Loading...
CAS-43_HIGHCREST MEADOWS (AKA YOBERRY FARM) (4)• 0 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. Message r Aanenson, Kate From: Tom Furlong [tfurlong@apexfsi.coml Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 10:01 AM To: t.gerhardt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Aanenson, Kate Subject: FW: Proposed Yoberry Farm Development: additional thoughts FYI, Tom -----Original Message ----- From: Rysso, Jennifer (M.D.) [mailto:ryssoj@parknicollet.com] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 1:40 AM To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: m_ry5so@msn.com Subject: Proposed Yoberry Farm Development: additional thoughts Ladies and Gentlemen: Page 1 of 2 I am Jennifer Rysso of 7108 Harrison Hill Trail. I thank you for reading my spoken and written thoughts conveyed at past public hearings. I now present to you some pertinent information regarding my continued concerns regarding the proposed public road directly against my backyard that I request you either reject or significantly alter as part of the final development plan. In past city council meetings the idea of the comprehensive plan has been addressed. With that thought in mind I direct you to a city code prohibiting double frontage lots: (g) Double frontage lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage lots should face the front of existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an additional depth of ten (10) feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line. I am only a physician and do not pretend to understand all the legal manifestations of the above code. I do believe, however, that the code was developed with a vision of a city plan in mind - specifically a vision of a city that avoids public roads up against back yards - a vision to avoid the feel of the inner city with alleyways and maintain the feel of a suburb. When this idea was presented to the city planners by my family and neighbors, the answer received was that the code does not apply if even one foot exists between your property and the public road. I took this answer as a legal way to get around the vision for which the code was originally intended with the end result favoring the developer rather than the residents of the city. The distance between the west end of the electric easement which is included in my property and the proposed public road can only be at most a few feet. Barring all legal and technical maneuvering, one must consider that this code applies to my lot. I also present to you the results of a survey reported in the February 3, 2005 Chanhassen Villager paper. "A survey indicates Carver County residents continue to feel good about their quality of life, although concerns about growth and traffic are creeping up." "Survey results .... provide context for decision-making by county officials, according to county planner Paul Moline." "When asked what the most serious issue facing the county was, growth and development was of high concern by respondents. Moline said one finding that caught his attention acAl+Neo 2/14/2005 Message Page 2 of 2 was residents' interest in open space." This survey result would seem to directly apply to the current residents' concerns regarding °too much" being pushed into this space of Yoberry farms. The public road in question is a result of pushing too much into a space at the jeopardy of the quality of life of those already living here. Please seriously consider removing this road to the west side of the proposed properties perhaps with a private road as proposed at the last meeting, vs. eliminating the public road, vs. at the very least considering the proposal of the planning commission with its first motion to eliminate a lot - perhaps lot 4 or lot 3 and 4 - to allow movement of the road further west away from touching my property. I thank you for your time. I trust that our votes entrusted to you - meant as votes to represent us will not be forgotten. Promises were made to serve the community and serve the families of this community during campaigns - now is the time. Thank you. Sincerely, Jennifer Rysso, M.D. PRIVACY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may contain business confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If this e-mail was not intended for you, please notify the sender by reply e-mail that you received this in error. Destroy all copies of the original message and attachments. 2/14/2005 • Bill Coffman • From: 'Thomas Hirsch" <thomas. hirsch@earthlink. net> To: <billcoffman@isd.net>, <alcon@usintemet.com> Cc: <w.borrell@mchsi.com>, <billb@wenzelphcc.com>;<cschneider@developcommunity.com>; <jaykayhanson@hotmail.com>; <dan.hanson@mchsi.com>, <MattM@callawaygolf.com>; <rwexler@developcommunity.com>; <shenderson2722@mchsi.com>; <stuart.henderson@wnins.com> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:03 PM Attach: to Bill - yoberry usage of longacres infrastructure proposal vl.doc Subject: Yoberry Farms usage of Longacres infrastructure solution Bill, Please confirm receipt of this email and your ability to open the attached word doc. If you are unable to open the word doc, I will fax and send as text today, Sunday 2/13. Page 1 of 1 Please respond to the proposal in concept by 5pm, Monday, 02/14 so that we may adjust our position to the City Council appropriately. Tom 651-269-2416 cell 952-474-5402 home 651-205-0911 work SCANmft 2/14/2005 0 0 To: William D. Coffman, Jr. Fr: Thomas J. Hirsch Su: Yoberry/t.ongacres 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 Burrell, 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 Yoberry 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 of liability, 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. 2/13/2005 Yoberry/Longacres Shared infrastructure Pagel of t ,__... 0 0 I, - O - N - � . A - C - R - E - S 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 to Yoberry 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 Yobeny 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. 952474-5402 home 651-269-2416 cell 651-205-0911 work 2/13/2005 Yoberry/Longacres Shared infrastructure Page 2 of 2 0 Aanenson, Kate From: Gerhardt, Todd Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:39 PM To: Hoffman, Todd; Saam, Matt; Aanenson, Kate; Olson, Jim; Hoiseth, Beth; Oehme, Paul Subject: FW: Yoberry Questions I would like to prepare one response to Brian and the rest of CC. Let's try to coordinate one e-mail. If you could send me your comments, I will then combine the responses. TG From: Lundquist, Brian (Grocery Foods Group) [mailto:Brian.Lundquist@conagrafoods.com] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:42 AM To: Gerhardt, Todd; Miller, Justin Subject: Yoberry Questions Gentlemen, A few questions I have on Yoberry: 'Can the access from 41 that is going to be used for grading traffic be used for home construction and contractors or will the timing of that be too long? ar s -using are we doing? dedication funds, building a park near there? are they going to using the Longacres park? Is the Longacres park a private park funded by Longacres association dues? Traffic/Roads - When Highover and Hunter Drive were built was this type of development and access anticipated? Can they realisttically and safely handle a higher level of traffic. What calming measures do we have that can be used in Yoberry to mitigate cut -through traffic? You can either respond by email or I will call on Monday afternoon. Thanks fellas Brian 1 SCANNED 4b February 10, 2005 Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen, MN Dear Council Members: • This letter is to express our strong opposition to the current development plan of Yoberry due its traffic impact and infringement on our property in Longacres. Our safety concerns are evident as increased through traffic will put Longacres families at undue risks. In addition the seclusion and privacy of my home and enjoyment of private parks and other amenities are severely diminished. The original master plan stipulated a maximum number of homes in Longacres, which factored heavily into our homebuying decision in 1996. Allowing another development with access through our property will undoubtedly slow and perhaps reduce the appreciable value of our investment. Given the adverse affect of increased congestion (vehicle and pedestrian) and privacy infringement, we strongly urge you to vote NO! on the proposed Yoberry project. Stanford & Wynette Miller Longacres +RECEIVED FEB 11 2065 CPOFCHA*%SSEN d4-43 SCANNED LI L February 9, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL Roger Knutson Campbell Knutson PA 1380 Corporate Ctr Curve Suite 317 Eagan, MN 55121-3451 Re: Chanhassen — Yoberry Farm Dear Mr. Knutson: 0 Fredrikson Consistent with our discussion of January 3_1 2005 1 submit this_ letter to you as the _ Chanhassen City Attorney to summarize our position that the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission was and the City Council is compelled by Minnesota law to recommend the rezoning of the Yoberry Farm land from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family. Specifically, our client, Yoberry Farms, LLC, requested the rezoning of 35.79 acres which would be subdivided into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots. The proposed rezoning was recommended in the Staff Report and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Both the Staff Report of January 4 and 18, 2005, and our review yield the conclusion that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In Minnesota, it is well accepted that comprehensive planning drives zoning. In the seven county metropolitan area, a local government unit is prohibited by state statute from adopting "any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan. Minn. Stat. § 473.865, Subd. 2. A city's refusal to zone according to the comprehensive plan is evidence that such city is acting in an arbitrary manner. See Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan. 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984). A legislative act, zoning or rezoning classification may be overturned if it is unsupported by any rational basis relating to the promotion of public health, safety, morals or general welfare. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d, 409 (Minn. 1981). To pass this rational basis test, a City must provide a court with an adequate showing that the reasons for its decision were based on promoting the public heath, safety and general welfare and achieving orderly and sound development. We do not believe the City can satisfy this test based on the particular facts of the Yoberry Farm situation. Attorneys & Advisors 200 South Sixth Street main 612.492.7000 Suite 4000 fax 612.492.7077 Minneapolis, Minnesota www.fredlaw.corr 55402-1425 EKES- Minneapolis, London .;FIORTES Mexico City, Warsaw. Montreal, Toronto. Vancouver 9 0 Roger Knutson February 9, 2005 Page 2 For example, the 2020 Land Use Plan designates the area which includes Yoberry Farm for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2-4.0 units per acre. Our client's proposed development has gross density of 1.59 units per acre and 1.88 units per acre net after streets and wetlands are taken out. Moreover, as the Staff Report confirms, all necessary public infrastructure is readily available and of sufficient capacity. Clearly, this proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no issue of premature timing due to insufficient infrastructure is in the record. A City's decision not to rezone a property is arbitrary and capricious if it does not provide detailed, factual reasons to justify its denial. Findings of fact must be more than conclusory statements. See Horn at 409, 416. For example, the courts have held that a municipality's vague reason of traffic congestion for denying a townhouse proposal was not supported in fact when the council had specifically been told that the road in question could accommodate the increased traffic. C.R. Investments, Inc., v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320, 325 (Minn. 1981). In the present situation, we have a reasonable basis for belief that the primary reasons for denial, based upon our review of the Chanhassen Planning Commission's Summary Minutes of its January 18, 2005 meeting, appear to be traffic concerns and some issues regarding the layout of the development. To the contrary, the Staff Report clearly provides that "the proposed street layout appears to work well." Indeed, streets to the north and south of Yober y Farms were designed and constructed to accommodate its development partly in recognition of MnDOT's access spacing guidelines for T.H.41. Because there are no facts to contradict the Staff Report's conclusion that the proposed street layout is satisfactory, the Planning Commission's reliance on these traffic concerns is not supported in fact as required by C.R. Investments, Inc. Therefore, the decision of the Planning Commission lacks a reasonable basis as required under Minnesota law. Once the rezoning matter is resolved, the final issue is compliance with the subdivision ordinance. The Staff Report found that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance and recommends 46 conditions to assure compliance. All of the conditions are acceptable to our client. Based upon a review of the Staff Report, the Planning Commission meeting minutes of January 2, 2005, and Minnesota case law, the record supports approval of the plat, and does not support denial. Specifically, where a subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform, it is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance. See National Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335,222 N.W.2d 550 (1974). See also Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), BECA of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas, 607 0 0 Roger Knutson February 9, 2005 Page 3 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Minnesota case law clearly provides that such conforming plats must be approved. Please make this letter part of the record for the City Council's decision on Yobeny Farm, and consider its content as part of your counsel to the City Council. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact me or Jeff Serum of our office. Sincerely, David C. Seller Yn Attorney at Law Direct Dial: 612.492.7136 Email: dsellergren@fredlaw.com DCS.jjs cc: Kate Aanenson, Chanhassen Community Development Director Bill Coffman Chuck Alcon Jeff Senlm, Esq. #3075473\2 4b February 9, 2005 Mr. Tom Furlong, Mayor City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Honorable Mayor Furlong, 0 off- 43 I currently reside at 6999 Highover Drive in Chanhassen with my wife, Linda, daughter Amy and granddaughter, Alyssa. I am writing to present you with some concerns we have regarding the Yoberry Farm proposal coming before you next Monday. As background, our home is located near what will be the entrance to Yoberry Farms from the north. The rear of our home will face the backyards of several of the home sites in Yoberry. We have concerns over two significant issues: 1. The additional traffic that will flow on Highover Drive 2. The compatibility of the residences in Yoberry with both the Highover and Longacres developments. The.addition of 57 home sites in Yoberry will significantly increase the volume of traffic on Highover Drive. Not only the addition of homeowners going in and out, but also delivery vehicles, waste -management, buses, etc. It was our expectation that Highover Drive was to be a relatively quiet residential street, not a major thoroughfare linking multiple developments. We are also concerned with the speed of the traffic on Highover as other neighbors have had problems with speed at the current volume. Yoberry seems to be an unusual development in that as proposed, it has no major road access. It appears that it will get its identity from either Highover or Longacres. Both Highover and Longacres homeowners have a significant investment to protect and therefore it is imperative -that the residences of Yoberry be compatible both economically and aesthetically. They should also have covenants compatible with the existing developments. Your Planning Commission has recognized these issues and recommended that the proposal be denied. I ask you to consider this matter carefully and side with the Planning Commission. I have no doubt that the Yoberry site will be developed, but it can be done in a way that is better for all. Thank you for your consideration..' n, $lncerety, Grego A wedt SCANNED Charles & Lori Dinnis • ~ / 2362 Hunter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 February 2, 2005 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Yobery Farms -Development with Additional Traffic Concerns Dear Sirs: My concern is all of the additional traffic that will be added to Gunflint & Hunter Drive due to the requested 55 lots in the Yoberry Farms Development. It was shown for yearsby--the Higbover developer -that -the area would have a cul de sac with 8-10 houses in the area - not 55. The developer is concentrating the houses so much that he doesn't ave -gives areas for parks Whis homes One of planning commissioners said that street traffic is a "City Issue". I agree in part however, I believe that-it-isthe City & the Planning -commission's responsibility to determine if mistakes have been made in the past and not make them worse by adding additional traffic. (Le., Hunter Drive was not meant to be a through street (many 90 degree turns, hills, narrower street & no sidewalks) by viewing the map - it is clear that Huntfw isthashortest distance to Galpin from -the Gunflint Trail side and that human nature will choose this route to Chan or Highway 5) - 1) There -arena tr H4nter a. Hunter has many 90 degree bends b. Hunter-hasa-Ng hill - can't -ses the children c. Hunter has many blind comers - can't see the children. i. Corner of Fawn Hill &-Huatec(blind-comer sign already in place) ii. Gaon towards Fawn Hill (entrance) iii. 2428 Hunter Drive d. Statistics: r.- Long -Acres --Drive - wider -street with side walk 1. 52 total homes 2. 35 -with davev ays 3. 17 with land- ' ice- Hunter to-Galpin 90 degree -turns, hills, narrower street & no sidewalk 1. 35 Total Homes 2. 32 with Driveways 3 3 with land 4. 78 total kids with more -on the -way Charles & Lori Dinnis 0 2362 Hunter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 2) Options: a. Decrease lot density in Yoberry Farms by creating two cul de sacs lowering traffic to Gunflint. -- b> Have-Yoberry-Farms have their -own -entrance and not join Highover Drive, Gun Flint & Longacres/Hunter. 6 4V Entrance off Yeberry-Farms for -amore, direct route than going through neighborhoods to get to Chanhassen or the 5. This will not help-Huntec directly butit will give theTesidence-a faster way to highway 5 if traffic calming measures are input on Highover & Htinter. E Settlers Ridge -that hastwe-entrances within approx 400 feet. MN DOT granted an exception on this development in Chan. d. StopSjgn-added at Fawn-Hjl["nter e. Speed Bumps i. At- approxjmatel�t2428-Hunter-©rive (blind curve before hill). ii. At approximately 2325 Hunter Drive bottom of hill and before bus -stogy f. Change Speed Limit to 20 i. How can a residential street have the same speed as Lake Lucy and the 78th Street Frontage Road? g: — City -pays -for based on bad design and the cost will not be passed on to the residence. -- 3) Parks— !live -on-the In for 3 years and know that it will be a difficult task to get the votes to add Yoberry Farms to the Covenants. -1-rea*think that the cleueloper-shouldbe required to adjust population density by having parks & wetland areas and specifically put them-attde.back-of-the_E PaaaYoberrY-taeGminate the Longacres lots with a street on the front & back of their lot. 4) Is them -Farms.that.the-pricing will remain firm at $600K to $1,000M? What happens at the endof one year if the lots don't self Will-they-compromisequaUy? Thank you for your time & consideration, it is a tough job that you have to keep the city progressive yet not -compromise the land -owners -that have already made Chanhassen their home. — Sincerely, Charles & Lori Dinnis- 46 0 0L+-413 Lee S. Broadston BCS, Incorporated -West 1:23 PM President & CEO Healthcare Practice Management and Consulting Services 01/31/2005 233 West First Street Waconia, MN 55387-1302 LSB Direct Voice 888-278-4124 / Fax 952-442-3630 /866-808-3630 Lee S. Broadston To: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: RoddWagner@aol.com; Timothy M. Block; Tmichsnow@aol.com; DAJOGRAHAM@aol.com; adumoulin@bsafemail.com; Marinatim@aol.com Subject: Yoberry Farm Development Dear Chanhassen City Council Members; I have been closely monitoring the issues surrounding the Planning Commissions hearings on this proposed subdivision in Chanhassen. As a resident of Highover Drive -6918 Highover Drive- and as the current President of the Highover Homeowners Association- I have often been concerned over the speed of the current traffic levels on Highover Drive. This past summer and fall -2004- 1 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 necessary to speak directly to First Student Bus Services because the buses on Highover Drive 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 while 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, I 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 is currently designed and see what I see and apparently what the majority of the Chanhassen Planning Commission sees, as a serious traffic flow issue. 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 hill -Highover Drive- and the approach down the hill -Highover 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 was told 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 Highway 41. As this subdivision 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 traffic levels than are reasonable and necessary. As a property owner on Highover Drive, 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 mail, a copy of this email to the City of Chanhassen and request that this written correspondence be made part of the upcoming City of Chanhassen City Council Meeting scheduled for February 14, 2005 to hear this matter. S cergly Lee S. Bro t n President & CEA BCS, Incorporated Healthcare Practice Consultants President & CEO Lee Directly 952-442-3614 or 888-278-4124 Fax 952-442-3630 866-808-3630 BCS, Incorporated - West Lee@BCSConsult.com 233 West First Street Visit BCS On the Web at www.BCSConsult.com Waconia, MN 55387-1302 Dear City Council Members, I am a resident in Longacres and I would like to express my concern about issues surrounding the proposed Yoberry Farms development. Please understand that I am not opposed to the development of the subject property, however I am not in agreement with the proposed interconnection of it's road system to Highover and Gunflint Trail. As a homeowner on Hunter Drive I believe certain issues have not been completely considered. I would like to address the amount of increased traffic on Hunter Drive, the existing deficient design of Hunter Drive and the ongoing speeding issues. When Longacres Drive was constructed it was designated a collector road(wide street with a sidewalk). Longacres Drive resembles a path running east and west. Human nature is to travel the shortest route between two points. People realized that if they want to drive east they could do it faster by using Hunter Drive because it is shorter and doesn't run northeast like Longacres Drive. Hunter Drive has increased in traffic flow and in essence has become a collector road but it lacks the features of a collector road. Under the current proposed plan Yoberry will only add increased traffic on Hunter Drive, the shorter easterly route. Hunter Drive was probably a bit of a challenge to design and construct due to the existing land features. I can only assume that the unique curvature of our road and the large grade changes are a result of preserving the natural land features that already existed. In some instances the features I previously mentioned are variances from the city's design standards. One of the turns in the middle of the Hunter Drive has a radius of 166' and the minimum standard for turning radiuses is 180'. There is a very large grade change on our road that has a slope of 10% and the maximum standard for slope is 7%. The speed limit on Hunter Drive is 30 mph and according to Mn DOT's Design Standards the safe distance for stopping when traveling at 30 mph is 19T. Due to the curvature and slope of Hunter Drive there are a quite few areas that challenge a driver's ability to see 197' around a comer or over a retaining wall or through vegetation. Also, the building covenants for 18 of the 26 homes on Hunter Drive allows the front yard setbacks to be 20' verses the standard front yard setback of 30', an encroachment of 10'. Due to this encroachment the safety of kids playing in their own front yards and driveways is at times suspect based on the close proximity of the street. The street width itself only meets the minimum required width for a residential street. Hunter Drive is not a safe road as it exists today especially at 30 mph and increasing the traffic flow on a narrow and deficient road is very concerning. Speed is an issue when there are approximately 70 children on Hunter Drive. I became concerned about the safety of our street a few years back and our HOA has documented communication with the city about this issue. The frequency of speeding cats has increased and now the prospect that more vehicles traveling down our road only increases the chances for more speeding vehicles. We can't rebuild Hunter Drive but we can make decisions that affect our street in a positive way. I don't believe anyone was able to anticipate the result of Longacres Drive northeasterly direction and the effect it has on Hunter Drive. City Staff has acknowledged that Longacres would have not been approved today as it is. So today we have to deal with reality and what was possibly overlooked at the time Longacres was approved. If the decision is to approve Yoberry Farms as currently proposed I feel that the residence of Hunter Drive will be experiencing the most unintended traffic ultimately paying for a misguided decision made some years back I feel that the Yoberry property should be developed as two cul-de-sacs, one attached to Highover and one attached to Gunflint Trail. I understand that this may or may not be a variance application but based on the concerns of all directly affected by Yoberry most everyone would be pleased with this result. This would limit the amount of traffic that Hunter Drive would experience keeping half of the 57 homes of Yoberry(the number of homes presently proposed) and some current homes of Highover from using Hunter Drive as their easterly route. City Staff has indicated that the Comprehensive Plan states that the interconnections between neighborhoods is to foster community and to improve safety by creating more than one entrance to each development for emergency vehicles. I agree that this is a very good plan however I don't believe the intention is to create safety for some and adding risk to others. The Comprehensive Plan also states that residential streets should be designed to discourage through traffic and proposed developments require a detailed circulation and access plan depicting the impact of the proposed development on the existing transportation system. The Plan also states the function of the transportation plan is to not only accommodate future needs but also analyze existing problems and pose appropriate solutions resulting in a specific action to remedy existing deficiencies. I believe that The Comprehensive Plan has proved to be a worthy plan resulting in many fine developments while indicating quite clearly that the future as well as the existing developments are equally important to the success of Chanhassen. Please consider the two cul-de-sac concept for Yoberry Farms. In the Planning Commission meeting the developer admitted that they do have an identity crisis as proposed so splitting the property in two would identify each parcel to the respective development they are connecting to. They have also indicated the willingness to join Longacres HOA as a result to using Longacres maintained entrances and parks. Directly relating to Hunter Drive please consider the reduction of the speed limit and introducing stop signs on Hunter Drive at the Fawn Hill intersection to create a much safer environment for our neighborhood and it's children. Respectfully, (� , Oit 7���