variances are required. The plans submitted by the applicant
reflect this option.
STREET CONNECTION TO HIGHWAY 41
Staff had received comments from MnDOT regarding access via Highway 41. After the
last Planning Commission meeting, staff again contacted MnDOT personnel both by email
(attached) and telephone. MnDOT stated that they are still not in favor of an additional
street connection to Highway 41. They stated that their minimum spacing requirement for
new street connections along arterial highways is a half mile. The current distance between
Longacres Drive and Lake Lucy Road (approximately 4,100 feet) is less than one mile.
This means any new access point between the two existing streets would be less than a half
mile and, thus, not meet the spacing requirement. In addition, with the existing street
system that is in place around the proposed development, MnDOT did not see a reason that
an additional street connection to Highway 41 would be needed. It should be noted,
MnDOT also stated in their attached development review memo that they would like access
control along Highway 41 dedicated on the plat. Access control basically means that no
access will be allowed where access control exists.
Given the steep terrain and bluffs along the eastern side of Highway 41, the existing street
system with collector roads immediately adjacent to the site on the north and south, and
the fact that the local roads (Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail) which are stubbed to the
property have always been planned to be extended to serve the site, staff is in concurrence
with MnDOT on this issue.
At the January 18,2005 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, the PC requested an official
letter from MnlDOT on the possibility of a proposed street connection to TH 41 from the
Yo berry Farms development. Attached is a letter from Lisa Freese, the South Metro Area
Manager with MnlDOT, which states that since "...the Yoberry Farms development is
already served by two collector streets with access to TH 41 in a very short distance, a new
access in the vicinity is not warranted." Staff is in complete agreement with MnlDOT on
this.
PARK DEDICATION
Parks
Minnewashta Regional Park, a 200-acre property owned and operated by Carver County, is
located just across Highway 41 from the subject property.' Pedestrian access from the Yoberry
site to the Regional Park would prove difficult and is not advised. The County has long-range
plans of providing a pedestrian underpass to the park. However, a future date for this
improvement has not been established.
There are no neighborhood parks within a half-mile service area of the site. This is largely due
to the manner in which neighborhood park services have been provided in this area of the City.
Two "association" properties providing park services exist in the Longacres neighborhoods to
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 13
the south of the Yoberry plat. These recreational properties will not be available to the future
residents of the new neighborhood.
The City is not seeking parkland dedication as a condition of the platting of this property.
Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of
approval.
Trails
The site does not contain any segment of the City's comprehensi ve trail plan. A linear grass
outlot that serves as a neighborhood trail corridor does exist to the north and east of the Yoberry
plat. This outlot was acquired at the time the Highover addition was platted. The applicant for
the Yoberry plat has acknowledged the presence of this outlot and is providing a sidewalk and
stairway connection to the outlot at an appropriate location. It should be noted that the terrain in
this vicinity of the plat requires the installation of a stairway, a condition that will limit the types
of uses appropriate in this corridor.
Upon completion of the Yoberry neighborhood it will be necessary to complete the sidewalk
connection to Longacres Drive. This will require the installation of sidewalk in front of two
homes on the east side of Gunflint trail.
On January 4, 2005, the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding
park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry subdivision. The January 18,
2005 staff report included a memorandum from Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation
Director, which stated the following:
"This memo is in response to a request from the Planning Commission for additional
information regarding park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry
subdivision.
The City plans for the acquisition of public lands for neighborhood parks based on a park
service area of Y2 mile for each site. The comprehensive plan calls for neighborhood parks
to contain 10 - 25 acres of land and service up to 5,000 residents per site. Community
Parks serve a larger geographical region of the community, typically provide a broader set
of amenities and serve up to 20,000 residents per site. The proposed Yoberry subdivision
contains 57 homes generating a new population of approximately 175 people.
The concept of public pocket parks or tot lots has not been utilized as a part of City Park
planning to avoid the proliferation of small public land holdings and the associated expense
in managing and maintaining these sites. However, numerous developers have chosen to
embrace the "tot lot" model and construct private or association tot lots or parks as a
component of their housing developments. The close proximity of two such association
facilities prompted staff to encourage the developers of the Yoberry subdivision to consider
incorporating an association tot lot in their plans. Whether or not this actually occurs is at
the applicant's discretion.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 14
A park service area map is attached to this report. The map identifies that the Yoberry site
as existing within the park service area of the Minnetonka Middle School West Campus.
The property is also located on the fringe of the park service area for Sugarbush Park. In
addition, the City currently owns public park property at the northern terminus of
Century Boulevard that will be developed into a neighborhood park site at a future date.
Again, the future park service area for this property reaches the Yoberry site. Finally, a
proposed neighborhood park adjacent to Lake Harrison is being explored as a possible
component of a future development in that area. If acquired, this future site would also
provide recreation access to the Yoberry plat.
The proximity of park/school facilities is one of the variables each of us take into
consideration when purchasing our homes. One of the realities in working with a
comprehensive park plan is that a good number of our residents will not live directly
adjacent to or even down the street from a public park. A large portion of the City's
homeowners reside a number of blocks away from a park. This community is blessed with
a truly impressive array of public recreation facilities. In addition to City facilities,
Minnewashta Regional Park, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and Camp Tanadoona
are all located within Vz mile of the Yoberry site. It is Staff's position that the Yoberry site
is well served by existing and future public recreation services and the additional
development of public recreation amenities on this site is unwarranted."
TREE PRESERV A TIONILANDSCAPING
Tree canopy calculations have been submitted for the Yoberry development. They are as
follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
35.9 ac.
45% or 16.17 ac.
35 % or 12.57 ac.
14% or 5.03 ac.
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between
the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required
replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
328,399 SF or 7.54 ac.
1.2
394,079 SF
362 trees
Additional tree removal must be added to the submitted calculations to allow for tree removal on
the custom graded lots. According to ordinance, 105 feet from the property line is considered a
removal area for the construction of a home, driveway and any decks, porches or other such
features. There are 7 custom-graded lots in the development. The approximate removal area for
these lots is 49,200 square feet. Revised calculations are as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 35.9 ac.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 15
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
45% or 16.17 ac.
35 % or 12.57 ac.
11% or 3.90 ac.
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between
the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required
replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
377,599 SF or 7.54 ac.
1.2
453,119 SF
416 trees
The applicant has shown a total of 416 trees in the landscape plan.
Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table:
Landsca in Item
Bufferyard B* - West
property line (1290')
Required
13 overstory trees
26 understory trees
26 shrubs
Pro osed
Existing tree/shrub line
and existing difference in
grade elevations
Applicant meets minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings.
According to the existing conditions and demolition plans (tree preservation) dated 12120/04, Lot
3, Block 1 of Yoberry 2nd Addition is to be custom graded. However, on grading plans of the
same date, the lot is being graded in conjunction with the street. This lot may represent
additional tree removal for the development. Staff recommends that the developer clarify how
tree removal for lot 3 has been calculated.
Additional tree removal calculations need to be done for Lots 18-20, Block 1 since lot sizes have
changed due to the additional Right-of-Way adjacent to them. Tree removal calculations will
assume 105 feet of clearing on each lot.
While the site has many lowland forest species such as boxelder, ash, willow and cottonwood
there are a number of very large, upland hardwood specimens as well. Oaks, maples, some black
cherry and a tamarack that range in diameter from 20 inches up to 55 inches dot the landscape on
the western side of the property. Many of these are in direct conflict with street and home
construction, but a handful of them will be left within custom-graded lots. Staff recommends
that great care be taken during home construction to preserve as many of the significant trees as
possible.
Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be
removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46, 81,270 and #251.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 16
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, Wetlan Bluff
(feet) side, rear, d (feet)
wetland buffer Buffer
edge (feet)
Code 15,000 90 125 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 or 30
20
Yoberry
Farm
L 1, Elk 1 17,689 110 ~132 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 2, Elk 1 20,11320,156 &±- 90 -W). 172 30,1O,30,na na na
L 3, Blk 1 19,63019,537 63 @ curve 161 30,1O,30,na na na
90 @ Setback line
L 4, Blk 1 31,51034,159 50 @ curve 165 30,1O,30,na na 30
90 @ Setback line
L 5, Blk 1 25,509 71 @ curve 182 30, 10, 30, na na na
122 @ Setback line
L 6, Blk 1 19,701 103 190 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 7, Blk 1 15,898 96 147 30,1O,na,na na na
L 8, Blk 1 18,569 18,573 90 218 30,1O,30,na na na
L 9, Elk 1 17,16017,163 93 191 30,1O,30,na na na
L 10, Blk 15,09915,097 156 177 30,1O,30,na na na
1
L 11, Blk 15,263 15,311 135 146 30, 10, 30, na na na
1
L 12, Blk 15,251 15,026 113 154 30,1O,30,na na na
1
L 13, Blk 15,029 16,281 102 184 30, 10, 30, na na na
1
L 14, Blk 16,287 18,298 95 197 30, 10, 30, na na na
1
L 15, Blk 18,296 16,342 92 183 30,1O,30,na na na
1
L 16, Blk 17,67817,669 105 184 30,1O,30,na na na
1
L 17, Elk 17,395 18,280 R6 163 170 30,1O,30,na na na
1
L 18, Blk 18,188 18,187 72 @ curve 157 30, 10, 30, na na 30
1 90 @ Setback line
L 19, Blk 20,558 20,029 79 @ curve 171 30,1O,30,na na 30
1 90 @ Setback line
L 20, Blk 22,73923,406 -tOO 143 271 30,1O,30,na na 30
1
L 21, Blk 37,11037,236 144 244 30,1O,30,na na 30
1
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 17
Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, Wetlan Bluff
(feet) side, rear, d (feet)
wetland buffer Buffer
edge (feet)
Code 15,000 90 125 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 or 30
20
L 1, Blk 2 15,015 15,015 179 172 30,1O,30,na na na
L 2, Blk 2 15,518 15,550 146 155 30,1O,na,na na na
L 3, Elk 2 15,195 15,193 130 136 30,1O,30,na na na
L 1, Blk 3 20,533 20,555 256 159 30,1O,na,na na na
L 2, Elk 3 16,23616,207 86 @ curve 155 30,1O,30,na na na
94 @ Setback line
L 3, Elk 3 16,983 16,992 93 162 30,10,30,40 20 na
L 4, Elk 3 15,01015,023 93 160 30,10,30,40 20 na
L 5, Elk 3 15,96116,039 91 161 30,10,30,40 20 na
L 6, Elk 3 16,158 16,159 100 160 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 7, Elk 3 16,110 15,874 113 153 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na
L 8, Elk 3 29,91023,075 ~167 ~159 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
L 1, Elk 4 27,557 84 @ curve 279 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
111 @ Setback line
L 2, Elk 4 15,033 15,084 88 @ curve 161 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
102 @ Setback line
L 3, Blk 4 15,191 15,049 ~109 153 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na
L 4, Blk 4 15,011 15,813 105 149 30, 10, na, 40 16.5 na
Ll,Blk5 17,530 15,988 96 +n 30, 10, na, 40 16.5 na
155
L 2, Blk 5 16,110 15,073 96 -l-1-1- 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
153
L 3, Blk 5 17,118 15,349 9291 -l&& 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na
171
L 4, Blk 5 21,193 19,110 86 @ curve ~ 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
93 @ Setback line 186
L 5, Blk 5 18,118 18,215 83 @ curve 158 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
L 6, Blk 5 16,38116,396 167 128 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
L 7, Elk 5 15,186 149 136 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
Outlot A ~4,517
Outlot B 81,15884,671
Outlot C 78,995 85,224
Outlot D 17,088 22,226
Yoberry
Farm 2nd
L 1, Elk 1 21,11724,399 -l-ð2 116 223 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 2, Blk 1 15,03915,074 101 156 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 3, Blk 1 19,901 19,942 107 192 30,1O,30,na na na
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 18
Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, Wetlan Bluff
(feet) side, rear, d (feet)
wetland buffer Buffer
edge (feet)
Code 15,000 90 125 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 or 30
20
L 1, Blk 2 15,040 128 155 30,1O,30,na na na
L 2, BIk 2 15,312 95 162 30,1O,30,na na na
L 3, Blk 2 16,035 103 156 30,10,30,40 16.5 na
Outlot A 15,908 15,896
Yoberry
Farm 3rd
L 1, BIk 1 31,19831,186 138 233 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 2, Blk 1 17,91717,944 106 203 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 3, Blk 1 24,284 57 @ curve 156 30,1O,30,na na na
90 @ Setback line
L 4, Blk 1 19,050 55 @ curve 150 30, 10, 30, na na na
90 @ Setback line
L 5, Blk 1 31,832 55 @ curve 176 30, 10, 30, na na na
95 @ Setback line
L 6, BIk 1 20,681 20,682 85 @ curve 190 30,1O,30,na na na
92 @ Setback line
L 7, BIk 1 17,033 17,038 91 187 30, 10, 30, na na na
L 8, BIk 1 17,305 17,307 90 187 30, 10, 30, na na na
Outlot A 16,964
ROW 211,115
239,695
Total 1,559,202
Average 19,161 18,962
@ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line.
na - Not Applicable
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdi vision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District with the exception of Lot with deficient width which can
easily be corrected.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 19
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; .
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental
damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains
adequate open areas to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motions:
REZONING
"The Planning Commission recoI11l118nds o:ppro'/al of City Council approves Case #04-43 to rezone
35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, for Yoberry
Farm as shown on the plans dated received December 20, 2004."
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 20
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves the preliminary plat
for Subdivision Case #04-43 for Yoberry Farm for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown on the plans
received December 20, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The
applicant shall supply the city with a list of the number of trees required on each lot as
shown on the landscape plan dated 12/20/04.
2. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
and side yard areas.
3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
4. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 12120/04.
Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a
ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches.
5. Tree removal calculations must be shown for lot 3, block 1, Yoberry 2nd Addition.
Revised calculations for the entire development will be required before final plat
approval.
6. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval.
7. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10- year and
100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
8. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm
sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and
approval.
9. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood
level.
10. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to
the existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must
be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for
all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater.
11. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 21
12. On the utility plan:
a. All watermain pipes must be PVC-C900.
b. Maintain lO-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains.
c. Revise tho storm so\vc-r pipe size to maintain íl minimum 15".
d. Sanitary manhole #4 must be with outside drop structure.
e. Show existing sanitary, storm, and watermain pipe type and size.
f. Show all existing utilities in Longacres Drive.
g. Minimum sanitary seVier pipe slope is 0.1% Revise accordingly.
h. Reroute the proposed watermain in the southwest comer of the parcel to be between
Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 3D-foot utility
easement.
1. Add the following notes: Any connection to an existing structure must be core
drilled.
13. On the grading plan:
a. Show the 100-year HWL of wetlands 1 and 5.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows. The elevation must be
1.5 feet lower than adjacent house elevations.
d. Delete the proposed grading on the custom house pad of Lot 3, Block 1, Yoberry 2nd
Addition.
e. Revise the retaining wall top and bottom elevations on the southwest comer of the
parcel.
f. Remove existing temporary cul-de-sac pavement and re-sod it at the north on
Highover Drive.
g. Maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10% on Lot 21, Block 1, Yoberry 1st
Addition.
h. Remove the existing outlet control structure after installing the proposed outlet
control structure on the existing north storm pond.
1. Show the location of the existing power lines along the eastern property line of the
site.
13. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil
engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In
addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public
easement. Approved safety fence will be required on top of all retaining walls which are
adjacent to sidewalk or trails.
14. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor
charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The ~ 2005 trunk hookup charge is
$1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,811.00 $2,955 per unit for watermain. The
total WQ4-.2005 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 $2,270.00 per unit and the SAC
fee is $1,125.00 $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC
units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 22
may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
15. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
16. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
17. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul rout~s.
18. All private driveway accesses for the demolished home sites offTH 41 must be removed.
19. 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.
20. All lots must have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad with a
maximum slope of 10: 1.
21. To better match the existing grades and minimize the wall height on two of the retaining
v..alls, staff is recommending that the applicant lo'.vor the stroet grades moving '.vost from
the eastern cuI de sac on Gunflint Trail.
22. The applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for
the wastewater from the 11 additional homes.
23. A curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit at the eastern end of Gunflint Trail is
required on both sides of the curve.
21. The applicant wiII need to provide additional information showing that the outlet pipe
from the southwest pond is discharging to a public drainage and utility easeme-nt.
25. Existing drainage and utility easements within the site must be vacated prior to recording
of the final plat.
26. The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to
ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any
inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be
corrected. In addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be
stabilized.
27. The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for
this area the drainage from the south-central portion of the site.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418,2005
Page 23
28. The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any
future encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and
right-of-way outside of the existing easement area.
29. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2,3,4 and 5. A
wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer
areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of
City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
30. All structures must maintain 40-foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges.
31. All bluff areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the
bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
32. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
33. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Tvpe of Slope
Steeper than 3:1
10: 1 to 3: 1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
34. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
35. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $97,191.
36. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation,
and comply with their conditions of approval.
37. Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval.
38. Building Department conditions:
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 24
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance
with State Law and City Code.
d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
e. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer
and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
f. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the three existing homes with
the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all
times.
39. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is
to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must
either be removed from site or chipped.
c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during
the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are
provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when
construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002
Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
d. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
e. An additional hydrant will be required at the southernmost tip of Lot 4. Relocate the
fire hydrant from between Lots 18 and 19 to between Lots 16 and 17 and add an
additional fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 8.
40. On Sheets C3.1, C4.1, C5.1 andL2.1 of the plans, a gap appears on the western edge of Lots
4, 19, 20 and 21 of Block 1 and Outlot A, YoberryFarm. This gap must be eliminated.
41. A windmill appears within the front yard setback on Lot 4, Block 1, Yoberry Farm. The
applicant shall remove or relocate this structure prior to final plat recording.
42. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon vacation of existing drainage and utility
easements located on Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Yoberry Farm 2nd Addition.
43. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail.
44. Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they
should be removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46,81,270 and #251.
Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision
Planning Case No. 04-43
January 418, 2005
Page 25
15. Revise the cuI de sac and landscape design as shown in Option}~ on plans dated received
January 11, 2005
46. Revise the horseshoe turnaround off Street B to be a standard City cuI de sac, per detail
plate1:f 5205.
47. The developer will be required to install a 10-inch raw water transmission main for
future connection to the City's second water treatment plant as a part of the utility
construction and provide public drainage and utility easements over the
transmission main. As this is a system-wide improvement, the construction cost for
the raw water main will be paid by the City from the water portion of the utility
fund
48. The applicant shall provide a permanent
trail easement on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,
Yoberry Farm 2nd Addition as depicted on
the diagram:"
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Application (3).
2. Letter from Candace Wisely dated November 30, 2004.
3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice.
4. Letter from William Coffman granting a 60-day extension dated December 3, 2004.
5. Letter from Mary Jackson of MnDOT dated December 15, 2004.
6. Email from Lynn Clarkowski of MnDOT dated January 6, 2005.
7. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 11,2005.
8. Letter from Lisa Freese of MnDOT dated January 31, 2005.
9. E-mail from Lee Broadston dated January 31, 2005.
10. E-mail from Michael Rysso dated January 4, 2005.
11. Letter from Thomas and Ruth Rolfs dated January 3, 2005.
12. Letter from Dr. Jennifer Rysso dated January 18, 2005.
13. E-mail from Leslie Wittershein dated January 18, 2005.
14. Letter from Andrew White.
15. Letter from Charles and Lori Dinnis dated February 2, 2005.
16. Letter from Board of Directors, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc. dated 1/18/05.
17. Letter from James R. Valentine dated February 7,2005.
18. Letter from Daniel and Penny Johnson dated February 9, 2005.
19. Examples of double frontage lots in Chanhassen.
20. Preliminary plat dated received December 20, 2004.
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry fann\staff report cc 2005 revised.doc
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
David Hurrel
7460 Bentbow Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55331
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-202-0692
OWNER: Same CITY OF Ct1¡¥\ì¡):iiJHill\~~'£If:¡J
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
x
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
x
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
x
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50
CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and
Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
X Subdivision*
A . list of all prppertYóWl1ets.·V¡itt1in
application. .
Buìlding .materl~f$ampJè$·.·
*Twenty.-siX:fuU si1-
transparencyföreac
>11 Escrow wm be required fòr othef
NOTE - When mUltiple appUcatitms arepr
PROJECT NAME YOBERRY FARM
LOCATION 6451,7105,7185 & 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A, B & C
TOTAL ACREAGE 35.9 AC.
WETLANDS PRESENT
K YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING RR - Rural Residential District
REQUESTED ZONING RSF - Single Family Residential District
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.)
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.)
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Allow small lot sinqle familv subdivision
Application Received.on
The applicant should coôtactstaff'fQt:;,t.
meeting~lfnot cöntacted, aøopyoftlî
This application mu,st becornRlétéqinJull?1J
and plansTéqúíred byàpplicableG.ity . .
Department to determineJhEfspeeific
A deterrnination.ofcompleter1e$sqrthe'~p···
notice of applicationdeRcienciesshallp .
This is to. <;ertify that lamrnakil1t1élPj:Jlibat
aU ..City requirements witl)regârdtothisre
the City shouldcontactreg~rdìl1g any m
(either copy of Owner's Qupliêate Certip(}Çi
to make thÏ$ application and theJee()WJ1èf
ì
I will k~ep.rnyse fihfórmedof th~cieaçllln$
unqerstandthat additionalfeesmayÞe eh
authorization to proceed with the ,study. Th
my knowledge. . .
Theeity hereby notifies theapplì~antth~td.~v
. requiremEmtsandagency revieW.:rhereIqr .,.
extension fordeveloprrient review. DevelQpIJJ
D:~r\t1flli.W~Ii~' ,
SjIjt1AP~
SignatUre of Fee. Owner
Exhibit C
Hurrell Parcel Legal Description
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WIRTZ ADDITION, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
~D
OUTLOT B, HIGHOVER, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
Karen Weathers
7235 Hazeltine Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-202-0692
OWNER: Same
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
x
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
x
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
x
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50
CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and
Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
X Subdivision*
A list ofallpròperty oWnef~WjtfJl 'Î
application, .
. ' - .. - -. .
Blíilding materia' $ample$mU$t,þ~'
*Twenty-sixfull size fo
transparéncy foreacll
PROJECT NAME YOBERRY FARM
LOCATION 6451, 7105, 7185 & 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A, B & C
TOTAL ACREAGE 35.9 AC.
WETLANDS PRESENT
X YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING RR - Rural Residential District
REQUESTED ZONING RSF - Single Family Residential District
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.)
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.)
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Allow small lot sinqle familv subdivision
This application must becørnþl@t~qi.ô!
and plans required byappllc~b'eG¡ty(¡)
Department tOdetermir¡e thesgeèiffG ot
Adetermlnatio~. of completeÓe$~9fjÐe<l[DpU
notice ofapplicatiorr deficiencie:ssh~JI~e
This is to certify that larnmakingâPtWpªUql'1
all City requirementswithregßtcf . .
the City should contacfreg(1tdi
(either copyofOwner's[)uplicat . '. ..0
to make thisapplioation àndthøfee()wi1ér
!will keepmyse filîfor/'l1edöftqe~øâ,~1i .
understand that additional fees !l1ªýbe
authorization to procèedwiththestµc;ly.
my knowledge.
...-.-.-.-.-. ,.
. -..'
The.cityhereby notifìestheapp jcEmtlli~t.c!
requiremenfsandageQPyreviey,¡.[.efor ................. ··.i ii '.'
exJensionJor developmentrevÎe:w. .... ..lopment·feyieW
ex~e~ìonsare¡.a..ppro. ve. d......b. Y..th. e. a.........p..·.p....'..·.[Qa....n......t. .............................. ..' ..... .
~¿:@e-~.
,¿fJ~Æ·..···~~i··d.·.··.··
.~.... .. ".1ur..ofA. P.p~.n.J ~.....~?.........&i...... _............~.'...............................................-.........................
',oa::'#-A?; ~;¿&iZ ..§L2<;...
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Receìvedon~F~~.~àid
The appliçantshouldcontactstafftfpr~
meeting. ../fnot c:ontacted,a.copyofth~
Îl. [)L¡/~........fl...·..···....·.·······
.- - - -- -. .-.'.
',- - , .
tQthe
Exhibit B
Weathers Legal Description
PARCEL A
ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER DISTANT 239.4 FEET WEST OF THE
NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH, AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE NORTH
LINE 200 FEET; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE, 200 FEET;
THENCE NORTH, AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE WEST TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT 14
FEET SOUTH, MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE, FROM A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT 142.78 FEET
WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE
OF MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41, DISTANT 16.3 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY,
MEASURED ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE FROM IT'S POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER.
INCLUDING AN EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES OVER A STRIP OF LAND 30
FEET WIDE LYING SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO SAID LAST DESCRIBED LINE, AND
BETWEEN SAID FIRST HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE EASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41; AND ALSO OVER A TRACT
OF LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE
PROPERTY FIRST HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST
LINE TO A POINT 107 FEET SOUTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE WEST AT
RIGHT ANGLES 13.38 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING RIGHT 45 DEGREES TO THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH
LINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL B
THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER DISTANCE 239.4 FEET WEST FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, THENCE
SOUTH AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 461.29 FEET,
THENCE EAST AT RIGHT ANGLES A DISTANCE OF 464.44 FEET, THENCE NORTH AT
RIGHT ANGLES A DISTANCE OF 461.29 FEET AT THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH
HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A
DISTANCE OF 464.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPT THE NORTH 200
FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
AND ALSO THAT CERTAIN PIECE OF PROPERTY 13.38 FEET IN WIDTH FROM EAST
TO WEST, AND 152 FEET IN LENGTH FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, LYING IMMEDIATELY
TO THE EAST AND ADJACENT TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, DISTANCE 252.78
FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH AT RIGHT ANGLES
TO SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 152 FEET; THENCE WEST AND PARALLEL TO
SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY #41, THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO SAID NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER¡ THENCE EAST ALONG SAID
NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
Yoberrv Farms. LLC
7105 Hazeltine Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-202-0692
OWNER:Same
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned UnitDevelopment*
Zoning Appeal
x
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
x
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
x
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50
CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and
Bounds¡ $400 Minor SUB)
x
Subdivision*
2,640
NOTE
PROJECT NAME YOBERRY FARM
LOCATION 6451, 7105, 7185 & 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A, B & C
TOTAL ACREAGE 35.9 AC.
WETLANDS PRESENT
X YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING RR - Rural Residential District
REQUESTED ZONING RSF - Single Family Residential District
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4 lAc.)
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4 lAc.)
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Allow small lot sinqle familv subdivision
This application mustbèCon1p¡~te( i
and plans requíredþyapplica.bI¢Cl~Y
Department to determil']ethespe~ificórd .
The applicant shouldçl)ntaøtsta!f'f()~
meeting. . Ifliot contacted. ê! copyofth~~~
Exhibit A
Youngquist Legal Description
PARCEL A
THE SOUTH 25.00 ACRES OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST.
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NW 1/4 OF
THE NE 1/4) OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER RUNNING THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 960 FEET;
RUNNING THENCE DUE WEST TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF
STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41; RUNNING THNCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY
LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID HIGHWAY TO ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION
WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER,
RUNNING THENCE EASTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGiNNING.
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND:
THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NW 1/4 OF
THE NE 1/4) OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF 365.4 FEET;
THENCE DEFLECTING 60 DEGREES 45 MINUTES TO THE LEFT AND RUNNING
NORTHWESTERLY 195 FEET MORE OF LESS TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41; THENCE RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST ALONG SIAD LINE
445.5 FEET MORE OF LESS TO THE POINT BEGINNING, ACCORDING TO U.S.
GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
EASEMENT FOR STATE HIGHWAY NO. 41.
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RECEIVED
DEe 0 12004
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
November 30, 2004
Ms. Lori Haak
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd.
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen,~ 55317
Re: Highover / Yoberry Farm Pond
Dear Lori:
My husband James and I live at 7048 Highover Court in Chanhassen, and we overlook a
pond the developer of High over constructed several years ago. A week or so ago I met
with Bill Coffman, a member of the development team that is involved with the
development of the Youngquist Property, and we discussed the pond in the rear of our
property.
We would like to inform the City that we would very much prefer the pond to stay in its
present location as we feel it offers us a valuable amenity in several ways. It attracts
wildlife (deer and water fowl) that we enjoy, it serves as a "water feature" that enhances
our view and our family enjoys ice skating on it during the winter. Please be advised we
support the current location ofthis pond whole heartedly.
Th~ you very much for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
C~rJ~
Candace Wisely
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
December 23, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for Rezoning from RR to RSF and subdivision with variances, Yoberry Farm -
Planning Case No. 04-43 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of
said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all
such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and
addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer,
Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Karen J. Engelhardt, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _ day of , 2004.
Notary Public
CI
C
t;
Q)
:æ:
Cl5
c·-
.- U)
.... U)
ctI._
Q) E
:I:E
.~ 0
:BU
:::SCl
a..C
-'£:
o c
Q) ctI
0-
:¡:::a..
o c
ZQ)
U)
U)
ctI
.r:.
c
ctI
.r:.
U
CI
C
:¡:::
Q)
Q)
:æ:
c
ClO
C·-
._ U)
m.~
Q) E
:I:E
.~ 0
:Bu
:::SCl
a..C
-C
o c
Q) .ctI
0-
.- a..
-
o c
ZQ)
U)
U)
ctI
.r:.
c
ctI
.r:.
U
C
o
- '(j)
CU'>
+='0
C.o
~:;¡
.- (f
. ~"O
"Oa:c
~ CU
COCü-
- :J,2
~a:t5
E(¡¡EO
ci.:2: 0 >-
oo';:'E
<2f2€'cuE
¡-""¡-""Q)LL
+oJ 0.1"-
ro(f O..Q,!CO
LO Q¡ L.. 0) LL
° .0 o.,~ ?-
~Eõ(/)t
. CU o>Cü ~
~ t5 ,~ :g 0
c cQ)>-
CU '6 2"0 I
:;¡ C Q)'- (f
C :;¡ L.. ~ Q)
~ooa:o
.o-oæ
~-+-'......,:::
CUCU~-CU
~ I :;¡,g >
Q) ~ 0" t) .c
:;¡ :!::: Q)._:!:::
I-Oa:O~
Qj
E ..
¡:: s::
o
o/:I~
! r5
CO 0
C...J
C
o
Cü :~
:g'O
Q).o
:'Q~
(f "O
-aQ)c
>a:CU
ëõ~õ
ã> :J'~
~a:t)
E(¡¡EO
ci.:2: e.?;>
oO-'E
OO>-CUE
¡-....¡-....tLL
¡-.... Q) ....
êij (f g.~ CO
LO Q¡ L.. 0) LL
° .0 o.,~ ?-
~Eõ(/)t
. CU o>Cü ~
..,¡-.cc+=O
__ 0 ,- C
C cQ)>-
CU '0- 0"0 I
:J N._
c§~~¡ß
CUO....a:o
JOo C
;::; :::.8 ,~
CUCU¡ß-(¡¡
~ I :;¡,g >
Q) ?: 0" t) .c
:;¡ :!::: Q) ,-,~
I-Oa:O~
Qj
E ..
¡:: s::
o/:I~
$ r5
CO 0
CJ.J
Q)-g~
.co-
'+- ........c-o
~o :30CU
Q).c o.o..Q,!
.ct .o.c_
- 0 CU 0)=
mc :;¡(D~
;:> -oc 0 C ,!:::
;:> >-Q)cu
ecu E.c.c
Q)Q) ·L..-O
(¡¡ .2: ~ E E Q)
~ 0 ~ ,~ e £ ¡g,.
"0 L.. cO:::,..;.$
e Q) UJ - :;¡ c' (f
cu 6 ;§.~ a. += 0>
ã5 .c Õ 0>£ æ £
:=.º, (1) £ e E ~
:;¡I ;2(¡¡'$Q).Q
I - UJ Q).o -0
"O°¡::..c:o£-
'> £ Q¡ .2 0 0>.cQ)
CU:;¡ > - - e
o 0 (1) .0 "0 'C -
. (f ...:;¡ e :;¡ .c
o - ~o.CUOg>
..J"- -,~ - 0
..J"'¡- c .c (f +-= L..
.>- o-Q)o.c
(f CU UJ - :;¡ Q)-
~ ,- 0 0"'00>
E.c=ºQ)Q)L..C
(¡¡ 0) ~ cue (f L.. a. '¡::
LL ,- I- 0 _(f (f CU
:>I_co2-ë:cQ)
¡;:..-e._:;¡cu_.c
et) Q¡ o:¡:: 1ã 0.,2:3 ,2
'1.ot)~gQ)a.o::C
"<t 0 CU ~ - .c 0..0 :;¡
o>-w0<tl-cucuo.
iã
I/)
o
a.
o
...
D.
J!!
ü: ..
+-
~æ
.- (,)
s:: .-
s::'Q..
£~
>s::
1::0
Q)~
a. co
o (,)
... 0
D....J
..
Q)-g~
.cO-
-.c"O
~õ :30CU
Q).c o.o~
.ct .o.c_
êij 0 CU 0>=
Q)e :;¡(j)~
3: -g 0 e .!:::
... >-Q)cu
C 'u E .c .c
~Q) QÏL..-O
cu ,2': .!:! E E Q)
~ 0 õ ,~ e £ ¡g,.
"OL.. cO:::cij$
CQ) UJ_:;¡c(f
cu 6 ;§,~ a. ''¡::; 0>
ã5.c - O>"~ æ ,~
:= ,Q> ~,~ e E ~
:;¡ I 'C L.. '¡¡:j 0
I ëñCU-Q)=
õ Q).o.c 0
"0 ¡::.co_-
'> £ Q¡ .Q 0 0> ~
CU:;¡ >--e~
o 0 (1) .0 "0 '¡:: -
(f ~5.e:;¡-§¡
0- J: CUO:;¡
..J"- - ,~ - 0
..J"<t c£¡ß+-=....
_¡¡ o_:;¡~£
(f ~ ,!!! 0 g'O' 0>
§ .c ~ g ~ L.. a. ,§
~ ,Q> I-L.. e 0 _(f (f CU
__ I c 0. - ,- Q)
c-ë.!2:J æ£.c
et) Q¡ o:¡:: 1ã 0..2 :3 .2
'1.ot)c:gQ)a.o::C
..,¡- 0 CU :;¡-.c o..o:;¡
o>-w(9<tl-cucuo.
CO
I/)
o
a.
o
....
a.
J!!
ü:
+-
~æ
ï: .!:!
s::'Q.
£~
>s::
1::0
Q)~
a. co
o (,)
... 0
a..J
..
_"<t Q)
(f a. :;¡o ~ .c
Q) 0 -
(f - .0"- 0
(f cu~o_Q)
~ Q). Q) C\J - >-:Q
+-= ° (f " C:C\JQ) a.>
° (f cuEo,(f oo
Q) :a Q) a." Q) C\J 0 0 L..o.
'0 +-= - LO 0
L.. 0 0. E (J).c Q) =
o.,~ § - g 0 _ 0 c: 'S;
"0 e '(j) 0> .. (f cu :;¡ 0 ;>
Q)(f 0. . Æ ,~ "<t 0 - 0 Q)::::
oQ)gE ã)o-ca>->cu
o..c .0 E Q) +-: ~ 7 :t: ~ Ci5
o-:;¡o E~$«eno
a. § ~O ~ cu .8 c: :;¡ ::: 0>
Q)(f .cQ) -o.cæc:;¡e
£c:-.c Q)<2(f EEã.~
- ~ E:;; 0 oo'§ L.. . ã5 Q)
Oo.oc: õ3cñ:;¡CUa5.cE
~-.;:cu .oL..o.c(f (f Q)
,~ a5 "0 -0 :;¡ (/) (f ,-
"->(f Q)Q) (f o';::-_ro:!:::£
L > c:.c- O.c -_ c:
Q) Q) ,- (f § Q) "$ c: J1 ° ,Q
>a.Q).Q o.o>-ccuC:Q)(f
o ~o ;¡::cuo.cQ)O(f
e 'S; L.. Æ Q) Õ "0 0 ° E e ,-
cu ;> Q) 0> £ .¡:: Q) '6 cu E
_L.. Q)O>LL(f II'>,E>E
~ S cu.~ Q) .~ .c cu ~ 0"0 0
W (f (¡¡ +-= (f :J O>Q):::: 0 CUo
'Õ) g ë Q) ~ 0"0 :;¡ a..!!! a5 ,~ Q)
= 0. Q) .c ':' - - e - Cü - - ..c:
~9-EoeëCü.cõ(f 'Ec-
_w =;::;CUI-Q)-""Q)O
- Q) E.o ...... "" >-'~'¡¡:j;> E -
$.co:;¡Q);>>-cueE:!:::t(f
(/)1-00..£ :;¡.~"O 0. E cu Q)
o 0 e (f cD.o 0. 'ª
>- >- 0 ,- L.. :;¡ Q) °
..-C\Ìc.-)"¿ :t:.o:2:£O(f "OO
CI)i:ñ
5i.=
a.+-
a.Q)
co Q)
:1::2:
+-Q)
co.s::
.s::+-
3:10
0/:1..
1/)$
s:: s::
o Q)
:O::E
~ E
:I 0
ou
_"<t Q)
a. :;¡et) .c
(f ° E;: -
~ ~ ~ ~ .8 ;.~
+-= :;¡ (f EC:C\JQ)o.>
0Q) ~ cuQ)" 0Q) c\¡ ¡g 00 g
'0 _0. LOO '-'-
'0' +-= 0. ° E (J).c Q)
a. ~ c: - et) 0 _ 0 c: '§
~ '0' .Q 0>:.; (f cu :;¡ 0
..... L.. (f ,~ 0 - 0 Q) ::=
Q)o..(f ã)o-ca>->cu
¡g Q) g 'E Q) +-: ~ 7 :t: ~ ë'i5
g.£ -§ § E ~ $ « en ° .
a. c: 0.0 ~ cu .8 c: :;¡::: 0>
Q) 0 Q) _ ° .c Q) ¿ :;¡ .~
(f .cQ) ° Q) --
£ c: - .c ~" " ,~ E E .9- Q)
-~E:::; Ooo~L..¿Q)Q)
Oo.oc õ3cñ:;¡cuQ).cE
~ ë .::: cu .o:J ° W :z ,~ Q)
,~ Q) "0 "0 (f ° .:':' _ cu - £
>(f Q)Q) c:.c=O.c -_¿
Q¡ Q) ,2': (f ~ Q) .,g¡ c: ~ 0 0
> ~ Q) .Q a. 0 >- c: cu c: Q)"(j)
O '-'- 0 0 ;¡::cuo.c Q) 0 (f
- Q) Q) - "0 0 ° E c: ,-
c = L.. (f £ 0 'C Q) '6 cu E
cu !: ~.,~ Q) 0> LL (f @) E > E
Q» c: cu,~ Q) £ .cCU 8 -g 0
cu L.. . (f :J0>Q)::= 0
'Õ)g -E m õ .8 "0 5 a.,g¡ ~,~ Q)
== c. Q) ..c .~ +-" = ~ ....: ctS(f :t:: -c: .c
"" a. ° c: cu .c ° '¡:: -
;> cu E ,2 ~ CU I - Q) = "" Q) 0
- E -...... ~ >-'~ cu ;> E -
ca~o-§Q) çcueE:!:::t(f
ë'i5 I- 0 o...c :;¡ 0'- "0 0. I E cu,~
- 0 c: (f Q).o o.-Q.
>- >- 0 ,- L.. :;¡ Q) 0
'--:C\Ïc.-)"¿ :t:.o:2:£O(f "Oo
I/)C)
s:: s::
Q).-
a.+-
a.Q)
CO Q)
:1::2:
+- Q)
co.s::
.s::+-
5:':tí
0/:1..
1/)$
s:: s::
o Q)
~E
~ E
:10
CO
W ID -Õ 0 ~'"
c:: o.s: Q) (fJ
.g :5 ¿~t C.c en 10.... "DoC
tU 0 .Q <V ~ ~ ~ ë >.:t: ~ (]) ~ S
Ìi5(],)u êií'~rn ä::0 ctJl::g>.2£ c£¿
-~ø "UØoo v 0<._ (],)~ (],)OOo
~;~ ~~~ ~~ ¡~~ ~(],) ~'§~
~~g E~~m~~ rn~~ "U'~ ;~g
~ ~ CD 5 -e 8.~ -:e ~ ë5 ~ 0. ~ 2 ~ (ij ~~
CDO).o ~~ero['[ij'E--~C: õ- en-C:
~£s ~rno.E~E~~o~ ~ ~~~
~iÆ ~~~~~~~~B¡ ~~ ~§~
en ..c::: ~ c: '6>:: õ c., ::J.ê a. U m ~ 0 0
~uu "'_~E~Ero~-ID ID> ü~
E :.:: .~ I:: ~ 0 2 :1: 'ü)'ü in' § Q :5 rn <5 >- CD
.~~.o 2 ~'-~co~uE~ ~g c~E
2~~ CtI~~~~CDEo-s -~ oooê
E:~ §~m;~~E~m~ ~$ 8~c
~~= ~rig~~28E~ä:: E~ ~~g
rn~O ·-,50001::0~W 0_ 'ü-~
-g_ -ë-¡;;-,!'2EID-;:ID~ U(f ct:ã
~~m~(],)(],).Qu.~E~u~- CtI~ go=
E5-~.~E~~~~~ms£ ~= o~~
:is ä5 g Q) ai c ~ ro - (]) ~ :ß r;'§ 'S; 0 ç Q) (j)
cE~E~gID~IE~uE~ e& 559
ouc~=~~.5~rnQ)e 0 o.~ .5
o~~£m.~~~~~~~~~ o~ !£§
~E~~~E£~!oE~~u ~~ ~¡~
~ <C >- ~ -g 0"0 0 >.,~,g 0 a.~ Q) :5 g>u a..
~(],)¡~~O~~~cm-Eo ~o ~~~
Q)"U c.. C 0) Q)::J. cu C U) 0 ..c::: ~ ,S: ('Ij I:: _
a: 8 e .E ~'E g. 0.13 m ~ 5 ~ ~ 5 "E ~ 'm õ
~"Uc.u..c:::c(],)!§::J.u~~oo ·gß g~S
~~~~~£~;8~~g£~.~:~ ~~§
2 ~ ~.5 2 Q) 3 (J) >...!2 E 2:£ ~ W .- u a. 3= (,)
'-c.'- m£:>.Q- ~CUrn(],)a.Q)Q)o Q)cw
~Q)~·~.º=E~ðßID=::J!E~~ £g~
U)EQ)~~<c(],)~(],)c(J)mu_-ro~ mID
EU~¡c. ~3=£~::J.(J)~..c:::·5EB ~£~
ID~:ßC.~~~§~2~~.Qg§æ..c::: ,Õ~t
[Egi~~~'æ~m~~~e8~'~~~roQ
£<ro~~cr..~gŒU!g£>..C.I::~§ID~
Q)c.E(],)::J.~I::E::J.·c c. -~~o·-£~
~~~~w~2Eo§~m~~ð~~~.~oID
o~O-ID~moO'_oo. -øO ØEc£
_ Q) >..5 £ (],) -g 0 >. ~ g> ~ ID 'c ~ ~ É 0. E:.a c
'c .~ B ~ I:: :a Q) Q) B ~ 'c LO ~ ('Ij::: & 3: ~ 0 (ij :c
..=>!:: « o~ ~r=. ID ~ 2200 3-E U)ã)t) 0 gro
ei~g ·~~o '£E~2~g~~roæ~~~
~1::~.~~~~oOOoo-S~-E~RE2·co~
œ!::c.oo~~ID~~-oioorno~øOccc.5
g£E'~'~~~rog§!~~~~iu;'~~~Q)
~~8~.5m~~~~~~~~·5~~8~~~~
:: ~ øO c ~ 8.~ ~-g.2·g ~.SQ ~ u <5 ~ É £: g- 9
Æ·~~0)~ID~O~~~::J~£~~~O~ID~.5
~:~~·E~~ID~æE·~8~~~(J).9ga~~~
~E21::~~æ~£oE~ê>ooaroQ)~~~E
~~æ£imr=.~~~85~·~~~~~[æ~g
0.. ...
u) 0 0> ~
C (],) ~ ~Q) (J) m
,;;",- =0 §3=æ 2£ en (õ -g.c
.- Q) ~ m- ë ~.~ c.ID ro£
~ :Š i ~.~ ro ä: ~ ~ « .5 ~ ~ C .c c:
< ~ ~~~ Q)~ ~.E > ~~.2
u~~ (],)o_ :5> ~Q)ro ø(],) ~;~
c~g E~mro>.~ ro~g ~.~ ~
~2 ~ ~.e 8.J¿~'§ ctÎ~ c.E ~ 2 ° ~~~
'U ~ ~ ~ e «J ~'(ij'E ;; 0 ~ Õ:; (J) - C
~~E ~rnc.E~E(J)U)(,)E - ~~~
~.~.~ ro Q) ID -g ~ Q).g ~ .8 t i-~ I:: c: -
W 1: U) -g '5~ Cl313 o..J§ § ~ ~ 13 =æ ~ ð §
~,Q~ ro_~E.cE~(J)-Q) ø> .üu
E 'U 1:::= 0 4> ~ .~ '0 >. § 0 .c m õ >. m
.¡::g:c 2:.g~~ctf(õ.§Eg ~~ c:!:E
~~~ ~~-æ£~~~g~'c 13: ~~~
u~£ ~~~~ESo.5~~ $= ~£§
~'S~ ~.~~~~~~€mä: ~E ~B~
- g - r:»"E ã) - ,SQ E Q):: ~ ID ~ (,) 00 c t õ
ê~Q)I::IDQ)Ou~Ero~~- ro. ~O=
.º2~~.5E~~~~~m~£ ID~ 8~s
:g õ5 g ID ã5 c: ð. m m_ ID ID ~ iU"3: ~ ~ ç ID (/)
cE~E~~ID~æE~uE~ e& 559
o~cID=ø.c.5~roQ)e ü c.~ £
()C:~:5ro.~~~~~~o.~~ o~ ~.5ê
~~~~~EOIDIDOEIDXU -~ -~'"
~ « >"-ffi -g 0 ~ ~ ~~ g ~~:g ~:5 g>~ ã:
'5øt~_OID~mcw-E~ mO) '¡::~ID
ID'U 2i co g o>~.g E roE U) O.c ~.5 ro g£
Œ8Eg~·~-g~~~~g~~ g~ ~.~~
@ u a."U .c C Q)! § ::J U ~'ã) U) . g.~ .2 .0 S
~~~~~£~;8~~g£§~:@ ~~§
IDø4>I::.Q ~(J) roE~£~~'-u n:1:o
~"E~';~~~~~~ro~ID~IDIDO mgm
~(])u·-,g=Eoü~(],)=::J~E~2 £~~
(J)EID~Q~$~Q)c(J)~u_~~~ ctJID
E~~i~.·-3:£~::J~ê£gEß ~g~
~Q)ID~~t)~g~2~.~gg::J.~.c .õ&~
QEgu~~~'~~m~~~e8~~~£~Q
£«~*Eu.~goc'U!g£~C.C~§ID~
IDI::.£ID::J!cE::J·1:: c. ~!4>o'-:5~
~~~~w>-gEo§roæc.EO~£~~rnID
Qa..-0"Em~~oO~~~roÆIDO~Q)EE£
:!:~~'~£~~O~~~~~i£~~~E~£
§'~üc§~E~O~§IDO~~~_28~u
~u~¿«t~E~~E~500o~j$-æO)~~
~~~.~~&~8~~~~3~~~&E~·E~~
¡~a..~E~~!~-o~OO~o~(J)B£cc.5
g~EE~~rocug§~~21::~IDU"U~~~ID
~ 0E (J)(J)U~~ØIDroCUC..c:::O(],)C~CD
a.. ufO 0.5 ~ 1:: I:: ~{g ~c ~ (j) 1i5 1:: ~ .,g ~ cu Q) &.9
:: J~ ~ü õ ~ 8.~.~ ffi'~ -g ~:Ë'~ u 05 É :5 ~'~
~~~~~~~o~E~~g-~~~83m~~
~~§~~:æª~EEo~~§~.~~~~8~
~§~~~s!IDw8~~~'æ~êiíc~~~~~
Þ(f ~~",(f ~55!OO~;:~~c.~oo",~
õ.. ...
lisclaimer
his map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
his map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
,deral offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used lor reference
urposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Infonnation System (GIS) Data used
) prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
)( navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
irecfion or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found
lease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
tatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
e liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
old harmless the City from any and all cleims brought by User, its employees or agents. or third
arties which arise out of the use~s access or use of data provided.
)jsclaimer
his map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
his map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
,deral offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference
urposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
) prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
)( navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
irecfion or precision in the depiction of geographic featuTes. If errors or discrepancies are lound
lease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
tatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
e liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
old hanniess the City from any and all claims brought by User, ~s employees or agents, or third
arties which arise out of the user's access or use 01 data provided.
Public Hearing Notification Area
Y oberry Farm
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-43
THOMAS J DOLL &
MARY C DODDS
PO BOX 148
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARK J & COLLEEN M FELLNER
2323 HARRISON HILL CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY 0 & KAREN L SANDEFUR
2340 HARRISON HILL CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY E & MARY ANN O'NEIL
2370 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN F & RHONDA S DOLAN
2383 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DARIN M & ANDREA J TYSDAL
2399 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICK M & LISA L BRUNNER
2443 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN J & PAMELA S COCCARO
2450 HIGHOVER WAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LARRY G & CINDY A LOVIG
2475 GUNFLINT CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL R BUTH &
KELLY M JANDT
2487 GUNFLINT CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAINTING PERFECTION L TO
13875 FENWAY BLVD N
SUITE 300
HUGO MN 55038
JOHN P & MARGARET G WIEHOFF
2330 HARRISON HILL CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK R & SHEILA B HAGEN
2343 HARRISON HILL CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JON C & DEBORAH S WADDELL
2375 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL J & KIMBERLY K HANSON
2390 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL R & BRENDA L WELLNER
2424 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GORDON & ROSALIE NAST
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
2448 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL L & CANDI S MCGONAGILL
2451 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES R & MARY E VALENTINE
2476 GUNFLINT CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN H & SARAH E ORITZ
2493 GUNFLINT CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS L & SUSAN M YEZZI
2320 HARRISON HILL CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN F & NICOLE J COYLE
2333 HARRISON HILL CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHARLES T & LORI L DINNIS
2362 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG A & LOIS S SCHULSTAD
2378 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL B & KRISTI L NYBERG
2391 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHILIP E & PAMELA A BROWN
2438 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KIMBERLY A CALLAWAY
2448 LONACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL & LISA M HOKKANEN
2456 HUNTER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT H & ANN MARIE MOORE
2484 GUNFLINT CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD J & SARAH R PINAMONTI
2519 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DALE F & JO ELLEN MUELLER
2529 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRENDA F KNIGHT
2555 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES B & CAROLYN BAKERS
2613 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RIAZ & SHIREEN HUSEIN
2655 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LEONARD V & MARY ELLEN KUHI
2703 CHES MAR FARM RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CARVER COUNTY
CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR-ADMIN
600 4TH ST E
CHASKA MN 55318
TOBY & KARlE M TIM ION
6959 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KATHLEEN E MACK
6984 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PING CHUNG &
ANH TRAN
7000 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL P CAUTIN
7013 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KEVIN W NORDBY &
LESLIE HANNA-NORDBY
2537 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KENNETH & KIMBERLY SWITALSKI
2563 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANTHONY J & KATHY A LARSON
2631 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NICHOLAS H STILLINGS &
DENISE C STILLINGS
2670 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY C & BRENDA L WILLIAMS
2710 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY MARK ANDERSON
6840 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
LAWRENCE M & ABIGAIL DUMOULIN
6966 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JON D GRUBB
6989 HIGHOVER CT N
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL P ENBLOM &
PAMELA M GRIFFITH-ENBLOM
7010 CHES MAR DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MICHAEL J HORN, TRUSTEE &
PAMELA A KLINGER-HORN,
TRUSTEE
7024 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
R SCOTT & CARA CELESTE ECKERT
2547 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY J & JENNIFER A LORGE
2589 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR &
CATHERINE L ANDERSON
2645 LONGACRES DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGORY L & NANCY L SCHMIDT
2700 CHES MAR FARM RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BARRY G & JENNIFER J FRIENDS
2735 CHES MAR FARM RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
E JEROME & LINDA C CARLSON
6950 GALPIN BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RICHARD C & LAURA A BRAY
6983 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGORY A & LINDA R TWEDT
6999 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK J OLSON
7011 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG J & NANCY G LERVICK
7027 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JENNIFER S JOHNSON
7036 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN W & LISA G WING
7049 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RUTH E ROLFS
7056 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN E & TERRYL A MUELLER
7077 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL W & SUSAN L GILBERT
7100 CHES MAR DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
ANDREW I & TINA M WHITE
7122 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOSEPH J WITTERSCHEIN &
LESLIE M WITTERSCHEIN
7150 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON
7185 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARK A & BETH A BROWN
7210 GUNFLINT TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT T & SUSANNA A SHARP
7232 LODGEPOLE PT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
REZA & BEVERLY M AGHELNEJAD
7041 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KEVIN S & TERESA A FINGER
7052 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM 0 & BARBARA L JOHNSON
7060 CHES MAR DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PAUL W & JACKIE M K OTTOSON
7080 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL R & ROXANNE J YOUNGQUIST
7105 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JOSEPH R & JUDITH M EULBERG
7136 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID W & PENNY J DONELSON
7164 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES G WAYNE JR
7200 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
NEAL W BRIEST, TRUSTEE &
LYNNE HOFFELT-BRIEST, TRUSTEE
7216 GUNFLINT TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID R WEATHERS &
KAREN EDELMANN
7235 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES S & CANDACE L WISELY
7048 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ULI SACCHET
7053 HIGHOVER CT S
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHILIP J & LAURA K HAARSTAD
7066 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIC J & JULIENNE G LOHSE
7094 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL R & JENNIFER H RYSSO
7108 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAY M & KELLE L STAATS
7147 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID C & GAIL J LACY
7167 HARRISON HILL TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID J & STEPHANIE L SEWARD
7205 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEPHEN J & HEATHER
OSTERMANN
7224 LODGEPOLE PT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STUART C & MELANIE S
HENDERSON
7240 GUNFLINT TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WALTER A & MELBA D WHITEHILL
7250 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
BRIAN P & MELISSA R THOMPSON
7260 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS J OLENCZUK &
SANDRA G OLENCZUK
7269 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CARTER W & CARRIE A MUENCH
7284 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
L RILE CHERREY
MARY P MCGINTY CHERREY
7300 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID M & AMY K LYONS
7320 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID E & CONNIE S MOORE
7330 MOCCASIN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID G & STACEY R HURRELL
7460 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL P & LORI B ZUMWINKLE
7250 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STANFORD L & WYNETTE MILLER
7264 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAN S &WENDY L SPILLUM
7270 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEROME P & TERESA L FREDERICK
7297 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN W & SHARON K CERJANCE
7301 HILLS DALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DARYL S & KRISTEN D MCLINDEN
7321 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK S & PAMELA J GOLENZER
7334 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN
INC
C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC
935 WAYZATA BLVD E
WAYZATA MN 55391
MARK W & STACEY A RIECKS
7256 GUNFLINT TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ADAM E & LEAH S OLSON
7265 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIC K& KELLY J DETTMER
7275 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARK W & JOAN R LARSON
7298 HILLSDALE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHRISTOPHER J LEWIS &
JENNIFER L LEWIS
7320 BENT BOW TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KURT W & MICHELLE K ODDSEN
7325 MOCCASIN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KEVIN P & JEAN ANN THAYER
7351 MOCCASIN TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICH SLAGLE
7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ÛL+=Lf3
BRENSHELL
.1..'.. .I.:II\'J..~..
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 3 2004
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
December 3, 2004
Ms. Shatmeen AI-Jaff
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd.
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Sixty Day Extension
Dear Sharmeen:
As we discussed by phone, On behalf of Yo berry Farms, LLC, Dave and Karen Weathers
and Dave Hurrell, we do hereby agree to extend the Sixty Day Approval Period. We
understand that the holiday season limits the number of Council meetings in December
and that we now expect to go to Council in January, 2005.
Sincerely,
William D. Cof
Yoberry Farms,
BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 0 4052 OAKLAND STREET 0 ST. BONIFACIUS, MN 553750 OFFICE:952.446.1284 0 FAX:952.446.1568
SCAHHED
!I10[~\~!lEIS01:.¡..ó
l ¡::
"1 i:
%, l
"'.... OF TI' >.~~
(
Minnesota uepartment of Transportation
¿).¡Uz tt eq -I ~
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville MN 55113-3174
REceIVED
DEC 1 7 2004
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
December 15, 2004
Sharmeen Al-Jaff
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJECT:
Yoberry Farm, LLC
MnlDOT Review P04-122
West ofTH 41 and South of Highover Drive
Chanhassen, Carver County
Control Section 1008
Dear Ms AI-Jaff:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in
compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development,
please address the following issues:
· Indicate a few offset dimensions rrQrn the centerline oftrunkhighway (TH) 41 to the edge of
plat. Also, label the IIExistingMnlDOTrightofway" line. If you have any questions about
these requests, pleasecontactJohnIsacksotl,MnIDOT's Metro Right of Way section; at
(651) 582-1273.
· For the right of way parallel to the spiral, it would be acceptable to use the direction rrom the
CS to the ST for the boundary closure, and indicate that the actual boundary is parallel to the
centerline spiral, or compute a curve that approximates the spiral and dedicate the difference.
If you have any questions about this issue, please contact Bruce Wetherbee, Senior Land
Surveyor, at 763-797-311 0 or bruce.wetherbee@dot.state.mn.us
· Please send a copy of the final plat for Mn/DOT review to the following address:
David Torfin
MnlDOT - Metro West Surveys
2055 N. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Phone: (763) 797-3113
· Please dedicate the access control along TH 41 to Mn/DOT. Contact Lars Impola, Traffic
Studies Engineer, Mn/DOT, at 651-634-2379 orlars.ìmpola(2V,dot.state.mn.us for more
information.
.Pleasec1arifyif theprivatèentrancebemnd STREET A, Block 1,. Löt 3 will bèremoved or if
it is not an entrancê. Plèase contaCt Lynn Clarkowski, AtèaEngineer, 'at (651) 634~21 03 or
lynn.c1arkowski@dotstate.mn:usifyou have any questions aboutthis information request.
· Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use
and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complairits about
traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the u.s. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states
that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use
activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of
the land use would result in violations of established noise standards.
Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project
proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize
the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnlDOT's noise
policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293.
· As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for develöpmentactivit)r such
as plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews Coordinator
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two
(2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies
of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete
and delay Mn/DOrs review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your
anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us
from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
. As our request, please send an electronic .pdf file copy of your plan submittal for our record
keeping purposes to mary.iackson@dot.state.mn.us. Please refer to Mn/DOT Review # P04-
122 when emailing the .pdffile. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 582-1724 or Tod
Shennan at (651) 582-1548.
Sincerely, r¡ A /- I /ì.......
.Mlj¡}~S (, Nun/L---.
~ Ma;;~. ;:Ækson
Intennediate Planner
Copy: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
Bill Coffinan, Yoberry Fanus, LLC
David Hurrell
Karen Weathers
Re Yoberry Farms access to TH 41 1-6-0S.txt
From: Lynn clarkowski [Lynn.Clarkowski@dot.state.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:35 AM
To: Saam, Matt
Cc: Lars Impola; Lisa Freese
subject: Re: Yoberry Farms access to TH 41
Hi Matt-
AS this development already has a convenient access to Long Acres Dr and a second
access via Lake LUcy Rd, we would not be in support of adding another public street
access in this area. If you have circumstances that I am not aware of that would
show the need for a different access situation, please let me know.
Lynn clarkowski, P.E.
Mn/DOT Metro South Area Engineer
651. 634.2103
»> "saam, Matt" <Msaam@ci .chanhassen.mn.us> 01/05/05 09:16AM »>
Lynn,
Recently the city of Chanhassen sent a plat to Mn/DoT named Yoberry Farms for
review. The plat is on the east side of TH 41, north of Long Acres Dr. and south of
Lake LUCY Road in chanhassen. Your office put together a review memo and returned
it to us. The city had a public hearing on the preliminary plat for the property
last night. One of the questions that came up is whether or not Mn/DOT would allow
a new public street access onto TH 41 for this development. Currently, the plat is
not proposing any new connection to TH 41. Could you please give me a response to
this question? Thanks,
Matt Saam, P.E.
Asst. City Engineer - chanhassen, MN
Page 1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.2271170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax 952.2271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.2271130
Fax: 952.2271110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.2271300
Fax: 952.2271310
Senior Center
Phone 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
\'II'I\V.ci. chanhassen .mn .us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 11(
January 11,2005
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Park and Trail Conditions of Approval - Yoberry Farm
This memo is in response to a request from the Planning Commission for additional infOlmation
regarding park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry subdivision.
The City plans for the acquisition of public lands for neighborhood parks based on a park service
area of 1;2 mile for each site. The comprehensive plan calls for neighborhood parks to contain 10
_ 25 acres of land and service up to 5,000 residents per site. Community Parks serve a larger
geographical region of the community, typically provide a broader set of amenities and serve up
to 20,000 residents per site. The proposed Yoberry subdivision contains 57 homes generating a
new population of approximately 175 people.
The concept of public pocket parks or tot lots has not been utilized as a part of City Park planning
to avoid the proliferation of small public land holdings and the associated expense in managing
and maintaining these sites. However, numerous developers have chosen to embrace the "tot lot"
model and construct private or association tot lots or parks as a component of their housing
developments. The close proximity of two such association facilities prompted staff to
encourage the developers of the Yoberry subdivision to consider incorporating an association tot
lot in their plans. Whether or not this actually occurs is at the applicant's discretion.
A park service area map is attached to this report. The map identifies that the Yoberry site as
existing within the park service area of the Minnetonka Middle School West Campus. The
property is also located on the fringe of the park service area for Sugarbush Park. In addition, the
City currently owns public park property at the northern terminus of Century Boulevard that will
be developed into a neighborhood park site at a future date. Again, the future park service area
for this property reaches the Yoberry site. Finally, a proposed neighborhood park adjacent to
Lake Harrison is being explored as a possible component of a future development in that area. If
acquired, this future site would also provide recreation access to the Yoberry plat.
The proximity of park/school facilities is one of the variables each of us take into consideration
when purchasing our homes. One of the realities in working with a comprehensive park plan is
that a good number of our residents will not live directly adjacent to or even down the street from
a public park. A large portion of the City's homeowners reside a number of blocks away from a
park. This community is blessed with a truly impressive array of public recreation facilities. In
addition to City facilities, Minnewashta Regional Park, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and
Camp Tanadoona are all located within Yz mile of the Yoberry site. It is Staff's position that the
Yoberry site is well served by existing and future public recreation services and the additional
development of public recreation amenities on this site is unwarranted.
Attachment: Park Service Area Map
c: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
g:\park\th\yoberryamended.doc
The City of Chanhassen . A growing communily with clean lakes, qualily schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A glBat place to live, work, and play.
UlI JlnUU~ JnUl~ l~;· qJ 1IIU tJ~l ~ð, lltJtJ JIlj~ UUT mr..mu
tg UUz/UUl
ft¡)
~O~TII".,P
Minnesota Department of Transportation
MetropoJiran Division
Wa.ters Edge
1500 West County Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
January 31,2005
Paul Oehme
City Engineer of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJECT:
Yoberry Farm, LLC
Mn/DOT Review P04-122
Chanhassen, Carver County
Control Section 1008
Dear Paul:
As per the request from your offke, MnJDOT has reviewed the request for an additional city
street access to TH 41 for the above referenced proposed development. As we understand,
the proposed access would be between Long Acres Drive and Lake Lucy Road.
TH 41 in Carver County is classified as an A minor arterial on the regional transportation
system. This, in conjunction with lack of other north south arterial rOildwilYs in this part of
the metro area, necessitate that Mn/DOT manage access:to thisfacility in a very conservative
manner. Currently this two-lane rural design highway facility cares nearly 15,000 trips per
day. In order to ensure safe access points for lócal collector roadways and balanée the
operation needs of the highway, it is important to keep spacing at Vz mile or greater for local
road connections on these types of facilities.
With that said, we have reviewed the desire to have an additional access and found that this
vicinity of Chanhassen is already served by. two collector level streets at a distance of
approximately 0.7 miles apart. Additionally, the two collectors that ill ready exist at Long
Acres Drive and Lake Lucy Road have turn lanes on TH 41 to assist traffic in making safer
turns. A new street between Long Acres D11ve and Lake Lucy Road would be required to
have a minimum spacing of 0.5 mile to the next adjacent access to TH 41.
The location of the Yoberry Fanns development is already served by two collector level
streets with access to TH 41 in a very short distance, thus a new access in this vicinity is not
warranted.
If you have any further questions concemjng this matter, pleasè contact me at (651) 582-
1409.
Sincerely,
~1~
Lisa J. Freese
Metro Distlict South Area Manager
cc: Matt Saam.t Çhanha,$sen Asst. City Engineer
An equal opportunity emptoyer .
01/31/2005 13:42
'3524423530
LSB BCS INCORPORATED
PAGE 01/01
lee S. Broadston
President & CEO
BCS, Incorporated-West
Healthcare Practice Management and Consulting Services
233 West First street
Waconia, MN 55381-1302
LSB Direct Voice 888-278-4124/ Fax 952-442-3630 /866-808-3630
1:23 PM
'01/3112005
Lee S. Broadston
Subject:
council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
RoddWagner@aol.com; Timothy M. Block; Tmichsnow@aol.com: DAJOGRAHAM@aol.cOm;
adumoulin@bsafemail.com;Marinatim@aol.com
Yoberry Farm Development
To;
Cc:
Dear Chanhassen City Council Members;
I have been closely monitoring the Îssues surrounding the Planning Commissions hearings on this proposed subdivision in
Chanhassen. As a resident of Hîghover Drive -6918 Highover Drive- and as the current President of thè Highover
Homeowners Associatlon- I have often been concerned over the speed of the current traffic levels on Highover Drive.
This past summer and fall ~2004- I spoke to City of Chanhassen staff members in the department of Engineering - Matt
Saam. and in the department of Planning Sharmeen AI-Jaff about these concerns and the impact the Yoberry Farm
subdivision would have on these concerns. In the past I have found it neoessary to speak directly to First Student Bus
Services because the buses on Highover DrÎve travel far too fast. I have also spoken to the Carver County Sheriff and
ask that they closely patrol Highover Drive in an attempt to slow down the speed of the traffic flow. I am also aware and
may suggest implementation this spring of Chanhassen's traffic speed program -Operation Lead-foot. All seem to work
for a short whîle but require constant attention.
I am in full support of the continued development of land areas throughout Chanhassen; however, if one of the only two
access routes to Yoberry Farm is via Highover Drive. 1 believe our ability to control the traffic will be far beyond our abilities
and responsibilities as ordinary citizens of Chanhassen. Therefore, I ask that you cautiously review and subsequently
reject the proposed Yoberry Farm subdivision as it Îs currently designed and see what I see and apparently what the
majority of the Chanhassen Planning Commission sees, as a serious traffic flow Îssue. Additionally. I did speak in the past
with Matt Saam about the installation of a 3-way stop at the intersection of Highover Way and Highover Drive as the
approach up the hili -Highover Drive- and the approach down the hill -Hlghover Drive- is a blind approach at that
intersection. With Highover Drive continuing on into this new subdivision the speed of the traffic will make Highover Drive
quite hazardous. I wastold that stop signs are not generally used to "control traffic."
Clearly the City of Chanhassen can do more to control the speed of the current traffic on Highover Drive before we have to
experience a situation that may involve serious injuries. Furthermore, the City of Chanhassen can also do its part by
requiring the Yoberry Farm subdivision to have its own access to State Highway41. As this sUbdivÎsion is currently
proposed the City will need to closely monitor the speed of the traffic on Highover Drive and the residents of Highover
Drive will be exposed to far more traffiç levels than are reasonable and necessary. As a property owner on Hlghover DrÎve,
I urge the Council to reject the proposed Yoberry Development and to return the proposal to the Planning
Commission for further study. and/or require the developer to take the necessary steps to meet the City of Chanhassen's
Planning Commission's concerns regarding the proposed subdivision.
I have also sent via certified US mall, a copy of this email to the City of Cha,nhassen and request that this written
correspondence be rnade part of the upcoming City of Chal1hassen City Council Meeting scheduled for February
14,2005 to hear this matter.
Încer Iy, t2 Q f
ro~ V L-
President & CEO
SCS, Incorporated
Healthcare Practice Consultants
President &. ceo
scs, Incorporated " West
233 West First Street
WaconiêJ, MN 55387-1302
Lee Directly 952-442-3614 or 8B8-278-4124 Fax 952-442-3630 866-808-3530
Lee@BCSConsultcom
VIsIt BCS on the Web at WWW.BCSConsultcom
page I at 1
AJ-Jaff, Sharmeen
From: Mike Rysso - Awesome Angels [M_RYSSO@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:14 AM
To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen
Subject: Yoberry Farms
Sharmeen:
I am writing in regards to my concerns about the Yoberry Farms development. I would greatly appreciate if you
would pass this correspondence along to the commission before Tuesday nights meeting.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My family and I reside at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail in the Longacres neighborhood, developed by Lundgren
Brothers. Being the first to build on this street in 2001, we knew that the land behind would eventually be
developed for single family housing. Over the last month we have come across the plans for Yoberry Farms. The
main concern that my family and adjacent neighbors have is the planned road and sharp curve on the eastern
edge where its apex borders the utility easement and middle of my property. Fifteen children under the age
of ten in seven homes run up the western half of Harrison Hill Trail that play in those backyards. The utility
easement created short brush on each property, up to the tree preservation easement, where owners created
play areas and fire pits. This area behind five of these homes is now directly impacted by a curve that is
roughly twenty-five feet where these kids play, creating a safety issue. Does a street affecting many, support
having to squeeze in four homes?? With some research and the help of Sharmeen AI-Jaff, senior planner for the
city of Chanhassen, I find no such situation within planned and existing developments in Chanhassen
with a unique problem as ours. Similiar homes have backyards that border other backyards, wetlands, parks and
tree preservation areas. Similar homes are not backed by a road.
The Yoberry project is a challenge with extreme grading and excavating issues due to its very hilly
terrain. Squeezing a street with a sharp curve so that only four homes could have walkout lots that affect many
more is purely to maximize profits with no regard for the surrounding area.
Thank you for your time and look for to discussing this with you further at the planning meeting January 4, 2005.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Rysso
7108 Harrison Hill Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 470-2134
m rysso@msn.com
1/412005
January 3, 2005
Chanhassen Planning Commission
Yoberry Farms Development
Dear Planning Commission Members,
As adjoining property owners to the proposed Yoberry Farms development, we
would like to express our concerns regarding the developer's proposal. It
appears that the developer has created a plan that may meet the city of
Chanhassen's minimum standards, but which also fits the dreaded urban
sprawl definition. This plan calls for destruction of an existing, well used wildlife
corridor, destruction of a beautifully wooded landscape, extreme grading which
will destroy the natural, rolling topography of this land (with apparent disregard of
the significant drainage issues from the Highover development to the north),
We are hoping that you will give serious consideration to our concerns:
1. Wildlife Corridor
· The area directly south of the Highover development and the northern
portion of the proposed development has long been a wildlife corridor.
On any given day it is currently used by deer, wild turkeys, raccoons
foxes, and other assorted wild life that use these woods as a passage
way.
· Maximum development as proposed by the Yoberry Farms developer
means the permanent destruction of this wildlife corridor.
2. Tree cutting
· The plan calls for the destruction of a very large number of significant
trees. Surely this isn't consistent with the intent of the city's tree
conservation program.
· It will take many, many years to even approach replacement of so
many large specimen trees.
· Surely there must be a way to layout this development in a manner
consistent with the city's tree conservation program to conserve these
trees while respecting the right of the property owner to develop this
property on a profitable basis.
3. Grading
· The grading plan for this development seems excessive.
· Reducing the natural elevation by 44 feet in the center of the
development in order to backfill and raise the adjacent natural lower
elevation by 22 feet destroys the natural rolling topography of this
landscape.
· Other areas which call for changes in elevation of 15 feet or more is
certainly not consistent with the preservation of the natural beauty of
this property.
4. Drainage> Block 1, Lot 4
· As currently laid out, drainage to Lot 1,Block 4 is likely to be a
significant drainage problem.
· The Highover properties directly to the north of the proposed
development are very steep and slope directly toward Lot 1, Block 4.
During heavy rains and during the spring snowmelt, the water rushes
down this slope and flows directly toward this lot.
· The configuration of this lot appears to have been "shoe horned" into
the plan to get one extra lot for the developer without considering the
interests of either the current adjacent homeowners or the interests of
the prospective future homeowner "downstream".
· It appears that the developer has been extremely creative to force this
lot into the plan and maybe conform to the city's minimum standards.
· While this lot may meet the often-quoted "meeting minimum standard
requirements", is it good planning to always stretch to meet only the
minimum?
· It is questionable that, considering the potential drainage issues, the
very irregular shape and positioning of this lot, is consistent with good
development planning.
We recognize that the owner of the property has every right to develop this
property and take advantage of the financial rewards. However, it is apparent
that the developer has carefully laid out the development with the maximum
number of building lots while possibly meeting the city's minimum standards.
This is a beautiful property that can support a much less environmentally
damaging plan.
Naturally, our interests as adjacent homeowners are that the property is not
developed in a typical urban sprawl manner, but developed responsibly in a
manner consistent with maintaining the character of the area. We believe and
hope you will agree that this plan should be modified to better fit into the existing
landscape. We believe that the extreme destruction of wooded areas and
extreme grading required to change the elevations is not responsible
development.
Sincerely,
Ruth E. Rolfs
Thomas C. Rolfs
7056 Highover Court South
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gentlemen of the Planning Commission:
January 18,2005
I am writing in regards to the Yoberry Farm proposed development, specifically addressing the issue
of the Northeast side against Harrison Hill Trail in LongAcres Development. I did attend the last
commissioners meeting and did understand that the matter would be tabled until the developer
redesigned the Northeast cuI de sac to address the issue of the public road directly against the backyard
property of those on Harrison Hill Trail. I have had an opportunity to review the new design and must
comment that the design is not "reworked" at all. The developer continues to work within the confines
of what is financially beneficial rather than what is beneficial for the community. The changes made in the
northeast corner of the proposed development include only the removal of the retaining wall and the
placement of lilac bushes - bushes that are bare seven months out of the year and will not provide barrier
during those months and which when in full bloom will still not present a barrier to children playing in my
backyard. I must address again the safety concerns regarding a public road directly against the back of my
property and against the property of my neighbors.
The planner/developer attempts to illustrate in their new memo that my property alone provides enough
barrier against their public road. They show a retaining wall and present a satellite photo of what they
represent as a heavily wooded area directly adjacent to the road. This photow~staken at the height of
summer and does not accurately reflect the foliage on my property. . Át ¡east seven months of the year the
trees (not evergreens) are bare and one can see directly through to the Yoberry farm property with great
clarity. They also attempt to convey that my house and those of my neighbors are far enough away from
the road that the remainder of my property constitutes a barrier to the public road. This should be a moot
point. I will argue the point however as it is an item of debate in the planner's memo. The retaining wall
mentioned by the planner lies only 10 -15 feet from the back of my house and similarly from my
neighbor's houses. As mentioned at the last meeting, the children of the Harrison Hill neighborhood play
not in this 10-15 feet, but instead play ABOVE the retaining wall on the property that the planner suggests
is unused and constitutes barrier. They are wrong. The children play on playgrounds on the property
ABOVE the retaining wall against the proposed public road. They easily rim through the trees playing tag
within the property against the proposed public road - the property the planner suggests is so heavily
wooded that it constitutes a barrier. They are wrong. The argument that the public road presents a
SAFETY hazard to every child on Harrison Hill Trail remains valid - perhaps even more so now that the
retaining wall has been removed. The road remains a blind road with a sharp curve before lying next to my'
property. The children will being playing hide and seek and tag directly up against that road. The
statement that this road represents an alley way to the houses on my block remains valid. Lilac bushes will
NOT stop the fact that once that road is built, I will need to sit at the edge of my property to ensure the
safety of my children and the safety of every other child on the block. I will need to tell the 38 children on
the block that they can no longer freely play in my backyard because of liability issues because I am
worried that they will be hit by a car. Should I worry that my children win be hit by " car in my backyard
in Chanhassen? The answer of course is no.
The developer and planner answer the request of the commissioners to consider moving the road to the
west of the proposed homes by suggesting that it is too difficult. They voice concerns about the grading
issues and tree removal and variances. They mention the need for an eleven foot retaining wall. I maintain
that these arguments are weak. The entire property of Yoberry farm is a difficult property to navigate for
building - this fact was cited numerous times at the last public hearing by both the developer and the city
planner- why is the area to the west of the proposed homes any different? There are wetlands throughout
this area - why is the area west of the proposed homes any different? There are retaining walls throughout
this area including Longacres - my property alone has a 7-8 foot retaining wall- why should the area to the
west of the proposed homes be any different? Finally, they voice concerns in answer to the commissioners
request to rework the northeast corner of sacrificing their plan for rear walk-outs. This is a blatant financial
argument for the developer which does not all comply with the commissioners' request to foster a "win-
win" situation.
I am offended that as a resident of Chanhassen that I must fight against an alleyway/public road against my
backyard property. The safety issues are obvious. The aesthetic issues are obvious - and do note that the
adults use the property against the road as well with flfepits and other social areas set up in the area· against
the road that the planner suggest is unused. The fact that the decision to put a road against the backyard
property of eight existing homes to access the property of ONLY FOUR proposed homes is obviously a
financial decision and NOT one that has taken into account the needs of the community. The reason for the
road's existence is to access ONLY FOUR homes. If the planner and developer can not propose a plan as
per commissioners' request to remove the road from the back of the Harrison Hill Trail properties, than I
suggest that the road be removed and that the four houses it serves be eliminated from the plan. Again, as
mentioned at the last meeting, the property in question could serve as a park for the owners of the future
Yoberry Farms homes - owners of high end homes that I believe would ultimately prefer their own park
rather than access the parks off their development despite the arguments of the planners. I still believe
however, that the answer for the win-win situation is not to eliminate the homes which would be financial
hardship for the builder and developer, but to change the public road's location-away from the existing
backyards. I do not believe that it is too much to expect that the right decision be made to protect eight
existing homes and the residents and children of all of the homes on Harrison Hill Trail rather than the
wrong decision be made to protect the proposal of ONLY FOUR homes/properties. Please look at the big
picture and support the decision that is right for the community. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jennifer Rysso, 7108 Harrison Hill Trail
Chanhassen, MN
¡.,
Page 10fZ
AI-Jaff, Sharmeen
From: LESLIE M, WITTERSCHEIN [lesliemwitterschein01 @msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:05 AM
To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen
Cc: Julie Lohse; Jen Rysso; Tina White
Subject: Yoberry Farms .
Dear Sharmeen AI-Jaff:
My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Harrison Hill Trail. Please forward this e-mail to
the Planning Commission prior to the City Planning Commission meeting on January 18r 2005:
My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Harrison Hill Trail. I am a city attorney for
the Village of St. Anthony. I am writing this letter because I am unable to be at the meeting this
evening due to a committment at church.
I have reviewed the City Planning Commission meeting minutes from thè last meeting and the
memorandum from Sharmeen regarding the Yoberry Farm development plan.
First, quite frankly, I am appalled at both the proposals from the developers and the
recommendation of Ms. AI-Jaff in light of the direction and suggestions given by planning
commissioners Papker Slagle, Lillehaugh and Keefe. In pages 33 and 34 of the minutes Papker
Slagle and Lillehaugh stated that without significant changes to the proposed road that runs
adjacent to our properties they would not approve this project. Howeverr in reviewing
the "revised" plan it appears that Ms. AI-Jaff is recommending Option Ar an even more dangerous
proposal, to remove the retaining wall and put up a few deciduous trees. Please note that the ariel
view of our street that Ms. AI-Jaff put in her memorandum was taken in July or August. The trees
that are shown are in bloom. With the exception of very few, these trees are deciduous. Thusr for
eight months out of the yearr there is essentially no barrier between these houses and the
proposed road. The reason I believe this proposal is even more dangerous is that the curve as
platted is very sharp and blind. During the winter the roads can become very slick. If a car was
going too fast for conditionsr it could easily slide off the road into the side road without any barrier
to protect it from hitting people or animals. So not only now are any children that may accidently
wander into the road in danger, but any child that may be playing in hisor her.own back yard in
danger. Moreoverr the suggestion of placing lilacsr also deciduousr not a solution to the problem.
At minimumr in addition to moving the road as directed by the commissioners at the last meeting,
the developer should be required to put evergreens as a barrier between the properties. "The
Right Tree" is a publication that I received from the power company that lists a least 6 evergreen
varieties that may be placed below power lines.
I agree with Ms. AI-Jaff's rejection of Option B, for the reasons stated. The last thing that any of us
would want is a road that comes even closer to the property lines. It appears that Ms. AI-Jaff
rejects Option C because it would lower the value of the 4-5 proposed homes on the cul-de-sacs
and would require retaining walls. However, she and the developer appear to ignore that our
homes already have such retaining walls in the front and the backyard and that the value of our
homes would be reduced dramatically if this road would be placed as they recommend. Why
should existing citizens be forced to bear the burden for enhancing the profit for developers and
homeowners who don't even live here yet? Those future homeowners would choose and know
the value of their homes moving in, while we are forced to accept to accept a dramatic reduction in
ours without any choice. That seems patently unfair. Furthermore, I find it offensive that a city
employee would completely disregard the safety of children of city residents in favor of a plan
that increases the profit of the developer.
1/18/2005
Page :l of :l
Ironically, I did not see an Option D, which appears to follow the direction of the city planners.
That is, the elimination of the homes all together with a tot park dedication. As
Commissioner Líllehaugh suggested on page 11 of the minutes from the last meeting, maybe the
solution is to eliminate these homes all together. On page 30, he also noted that we may be doing
a disservice to the entire city by allowing the developer to cram so many homes onto this land.
Commissioner Slagle also noted on pages 33-34 that everyone must make some adjustments to
make this workable for everyone. I would suggest that based on the options provided, the only
adjustment that can be made is that these homes either be platted as suggested in Option C or
eliminated as my proposed Option D suggests. The lot can then be used as a tot park as was
suggested by the Parks and Recreation Director in his memo to this board. Not only would this
solve the problem for us and the Highover residents at this end of the proposed development, but
would help relieve some of the traffic issues that have been discussed As several ofthe
commissioners noted at the last meeting, the question before this committee is whether this
project tries to cram too much into too little space. The problem with this road indicates that, yes,
it is.
Finally, although this was not brought up at the last meeting, as the home directly behind the
Outlot at the bottom of this proposed street, I am concerned about drainage. Our home is already
the collection point for drainage for our entire street. At great cost, substantial drain tile has been
added to our property. Any additional drainage simply cannot be supported. I would appreciate
confirmation that the Outlot as proposed not be graded to drain into our lot. Further, if the Outlot
is going to be drainage for only Yoberry farms that some sort of system be in place to guarantee
there will not be standing water that will serve as a breeding ground for mosquitos.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that after much thoughtful
deliberation, that you will do what is best for the entire city, not just the developers. I sincerely
appreciate the thoughtfulness that you as comissioners have already put into this matter and the
compassion that you have shown us as residents of both Longacres and Highover.
Sincerely,
Leslie M. Witterschein
7150 Harrison Hill Trail
Chanhassen, MN
(952) 401-1096
1/18/2005
.-
..
To whom it may concern
Re: Yoberry Farms Development
My name is Andrew White. My wife Tina and I, along with our two daughters Lucy and
Amelia reside at 7122 Harrison Hill Trail in the Longacres Development in Chanhassen.
Lucy is almost 4 and Amelia is almost 2.
I am an Executive with a Construction Management company. Much of our business is
the provision of our services to developers much like those embarking upon the Yoberry
Farms Development. I bring this to your attention to illustrate my acceptance and
understanding of the commercial drivers of real estate development and the necessity for
it.
I do not think any of the people criticizing this scheme believe that there shouldn't be a
development. In reality the issues are safety afld sensitivity t? the surrounding
neighborhood.
I attended the original planning meeting at which the Yoberry Farms development was to
be discussed. If you recall, nothing was discussed as we ran out of time. I was unable to
attend the meeting at which YoberryFarms was subsequently discussed but I was
reassured that the scrutiny which I saw applied by the commissioners to developments
generally would ensure that the developers of Yoberry farms saw the flaws in their
scheme as it stood. Especially when coupled with our neighborhoods representations.
In all my years, which are in excess of20, of being active in Real Estate I have never
seen a scheme with such a convoluted grading program in such close proximity to
existing, established neighborhoods.
I am led to believe that Longacres Drive is considered by certain parties to be a
thoroughfare much like Lake Lucy Drive? Longacres HOA has some jurisdiction over
this road; even if it is purely as trustees, to a degree that speed limits are recommend to
be 25 mph. I am not aware of such consideratIon for Lake Lucy Drive. Surèly this
demonstrates the difference.
In purely commercial terms, when the grading, civil engineering, road construction and
neighborhood impact are taken into account the margins derived from the homes
specifically in the location of the NE corner are less easy to justify.
Further to this aspect, if that part of the development was designated to be 1 luxury
custom home the profits gained would be the same as the several homes currently being
suggested. Such an approach may serve to placate the Harrison Hill Trail homeowners.
Taken to its natural conclusion much of what is being challenged here today could be
mitigated if higher quality, higher margin homes were built. Ultimately the site offers a
finite degree of profit for the developers. If that is 50 homes generating $150,000 of
"
profit each or 25 homes generating $300,000 of profit each. Clearly the management of
site topography and the majority of issues that the neighborhood has would be diluted.
For those that believe that the back yards of Harrison Hill Trail are a "no-mans land" they
are mistaken. While there is a tree conservation area and a Utility easement numerous
homeowners mow the area between the tree conservation area and the property line.
Certainly in my situation I spend a lot of time back there with family and friends. The
natural beauty of that space is quite frankly the most compelling aspect of my property.
I concede that the owner of the property has every right to develop but I see no reason
why, other than the developers unwillingness to spend capital, that there shouldn't be
landscaping incorporating large caliper coniferous trees at the place where the properties
meet. This would eliminate several issues that the Harrison Hill Trail homeowners have
with respect to sightlines and light pollution from vehicles approaching the homes
planned for the NE comer. In fact it would add value to those homes being sold there.
Additionally, why cant a fence be constructed that would assist in the separation of the
spaces? This would also improve the safety component.
Most of the neighborhood kids play in the backyards of every home. Literally there are a
dozen kids or more of similar ages who hang out back there. I dread to think what might
happen if some of them should stray toward the new cul-de-sac which will be out of sight
of adults.
Do we really think that Gunflint Trail and Highover can handle the increased traffic that
this development will bring? As any of the homeowners in Longacres will tell you we are
at our limit now. With the nature of the neighborhood and its multi-car families there
might be 1000 vehicles going into and coming from Longacres on any given day. Most of
which occurs when kids are being picked up and dropped off from school. Do we want to
add another potential 100 per day?
I may be mistaken but I believe that there are Eagles nesting in the various woods in this
parcel of land. It may be of no relevance but I thought it worth mentioning.
I was most impressed with the degree of scrutiny applied by most of the commissioners
at the planning meeting I attended. I am encouraged by this and trust that common sense,
whatever form that takes, will prevail.
L"~ ~...c:;-...~u,c:: ~"E S
C ~------~
To: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council
From: Board of Directors, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc.
Subj: Request for Yo berry Farms Conditions:
The over 1000 residents of Longacres have numerous concerns/objections to the current
Yoberry Farms proposal. A full discussion and evidence is attached. The summary of issues
and requested conditions for the approval of the Plan are as follows:
1) Access via Route 41. (Inconsistent w/Comprehensive Plan -Transportation section)
Condition - The applicant will work with City staff to make application for an entrance
off State Highway 41 and obtain a definitive decision (Yes or No) from the Minnesota
Dept of transportation.
la) State decision = yes, applicant will build a direct access off Highway 41.
1 b) State decision = no, send copies of state decision letter to the Longacres Board.
2) Increased traffic on the Longacres streets.
Condition - Applicant to conduct traffic studies on the current and projected traffic on
Longacres, Hunter, and Highover Drives. Applicants to study, recommend, design and
implement all necessary "traffic calming" measures for the families of Longacres.
3) Gunflint Trail sidewalks.
Condition - Construction of sidewalks on Gunflint Trail to connect to existing sidewalks
on Longacres Drive dependent on park and traffic issue resolution.
4) Cui de sac too close to J,(~riš!Jn. tLil1 resIdents.
Condition - Move the roaG to not encroach upon existmg homeowners and to be a
reasonable distance from the developments borders. (Note - the Planning Commission has
already directed the applicant to address).
5) Use of Longacres private parks by Yo berry Farms residents.
Condition - Applicant to develop their own playground or mini-park area within the
development. Construct a fence or natural barrier along the south border of the 3rd
Addition, between the existing Longacres Park and Yoberry, to restrict access to existing
private park of Longacres HOA. Reimburse Longacres for No Trespassing signs OR pay
usage fee for park access.
6) Maintenance of 3 Longacres sub-division entrances.
Condition - The applicant will reimburse the Longacres Home Owners Association for
the maintenance and repair expenses for the 2 common area entrances off Galpin Road
and the one common area access off State Highway 41. Payment shall be in the form of
an annual assessment based upon the Yo berry farms pro-rated portion of these expenses
based upon number of homes (i.e., 57/264% of the repairs and maintenance of these 3
entrances).
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Summary
Page 1 of2
L,'<J ~...c;-...~'''c:: ~"'E S
C ~----~
7) Construction Vehicle Traffic.
Condition - Construction site access points shall be minimized to a construction site
entrance established directly off State Highway 41 with rock entrance and exit pads
installed and maintained throughout construction.
8) Environmental impacts.
Condition - Applicant to conduct an environmental assessment including chemical
pesticide risk assessment, drainage, well water hazards, and wildlife corridor Impacts.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Board of Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc.
Bill Borrell
President
Tom Hirsch
(
Secretary
Dan Hanson
Vice-President
Matt Messenburg
Treasurer
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Summary
Page 2 of2
"..J. ..
f~~~,~,~
~ª: . ~":;" "'I qi;
';,.~:!:>;,f,~' ~.
t'tT.'. .)
L " <=> ". J:'.J ... G- ,.. -A.. ... c: ... R. ". E S
C ~---~
To: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council
From: Board of Directors, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc.
Subj: Request for Yoberry Farms Conditions:
As was no doubt evident to the members of the Planning Commission at the January 4
hearing, the 222 Residents and families of LongAcres HOA, to say nothing of the residents of
Highover, are extremely concerned about the implications of this 57 home development that
is being sandwiched between our existing developments on an admittedly "difficult" (slope
and terrain) parcel of land. Our residents do not dispute the landowners right to use their land,
and we do trust that our City representatives, including you, will monitor the development and
its many aspects in such a way as to protect all of the affected families. Nonetheless, we do
wish to take this oPPOliunity to address and comment upon our concerns, with the hope that
the Planning Commission will make appropriate conditions to protect neighboring
Chanhassen residents and provide for the development of a safe community for all.
Preliminarily, we note the Staff Report admonition that, for the City to approve a rezoning
request, the proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Where appropriate,
reference to that plan will be included in the discussion of the various issues.
Issue One - L~ck of any reasonable attempt to gain access to Yoberry through Rout? 41.
versus the residential streets of Longacres and Highover. It is about 1 mile tram the existmg
Longacres Drive access to the Lake Lucy Road access (not .5 mile as previously reported).
Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Transportation", states as one of its "Goals
and Objectives" the creation of a system of roads that IS sate, efficient and effective in the
movement of people and goods. It references the need to plan facilities to be compatIble with
surrounding environments. Most relevant here is the section on Roadways (where the Plan
indicates that residential streets should be designed to discourage through traffic) and the
section labeled "Other" (where the city is committed to the promotion of street and pedestrian
connections to maximize safety and ease of access).
All access for Yobeny Farms is currently planned through one or the other of the LongAcres
or Highover developments, despite the fact that there are currently 3 entrances into the
property from Route 41 into this parcel, any of which would allow access without requiring
traffic to go through a residential street. The only contact was the usual forwarding of the
plans to the State for review - their response was not placed into the record, nor was it
addressed in the Staff Report. When asked, the City Engineer opined that he did not think the
State would allow access to Route 41, as they had indicated a desire to limit access to 41. He
admitted that no one had officially asked, and that if one present entrance was made available,
2 others would still be closed, thereby limiting access as desired by the State.
We would respectfully request that the Planning Commission require that the developer make
an actual, good faith application to the State to explore access of Rt. 41 before giving up on it
and taking the easier and less expensive (at least to the developer) alternative of routing traffic
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 1 of7
L ., C> J:"r h' c;- ". ~ ," c::: ." IZ" E S
C ~----~
through a high density family area. It would also seem that this step would be in the best
interest of the City, and the developer, as a due diligence step to protect themselves from
liability in the event of a pedestrian accident occurring in one of the 290,000 plus trips that
will go through our development. In the event that such approval is granted, we would request
that the City require that this entrance be created and used as the main entrance.
Issue Two - Lack of any studies of the affects of increased traffic from Yoberry on
Longacres streets and families.
The issue of the effects of traffic on the neighboring parcels was admittedly not addressed.
The Staff Report was silent on the subject. Upon the question of a Board member, the City
engineer stated that he only traffic studies apparently in existence are those required every 2
years on some roads - Longacres Drive being one of them. He did not recall when it was last
done, or the results. Obviously, and even if they were done and he recalled them, they were
aimed at tracking current traffic, and not that to be created by routing Yoberry through the
streets of Longacres.
According to comments of the Planning Commission members themselves, we should expect
10-14 trips per day per household out of that development (570 to 79.2 .triDs/day), and we
should presume that at least half would run through Longacres. We suggest that it is more
likely that the greater share will go through Longacres, as the shopping areas and the Twin
Cities are southerly on Route 5. It should also be noted, as stated by several residents, that the
traffic will not, as presumed and planned by the engineers, go over Longacres Drive. Rather,
everyone heading to Rt. 5 takes the right onto off of Longacres Drive and onto Hunter Drive
(a narrow, windy residential street with no sidewalks or shoulder for walking, biking or
parking) to get to Galpin and so south to Route 5. It would appear that there were no studies
of traffic impact on Hunter Drive, either (or, at least, nothing was contained in the Staff
report). Hunter Drive and Highover Drive are classified as residential streets.
We would request that the applicant be required to complete a traffic study on Longacres and
Hunter Drives to determine current conditions, and the effects of the increased trips on
existing families bordering those streets, before this application is acted upon. It seems that
this due diligence would also be advisable for all parties from both a safety and a liability
perspective.
Further, we would request that the Planning Commission require the applicant to explore
ways to control traffic, and in particular speed of traffic, on Gunflint Trail, Longacres Drive
and Hunter Drive, and to design, implement required controls. This would include pedestrian
crosswalks, appropriately placed Stop signs, speed bumps, etc. In the event that the cost of
this study, or the implementation, is chargeable to the Longacres HOA, we request that the
City require that the applicant reimburse the Longacres Home Owners Association for those
expenses.
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 2 of7
L ., c::> T"r ... c;- ." -^- ... c·· ~.. E S
C ~----~
Issue Three - Lack of a condition for sidewalks to be constructed on the east side of the
existing Gunflint Trail and connecting the planned Y oberr-y GllJltl.1nt Trail 5ìídeUTÐ 11<<:: UTltn the
existing Longacres Drive sidewalks.
While the Staff Report did mention this subject in its report, and some mention of this was
also made at the January 4 hearing, the Staff Report is silent on the subject in the Conditions
section. Reference was made at the hearing to a possible desire by the Parks and Recreation
Department to place the sidewalks on the west side of the existing Gunflint Trail stub. We
point out that this would affect the front yards of 4 residents, whereas placing them on the east
side will affect the side yards of only 2 residents. We request a clear recommendation to the
City Council for east side placement affecting fewer homeowners.
Issue Four - The Northeast end of the planed extension of Gunflint Trail into Yoberry, to an
ending cuI de sac, is too close to the Northeast edge of the development, and to the back yards
of Harrison Hill residents.
This was discussed at the January 4 hearing, and the Planning Commission did direct the
applicant to address this issue. We believe that the suggestion to move the road to the west,
adjacent to the wetlands, and to shorten the road so that the cuI de sac ends a reasonable
distance from the development's borders, is reasonable to preserve green space and improve
safety. It is included here for the record only. If the proposed solution creates any other issues,
we reserve the right to comment at that time.
Issue Five - Lack of any discussion, consideration or remedy for the use by Yoberry Farms
residents of the private parks of Longacres, allowing park fees only for the 57 home Yoberry
development.
The Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 4, entitled "Parks and Open Space", places a strong
emphasis on parks and open spaces, recognizing that "land is not infinite." Developers are to
be encouraged to dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces and trails. For a
development serving an area of about one quarter mile, the "mini-park" is recommended. This
is particularly appropriate when no other public parks are readily, and safely, available by foot
or bike.
It appears that the plan of Yoberry does not include any such recreational facility within its
borders - no parks, playgrounds, trails, etc. However, two private parks do exist within the
Longacres neighborhood - both off of Longacres Drive and both owned and maintained by
dues of residents paid to the Longacres HOA. Both parks have expensive child play
apparatus; one of the private parks contains a pair of tennis courts and one has a basketball
court. Both are within easy walking distance of Yo berry and, in fact, the 3rd Addition of
Yoberry will be closer to the West park than any of the existing Longacres homes!
The Staff Report indicates a park on Outlot D, but it appears from the hearing that now it is
acceptable for the applicant to pay park fees instead of creating its own park. Those fees are
good for City coffers, but we believe they are inappropriate here. This method is best reserved
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 3 of7
L "C:::> J:'.J ,. c;- ,.. ~ ". c:: .µ ~ ." E S
C ~----~
for situations where it is likely that the residents on whose behalf the applicant pays would be
reasonable anticipated to use City facilities. Where such City facilities are not readily
available, and particularly where it is reasonable to assume more convenient private facilities
will be used, it is more appropriate to require a park be included in a development.
Longacres does contain 3 private parks for Longacres residents only, paid for exclusively by
our residents. They are not fenced, monitored, or otherwise secured. It is very obvious that
Yoberry residents will utilize these areas, since they have no other or better alternative. We
note that the Staff Report recognizes the inadvisability of crossing Rt. 41 to Minnewashta
Park, the next closest City alternative. We do not wish to appear inhospitable, but these parks
were built with Longacres resident monies (added to the home prices), and increased use does
translate into increased maintenance cost to us, and increased liability, for many years to
come.
As discussed at the January 4 hearing, we would consider the alternative of the applicant
requiring his buyers to join Longacres BOA, thereby paying for future maintenance. Since
this contribution alone fails to recognize the added contribution residents of Longacres made
to the initial construction of the parks, further discussions are ongoing. A meeting with the
applicant to explore the possibility of Yoberry residents joining the Longacres BOA was held,
and they are considering the possibilities, and the added value this private park system will
bring to his properties.
While this is good progress to a possible solution, the next available date to discuss the issue
according to the applicant's schedule was in 2 weeks, well past the date we are informed is
the next scheduled Planning Commission hearing on this plan (January 18). We remain
committed to working with the applicant to the betterment of both our constituencies, but we
fear that their interest in such an approach may wane if the plans are approved without a
resolution. With all due respect to the integrity of the applicant, which we do not question, we
do not wish to still have this problem after January 18, but be without the Planning
Commission's authority to drive an appropriate solution.
Therefore, we request that the Planning Commission require that the applicant, absent
agreeing to a mutually acceptable solutiQn regarding joining the Longacres HOA, incorporate
a "mini-park" or "tot lor- or sImilar playground within the Y oberry development of sufficient
size to ensure residents have access to their own playground, so as to abate usage of, and
trespassing upon, the Longacres private parks.
This Commission is no doubt well aware of its own history, but we note that a similar
construction site condition was attached to the Pinehurst development (a 43 lot development
at the northwest corner of Galpin and Lake Lucy Roads), In that application, the Planning
Commission at the 12/7 meeting did require a tot lot condition. This admirable and
established precedent should be applied in this case as well.
1/ 18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 4 of7
L"<=> ì'f G-'''~'''C:'~~''E S
C ~-----~
Further, we request that the applicant be required to build a barrier between the entire portion
of the project labeled "3rd Addition", Lots 1-8, that restricts access to the existing Longacres
park, such barrier to serve the purpose of preventing access to that park.
Issue Six - Yoberry plan to use Longacres owned and maintained entrances for access to
Galpin Road and Route 41, without sharing the cost burden with Longacres HOA.
Longacres is accessed from Galpin Road on the East (from either Longacres Drive or Hunter
Drive) and Route 41 on the West. We own and maintain those entrances with signage,
lighting, landscaping, etc., at the sole expense of Longacres residents. The Yoberry plan
presumptuously shows these entrances also to be their entrances, apparently without regard to
their maintenance expense.
We request that the applicant reimburse the Longacres HOA for the maintenance and repair
expenses for the 2 common area entrances off Galpin Road and the one common area access
off State Route 41. Payment would be required to be in the form of an annual assessment
based upon the Yoberry farms pro-rated portion of these expenses based upon number of
homes (i.e. ultimately 57/264 % of the repairs and maintenance of these 3 entrances), or by a
lump sum that will be retained by the HOA and applied to these expenses.
Issue Seven - Lack of any condition requiring access for construction vehicles from existing
driveways off Route 41, indicating an intent to burden the infrastructure of Longacres
residential streets, and the safety of its residents, with increased traffic hazards.
In the event that application for access to Rt. 41 is made and approved, it is presumed that
such access would be used for construction in Yoberry, versus the residential streets of
Longacres and Highover. Even if such access were not made a condition of the rezoning by
the Planning Commission, it would seem wise to require the applicant to use one of the 3
existing access roads off ofRt. 41 for all construction of the planned development. However,
the issue is not discussed in the Staff Report.
As the Commission knows, the construction of roads and homes involve rather large vehicles,
with frequent trips. These trips are often made in mornings when residents are going to work,
and children are at bus stops. The same safety concerns exist in the afternoon when school
children arrive home and then disperse in the neighborhood to play - or all day long in the
summer months. This creates an obvious safety hazard in Longacres residential streets. This
was mentioned briefly at the last hearing, and in private discussions with the City Engineer, as
something contemplated by the applicant, but it was not contained as a condition in the Staff
Report.
We would request that the Commission require the applicant to create an access road from
Route 41 for all construction vehicles access, during the construction period, and avoid the
residential streets of Longacres.
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 5 of7
L" ~... J:'I ". c:;- ,..~... c·" R.... E S
C ~----~
Issue Eight - Lack of any environmental impact study in an area of abundant wildlife, and
where farming was once actively practiced (involving pesticide applications).
The Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 3 regarding "Natural Resources" recognizes the
importance of our environment. Water quality is specifically referenced, as is non-point
source pollution concerns in agricultural areas.
Yoberry is being developed on open land with mature trees and abundant wildlife. It contains
5 wetlands - amazingly enough, the wetlands square footage exactly equals that necessary for
a de minimus exemption from the MN Wetlands Conservation Act. Several existing ponds are
to be retained, and some new ponds created. We believe that this is former farmland, where
pesticides and other potentially dangerous chemicals may have been applied for many years.
Finally, we note that the land is very hilly, with several bluffs and generally meandering
topography (" a challenging one to develop and grade" per Staff Report) with a multitude of
varied slopes. In the words of the applicant at the hearing, a very difficult plot. Much of the
vegetation will be disturbed, and it will be significantly re-graded (80% of the site, per Staff
Report). The combination of these facts would seem to indicate that a discussion of
environmental conditions would be appropriate. In particular, the question would be how this
development may affect the local environment, and whether or not drainage from the
disturbed soil would create any danger to surrounding residents.
The Staff Report is not entirely silent on the subject. It appears that an environmental firm
was on site to investigate the wetlands, drainage has been considered, ponding requirements
set, etc. However, as noted by Uli Sacchet in his testimony (as a citizen and resident of
Highover, and not in any official capacity as Planning Commission Chair), the conclusory
Staff Report finding that "the proposed subdivision will no cause environmental damage" is
somewhat difficult to reconcile with the detail in their own report. The better part of
discretion would seem to indicate a more complete study before such conclusion is reached.
We would ask the Commission to require the applicant to conduct a full environmental impact
study to explore the effects of this development on the area in which it is proposed, and on the
neighboring residents.
Conclusion
The Board of Directors and the Officers of the Longacres HOA have the same obligation to
the families of this development - the safety and liability of our constituents. We sincerely
hope that our concerns are recognized not only for their magnitude and importance, but also
for the spirit in which they are expressed. We, too, are not serving in this capacity for the
money or glory; we just feel our involvement can make a difference to the Longacres
neighborhood. Thank you for your public service.
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 6 of7
L .. C> ,,' T"f ". c;- " -A- ." c:: ." R. ." E S
C ~----~
We take this opportunity to recognize the work of staff on this project, as we also appreciate
the assistance of Staff in answering questions and providing documents to date. Hopefully,
none of our comments here will be taken by them as intended to denigrate them in any way.
Our residents wish to remain very involved in this development, and are open to any
suggestions or discussions as may be appropriate. Please feel free to contact me directly on
any issue here, or others that this correspondence might raise.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Board of Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc.
Tom Hirsch
President
Bill Borrell
Secretary
Dan Hanson
Vice-President
Matt Messenburg
Treasurer
1/18/2005
Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded
Page 7 of?
t' .
~---,
,', '~. ,.....
¿~)
February 7, 2005
, ~--
('. ~T··/ ,~, .. . .
v~ j ¡ ~"-_-, :,,-i, ,; ,; .;. ,I' ~,_..
Members of the Chanhassen City Council,
I write this letter to express my concerns regarding the construction of the Yoberry Farms
development in Chanhassen. My family and I live at 2476 Gunflint Court in the
Longacres development, which is due south of the contemplated Yoberry Farms
development. In fact, my house is the first house, on the left, a traveler from Yoberry
Farms development would pass upon exiting Yoberry Farms.
We have lived in our home since June 2001. At the time we decided to build at this
location in Longacres, we were told that eventually a development would be built north
of us. We were not aware that any future development would use our development as a
means of entering and exiting the new development. I assume the Chanhassen Planning
Commission that authorized construction of the Highover and Longacres developments
would have been aware of the need for access roads to and from any future development
built between Highover and Longacres developments. To have assumed that the
residents of Longacres or Highover would have no issue with providing access to a new
development built between them seems ludicrous. Furthermore, I'm shocked that the
developers of Yoberry Fmms see no need to include a park for the residents of a
development containing >50 homes with estimated values in the $600-1,000K range!
They apparent! y believe that a deal might be struck with Longacres to enable Yoberry
Farms residents to use our parks. There is absolutely no way I will endorse such an
agreement, regardless of how much money Yoberry Farms contributes to maintaining the
parks in Longacres. The parks become very crowded during the summer months and,
being the father of four children under the' age of eight, I would like my children to have
access to the parks without the added competition from an additional 100+ children from
Y obeny fmms.
I sincerely hope you will give further consideration to providing separate access roads to
Rt41and Galpin Blvd for residents of Yoberry Farms. Added cost to the builder should
not drive the decision not to build access roads to Rt41 or Galpin Blvd. Think of the
increased traffic flows in Longacres and Highover, and the attendant safety issues
associated with this increased traffic, that would result from the current Yoberry Farms
development layout. I encourage each of you to drive south from my house and take the
shortest route to access Galpin Blvd, which leads to Rt5. The shortest route will take you
down Hunter Road, which is probably the, poorest designed road I have ever seen for a
development the size of Longacres. Try to convince the parents of young children who
li ve on this road that the safety of their children will not be impacted by the Yoberry
Farms development. Then ask yourself if you would be comfOliable with the addition of
a new development that makes an already bad traffic situation worse.
,.
The decision you make on February 14th will affect the lives of many families in
Chanhassen. I implore you to critically evaluate the merits of the arguments expressed
by homeowners in Longacres and Highover. We all realize a development will
eventually be built between our developments. Let's ensure that the safety of all young
children in these developments will be preserved once a final decision has been made
with regard to layout of Y obeny Farms development.
, ~f.J~
James . Valentine
2476 Gunflint Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952)470-2004
City Council
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
t:~~[l r 100:)
CITY OF CHj,;\<;:;'.~
RE: Yoberry Development
Dear Council Members:
We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed new development
between Highover and Longacres called "Yoberry".
As a resident of the Highover subdivision and being located on Highover Drive, we are
very concerned about the amount of traffic that will now be added to our already busy
street. We have 3 children between the ages of 8 and 14 who all cross Highover Drive
in the morning and afternoon to get on and off the school bus. It is our understanding
that no traffic studies have been completed on Highover Drive to determine if the road
can handle the additional traffic. It is clear to us that Highover was designed as a local
road to service the Highover subdivision and not as a "feeder" road to serve neighboring
subdivisions.
The development as proposed goes beyond anything anticipated by Highover residents,
and contradicts representations made to us when we purchased our home that Highover
would only be extended to a cul-de-sac. Everything about Highover suggests that
Highover Drive would remain a local street, not a high-traffic through street. Our real
investment and fixed property in Highover should take precedence over the
inconvenience of modifying plans that exist only on paper.
Although we understand the city has a general preference for through streets, this is a
situation in which an exception is warranted. The ideal solution would be a separate
entrance off of Highway 41. However, we understand that access to 41 may not be
granted by the State. The result is that Highover/Gunflint would become an inordinately
long "local" road with an inordinately large number of houses. For these reasons, the
vast majority of Highover residents, Longacres residents and the majority of the City
Planning Commission are against the plan as currently submitted and feel that the plan
needs to be modified.
We therefore urge you to reject that plan as currently submitted and to require
Yoberry to have cul-de-sacs from both north and south, thus solving the through-
traffic issue and a host of other issues presented by the residents of Highover and
Longacres subdivisions.
) erely, /....J .' .. Þ..;. .~
(. ",. I. . . .' ,.v----/
\ jj11/)'1/ÍjF/3J·{AL;Jl~9~"}1./,Jt,
niel and Penny John~on U·
6951 Highover Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Examples of
Rear Lot Lines
in close
proximity to
Streets in
Chanhassen
c,
I
í
TET N N
-~~~~
,
¡
I
I
i
,
¡
¡i
!
f
--~H:rBN~G:r~~~
--~---~---~
----~~---- -- -- ---
c-M8t,ªER~,{ClRE~~_~
Charles & Lori Dinnis
2362 Hunter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
February 2,2005
City of Chanha$sen
7700. Market6JVd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN- 55317
Subject: Yoberry Far-ms-D.ev-eJopment with Additional Traffic Concerns
Dear Sirs:
My concern is all of tAe.-adcütional traffic that will be--addedto Gunflint & Hunter Drive
due to the requested 55 lots in the Yoberry Farms DevelGpment.
It was shown for ye2rs by the Highover developef-.tAaUhe..-area would have a cui de
sac with 8-10 houses in the area - not 55. The developer--is concentrating the houses
so much that he doesn't even give..areas for parks for his ho~
One of planning commissioners said that street traffic is a- "City Issue". I agree in part
however, I believe that-it-~the City & the Plann~mmission's responsibility to
determine if mistakes have been made in the past and not make them worse by
adding additional tramc..-(i,e., Hunter Drive was not. meant. to be a through street
(many 90 degree turns, hillsrnarrower street & no sidewalks) by viewing the map - it
is clear that Hunter is the shortest distal1Ge toGa~pin fr.om-the-Gooflint Trail side and
that human nature will choose this route to Chan or Highway 5)-
1 ) TheJ:~AO-traffic impedance devices on HlJ. nter
a. Hunter has many 90 degree bends .. ...-.J
b. Hunter h.s a big hill --Gan't·~ren
c. Hunter has many blind corners - can't..see the children.
k--Comer-of Fawl+J:iiU &-Hunter: {bünd-comer sign already in
place)
ih---GaJpiI1-towards Fawn H~nce)
iii. 2428 Hunter Drive . .--1
d. S~tics:
-J Long Acres Drive ~wider street with side walk
1. 52 total homes
2--35- with driveways
3. 17 with land-J
li.-1:iuAter-tO-Galpi~90 degree-tums, hills, narrower street & no
sidewalk
1. 35 Total Homes
2. 32 with Driveways
3,..3--with lam!.
4-- 78-tota~-kidswith mor.e-on-theway
Charles & Lori Dinnis .
2362 Hunter Drive
Chanhassen, MN . 553J7
2) Options:.
a. Decrease-lot density in Yoberry·Farms.by creating two cui de sacs
lowering traffic to Gunflint.
b.-Have Yoberl)l-F-arms have·thei¡:..oWJ+-entr~mce and not join Highover
Drive, Gun Flint & Longacres/Hunter.
Gc-4t-~ntrance off Yob~rry Farms·f~a more-direct route than gOiQg
through neighborhoods to get to ChanhassenQr the 5. This will }not
n~irectly but-¡t· will give-tAe.+esidence-a faster way to
highway 5 if traffic calming measures are input on Highover & ..----
Htlnter.
-J h--Settlers-Ridga-Ulat-Aas two entrances within approx 400 fßet.
MN DOT granted an exception on this development in Ct"11an.
d. Stop Sign added at. Fawn--HiU--&-Hl,lnter
e. Speed Bumps n.-.J
~,-At appro.ximately 2428 Hunter OÁVe (blind curve before hiJl),
ii. At approximately 2325 Hunter Drive--bottom of hill and before
bus 9tO~
f. Change Speed L1ñ1ittG 20
i. How can a residential street have the same speed as Lake
Lucy-and the 7StlrStreet Frontag_eRoad?
g.--Side.walk down HunteJ:-~City pays for based·on bad design and the
cost will not be passed on to the residenGe.n-~-
3) Parks -I live in Longacres and was on the board for 3 years and know
that it will be a difficult task to get the votes to add. Yoberry Farms to the
COveAaAts.-1 really think that the developer should·be required to adjust
population density by having parks & wetland areas and specifically put
them at the back of the East Part-of Yoberry to eliminate the Longacres
lots with a street on the front & back of their lot. ---
4) Is there a gllarantee from Yoberry Farms that tt:\e-pricing will remain firm
at $600K to $1 ,OOOM? What happens at the enG--Of one year if the lots
don't sell? \lViII they compromise quali~
Thank you for' your time & consideration, it is a tough job that you have to keep the
city progressive yet not compromise.theJaOO-GwAeJ"s-U:¡at--have already made
Chanhassen their home.
Sincerely, /'\ I\/~
(JV£C"¡;--) ~. />..j{~-Y'c~
~___-=::>- U \.
Charles & Lori Dinnis·n.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 4, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction on the
role and procedures for the Planning Commission meeting.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen AI-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
Deb Lloyd
Deborah Zorn
Curt Kobilarcsik
Melissa Gilman
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7574 Ridgeview Point
9149 Springfield Drive
Chanhassen Villager
PUBLIC HEARING:
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
HIGHWAY OVER DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL. YOBERRY FARMS.
LLC. DA VID HURREL. AND KAREN WEATHERS. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bill Borrell
Rodd Wagner
Karen Weathers
Tom Stokes
Steve Johnston
Chuck Alcon
Bill Coffman
Dean & Jackie Simpson
Stuart Henderson
Lany Lovik
Rick Pinamonti
Stacey Riecks
Mark Brown
2300 Longacres Drive
6915 Highover Drive
7235 Hazeltine Boulevard
2200 Shadywood Road
510 1st Avenue No, Minneapolis 55403
6138 76th Lane, Greenfield, MN
600 West 78th Street
7185 Hazeltine Boulevard
7240 Gunflint Trail
2475 Gunflint Court
2527 Longacres Drive
7256 Gunflint Trail
7210 Gunflint Trail
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Tom Kirsch
Scott Wosje
Jennifer & Michael Rysso
Rachel Wexler
Lisa Hokkanen
Kim Keyes
Abby DuMoulin
2290 Longacres Drive
7125 Northwood Court
7108 Harrison Hill Trail
7200 Madison A venue W, Golden Valley
2456 Hunter Drive
2448 Longacres Drive
6966 Highover Drive
Sacchet: Now before I ask staff to give their staff reports, I want to recluse myself from leading
this discussion since I do have a personal interest in this development. I'm one of the
immediately adjacent neighbors and so therefore I will participate as a resident from the audience
side. So I will join you in the audience for this one item and then I will resume leading the
meeting after that and pass leading the meeting to our Vice Chair Rich Slagle.
Slagle: Alright, staff report please.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Slagle: Okay, any questions for staff? Steve, you want to start?
LiIlehaug: Sure, I have a couple and this would be probably more towards Sharmeen. Looking
at this e-mail that was sitting in front of us here, it really just raised the pretty important question
to me and that is, regarding the proposed roadway on the very east side. How it impacts the 4,5,
6 parcels so they have a road on basically each side of them, the way this is laid out. And the
way these plans were showing it, I guess I really didn't see that until reading this e-mail here.
What is your thoughts and opinions on that I guess?
AI-Jaff: We do have situations such as this one in the city. In this case it meets the requirements
of the ordinance.
Lillehaug: What exactly would meet the requirements?
AI-Jaff: The fact that you have a city street with homes off ofthat city street. There is a
separation between the street and the neighboring property. The back yards of the neighboring
property. Maybe what we should point out to the uniqueness about the situation is the fact that
you have an electric easement and that's really what this e-mail is focusing on. The fact that.
Lillehaug: Do you have a layout that actually shows this? Shows the, I mean it's good on the
rest of the layout. I mean it shows the adjacent parcels and the roadway systems, yet on the very
east side, even the layout that you have on the desk there really doesn't show the adjacent road.
The next one over to the east and I don't have that name off the top of my head.
Slagle: Hanison Hill.
LilIehaug: Harrison Hill Trail. Is there a layout there that really shows that? But then this one
doesn't show the proposed roadway.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
AI-Jaff: No, well. If you look at the e-mail came from the occupant of parcel number 5. And
this is where the right-of-way sits in relationship to their parcel. The house sits further back on
the property or more towards the front of the property. There is definitely a separation. There is
a conservation easement first and then after the conservation easement there is the electric
easement. And of course no vegetation can grow within an electric easement, and I think that's
the uniqueness of this situation. That's what the applicant is trying to get across.
LiIIehaug: Okay. What are the, what would your comments be on, you know this whole
meeting the minimum or maximum standards once again in reference to, you know they're
impacting a wetland exactly equal to 2,000 square feet which is the absolute minimum before
they have to mitigate for wetland impacts. Also on basically laying out the lots on many of these
parcels they're meeting the absolute minimum to get a house on these pads. I mean just in
general what would your comment be on, I mean are they trying to fit too much into this spot?
Looking at the contour and grading issues. Changing the grading drastically.
AI-Jaff: Sure. Bear in mind that this application has gone through numerous revisions. We've
been working with the applicant for several months and the number, the total number overall lots
on the site has changed. Over the course of time.
LiIIehaug: Increased?
AI-Jaff: Decreased. Another thing is the grading. The size of retaining walls. The number of
retaining walls on this site. There has been numerous changes that have taken place before this
appeared before you, and I think Matt touched upon some of these issues. He also mentioned the
limitations as far as there are touch points on this site that include Gunflint Trail, we've got
Highover. There are existing homes that need to have access so there are certain challenges and
limitations within the site and the applicant has done their best to work within these limitations.
As far as average lot size, for instance it is over 19,000 and the minimum is 15,000.
LiIIehaug: So it's fairly larger then.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Lillehaug: It's not meeting the minimum like I'm alluding to.
AI-Jaff: COlTect.
LiIIehaug: So it's above that. One other question would be the specific question and maybe
engineering can help out a little bit would be the, looking at the pads where the houses go on
some of these lots, it doesn't look like there's going to be even a minimal back yard with even a
manageable like a 10 percent slope. I mean on some ofthese pads it looks like right out the
walkout it's going to be a 1 to 3 slope. Is that fair to say or am I not quite seeing it on some of
these pads?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Saam: Yeah, the hand full of pads that I mentioned, there may need to be some smaller type
retaining walls shown in order to accomplish the quote useable, or the 10 percent gentler slope
area. And that's what I was getting at. That I'll have to take a look at that indeed if retaining
walls are needed, those should be shown on here so we know about them.
Lillehaug: So we need, they need to revise these with retaining walls even to get a manageable
or a legitimate back yard.
Saam: Well, that's one option. You know the other one would be to lower, if it's possible,
lower the street. And by that you'd lower the whole house pad so you wouldn't need then a
retaining wall.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks.
Slagle: Dan, you go next.
Keefe: Can you speak to the, one of the questions that we had which I didn't hear any resolution
to is the radius of the northeast cul-de-sac and whether that required a variance or not and kind
of, apparently it doesn't or does or?
Saam: I guess technically we could say yeah, it would require a variance. I know, no? It
doesn't?
AI-Jaff: No.
Saam: Okay.
Keefe: So it's not less than.
AI-Jaff: No, because it's not an ordinance that requires that, and I did go through the ordinance
and checked because that was an issue that was raised by actually Commissioner Sacchet. Do
they requires a variance or not and I went through the ordinance again. Their requirement, the
radius is not spelled out so it's more of a policy.
Keefe: Alright. Can you speak to the removal of trees. You know there's a grading, you know
there's a lot of grading which is done on this site. Some of them are custom graded lots which
I'm assuming they'll be able to save some of the trees but I think the canopy is down to what, 11
percent or something like that. I think final analysis is in, and we're proposing that they would
come in and plant more but there's still a lot of trees to be removed. Can you just speak to kind
of how they balance the grading with the.
AI-Jaff: Sure. We worked very hard with the applicant. There were some significant trees that
both the applicant as well as staff wanted to see saved. Some of the trees that were questionable,
whether they would be removed or not, they chose to show them as removed. The majority of
the trees that the applicant had chosen to save are significant trees. There are some trees that
again that are significant but stand no chance of remaining even with retaining walls. One of
4
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
them is a substantially large oak on the site, and we looked at every possible solution. And we
didn't see any that would allow it to stay.
Keefe: Is it your opinion that they've done a pretty good job in trying to save the ones that they
can given the limitations of the site?
AI-Jaff: Yes. We believe they have done a very good job.
Keefe: Okay. One last question in regards to, in regards to gaining access off of 41. In terms of
just construction traffic. One of the questions that came up previously that I saw was you know
construction traffic either coming up Gunflint Trail or down from Highover. I mean is there a
way to route construction traffic off 41 for this project or not?
Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. The applicant is proposing, it's shown on the grading plan a
rock entrance off of 41. They're going to utilize one of the existing driveways to one ofthe
homes that I believe is being demolished. As the construction access point for the site grading,
utilities, that sort of thing. Until the streets are in and paved.
Keefe: And then at that point to build the homes they might use interior roads from Gunflint
Trail?
Saam: Yes. Yep, to build the homes I would foresee them using the existing roads. One of the
MnDot requirements is to, actually city requirement also before we finalize the project, these
existing driveways off of 41 have to be closed off, except for the houses that are outside of this
plat but.
Keefe: Okay.
Slagle: Kurt.
Papke. Did any of the existing or previous permutations or plans for this examine the possibility
of eliminating the 3 existing homes that are on the site? You mentioned that we have a couple
touch points here. One of them are the two existing roads coming down from Highover and then
up from Longacres. Those are there. That's incontrovertible. But is there any possibility that
we could minimize or decrease the impact here if those 3 homes were scrubbed out of the plan?
Saam: Well I think your first question was whether the previous plans showed them being gone?
No. They've always been proposed to remain.
Papke: So that was never considered?
Saam: Well that's a question for the developer I think, but to answer your second question, if
they weren't touch down points, yeah I think it could help him. You know it's a restriction
basically having those lots there. They have to match into those grades. But that doesn't take, I
mean saying that if those houses were gone it might limit the amount of grading, or change the
5
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
amount of grading doesn't take into account that there's people living there that wish to remain
there and want to keep their houses so.
Papke: Okay. Second question. My second and third questions both relate to the large hill in
the center of Block 1 there that's going to be shaved down. Do we know how close this comes
to a bluff? I mean I went out and climbed the hill yesterday and I was out of breath by the time I
got to the top. We're saving a couple bluffs there. Do we know how close that hill is to the
definition of a bluff?
AI-Jaff: We know it doesn't meet the definition of a bluff.
Papke: But we don't know.
AI-Jaff: But I don't know how close, no. I haven't run those calculations.
Papke: Okay. Is there anything in the city code, the comprehensive plan or any other guidance
that the Planning Commission should be looking at that would give us any indication about the
extent of the grading here? We're eliminating about 44 feet, if my memory serves me correctly
off the top of that hill. Is there anything that would give us any indication that this is outside of
what the city desires to do, either in letter or in spirit.
Aanenson: Maybe I'll just address that. We have had similar circumstances where we've had
extensive amount of grading. Again we've indicated we're trying to match a couple of points,
for one. And actually as the city has done more development we've evolved and been stricter on
grading. For example in Longacres, and the Woods and the Meadows, there wasn't a grading
ordinance. There were substantial cuts that probably wouldn't have been made if, you know we
changed our bluff regulations to date. But we have done significant, for example Ashling
Meadows. Significant amount of grading. Again when you're trying to blend some topography
with certain touch down points, you get grades to meet collector roads. That's what drive some
of those. There's certain parameters that drive the design so I think in this circumstance we've
worked our best to try to blend those. And the high point that we went around actually makes an
interesting project because instead of going through the middle of the road to connect, it actually
takes a bend in the road which reduces some of the speed and coming down the hill which makes
it a more interesting project in our mind.
Papke: That's all.
Slagle: I've got a couple. Let me go back to the point that was mentioned Sharmeen earlier that
the number of homes have decreased as this has gone on. What have they decreased from, just
cunous.
AI-Jaff: I believe they've reduced the number by 3 or 4 homes.
Slagle: 3 or 4. Okay. A Matt question. I'm assuming Matt condition 21 is the one you're
referring to about lowering the street. I think on page 17.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Saam: Yes, that's correct.
Slagle: How much are you thinking? You would be happy with.
Saam: I'd like to get rid of that wall along the east side so that would be about 3 to 5 feet.
Slagle: Okay. And if I can ask, was there a response from the applicant on that discussion?
Saam: Not since this report's gone out but as I alluded to earlier, in the previous permutations of
the plan, I mentioned that and they have reduced that wall significantly. Before it was in the 11
foot range. Now they have it down to 4. I'm just asking them to go a little more.
Slagle: Okay. With respect to traffic, I know this is three stages. Will both the north and the
south connecting roads open up at the same time? Basically.
Saam: I think the developer can add something but it's my understanding, while it is three
additions.. .
Slagle: Okay. I don't know who this is for but I noticed on condition 44. The applicant shall
remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. Can you tell me a little bit about that.
Saam: It's been done. I believe, Sharmeen. It's on the east side now.
AI-Jaff: Correct. If you look at, Nann can you zoom in please? The sidewalk is shown on both
sides of the street and staff is recommending that the extension takes place on one side only
rather than both sides.
Slagle: Okay.
AI-Jaff: So it's just this portion right here that is a piece of Lot 3.
Slagle: Gotch ya. And so we will continue down Gunflint on the east side of Gunflint only
affecting 2 lots versus 3 or 4 which would be on the west side.
AI-J aff: That's correct.
Aanenson: There is no sidewalk there currently.
Slagle: Correct, I understand. But there will be.
Aanenson: Someone will have to pursue that, correct.
Slagle: Okay. Well I'm only thinking though that in the last discussions from, I thought I saw it
in writing from the Park and Rec Director that it would continue on the west side.
Aanenson: That would be his desire to pursue that, correct.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Slagle: Okay. Alright. And then one last question. Sharmeen, not to put you on the spot but the
calculations of the bluff or not a bluff, getting back to Kurt's question of the hill in the center.
We know it's not a bluff but we don't know the, I mean how close is it? And maybe that's a
Matt question.
Saam: Yeah, I'm just looking at quick, if I can add something. The bluff requires a 3 to 1, I
think 30 percent. I just threw my scale on here. Many of the contours are in the 5 to 1 or greater
range so that shoots it right there.
Slagle: Okay. Alright, anything else for staff folks? Okay, I'm going to ask the applicant to
come up. State your name and address and we'd love to hear what you have.
Chuck Alcon: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 76th Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. With me this evening, I'd
like to introduce Bill Coffman and Tom Stokes, also of the development team and from
Landform who's doing the surveying and engineering, the President Steve Johnston and his
assistant Jesse Larson. Also in attendance this evening are Dean and Jackie Simpson, property
owners and Karen Weathers, property owner involved in the plat.
Slagle: Welcome.
Chuck Alcon: I think what we'd like to do first is respond to a couple of the comments, if you'd
allow us, and then we'll stand by for questions. Just a clarification of the staff report. Item 22
which deals with lift station 27. In talking with staff beforehand we believe the intent of that
comment is to pro-rate that upgrade for the 11 lots that are being added, and I just want to make
sure we understood that as clarification. I'm going to ask Steve Johnston to address 3 items
under item 11 (b), (c) and (h) but prior to that, there's a comment made on the back yards. As
was mentioned, this is as difficult site and there will be some custom homes for these lots. A
couple things that can be done and will be done in order to make these back yards usable, we
took a couple of shots over at Ashling Meadows, if I can just put these up here. Not quite as
difficult as our site but clearly in order to have a useable back yard, the use of boulder walls less
than 4 feet high can be extensively employed and that can help that problem out. And we intend
to do that. We talked about the pre-existing homes. The homeowners do plan to stay and the
touch down points we touched on also. I want to ask Steve to, as I said, comment on items
l1(b), (c) and (h) and also on item 21. Steve will have the technical details but I should point out
that in that area our sewer is already 30 feet deep so the more that we lower the road to get rid of
the retaining walls, the deeper the sewer goes and Steve will have some specifics on that. So
with that I'd like to ask Steve Johnston to step forward.
Steve Johnston: I'll just put that up there for reference as well. Good evening. My name is
Steve Johnston, Landform Engineering Company in Minneapolis. First of all to address the issue
of the street grades in this general area. What's driving that is our sanitary sewer connects at this
location. We brought back the sanitary sewer at basically minimum grade up into this point. We
lowered the street down until we were about 9 feet deep at this location. We can go another foot
and a half or so and still have cover on that sanitary sewer, but beyond that it's going to be veryi
8
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
difficult to lower it. Be happy to look at it again when we get into final design and look at the
street grades and try to minimize it as much as possible in here, but I really am being pushed by
that sewer depth issue. What Chuck was mentioning, the sewer as it comes through, this comes
up in a hill in this area. The sewer at this point is 30 feet deep, so we're that much higher here
than here, and to get, keep, maintain the cover on the pipe is the main driving fact and not
pushing that road down, but I'd be happy to try to minimize that as much as we can and work
with your staff to do that. The items in the staff report that I just wanted to clarify from our
standpoint. This is items 11 (b) talks about maintaining 10 foot horizontal separation between all
sanitary, water and storm sewer mains. We have one location on the project and that is on the
Weathers property in this location. Where the sanitary sewer and water will come down this lot
line through these back yards and through an easement that's in this location to connect into the
existing system. It was too, much, much too deep to try to run the sewer around it, the street. As
we're coming down these lot lines we're proposing to keep those two mains 5 feet apart as
opposed to 10 feet apart to minimize the easement area in there. We're also proposing then to
use watermain quality pipe for the sanitary sewer which ten state standards allows us then to
move those closer than 10 feet so hopefully the city can accept that. That condition. If they will,
we'd be happy to work with them on it. Item (c), revise the storm sewer pipe size to maintain a
minimum 15 inch. We have a storm sewer that's stubbed into our site at this location. It's only a
12 inch pipe. I can't connect a 15 into a 12 inch pipe without having potential problems so I
should, anything that goes upstream of that should be the 12 inch pipe and not a 15 inch pipe.
But again I'd look to your city engineer to help make that decision. And finally, item (h). Re-
route the proposed watermain in the southwest comer of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6
and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30 foot utility easement. I already talked
about that. We did relocate it as requested but we're requesting to keep those pipes 5 feet apart
and use watermain quality on the sanitary sewer. Other than that we did not have any issues with
what was being requested in the staff report.
Slagle: Okay.
Chuck Alcon: That would complete our comments. We'll be happy to answer any questions.
Slagle: Okay.
Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, can you talk about your landscaping. I mean since
you're doing, you know this is kind of an infilllocation with a lot of lots adjacent to these
properties. You know, if I lived in one of the homes on, adjoining this, I'd be interested in
having as much buffering as I possibly could. Can you just speak to how you went about your
landscaping plan?
Chuck Alcon: Well we have a landscaping plan and that was done by Steve's group and the
developer will be responsible for that landscaping plan throughout the development and it was
intended to match existing neighborhoods around it, exempt those areas as mentioned where the
utility easements are in place. So that was the fundamentals behind it.
Slagle: Steve.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Lillehaug: Yeah, I have a few questions and it'd be on some ofthe comments here. You're
indicating that the sanitary is one of the driving forces of the grading, which is legitimate. Could
you tell me, what is the depth of the sanitary sewer where you're proposing to tie into on
Gunflint? I mean I want to understand, since it's a driving force, I really want to understand how
and why it's a driving force.
Steve Johnston: Okay, the depth of the sewer where we're connecting to at this location is of an
adequate depth to serve the property. The issue is keeping enough coverage over the pipe.
When we first came in with the plan prior to the December meeting, we had immediately came
out of that main and came up about 5 or 6 feet. Because it was deeper actually than what we
needed. We received the staff comments then that they wanted us to try to lower the grade on
this end of the project and as we did that, in the last month, we tried to respond to all the staff
comments, we lowered that to the point where the sanitary sewer now on Gunflint Trail is at
minimum grade to the low point in the road which is here adjacent to the wetland. That is
essentiall y all the further we can push that point down and maintain adequate coverage in this
location. By pushing that down though we ended up with a grade in this location. The street
grade in this location stayed the same and then now that's gone from 24 feet of coverage to about
30 feet of cover on that sanitary sewer line. And that was all done in an attempt to minimize the
height of this wall which we have done. Originally that wall was about 8 to 10 feet tall and now
it's in the area generally of 4 feet tall. There's one spot that's 6 feet tall.
Lillehaug: I guess I'm not seeing the whole picture but you're saying where you tie into
Gunflint Trail, you're stepping up 5 feet. A 5 foot drop and then.
Chuck Alcon: Originally we were.
Lillehaug: Originally.
Chuck Alcon: But now we're keeping the sewer as deep as we possibly can to have the
minimum impact in this general location.
Lillehaug: Okay, so from where you're tying in back to that other, back to the cul-de-sac, you're
at a minimum grade the entire length.
Chuck Alcon: Correct.
Lillehaug: And does staff concur with that then?
Saam: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. Another question would be, storm sewer. You're indicating you're not, you
point out one of the conditions where the city would like to maintain a minimum of 15 inch
diameter storm sewer. Is that, are you talking just for that one small segment where you're tying
in or are you alluding further upstream.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Steve Johnston: We have no problem with the rest of the project being all 15 inch pipe, ifthat's
your preference. My point only is that right now we're showing, we're showing this intersection
draining into an existing pipe that was stubbed at this part of the project. That stub is only a 12
inch pipe. So if you connect a 15 inch into a 12 inch, it isn't a very good condition.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then the 10 foot grade separation that you indicated down on Street B. Is
there, what are the grade differences between, is it the watermain and sanitary?
Steve Johnston: They're both within a foot or two of the same elevation. The desire there was
just not spreading them out. 10 feet apart. Trying to keep them at 5 was only to keep the
buildable width of those lots intact. If we were to add, separate the pipe, we need more
easement. That reduces the size of those lots. The effective size of those lots.
Lillehaug: Does staff, is there another option that you were looking at that they could easily get
10 foot separation to work? Or is that a condition that I guess that we would, that you would like
to maintain there?
Saam: When we had previously talked with the applicant, we were under the assumption that the
pipes would stay at 10 feet and then their concern was the amount of easement area. We told
them we wanted a 30 foot, basically 10 feet between all the pipes. Their concern was how that
would restrict the house pad size, as I understand it. So we said we could go down to a 25 foot
easement. But still keeping the 10 foot separation in the pipes, so at this point that's something
we'd still like to do. I think we can work with them on that but, yeah.
Steve Johnston: I think we're getting real technical here and we can work this out.
Lillehaug: So let's not get technical and let's go the other direction. Your cuI -de-sac and road
that goes up to Outlot D, what have you done for the residents to the east of your development to
help this development work in with their development and make this you know more, really fit in
with their back yards rather than putting a road right up against their lot line?
Steve Johnston: With the, and I think Chuck mentioned this as well. We, our original landscape
plan showed re-vegetating this area that you can see where there are no trees planted now, and
then we became aware of that Xcel was not going to let us do any of those plantings underneath
the power line. So those have now been pulled out of there. It's very limited as far as what we
can do. We can't have anything that's going to grow up and interfere with those lines.
Lillehaug: As far as possibly pulling that road away and losing a lot or two, is that an option?
And creating a bigger buffer between their back lot line and the actual right-of-way for the
roadway. I mean I can, I'm sure you understand my concerns here. You're living there. Can
you anticipate a roadway being on your back property line? I certainly would not anticipate that.
Steve Johnston: There basically is enough room to put lots on one side of that street. We put the
road, we kept it 10 feet off the property line with the right-of-way so the road itself was going to
be about 25 feet off the property line. To put the road on the other side, on the west side of those
lots would mean that all of those lots were above the, above the street. Instead of walking out
11
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
they would become tuckunders which is not a very desirable house type. When we first came in
we looked at that area with a private drive and for a lot size we were directed by staff that this
was a preferable option to placing a cul-de-sac in this location and doing this with a private
drive, so we have looked at other alternatives and this one was the best alternative to gain access
to that part of the property owner/developer's property.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have for now.
Slagle: Kurt.
Papke: I'd like to get to resident questions as quickly as possible so I'll limit my questions at
this time.
Slagle: We might call you back if you wouldn't mind.
Steve Johnston: Thank you.
Slagle: I am going to open it up now to the public and what I would ask is that you limit your
questions and discussion to let's say 5 minutes or less. Obviously some will carryover if they
need to. If some of you are from a neighborhood where there's many folks, all we would ask as
courtesy is not to repeat the same comments or concerns. We'll certainly get the feel for that as
we go forward so what I'd like to do is just invite you up one at a time. State your name, your
address and we'd love to hear from you. So whoever wants to go first, you're welcome.
Tom Hirsch: Hi. My name's Tom Hirsch. I live at 2290 Longacres Drive in the Longacres
subdivision. I was recently elected President of the Board of the Longacres Homeowners
Associations and I represent the 222 lots and homes that make up the Longacres subdivision. If
we could scan on a picture of the Longacres, I'd like to give just a brief overview of our
subdivision. The connection into the proposed property is here on the picture. The road that
connects across from here is Longacres Drive. We have monuments and landscaping on a cul-
de-sac type arrangement or a center median arrangement that already comes off of Highway 41.
And off of Galpin, and we have a connector down through our subdivision that also has a
monument and landscaped entrance into our subdivision off of Galpin Road to the south. We
maintain two parks, both of which are on the north side of Longacres Drive. Here on the picture
and here on the picture. Both of these parks have kiddie playgrounds. A tennis court is in the
west one that's adjacent to the proposed development. We spend approximately $71,000 a year
maintaining our entrances and our parks for the 222 lots that are contained within our
subdivision. 76 percent of our residents must cross Longacres Drive to gain access to these
parks. The new subdivision is in the Chaska School District, as I understand. Chaska School
District to get to the middle schools and the high school is a straight shot down Highway 41 and
Bluff Creek Elementary would be at the comer of Galpin and Highway 5. I would estimate
approximately 90 percent of the traffic coming out of this proposed subdivision would be cutting
through the Longacres subdivision to gain access to the schools, Highway 41. To go south, or
across to Galpin to get to the middle school for school activities. And it's a retail corridor as
you're well aware throughout Highway 5. That's the main growth area of retail in your master
plan. I have two issues I'd like to bring to the table. Number one is, I didn't see in the staff
12
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
report any traffic studies, environmental impact studies or any application or a rule as to the
feasibility from the State on access into Highway 41 that could potentially disperse traffic out
away from Longacres to provide that access to go southbound to the middle schools and the high
schools. And into Chaska. I think we must conduct due diligence of assessing the risk to our
children associated with the increased traffic into our neighborhood. We owe it to the children to
conduct these studies and implement any mitigations to this risk. A couple traffic solutions that
came to my mind again would be open, direct access to Highway 41 to disperse some ofthat
traffic for the southbound traffic to the middle schools and the high schools. There's, I don't
think the State is going to say absolutely no. We are shutting down with this development some
of the access that's currently coming off of Highway 41, and there are other accesses that have
been granted with the proper left turns and the right turns coming in and out of that access. It
would provide a safe access in and out of these 57 lots. A couple other ideas that I had that
would, that might come up through an assessment and mitigation techniques would be installing
stop signs on Longacres Drive. There are no stop signs on Longacres Drive currently. And
perhaps reduce speed on Longacres Drive. My second issue I'll move to now is, I'll reference
page 9 in the staff report. In there it's documented that there are no parks planned in the
development. There are no trails in the development and the only nearest public park is Lake
Minnewashta Regional Park and it's recommended by staff that the neighborhood not gain
access to that by walking to it. Therefore the nearest park is our kiddie park, which is right down
their street. Park access, it's a private park. We, as I stated earlier, maintain it. It's a beautiful
park and has very expensive equipment in it. We do have capital reserve studies that we've done
and we maintain a capital reserve to provide maintenance to that equipment based upon it's
useful life. I estimate, our first point is park access is easy and direct for these new residents and
it's really an unenforceable thing for us to enforce no trespassing into our park. These residents
have nowhere to walk to take their children to play. They will come to our's. It creates a
maintenance and a cost and a risk and a liability risk to all of the homeowners of Longacres. I
estimate about 22, 26 percent increase usage based upon the 57 lots and some calculations of
average children per household that would reduce the useful life of our equipment by 26 percent,
which would cause us to increase our reserves to maintain that. This really is not an expense or a
liability that I think we should be expected to absorb. Possibly mitigations would be to require a
kiddie park in the new subdivision. Provide Longacres homeowners with a barrier fence and no
trespassing signs to limit our liability and reimburse us for our increased insurance rates. Or
possibly join the Longacres Homeowners Association. In conclusion, as a board member I'm
obligated to bring these risks to the table. I request your time, cooperation, assistance and
guidance to resolve them. If we ever are asked at any point in the future whether we did due
diligence on this traffic due to some sort of accident and have we implemented mitigations, I
think we all must be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that we did. The safety of our
children is the highest priority. Development's a great addition to our city. I'm happy to see this
type of development showing in this rural area. We must be responsible, prudent in our
decisions and to protect the safety of our children. I thank you for your time and your
consideration.
Slagle: You're welcome. Any questions? Of this gentleman. Okay, thank you.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Papke: I have a quick one. Have there been any conversations with the developer about having
this development join your homeowners association? That sounds to me like a very proactive,
positive way of going after this problem.
Tom Hirsch: I have gotten engaged in this process rather late. I saw the sign that went up on
December 22nd at the stub within our neighborhood. I do not live within 500 feet of the
neighborhood so I was, I live up Longacres towards the Galpin side and did not see any activity
going on so we had about 2 weeks. There were some phone calls made today with my
management company and the developer and we've started those conversations.
Slagle: Thank you. I want to ask a question of staff if I may. How do we address, and I know
you're not the park director Kate or Sharmeen but how do we address this, what I think is a
pretty common question and I think a sensible one that here you're putting 57 homes into an area
that really there are no parks, at least that we're aware of. Are there others that you're aware that
are potentially planned?
Aanenson: Well this isn't the first situation where this has occurred. We recently had the same
issue come up on Settlers. Settlers West where you had a long cul-de-sac adjacent to an existing
subdivision that had a swimming pool and a totlot and there was the same concern of the new
people are going to feel like they can come over and use it. We have the same situation on Lake
Lucy Ridge adjacent to Ashling Meadows, which also has a private. You know, I guess from our
perspective is, if it's tots more than likely they're going to be with parents so it's an education
issue of where you can and can't go. If it's children are within that, going to that.
Slagle: Let me ask it a different way. I'll use the two examples you brought up. Settlers Ridge,
we got the applicant to create their own totlot inside the development, if we're talking about
Pemtom.
Aanenson: No, they just put a trail to connect back and forth.
Slagle: But the last I remember is they were going to add their own totlot on the west side.
Aanenson: Their own totlot? Okay.
Slagle: So they created their own and as far as the one off Ashling Meadows, if I'm not
mistaken, if you go up Lake Lucy a quarter of a mile you're at Pheasant Hill Park. And all I'm
trying to say is, is I look where this is geographically situated and unless there's plans to go up
the trail, or the power line and connect to potentially the Jerome Carlson land, if there's a park
planned for that, I could see that. But if something didn't happen there and it really is
Minnewashta or nothing.
Aanenson: Right, or walking towards the junior.
Slagle: Or going to Longacres.
Aanenson: Or to the junior high to the north.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Slagle: To the junior high to the north.
Aanenson: Up to West.
Slagle: That's a pretty far walk though. And I'm not trying to put you in a difficult spot but I'm
just trying to say these are fair questions.
Aanenson: Well first of all the Park Commission went one, you cannot do an extraction to say
you have to put in a private park. You can't ask for that. That's something that this
development chose not to do as a part of... That would be an independent decision. The Park
Commission looks and makes a decision whether or not they want to take an extraction or take
park and trail fees, and they chose to do the park and trail fees.
Slagle: And what is that because on page 9 it says the City is not seeking parkland dedication as
a condition of this platting. Paying of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be
required as a condition of approval. Typically we see what they're going to pay.
Aanenson: The City Council at it's last meeting in December just increased those rates based on
cost of living so I'm sorry, I don't have those in front of me but they will be.
Slagle: Fully.
Aanenson: Yep, in force, yes.
Slagle: Okay. It's a touch one.
Aanenson: It's their decision, right so. Can we usurp that? Urn.
Slagle: Okay. Fair enough.
Lillehaug: Rich, can I ask a question before we leave the traffic here since questions were
raised.
Slagle: Sure.
Lillehaug: Gunflint Trail stub, I mean to me it looks like there was a proposed road. I mean it
looks like it was going to continue on, as well as coming out of Highover.
Aanenson: Correct.
Lillehaug: How did Longacres, going through that process and Highover plan review process,
how did they anticipate, I mean did city staff and those developments anticipate connecting into
this property to serve that?
Aanenson: Yes.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Saam: Yeah, I'll take that. Both of the development contracts for both Longacres, I'm not sure
which addition it was and then Highover. I researched them both. They both have conditions
where it said that the street, these streets will be extended in the future so it was all laid out. It's
always been planned.
Lillehaug: Thanks.
Aanenson: And actually let me just add to that. When Longacres came in, there was a request
from the developer at that time to actually narrow the road because that was always shown as a
minor collector which typically you make a little bit wider. At that time the developer wanted a
request so it had a more neighborhood appearance so actually the city gave relief to that to
actually kind of narrow that cross section as opposed to a typical cross section for a minor
collector.
Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Whoever's next.
Rodd Wagner: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rodd
Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. I took the liberty of superimposing two documents from
the city. This from the back of the pink copy showing these, I believe it's just grade in on the
inside front cover of the report that you have. And then I took a copy of the development plan
and reduced it down. My concern is primarily around traffic, particularly the number of homes
that are being picked up by Highover Drive specifically. As was referenced earlier, there are
various levels of road. Arterial, collector, and local but I think as a practical matter sometimes
there are short cuts and maybe something that's kind of between a collector and a local road and
my concern, a number of my neighbors concern is that Highover Drive in this delineation, based
on it's relative straightness compared to the other roads and it's length will be picking up a
tremendous amount of traffic in a neighborhood that now, you know 7 years in has an awful lot
of kids on it where we already see quite high speeds. We've had to call the sheriff a couple
times to b11ng the sign up there to show people their speeds and try to get them to slow down.
And I don't see provision in here for slowing down the traffic or quite frankly just the pure
traffic counts. I don't know which way the traffic would split. How much of it would go south,
how much of it would go north but I suspect we might have as much as 37 additional homes that
might be served by Highover Drive as they go north to get onto Lake Lucy and to get onto
Highway 41 and go from there. While there was a sign, has been a sign as long as I've lived
there. I've lived there 6 years or so, that said the road would go through, I think it was a
reasonable assumption by the residents that it would either be a cul-de-sac. That there would be
access to 41 or if it did go through that we'd be picking up a smaller number of homes consistent
with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood like Longacres is, has a homeowners association.
We pay dues to the homeowners association to maintain the properties and the common areas
and I do have the same concern as my distant neighbor from Longacres that this development
will be taking advantage of the fact that they have people both on the north and the south that are
paying dues into a neighborhood association to maintain those properties and this is a property
that's kind of jumping in, taking advantage of, or enjoying the benefit if you will of those
properties north and south and the way they're maintained without being a party to either one of
those homeowner associations. My overall impression is that this plan tries to squeeze too much
16
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
into too small of a space. The applicant himself said this is a difficult site. I think it's a difficult
site only if you try to put too much in too small of a space. That creates a difficulty. If you
spread it out, put fewer home sites in it, make accommodations either for cul-de-sacs that come
into each other or access to 41 or somehow limit the number of homes, then it doesn't have the
difficulty. Nature imposes the difficulty. Maybe they're just trying to put too much into one
place. And as may be evidenced by the concern that was mentioned earlier about these homes to
the east where you do have a road running right up against someone's back yard, it doesn't affect
me but I feel for the people that are in that situation. I think that covers my concerns.
Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Your homeowner's association dues, do you know what
that goes toward in the Highover neighborhood?
Rodd Wagner: Sure. It goes for insurance on the common properties. It goes for maintaining
the mailboxes. The mailboxes all have a consistent look to them. That kind of, there's a rock
wall I believe, I'm not exactly sure what the situation is there. I believe the city technically owns
it but we have to maintain the liability insurance there. There's some pools and things, you
know standing water and such that we have to take care of.
Keefe: Okay. And then you guys don't have a totlot?
Rodd Wagner: No, we don't have any kind of common properties or things like that but that's
not to say we wouldn't like to build some at some point and this could have an adverse affect on
something like that. But my main concern is just the traffic. I don't think Longacres was ever, I
think this creates a situation where the road is taking on traffic that it wasn't anticipated to do so
when it was designated a local road. That it's becoming too close to a collector and there's
going to be people learn short cuts and they'll be going through to move from one collector to
another. From Lake Lucy to get to Longacres, or excuse me. Yeah, Longacres to Lake Lucy and
I don't think that was ever anticipated. Certainly wasn't by the residents in that neighborhood. I
appreciate your time.
Slagle: Thank you.
Larry Lovik: Good evening. My name's Larry Lovik and I live at 2475 Gunflint Court. It'd be
this right here.
Slagle: Can we do that again Nann? Zoom up just a. Okay.
Larry Lovik: This comer lot.
Slagle: You have the fence behind your house.
Larry Lovik: Yes. And the two big dogs. I wanted to raise three points if I may. Elaborate
really on two, so I'll try not to repeat what's been stated before. But Matt, the engineer spoke
earlier about the three types of roads and the two we're concerned with would be I believe the
feeder and then local roads. As you see the map here, there's a problem with the way Longacres
was originally built. It trends northerly as it heads east. And see where I live and for any
17
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
indi viduals coming out of the new development, if they need to go to 5 to head east for any
direction, 494, what have you, they'll come down past my house but they'll end up coming
across the Hunter, and Hunter is a local road. It's a very, very narrow, windy road and our
association already has many complaints about traffic going too fast. Too much traffic. There's
often times parked cars with kids playing in the road there. I would anticipate that if you look at
the total map here that all these homes, including possibly homes from here would travel south
and end up going through Hunter to get on Galpin to hit 5. If you look at the map the connection
of Longacres to Galpin is so far away it's not even on the map. Now some of the problems with
the connection to 41, in discussing this with the staff and engineers is there's a bluff on the west
side along 41. And I guess my comments about the bluff is, does the origin of the bluff come
into play when you're trying to protect the bluff. If you look at how 41 was cut in, that was it
seems to me the creation of the bluff in the first place, and if you walk along 41 there, you'll see
where there's already a cut in for a bike trail. It was just never developed so it became
overgrown with trees and things. Along the westerly side of the development there's three spots,
and COlTect me if I'm wrong, that are not designated as a bluff. Two of them are the already
existing driveways that I think should be explored to expand access into the development. The
third one is the dead center middle. Other recent driveways along 41 would include the
W ooddale Church which is about half a mile to the south. It seems to me they cut through a very
similar looking area as what we'd be requesting occur here. Similar situation where I believe it
was a driveway that was expanded to become a regular street, West 78th. If that's not feasible
then I'd strongly urge the council to find ways of lowering the density, installing stop signs,
possibly even at my comer and especially along Longacres and Hunter. Two other points. The
park. I think that's very important. If you look at the map again, this is the park here. It actually
is adjoining to the development. So it's a very hard case to make that we are not going to allow a
resident who's back yards back up to a park, not to use the park. If it was just a few incidental
extra kids playing in the park I don't think our association members would have too much of a
problem if the rest of the association had their, or the rest of the development had their park to go
to too. And finally I noticed in the recommendations about street cleaning. Street cleaning daily
as needed. I'd like to suggest that you drop the as needed and just include it as street cleaning
daily. If that's not dropped, who gets to decide what as needed means? I'm sure that the
existing owners would probably have a little bit different opinion about as needed as a developer.
And that concludes my remarks. Any questions?
Slagle: Thank you very much.
Stuart Henderson: I don't have a map. I feel bad. So maybe I'll just use one of these. Stuart
Henderson. I live at 7240 Gunflint Trail. I back up on what I now know is a bluff. I live right
out here, which actually raised another question because I had, I do have a question at some
point on what happens with the whole bluff thing.
Slagle: Show me where you live again sir?
Stuart Henderson: Here. Yeah, similarly I saw the sign, I've been there 3 years. Sign at the end
of the road. Figured it was going to extend at some point. I don't have a problem with
development, etc. My issues do so I'm not going to beat on a, other than a couple different
points. Whether it's the traffic. I figure if something went in it would probably hook to 41. I
18
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
also didn't necessarily figure we'd be talking you know 57 homes. I don't know about collectors
and things of that nature. All I, Ijust drive and I can tell you that I go down Hunter, which is
like this wide. If anyone doesn't park in their driveway, you can't get by. It's only 2 cars wide.
No sidewalks, etc. So I'd say perhaps well, and by the way, thanks Matt. Spent some time on
the phone with me today. It may have been when the thing's designed that people said oh yeah,
this is going to be the road. We always anticipated it. But of course there was no one living
there when it was designed. On either end so it's fairly easy to design something when nobody's
there. I was a little surprised to hear in terms of the hook-up at 41, that no one has asked. That I
guess I thought that maybe it's been checked and you can't so I would suggest that that's a good
way to route traffic, maybe somebody should ask. Last thing is on that one little comer, in that
circle you see there, there's like 20 kids. With the exception of mine, all under 12 which is good
because they're babysitting material for my kids but, and I think there's been a couple more born
recently. Yeah okay, 22. So it is, you know it may well have changed in character from what
the engineers envisioned when designing this in terms of the whole traffic flow so I'm quite
concerned about the traffic piece and appreciate whatever you can do to address it.
Slagle: Thank you very much.
Dr. Jennifer Rysso: Thank you first for your time and attention in this matter. My name is Dr.
Jennifer Rysso. I am a full time internal medicine physician at Park Nicollet Clinic. I live at
7108 Harrison Hill Trail in Longacres which has been talked a lot about tonight. Which is at the
bend of this road. This property right adjacent where everybody is saying they are sorry if they
were me. That's me. I am also the mother of a 4 year old and an 8 year old daughter and I'm
going to talk to you as a mother actually. I enjoy neighbors to the north and south of me also
adjacent to the proposed development with children numbering 13 on that side alone, including
those of ages less than a year to 9 years of age. My concerns regarding the current plan are
multiple. The first and foremost involves safety. I lived in South Minneapolis prior to building
in Longacres in Chanhassen. My property bordered an alley way along the back of my house. A
very common feature of homes in South Minneapolis but not in Chanhassen. One of my
neighbors watched as her young son was hit by a car coming down that alley way. I used to sit at
the edge of the alley way while my children were younger, while they were playing in the back
yard to keep them safe so they didn't go into that alley way. I moved to Chanhassen in part to
allow my children and vision of being allowed to play freely outside without being monitored
continuously by a fearful parent waiting for the next flying car to come down the alley way or
around the curve. I built on our property understanding up front that a development would
follow to border our back yard. My husband and I understood that ultimately another back yard
would join our back yard and we were quite content with that thought with a sense of community
and neighbors in mind. With the current plan in front of you I am being robbed of my vision. I
am not alone. My neighbors had the same vision and built in Longacres for the same reason.
The current plan involves a street that provides access to driveways of approximately 5 homes.
That street directly borders my back yard and in essence becomes my new alley way. Not only
is it an alley way, but it is a street that can be accessed by young children by jumping off a
retaining wall an act the children in my neighborhood do over and over every single day I'm
watching them play in my back yard. This cannot be prevented, believe me as parents we have
tried. The higher the wall along the street, the more challenging it is for the children to jump
from. This street makes a curve that appears to be blind to those that might be standing on a wall
19
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
waiting to jump. I don't see the children seeing the car or the driver seeing the children in this
current plan. I see the danger of children jumping and stumbling in front of a moving car and
then being hit, perhaps mortally to be too much of a risk. Fences and trees, which of course in
this area won't be allowed with the electric easement anyway, will not prevent the challenge of
the jump but will make it all the more challenging. The only answer in my view to the safety is
that the road not be there. If the current plan is developed it will place the safety of the 15
children on the west side of Harrison Hill Trail and the safety of the 23 children on the east side
of Harrison Hill Trail who tend to focus most of their play on our side because there's really not
a lot of back yards on their side, will put them at risk. 38 children. That doesn't include the
unborn children due in a few months on our road, or the friends and relatives of the children on
the street. We are a young community. That number of children is only going to get larger. I
am not a builder, nor can I claim to be experienced in looking at plans. However it does appear
that this street that will access 5 houses at most, will compromise the safety of over 38 children
and drivers using the road. Perhaps one could re-route the road to the west side of the house
adjacent to the wetlands which I've heard developers talk about. If not, perhaps the road
shouldn't exist and perhaps as mentioned several times tonight a proper use for that area would
be a park for the people in that area. Understandably the goal of the developers was to allow
these new properties to have their back yards against the wetlands. Perhaps even the property
will be able to be sold for more if they are marketed as back yards adjacent to wetland, but at
what cost to the community. Compromising the safety of every house hold, at least 19 homes
along Longacres/Harrison Hill to place a road to access only 5 homes does not reasonably a
constitute a community decision. Others will discuss with you the financial impact that this road
has on my property value and on those of my neighbors. Others will discuss with you the
destroyed aesthetic appearance of my property and that of my neighbors should this road be
built. Others will discuss with you the fact that this new planned neighborhood offers no access
to major thoroughfares, I think which has been mentioned quite a lot. I however will emphasize
to you the issues of safety and community. Is it a community decision to allow the current road
to be built as on your blueprint when it serves only to allow an appealing location of a back yard
adjacent to a wetland when they could have an appealing location to my back yard. Is it a
community action to approve a road that serves only to access 5 houses when it compromises the
19 homes along the Harrison Hill neighborhood and the over 38 children that live in those
homes. My answer to you is that approval of that road will be solely a financial decision and not
one that city commissioners should make when their ultimate goal is to serve the community.
Thank you. Sorry, it was a prepared statement.
Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else?
Uli Sacchet: Well good evening from this side of the crowd. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at
7053 Highover Court South, which is the property right here. I also represent my neighbor
which is the property right here. As a matter of fact I want to address first a point or two from
my neighbors that hasn't been raised yet. Before I do that I want to make it clear that I address
you as a resident, local resident and not as a member of the Planning Commission. The neighbor
over here on Lot 22 of Highover, that's Ruth and Tom Rolfs. They've written a letter I think that
was handed out to you this evening, and I wanted to summarize some of their points and focus
on two points that have not been brought up yet that they bring up here. Their letter is basically
an outcry against urban sprawl. Against the destruction of the existing wildlife corridor. The
20
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
beautiful wooded area on the rolling topography against the extreme grading and the effort to
pack in as many lots, as many buildings as possible. In addition their's is a concern about
drainage that they're bringing up. But first of all I'd like to point out that there is a major
wildlife corridor on, between basically the two developments. On the south edge of Highover,
that northern edge of this development in that comer of it is a major wildlife corridor and there is
really no reason to believe that that corridor will totally go away. Even with all this development
because there will be still significant woodland left, even when the Carlson property will be
developed and as we saw at our last meeting also the property north, the Mancino property, there
is a significant piece of woods preserved on the west side which will still attract wildlife, so this
will remain to some extent a wildlife corridor, which deserves to be noted. Which by squeezing
as many houses as close into that, it's going to have an impact. Obviously this neighbor shares
the concerns I have about that wildlife corridor. He's concerned about the extent of the tree
cutting. The extent of the grading, and then another specific concern that is raised that I share
very much is that Lot 1, Block 4 of the Yoberry development is not just a wildlife corridor. It' s
also drainage path. Basically the whole area of Highover, this southeastern part of Highover
drains into that lot and it's not a minimal drain. I mean when there is a heavy rain or snow melt,
it's enough to have a little creek. I mean it's enough to wash away a little twigs and little leafs
and all that, so what Ruth and Tom Rolfs want to bring to your attention is that, is that good
planning? To put in a questionable lot. They point out that it's an irregular shape, which I don't
know whether that is necessarily something that can be held against it, if it fulfills the
requirements. But is that consistent with good development planning? And just to quote their
closing, their interest. They say our interest as adjacent homeowners that are, that the property is
not developed in a typical urban sprawl manner but developed responsibly in a manner consistent
with maintaining the character of the area. We believe and hope you will agree that this plan
should be modified to better fit into the existing landscape. We believe that extreme destruction
of wooded areas and extreme grading require it to change the elevations is not responsible
development. So that's my word of my neighbors since there were unable to be here tonight.
Now speaking for myself, we've heard of several neighbors that are being impacted. Now
personally I'm ending up with a cul-de-sac next to my back yard. I'm ending up with a side yard
next to my back yard so I get a double hit here. Not necessarily what I was hoping for. I do
believe the developer's within their rights. What can be done to mitigate that? It's, there's some
things. I've had some discussions with the developer and they actually are open, actually it's
scary I start trusting them after a while even. One aspect also that is mentioned, it has not come
up so far that's mentioned in the report is that with this development being considered a strip of
no man's land was discovered between Highover to the north and the owners to the south. It's
still kind of fuzzy a little bit how big that no man's land is, and when I go out there with my
measurement, it seems to be like 28 feet or something like that, but the agreement the way I
understand it is that it's going to be split evenly between the two sides, so that is not something
that the city gets involved with but I do want to mention this here for the record. In terms of the
points that I have personally with this as a resident. You know after looking at this proposal, I
have to admit that except for the impact it has on this comer, this development is actually pretty
solid. It has a lot of qualities. I think it's pretty well cooked. I actually have to commend the
developer for their efforts. As you know, those of you that are here that know me, I usually look
in some detail at the large trees because I love trees, and I do want to share that with you.
Because I think this developer does better in terms of preserving large trees than just about any
other development this size that I've seen come before this Planning Commission in quite a
21
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
while. To give you the specifics, I looked at the trees on the tree inventory are 24 inches or
bigger. Initially with initial grading they save 29 of them. They cut 13. And 3 are questionable,
so even if you include the ones that are questionable, and the ones they cut, they're saving 2/3 of
them. They are a couple of custom graded lots, which is going to be roughly about 6 more of
those significant trees that are going to be cut. Even with that they're still saving half of the
really large trees, which is really commendable. Which is really quite remarkable because I
don't remember another development that scored that well with that, and I reluctantly make this
admission because I'd rather have this held up a little bit and improved a little bit in my comer.
But in all fairness I have to point this out to you. My favorite tree, 216 apparently, unfortunately
cannot be saved. Which is probably the most spectacular specimen of an oak that I've seen
anywhere. I mean this thing is just a beauty so, I'm still waiting for a miracle. Find out how you
can save 213. Ah, 216 it is. However, to be specific to my comer of the concern here, there is
one tree, 192 which is about right here. Just directly north of the cul-de-sac. At this point,
according to the plan it appears about 10-15 feet away from the nearest grading line. I'm not
sure it's exactly placed accurately on the plat. I think it's actually slightly further to the south by
probably about 2-3 feet. It's not in that Outlot G strip by my estimation that will be transferred
to the north neighbors. It's probably about a foot or two beyond that. And it's a really nice tree.
I think considering that this whole strip to the north is a tree preservation zone, considering that
we get stuck with a cul-de-sac in our back yard, and side yard rammed in next to our back yard,
it still hurts that my... You know we get spoiled. You're out there. I may even have to get
curtains in my bathroom but. But that aside, I really want to put a plea in for this tree 192. I
mentioned that to you before. I do believe it can be saved but according to the staff report it's
put into the category of questionable trees. There's a bunch of other trees that I have interest in,
in the other parts of the development and I'm not going to go into this in the interest of time. I
did mention it to staff so you're aware of it. I also would like to ask for whatever possible to
minimize the grading and tree cutting in the area adjacent to this back yard. And also
potentially, right now the landscaping plan foresees a number of evergreens on top of the
retaining wall, but then birches on the side. Maybe at least one of these birches could be
exchanged to an evergreen or two to increase the maximum buffer, because frankly what I'm
concerned about is cars coming up this hill. This is steep. They're going to shine right into my
bedroom. They're going to shine right into the back of the house so whatever can be done
through buffering with evergreens. I mean there's some buffering in place through the retaining
wall, which is really good, and to make every possible effort to preserve as much of the trees that
are savable there. Now I do have another concern, I used to be a member of the Board of the
Highover neighborhood association. I'm not part of that now so I'm not speaking in any official
capacity for the Highover neighborhood. However there are three aspects in this that touch on
the Highover neighborhood as a whole. The first one is a very good one. Is that pond here
actually stays and I don't even want to express the gratitude for the Highover that that stays
because it was considered a temporary pond that would be moving south at some point. It's not
doing that, that's great. The other thing is the lift station that is currently up here. That is being
eliminated. It's important to, and I believe that's being settled that that is not, that that's going to
be moved and there is not going to be another lift station. Is that accurate?
Saam: Correct.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Uli Sacchet: Okay. And then the other aspect I also want to point out is that we actually do get a
trail connection to the neighborhood. The Highover neighborhood trail there which is very
commendable. I want to make sure that stays there. So in closing, one key point. The findings
in the staff report say that this development will not cause environmental damage. That just
simply is not true. That will have to be modified to state something like, will not cause excessive
environmental damage or efforts are being made to minimize it. Since that will ultimately effect
me when I'm sitting back up there again, I want to point that out too. And I believe that's all that
I want to share with you. Thank you for the attention and again, I address to you as a resident. . .
Thank you.
Slagle: Thank you.
John Graham: My name is John Graham. I'm from 6935 Highover and I'll use Rodd's map here
again. Cun'ently, and it's just with traffic. On Highover there's currently a bus stop there.
There is no stop sign. That's pretty much at the top of the hill. I'm not sure how familiar you
are with Highover Drive but it's a very steep grade from there on down. With the amount of
traffic going down there I think there's got to be at least 80 percent of the kids under 10 years old
and I'd like at least a stop sign along that way. The next one down, Highover Trail might be
tough because that grade coming up in the winter time might be tough to get going again but
again, to reiterate a lot of concerns with the traffic coming through there. The amount of kids for
both the north and the south of these. Just want to reiterate that, if there's any way to outlet that
traffic to 41 would be preferable.
Slagle: Thank you.
Stacy Riecks: Thank you again for taking the time. I'm Stacy Riecks and I live at 7256 Gunflint
Trail which is right here on the comer of Gunflint Trail and Longacres. We would be adjacent to
what is called Lot 5 on the current plat. Like the folks that spoke before me, I am concerned
about the traffic that would be traveling, and like my brother and I also travel down Hunter to get
out to work and to Highway 5. One of the concerns that has not been brought up, which the
gentleman before me just did was the bus stop and currently there are 4 bus stops for various
ages of children that do stop right there on Gunflint Trail and Longacres so obviously during our
high traffic times of the morning, that's when the bus stops are being used. They start at 6:30,
7:00, continue to 8:00 and 8:30. So that's right there during the prime traffic time. Another
concern that was not brought up, which I did learn more about today was the drainage issue that
is potentially taking place back there. Currently during any type of rain storm my back yard is
already flooded as it already is. Currently the water flows like a river, through the back yard.
Goes over the sidewalk and out into the street so considering all the movement that is going to be
taking place, I have more concerns about what the drainage issues would be with some of the
rigging that appears to be going on back there as well. And then also obviously I would not
necessarily be in favor of having a sidewalk in my front yard but I am concerned about the safety
on our street so would love to obviously understand how we're going to reorganize those roads
to make them safe for our children, which we did mention are 22 just in our little 9 home area so,
that's really all I have to say.
Slagle: Thank you.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Paul Addiston: Paul Addiston, 7080 Harrison Hill Trail. I'll be very brief. I live here. And I
know this issue's been brought up and skirted briefly a couple times but I can't tell you the
personal investment and what we've gone through as a family to try to get to a place like we are
now, and I have literally looked at over 100 houses before buying this one and I have never seen
another house that has a road on the back side of my property and the front side of my property.
I've got two kids, 9 and 7. There's got to be something else they can do besides that. Thank
you.
Rich Bray: My name's Rich Bray. I live at 6983 Highover Drive. To show you where I'm at.
I'm right on the comer of Highover Drive and Highover Way and I want to just give a real brief
history if I could of the acquisition of my lot and the building of the home and what I was told by
Jerome Carlson and our realtors, which may not have any legal precedence any longer but just
want to give you some history. We knew the road was going through. We were told there was a
cul-de-sac that was going to be developed on the end of that, which I think is becoming a
common known twist on where it was. Worst case scenario we certainly thought there'd be
access from 41, other than through Lake Lucy coming down our road. If you look at this part of
the development that runs along the western side, it's important to keep in mind that those people
deal with an extremely busy highway, which is 41 right now. That's very noisy and
unfortunately traffic on Highover Drive runs close to 30 miles per hour up that hill, and that's
why we've got a lot of issues with regard to the traffic and speed and trying to control it in a
dead end community. So we can only understand or guess at this point what the traffic's going
to be like to try and feed another 150 to 100 automobiles developing or trying to find a shortcut,
not to get onto the traffic. Not to try and go down Hunter but to exit out through Lake Lucy, and
that's our concern. A majority of the children in that area are under 10 years of age. Multiple
families. Now the history on my lot, the city actually made me move my trees after I planted
them on the comer back 2 feet. I planted 3 evergreen trees on the comer and they made me
remove the trees, move them 3 feet back for the purpose that at some point there's going to be a
stop sign at that intersection and they didn't want a blind intersection.
Slagle: If I could ask, would that be on the northwest comer of your property?
Rich Bray: That would be, yes. The northwest comer. And so I guess I have a question, is there
any intention of putting a 3 way stop at that comer?
Slagle: Mr. Saam.
Saam: Not that I'm aware of.
Rich Bray: Yeah, and that would make a blind hill that they would over the top with traffic and
that would be a real concern I think for our community and our neighborhood about 25-30 miles
per hour speeds going over the top of a blind hill with kids playing out. Right now a number of
the neighbors put the little Child Playing out in the driveway. We're a pretty close community
and we're concerned that the speed and the development on that road is going to split up the
community from that and make people just stay to their back yards solely. So I wanted to bring
up the fact that I personally spent a considerable amount of money because the trees died after
24
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
we moved them and I had to put them in again. And I can't remember who's the lady's name
was but the developer's called her the tree lady.
Slagle: Jill Sinclair.
Rich Bray: Could have been. I don't know. I don't know but I was told that one, don't cut one
of my 30 foot evergreens down, which we didn't do, and the other one was, move those trees
back 2 feet. But at any rate that's, I'm very disappointed I guess to find out that we haven't
considered some type of traffic control on that road, and that we haven't looked at Highway 41
another potential entrance. With 50 something homes going in there, to only have 2 routes in
and out to me is also a fire hazard in a community issue but you guys know technically whether
that meets the exact number of footage or feet between one home to the next and what it requires
but would like you to reconsider and possibly at a minimum put a stop sign in on that corner.
Slagle: Thank you. I'm going to ask Matt a question if I may before we have the next person
come up. Matt, would it be safe in saying that if you use Settlers West as an example where we
actually put in two entrances on Pioneer, all within what would you say, a fifth of a mile.
Saam: Yes.
Slagle: And I mean I remember the discussion of trying to connect it to one because of the
desire to not have two entrance/exits into that community. Is it a fair request by folks and I'll say
myself to ask that we at least explore that with MnDot? And maybe they say no but maybe
they'll come back and surprise us and say, yeah that will work. I mean I'm just throwing that
out.
Saam: Yeah, sure it is.
Slagle: Hold on. Sir, if you could just have a seat for a sec, if you wouldn't mind.
Saam: Yeah MnDot has, we received written comments back from MnDot and those comments
do say they want access control along 41. What that basically means is they want to have rights
to limit no access along 41. With that said and what I said earlier with the existing street system
being in place, I don't foresee MnDot saying that a public street can go through there. But I
could be wrong.
Slagle: Okay. Fair enough.
Saam: But we can definitely yes, check into that.
Slagle: Sure Steve.
Lillehaug: Further on this. Do you know the spacing because what MnDot will judge us on is
the spacing between Lake Lucy and Longacres. Do you know the actual distance between those
streets? And then also comment on actual city policy with spacing of collectors and arterials.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
Saam: I don't know the spacing off the top of my head. It must be something, a half mile. I'm
not sure Commissioner Lillehaug. As far as our spacing requirements, yeah. We have certain
requirements. In this case 41's an arterial, like I said, so that spacing is a much greater distance
than local street spacing is.
Slagle: It's got to be at least half a mile I would think.
Saam: Yeah, something in that.
Slagle: Okay. Anything else Steve? Did you want to say?
Rich Bray: Yeah, I actually forgot to mention one item and that's that I was also informed that
there were negotiations at the time, this is about 4 years ago in putting some type of a connection
between the east side of 41 to the west side of 41 for access to Minnewashta, and that the City
turned that down. That MnDot was in support of some type of a, what do you want to call it? It
went underneath the road. Yeah, an underpass type concept. Secondly I know I've worked on a
process in another community and understand that MnDot really doesn't control that. They give
recommendation. If the City wants to put an intersection there with a stop light on 41, they can
do that. I don't know what the repercussions from the State are in doing that but ideally at some
point it would be nice from a community standpoint to have a stop sign on 41 that allows access
to Minnewashta, and from this community which quite frankly once this new development is in,
the two developments from last week also will end up being a substantial revenue base for this
county and for the city, which it already is I'm sure from a tax base perspective.
Slagle: Thank you.
Mark Brown: My name is Mark Brown. I live at 7210 Gunflint Trail. It is the lot right next that
goes up to 2 on this side and back. And besides the same concerns I have as my neighbors, I also
have young children. In addition to those same concerns about the traffic and the lack of access
to 41, from just by house alone, maybe it shows up better on this picture right here. It appears
I'm going to have, right as people come out of the new subdivision, there's no driveways right
here so I'm a little concerned about line of sight. Since my driveway is right at, right where that
street cuts over. That's one of the concerns that I have. The other concern that I have that I deal
with right now is because of this large hill, there's a drainage situation. A lot of water runs up
that particular during the spring thaw when the ground's still frozen. So I'm a little concerned
about what that's going to be like after it's developed so, and that all flows down to all the
neighbors and everything so, we're all part of that but those are two major concerns that I have
along with all the other ones. On a real positive standpoint, the barn's going right?
Karen Weathers: Hey. Yeah.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Ijust had some questions about the
report itself. The format's a little bit different and in the compliance table, in the RSF district,
there are 15 lots that don't meet the 90 foot requirement for width, and I'm wondering, there was
no plat in here that showed where the setback line is. In looking at the beautiful drawing, you
know the development, I think it might be a little deceptive because it looks like all the homesh
26
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
are set back pretty evenly. I'm wondering if the building setback line could be delineated for
these 15 lots and shown, so people realize how far back some of those houses may be. I didn't
have a chance to look at the plat beforehand but I think that's a real important point because it
looks like it's 30 feet back and I think some of them are going to be quite substantially back. An
issue related to that, for those of you that have measurements, I'd like to just out of curiosity to
know if any of those run short of meeting a 60 by 60. Curiosity and you know why the
question's raised. And then the other issue on that same compliance table is, there are 4 lots that
show a rear lot setback as NA rather than not having the 30 feet. I'd like to understand why
those 4 lots have NA. And their Lot 7, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2; Lot 4, Block 4; Lot 1, Block 5. I
just didn't understand that. That seems unusual.
Aanenson: They're all comer lots so they have two fronts.
Deb Lloyd: Okay. Without again the plat being in here, it's hard to recognize what's going on.
So I would like to know though where the lot setback line is for all the lots that do not meet the
90 foot requirement. So how far back is that building setback line. Thank you.
Slagle: Thank you. Matt, do you want to just touch upon that a little bit, just take a couple as an
example. Or Sharmeen.
AI-Jaff: All the lots meet the 90 foot requirement. They are all on a curve and.
Lillehaug: Is it 30 feet or 25 feet?
AI-Jaff: It's 30 feet. So basically you take the setback parallel to the radius and they all meet, all
15 parcels meet the 90 foot. If they don't exceed it.
Lillehaug: Can you comment on the 60 by 60 pad then also?
AI-Jaff: They all have a buildable area that exceeds 60 by 60.
Slagle: I'm going to think about that one but anybody else like to speak?
Scott Wosje: Just a quick note. Scott Wosje. I live in the Longacres neighborhood so I can
speak to that neighborhood only. Lived there 6 years. A board member up until the 31st of
December and did not get reappointed. Tom fortunately stepped up to the table with some new
energy. We already have an existing traffic problem on Longacres that I've been trying to work
with Beth Hoiseth, community representative. Safety and also the Sergeant as well to try and
figure out what we can do to slow down traffic. There's so many kids in the neighborhood.
What we can do to slow down traffic on that road so it should be noted to the commission that
we already know we have an existing traffic issue that's on record with the City. We're only
going to add to it with this potential development. The other thing that should be noted for
clarification purposes is that the Longacres Association does pay dues that maintain the
sidewalks along Longacres as well and we pay to have those sidewalks cleared. Again, is it fair?
Is it right? You know no, but life isn't fair but it should be noted that we're paying to maintain
27
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
speaking about these kids playing out on the street. It's a little bit different than Lake Lucy or,
especially Galpin, the way it is right now so 1just want to.
Aanenson: Right, and I would agree and there is, actually the City is considering changing the
profile on Lake Lucy and actually narrowing that and putting the sidewalk, raising the sidewalk.
That issue is going to the City Council next, raising the sidewalk so right now when you're on
Lake Lucy.
Slagle: You walk on the road.
Aanenson: You walk on grade so narrowing that and raising the sidewalk for that specific
reason. Give a different cross section. Different feel for safety reasons.
Slagle: Any other comments? One more.
Stuart Henderson: ...1 forgot. Does this mean this is a bluff?
Aanenson: No.
Stuart Henderson: The green, no it doesn't?
Aanenson: No it does not.
Stuart Henderson: Okay. Then my question is simply, Stuart Henderson. I live right over here.
This is a very steep hill. Very steep. I'm not sure what a bluff is, but I'm kind of concerned
about the drainage here and our ground stuff comes up and runs through my back yard, which I
think.. .Stacy's yard. It's not a big deal for me but it is quite a drainage problem. I know, when I
called Matt said there is a drainage map somewhere so maybe there's some provision made for
it. I didn't get a chance to look at that but 1just raise the concern.
Slagle: Any other comments? Okay, I'm going to. Oh, Deb you got one more?
Deb Lloyd: Yeah I'm not just sure if I made my point so. My point being is lots where frontage
is measured at the setback, it's not the street frontage. You've got to measure it at the setback
line. Correct? And I just want the residents to see, would you mind pointing out how far back
some of these houses could be. You know I just think you owe it to them to know that they're
not at the street.
Slagle: Sharmeen, just take a couple. And I guess Sharmeen.
AI-Jaff: I'll use this as an example. If you look at the frontage, this is Lot 5, Block 1. Yoberry
Farm Third Addition. The frontage along this cul-de-sac is 55 feet. At the setback line it is 95
feet. And that's permitted by ordinance. AT the setback line you need to maintain a minimum
of 90 feet. This exceeds it. The buildable area on this site is basically, so the home can maintain
a 30 foot setback. Does that answer the question? Thank you.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Slagle: Okay. I am going to close the public hearing now. At this point I'll bring it back to the
commission for discussion. Anyone want to start?
LilIehaug: Sure, I have a few questions before we go to discussion.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
LilIehaug: Wow. The, what are my questions now? Parks. Does staff have any further
comment on parks? I mean are we doing a dis-service to Longacres because we're not adding a
park in this area? Are we, I mean Longacres and Highover, they're not gated communities but I
think we need to respect the homeowners association so does planning have any comments or
suggestions regarding specifically parks.
Aanenson: Not at this time.
LilIehaug: No? Okay.
Slagle: If I may, I do have to ask Kate... with the Park and Rec Department, with respect to
parks in this area. Any?
Aanenson: Well yeah.
Slagle: What I'm going to call the general area.
Aanenson: Yeah. They've got a map of the areas where the parks are and it was the Park and
Rec Director and the commission that made a recommendation not to take that so, if you want to
add additional comments, just of your, for the council to consider.
Slagle: Well I guess what I'm asking is, is there any, has there been discussion about a park in
another location that's adjacent or in the near vicinity ofthese developments that we've looked at
the last 2 meetings?
Aanenson: Not an active park, no. I think there may be, when the Carlson property comes in
adjacent to the large Lake Harrison, maybe some open space. Some scenic overlooks but
probably not another active park.
Slagle: Okay. I'm sorry Steve.
LilIehaug: No, that's fine. We heard a couple residents from Highover concerned with the blind
hill at the very top, so that kind of alludes me, does engineering get actual profiles? This
happened in our 2 weeks ago when we reviewed the other larger development. I had problems
with the profiles of the road because they were meeting the absolute minimums for the profile
grades. Does the developer give engineering profiles of these roads so we don't have these
problem high spots with very limited sight lines, because this is what I saw in that other
development, exactly what our residents are complaining about.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Saam: Yes, at the time of final plat, final construction plans.
LiIlehaug: They give you profiles.
Saam: Yep.
LiIlehaug: Okay. That's all the questions. Well one more question. At the very south end of
Street B, the very south end of the D development, Lots 3, 4 and 5. It appears that those contours
are a lot closer together. Has that been evaluated to ensure that that's not a bluff on that very
south end? You know at the very high point you're saying they're about 5 foot apart so that'd be
a 1 to 5, but looking at this, they look about 3 feet plus or minus. I mean are we looking at a
bluff for that whole entire south end of that section? Is that something staff can verify and, or
has it been. Maybe the applicant knows. What the steepness of the grades are. 30 percent, plus
or minus. If it's a bluff, it's a bluff. If it's not, it's not.
Steve Johnston: At the very beginning of this process the first thing we did was identify where
the bluffs were. The only bluffs that are there are along Highway 41. Those bluffs are about 30
feet high and just while I'm up here, to add to it, besides the access control that MnDot would be
looking for, a 30 foot grade change in approximately 50 feet there is going to make it very
difficult to try to get a roadway off of 41 anywhere along the west property. Just from an
engineering standpoint would be very, very difficult. That bluff being 30 feet, we'd have to
come into the site about 400 feet before that grade at maximum street grades would match
existing grades so it would be very, very difficult to do.
LiIlehaug: So you're saying that is not a bluff on Lots 3, 4 and 5?
Steve Johnston: No it is not.
LiIlehaug: Okay. That's all for the questions I have I guess.
Slagle: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: With comments? Is it comments or are we.
LiIlehaug: I'm not done with comments. Somebody else want to go first? Another question I
guess is that, that cul-de-sac, we saw that in our previous plan. What do you call it, an eyebrow
cul-de-sac. Is that our new trend here? We're going to have one in every development now?
Saam: They were at the last meeting and they heard you all recommend approval to it.
LiIlehaug: Okay. Who wants to comment first then?
Keefe: I'll statt on comments.
Slagle: Dan, you want to talk into your mic more.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Keefe: Yeah, sure. Wow, there's a lot of stuff here. Let me start on the northeast comer. I
don't know if I'm real comfortable with the layout, and I know they've just been, you guys have
hammered this out probably 10 different ways but the way that that street backs up to the
neighbors on the right, I just, I'm having a hard time getting comfortable with that. And I don't
know, I almost want to see a plan where the street goes on the west side of that, of those lots and
see how, because I heard that that was a possibility, or had been looked at. And anyway I'll just
leave it, I'm just uncomfortable with that northeast comer. In terms of like the Longacres
development and the Highover development, they both have association dues. Do we have, in
terms of like neighborhoods stacking up next to each other. One pays. One doesn't pay. One
has a park. One doesn't have a park. You know utilization from one neighborhood to the next.
Is there any sort of policy or can you comment at all in regards to, it's really just individual
developments and how they occur? Okay. Huh. I'd really like to see, you know definitely we
need to look at Highway 41 and access to 41. I guess I made the assumption of looking at it but
that really wasn't an option. I know that was discussed at length in this but I mean, I think it
should definitely be considered and maybe pushed out a little bit more to the State in regards, or
the State. What else? In regards to internal traffic Matt, I mean you know, you guys have done
studies. Or maybe you haven't done a study on this but in terms of the sort of traffic count
coming out of here. If we find that there's more traffic, I mean how do you typically go forward.
I mean after it's been built, you do traffic counts at that point and then establish whether you
need to put stop signs in in the other neighborhoods or how does that work?
Saam: Yeah, if you're talking about stop signs, there's certain warrants that need to be met.
Amount of traffic approaching the different legs of the intersection is one of the main issues. So
yeah, we'd have to do traffic counts and see if it would warrant a stop sign.
Keefe: But your study of this says that you think right now the road as laid out would
accommodate it and without putting undue pressure on the extra, or on the roads into Highover
and/or Longacres.
Saam: We do think Lake Lucy and Longacres Drive can accommodate the traffic coming from
this development. Yes.
Keefe: Okay.
Papke: Okay, there's been a lot of discussion about the parks tonight and the homeowners
situation. I think the best solution here and the one I would support would be to only move
forward if the developer was willing to work with Longacres to the south, and make this
development part of that homeowners association. I think there's plenty of parks here, as was
amply pointed out. One of the parks backs right up to this development and it seems kind of silly
to force another park in here or, where you have one sitting right there. I think that would be the
real win/win scenario here is to have this developer perhaps work with Longacres to see if we
can't solve the problem in that fashion. Would you like to comment?
Chuck Alcon: Yes. We very much intend to pursue that offer from Longacres. We think it
makes a lot of sense. I would comment though that there's going to have to be two
organizational entities.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Papke: Sure.
Chuck Alcon: The existing Longacres HOA has it's covenants. We plan to have our's.
Papke: You bet.
Chuck Alcon: Not to say that an agreement between the associations can't be reached. We think
it makes a lot of sense for the park and I understand there's a plan for a pool on the eastern side I
believe and we fully support that and would move forward and try to make that happen.
Papke: And that would give the Longacres development 57 new homes, revenue opportunities.
Chuck Alcon: And obviously we'll have to work out a dues arrangement and capitalization and
all those things but...
Papke: How you work it organizationally is up to you.
Chuck Alcon: And we would commit to do that.
Papke: Great. Super. I think there's been ample evidence tonight that moving the northeast cul-
de-sac to the west over by the wetland I think is the best scenario for all involved. I think the
way it lays out right now, the developer can charge a little bit more for the homes along the
wetland but I think it really negatively impacts the people to the east to have an alley in their
back yard, or however you want to put it. And I think that's too much negative impact to the
people who are already there so, unless there's some structural reason or civil engineering reason
why that cul-de-sac and road can't be moved so that the wetland would be on the other side of
the street, that would be necessary for me to approve this. As to the 41, there's been a lot of
issues around traffic tonight. The 41 access. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that
that's a long pull to try to get access out to 41 here. So I think if we look at ways of mitigating
some of the traffic concerns. Now we've heard from interestingly enough we've heard from
both communities, both the Longacres to the south and Highover to the north are both concerned
that they're going to get the bulk ofthe traffic, and you know obviously they're both not going to
get 75 percent of the traffic from this subdivision. There's going to be some kind of natural split
here so, you know I don't think there's, we really know which way the traffic's going to flow.
But I don't see an easy way to solve the access to 41 problem, looking at the drawings and the
elevation changes. So that's all the comments.
Slagle: I just have a couple. On the 41 connection, as far as an entrance/exit. With that grade I
just don't think that's going to be workable but it might be Matt worth at least the actual
discussion or actual request, depending on how you see it, just so we have a record that they say
either no or not such a good idea. I like the park idea with Longacres. My only concern with all
respect is that if something doesn't get worked out, and we all know contracts and those things
sometimes can be difficult to have happen, we are now looking at a major development with
literally no parks anywhere within walking distance. And if it's quote unquote bike distance, it's
across some fairly significant roads. And, if I can add, without even a commitment yet that a
33
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005
sidewalk will be extended either on the east side or the west side of Gunflint Trail. I certainly
hope that is going to happen and I would love to put a condition in there. I just don't know if we
can put a condition on this case applying to another development. But it certainly would make
sense to have a sidewalk going down the side the road and then stopping along an area that has
an easement already. The grading area to the north, I think that is a real issue. We've seen too
many developments come in that are squeezing parcels and you just wonder how it works with
the grade. Lastly, I along with my other commissions have a real issue with that east side and
that road. And as a citizen more than a commissioner I think that what's the give and take? Is
the give that you move the road to the west and you now have 2 or 3 parcels with back yards
facing an electrical easement. Is it the most appealing? Probably not. But certainly is a win/win
in the overall what I'm going to call community sense. So I would tend to say that that's
something that needs to happen, at least from my' perspective. So with that, that's my comments.
I will open it up for a motion.
Lillehaug: I've got a couple, I have some comments.
Slagle: Oh, did I forget you? Alright, go ahead.
Lillehaug: I reiterate basically what everyone said. Also on the northeast side there, I think in
my opinion that the cul-de-sac is too close to Uli's property on the north then~, so likewise on the
east and on the north I think it needs to be pulled away and a reasonable buffer or back yards in
that whole area needs to be in place before I would recommend this to the council for approval.
Parks, just to reiterate on that. Am I under the understanding that Longacres does want this
development to be part of maintaining the parks? Is it, you live in Longacres.
Slagle: Well, not really. I'm the one lot next to Longacres, but the point of it I think is that we
have to be careful in this in that we've had a representative of the Board speak, but I don't know
if that person can speak for the whole Board. There's legal issues and so that's where I'm just
saying to all of us, I'm concerned that if we say hey, we'll hopefully the applicant and Longacres
can reach an agreement. Not to mention what will happen to Highover. You know, I mean so
it's sort of a wishful thinking and hopeful and again, with all integrity assumed that something
works out. So I don't know if we can really bank on it at this point.
Lillehaug: Okay. I guess I'm okay with most of the development except for the northeast. I
think it's too much crammed in there. Too restrictive. But are you guys willing to make a
recommendation I guess just to get a feel for it, without seeing an alternate plan of what we're
doing up here? I'm not ready to make a recommendation I guess without seeing that. My
opmlOn.
Slagle: I would, as guidance just suggest to the 4 of us that someone make a motion, whatever
way they feel is appropriate and then we let the vote decide that.
Lillehaug: Sure. Okay. One other, two other questions I guess before we make a motion and
it's regarding the conditions. Condition number 20 and it's regarding all lots must have a
minimal, minimum useable area off the back of the house pad. But it's not defined what that
minimum useable area is. Does staff have a recommendation for a minimum useable area such
34
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
as a square footage or a depth as in like 20 feet from the back of the house? Is that something
staff wants to make a recommendation on? Because it says minimum.
Aanenson: Yeah, I guess a lot of it has to do with the life style choice. Some people like that
and we looked at, they showed examples of Ashling Meadows, which coincidentally was the one
I was saying because they have different, some people like the choice of not having a back yard.
What we want to make sure is that it's done in a way that's not creating drainage problems or
long term maintenance problems for those down below but no, so you at least have a patio or
deck area. Some flat area that you can walk right out on, so maybe it's 10 feet or.. .like that.
Lillehaug: Okay, no further comments I guess.
Slagle: Okay. I'll entertain a motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion we table this until we see a revision in the northeast comer per our
comments that we've discussed.
Papke: Second.
Slagle: Okay. I have a motion and a second. To table this. Do we need to be more specific
Kate?
Aanenson: I think we have clear direction that the issue we're trying to resolve is the cul-de-sac
on the northwest side.
Slagle: And can I also add to that, some, well friendly amendment to your motion. If I may.
Can that motion address what I will call the lack of a clear direction of a park. And I use park in
a parenthesis. And Kate you know, it's not.
Aanenson: You're asking me to usurp the power of the park commission which I'm very
reluctant to do. I think at this point, you know if you want to put something in as part of your,
what you typically do kind of a summary point, I think if you want to add that you're concerned
under summary point, that you want the council to consider that. Because they take your input
plus the park commission's going forward.
Slagle: How about this? How about if we table this and we ask either the Park Director or
someone from the park to come and present to us as to what the thoughts are.
Aanenson: You can ask, sure.
Slagle: Okay. To me that, because sometimes we're trying to find an answer and the person
who has the answer isn't here so. Is that a friendly amendment accepted?
Lillehaug: Certainly.
Keefe: I was going to add. Just as.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Slagle: Okay, f¡iendly amendment to the table.
Keefe: Friendly amendment to, at least have a discussion with the State in regards to access to
Highway 41.
Lillehaug: Well, I guess stating my opinion. I'm looking at the grade difference and I agree
with the developer. It's a very limited factor. And my history with MnDot is, is they're not
going to grant that. They'll look at it but I think staff would concur that they will not grant
another access point. Especially if it's only a half mile between Lake Lucy and...
Aanenson: Just to be clear what their letter said to us, is they want to restrict the access. You
know just to be clear, we did look at that. You know this actually has a lot of revisions so
obviously it's something that we considered but it was eliminated based on, as the engineer said,
the length going back and the steepness. To get the grades to work. The touch down points so
you're not coming at a steep angle down to.
Slagle: But I think just to be clear to the audience though, it was in essence you're saying
dismissed or rejected by the.
Aanenson: Right, and a letter from MnDot said that they want to control the access.
Slagle: Fair enough. I don't think that was clear.
Keefe: It wasn't clear to me.
Aanenson: I was waiting for the Assistant to say something so.
Slagle: Okay.
Keefe: Okay, so in a sense they've already said no.
Saam: Yeah, I previously said we have a memo where MnDot wants to gain access control
along 41 which means they're not going to allow any access along that stretch of 41.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
Saam: They don't want access on 41.
Keefe: I withdraw my amendment.
Slagle: Okay. And then I just one last one, and that would be Commissioner Lillehaug, if you
wouldn't mind, something to the effect of where we can get some traffic numbers, Matt, if I can
ask you. You mentioned that Longacres is some type of a classification where you have to get
numbers. Traffic numbers every so often. Would be interested to see what that is.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005
Lillehaug: We know what this is going to generate. I mean there's 54 residences there. It's
going to generate between 10-14 trips per day so we're looking at 600 to 700 trips a day from
this development, either going north or south so split down the middle. You're looking at 350
going north and 350 south. I mean it's a reasonable number on a local street in my opinion. And
so I don't think, in my opinion, I don't want to give staff direction to do that because in my
opinion it's reasonable on the local street. On Gunflint Trail to the south as well as Highover to
the north. I think the traffic levels that would be distributed on those streets are still going to be
within the local 750 to 1,000 maximum. I know that's high but that's city, what's in the city
comprehensive plan.
Slagle: Well you're within your rights to reject the friendly amendment.
Lillehaug: And I reject it.
Slagle: Fair enough. So we have a motion on the floor to table this with direction to staff to re-
work, if at all possible, the northeast quadrant. Invite the Park and Rec Director to speak to us at
our next meeting. Anything else I'm missing? Okay.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table the rezoning and
subdivision request for Yoberry Farms with direction to staff to re-work the northeast
quadrant and to invite the Park and Rec Director to speak or provide written comment
regarding the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Slagle: We're going to take a 5 minute break.
Chuck Alcon: Question. Tabled until?
Slagle: Well.
Aanenson: We can turn it around.
Slagle; Sounds good. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL,
OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES
OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BLVD AND
THE FUTURE REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101, SAND COMPANIES, INC.. PLANNING
CASE No. 05-01.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jamie Thelen
366 South 10th A venue, Waite Park, MN
37
CHANHASSEN 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 AI-J aff, Senior Planner; Matt
Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Josh Metzer, Planner I
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
OA TH 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..
DA VID HURREL. AND KAREN WEATHERS. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Mark Erickson
Dan Lun
Lauren Damman
Laura Bray
Michael Horn
Karen Weathers
Dean Simpson
Candice McGraw
Kathy Mack
Ray Alstadt
Larry DuMoulin
Bill Coffman
Steve Johnston
2216 Hunter Drive
2373 Hunter Drive
6934 Highover Drive
6983 Highover Drive
7024 Highover Court
7235 Hazeltine Boulevard
7185 Hazeltine Boulevard
2446 Highover Trail
6984 Highover Drive
2423 Highover Trail
6966 Highover Drive
600 West 78th Street
510 1 sl A venue North, Minneapolis
Planning Commission Meeting - January 18,2005
Chuck Alcon
David Hurrell
Scott Bittner
Bob Krueger
David & Kathleen Fulkerson
Larry Lovig
Philip Haarstad
Patrick Brunner
Matt Mesenburg
J 0 Mueller
Mark Zaebst
Carrie Sprosty
Lori Dinnis
Kathy Koscak
Kristin Bunkenburg
John Graham
Jeff Tritoh
Dave Bordeau
Todd Rech
Keith Abrahamson
Rosalie J. Nast
Scott Smith
Dan Hanson
Julie Lohse
Bill Borrell
Jennifer Rysso
Andrew & Tina White
Paul Ottoson
Mike & Candi McGonagill
Ping Chung
6138 76th Lane, Greenfield
7420 Bent Bow Trail
2398 Hunter Drive
2350 Hunter Drive
6900 Highover Drive
2475 Gunflint Court
7066 Harrison Hill Trail
2443 Hunter Drive
2428 Hunter Drive
2529 Longacres Drive
2325 Hunter Drive
7163 Fawn Hill Road
2362 Hunter Drive
2351 Hunter Drive
2300 Hunter Drive
6935 Highover Drive
2313 Hunter Drive
2418 Hunter Drive
2408 Hunter Drive
2403 Hunter Drive
2448 Hunter Drive
2395 Hunter Drive
2390 Longacres Drive
7094 Harrison Hill Trail
2300 Longacres Drive
7108 Harrison Hill Trail
7122 Harrison Hill Trail
7080 Harrison Hill Trail
2451 Hunter Drive
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 AI-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.
Let me back up. West 78th 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
Chuck Alcon, representing Yoberry Farms. I reside at 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield, Minnesota.
With me this evening for the development team are Mr. Bill Coffman and Steve Johnston, the
project engineer and land owners Dean Simpson and Karen Weathers. Just briefly, you asked us
last time to look at the northeast comer and we have done that. I think the only comment I
would add is that the recommended Option A is also the minimum tree removal option.
Preserves the tree preservation around that northern bank. Other than that we have no
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
December 17th 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 comer 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 comer, 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
border of the 3rd Addition between the existing Longacres Park and Yoberry to restrict access to
the existing pri vate 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 ofthe 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 Yo berry 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 dri ve 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 ofthe
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 hilI 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 Y2 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'djust
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, Ijust 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 ofthem 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 em ailed MnDot. We got the same response each time. As
far as a formal application, no. That's done by the landowner. So the developer would have to
do that. I guess we as a city, we're not in favor of an additional access to 41. I think I've given
the reasons why. Unless there's anything else on it.
Slagle: Let me ask you this question if I may fellow commissioners and then I'm going to open
it up to you. Is there Matt, is there merit to a concern that we have in essence a development that
is fairly high, and works it way to the south and to the north on streets, and I use Highover and I
use Hunter, that would be not your usual thoroughfares with wide streets and sidewalks and so
forth? I mean is there merit do you think of having that concern by the residents that this traffic
streaming from the middle...
Saam: Hunter, the Hunter Drive residents, sure. I think they even said they know that people
use it and I mean it's a public street. But that doesn't mean there aren't issues on it. There's
speed limit issues. That's enforcement that maybe we look at the speed. If it's too fast. But I
don't believe that's this developer's or the next developer's issue to correct. That's a city issue if
we have a speed problem for example on there, and that's something we can definitely look at.
Slagle: Okay. I'm going to open it up to fellow Commissioners for questions or comments.
Kurt, can I start with you?
Papke: From the, just a question from the city's perspective. What if any responsibility or
liability do we bear relative to the private parks in Longacres? And other people using them or
safety issues. What if any responsibility does the city carry? And if the answer is none, that's
fine.
AI-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?
AI-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.
AI-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?
AI-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 comer. 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 ofthe 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?
AI-J aff: Off of Highover Trail?
Lillehaug: That's the one. The big empty box there.
AI-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.
AI-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. Ijust, 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 comer. 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...
LiIIehaug: 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.
LiIIehaug: 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 ofthese 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 sol ve 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 comer, 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.
LiIlehaug: Can I make a couple more points?
Slagle: Absolutely.
Lillehaug: At the previous meeting I mean I personally I gave some specific direction and some
specific non-direction and some of the non-direction was not looking at the connection on
Highway 41. But that was based off of some facts that it was only a half mile spacing between
Lake Lucy Road and Longacres Drive when in fact it's closer to a mile, % to a mile and the
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 % of a mile for the spacing of collector roads, and staff
correct me if I'm wrong. That's my understanding of it. So when you look at this, say the
spacing between the existing roadway is % of a mile, well the standards are, the Met Council
likes to see spacing of collectors every % of a mile so in actuality there could be, this could be
midway on 41, there could be another collector road. And I'm going this direction because I'm
very concerned about the traffic on Highover and Gunflint.
Keefe: Let me interrupt you just one second. In regard to the location about half way through. 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?
AI-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?
AI-Jaff: March 5th is the deadline to process this application.
Papke: Through the council?
28
Planning Commission Meeting - January 18,2005
LilIehaug: 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 gi ven 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 carryon. Sharmeen, you were going to say?
AI-Jaff: It will go to the City Council.
Slagle: City Council. And what day will that be on? At least as planned now?
AI-Jaff: February.
Lillehaug: Don't we still have to have a motion that's approved?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: As in a negati ve motion. Or not?
Slagle: No.
AI-Jaff: Yes you do. February 4th. 14th.
Slagle: So February 14th will be the City Council?
AI-Jaff: City Council.
Slagle: Okay. Point of clarification. Addressing Commissioner Lillehaug's point. By denying
it, it just automatically goes to council, correct?
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Slagle: Okay.
Lillehaug: But we didn't deny it. We just didn't approve that motion. Don't we need a motion
to deny this applicant?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - January 18,2005
AI-Jaff: I apologize. Yes you do.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Okay with that, you're correct Commissioner LilIehaug. 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 1...
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.
LilIehaug: 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
LOCA TED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND
MELODY HILL ROAD. JOHN HENRY ADDITION. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-05.
31