Loading...
PC 1998 01 21CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 1998 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney and Kevin Joyce MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Allyson Brooks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Todd Hoffman, Park & Rec Director PUBLIC HEARING: A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITE; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK HILLSIDE OAKS, ZONED A2 TO RSF; AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 6 LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, POWERS CIRCLE, ARILD ROSSAVIIC Public Present: Name Address Donald C. Coban Harlan L. Blackenship Jackie & George Bizek Dan Daufl'enbach David & Cheryl Doty Greg Kahler Jim Kozlowski Steve Buan Ruth Weikle Keith Buesgens 8821 Sunset Trail 8805 Sunset Trail 8750 Powers Blvd. 1380 Oakside Circle 8736 Flamingo Drive 8742 Flamingo Drive 8730 Flamingo Drive 8740 Flamingo Drive 8744 Flamingo Drive 1300 Oakside Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Pending our approval or denial, are you prepared to do that this evening or not? Generous: Yes. We did a complete review of the subdivision. Peterson: Questions of staff'? ... we didn't get elevations Bob. Can you kind of give us a sense of how the existing house would sit in to the rest of the proposed development? Just give us a sense of that as it relates to what will be seen from County 17 or Powers. What I'm trying to get at is Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 how the house would fit in with the other new houses around it. It's obviously sitting at an angle where the other houses more than likely would not be. Generous: It would be higher than the houses on, immediately adjacent to both Powers Boulevard and approximately the same elevation as the proposed walkout to the south. The applicant did provide us with a preliminary floor elevation on Lot 6 but we estimated that to, they could do a tuck under with that design or side entry that would be approximately the same elevation. Maybe a couple feet higher than the existing houses on the properly. The whole site slopes down to the southeast. Peterson: Additionally the sites 1, Lots 1 through 3 on there, are requesting a setback variance from Powers or not? Generous: No. In effect, as a part of our review of that, we would encourage the development of those sites closer to the private street on the west side that would serve Lots 2, 3 and 4. Rather than adjacent to, closer to Powers. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Seeing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Craig Merlz: I'm Craig Merlz, Arild's attorney. Arild's the applicant. Arild and I have gone over the application and gone over the staff review. It appears to, well first of all. I note that the staff report states that when Mr. Rossavik and the neighbor proposed this as a two lot development, that the staff was supportive. Now we're recommending denial but the only thing that's changed is we've lost one of the two properties. We'd like to go forward with the project anyway. If the item that has changed is Mr. Bizek's non-participation in the project, I don't see how that would change all of the rest of the factors that are mentioned in the particular report. The utilities are available to the site. I believe that when the utilities were laid out, that the engineering staff allocated six potential future sewer and water units to this particular site. We're not requesting any expansion of public utilities. Those facilities are already there. It appears that the lot sizes are consistent with what exists at the top of the hill in Lake Susan Hills and I would suggest that the way the approvals have been going in the neighborhood, both across Powers Boulevard from this site and north of the Bizek properly, that if we're going to say spot zoning, the spot zoning is probably what it is now rather than what it's trending towards. And with the approvals that have been given by the city, we're trending toward higher density development. In sum, Mr. Rossavik asks for approval of all three of his requests. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? This is a public hearing. Can we have a motion to open it to a public hearing and a second please. Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: With that, would anyone like to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Going once. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 George Bizek: Yeah, I'm George Bizek. The properly owner to the north of it. We didn't receive a curb cut on this road. Right now both me and Arild go down, make a U turn, which I don't know if it's legal but that's what we're both presently doing. You're going to dump 5 times more traffic on Powers Boulevard that has no access to the north. Which has to go down, make a U turn to head back towards Chanhassen. Looking at Bill Weckman's report, of the 40 things needed to go ahead with this project, there's a few of them involving me that I'm absolutely opposed to, and I will not grant any kind of construction easement. I will not grant a change of address. As far as nothing changing from the original application, that is not true because the cul- de-sac was going to be on both properties with the original application. Now it's all on his properly. In Bill Weckman's report it says there's no chance of getting a second access onto Powers Boulevard with the counly road project. With the way it is now, we have a shared driveway, approximately 25-30 feet wide. On his proposal he shows this cul-de-sac 10 feet over to the south, which designates a new access to Powers Boulevard as far as I'm concerned. As far as I can see. Lot 6 on this proposal is very close to my garage, which has a lower level on the garage which is going to disturb any watershed ofl~ this is a very steep hill. A large hill. Behind, directly behind his house, for Lot 4, is two big ravines that are natural ravines that are watershed. That dump down into a low spot in the back of his yard and this is where the other proposed lot. Let me see, that would be Lot 4 is. If this was turned in with the topographical map, some of these lots are just plain ridiculous. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Steve Buan: My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive, directly to the west of the proposal here. And just have a couple things. I'll start off with the ravines. The findings in Attachment #2 by Mr. Jay Riggs, I have a lot of professional trouble with. I'm a professional hydrologist. I do not believe that that numerous aspects of his report are inaccurate. Especially the ravine on the southwest side of the properly. The ravine that begins in the properly properly and terminates on this properly, about on Lot 4 maybe at the intersection of Lot 2 and 4. Or excuse me, 5 and 4. That ravine is extremely active. It drains a significant part of the park and several adjacent lots to the north. Mr. James Kozlowski lives right near there. He has gone out several times to take rip rap that is placed at the head of the ravine. Take it from the bottom of the ravine when it gets washed down there after a rainstorm in the summer, and brings it back up to prevent the ravine from eating further and further back into the properly. And to change the outlet character of that ravine with the build-up on the Lot 4 is environmentally very poor thing to do. And again addressing Mr. Bizek, the things that he said is that it should have been turned in with a very significant elevation map showing where the water naturally wants to go. And as far as there being no significant hydrology. If you drive by there several times in the summertime, the properly owners cannot mow because water stands there quite a big in the low spot when the water drains out from these ravines. And just the nature of the entire area in driving from the south, from Lyman Boulevard area and potentially from the future Highway 212, that this Powers Boulevard will be a major access point for people coming up to Chanhassen and this is one of the most significant elevation rises as far as in the lineal distance, the amount of rise and it's very impressive. Your eyes are immediately drawn directly over to that large stand of trees, two ravines and the dramatic slope right up the Flamingo Drive and to obscure that and take away Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 from that with a keystone retaining wall to shoehorn a couple houses into there would really be a detriment to Chanhassen and the natural amenities that make the community what it is. So and to sum it up, I believe a policy of rezoning should be to, should be ifa property is to be rezoned, it should be neutral or positive to surrounding properties and I do not feel that this particular proposal meets those criteria and thank you for your time. Dan Dauffenbach: My name's Dan Dauffenbach. I own the property to the south of Arild's proposed development. I've lived on that property for 8 years. Adjoining Arild's property and mine, and I don't have any evidence of 100 year floods but the gentleman before me is correct in saying, there's times you cannot mow the grass in those areas, and Arild can't mow his. I can't mow mine. And this happens several times a year. Those areas flood and they're very deep with standing water for a long period of time coming off the ravines in the back. In spring snow thaw is another one. You'd be amazed at the water that runs rapidly off those hillsides. I can believe the rip rap that's holding them comes with it. And comes down Arild's yard and then into mine to the south. I think the fact that there is no curb cut on that road. Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be a four lane road in the next 1 to 2 years and people right now are making U tums up there and that's a very busy road. If you've ever been out there on either rush hour traffic, it's very busy. If you empty out 6 additional families into that interchange, I think you're asking for an accident, without a doubt. Because families need to head back up to the shopping and schools and what not. Anyone with kids is going to use that U turn on a regular basis. Peterson: Anyone else? Cheryl Doty: My name is Cheryl Doty. I'm at 8736 Flamingo Drive. I have some pictures that I'd like you to see of the bluff and the ravine and the backs of the homes. My husband and I purchased this lot almost 6 years ago and the reason we paid a premium price for this is that, ifI said it once, I said it a thousand times that the reason we purchased this lot is because everything was established. There weren't going to be any surprises. We weren't building up against barren land that was going to be developed in the next 5 to 10 years. And so I think these pictures will show the reason we paid the money for the lot. The bluff is a beautiful area. I've talked to probably 15 homes. All of the Flamingo Drive addresses that are listed on there, I talked to every single one of those homeowners in the last couple of days. Every one of them are opposed to this, whether they are directly or indirectly involved with this rezoning. How would you like me to show? Peterson: Pass them around. Anyone else? Audience: ...I believe also tonight.., conditions of the trail. I didn't see... Peterson: That's next on the agenda this evening so it will be coming up. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Kevin, do you have some thoughts on this? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Joyce: Well, I think that making a land use change of the comprehensive plan is usually a serious thing to consider. And I'd like to have better reason to change, I'd like it to be a positive change number one. I'd like it to have a better reason to change the land use plan than just adding homes to a particular development, or area. I think that, I don't think that's a positive aspect of that and I think we put a lot of effort into the comprehensive plan. It's something that we should not change. You know we should take a strong look at. Secondly I think Bob used a good word as far as this development being a marginal development. I don't like the development at all. I wouldn't like it even if it was in the low density zoning. And I think putting those three homes right along Powers Boulevard would be a big mistake. You know either now or in the future. So I totally agree with stafl's findings to consider denial. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with the aspects of the discussion that are described in the staff report. I think the point that Kevin made is a good point. That changing the comprehensive plan is a big deal and I think as a planning commissioner I would be very reluctant to do so or recommend so unless there was a compelling reason to do that. I think this proposed development would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. I don't like the fact that it would be an isolated development. It had more continuity like we discussed with two lots.., that I can see that it might have some benefit to Chanhassen as a whole and to the surrounding neighborhood. Also, if there were a variety of housing that would benefit Chanhassen, I can see that as a positive too but in this case we don't see any new type of housing being proposed. I think at this point I just would not recommend a land use plan amendment. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Alison. Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said. I too like to use the phrase compelling reason and ifI hear a compelling reason to change the comprehensive plan, then I will certainly give it very serious thought. I have not heard it. And even though I haven't heard it, potentially it still could be there but I haven't seen it. I don't see a reason to change the comp plan for this proposed development. Even if there were two lots, I still don't feel that that would be, would sway me to vote yes for a change because it would still change significantly the character of the adjoining lots. I think that the large lot character is appropriate for that area. I don't think we need to squeeze more houses in there and I will, I do agree with the staff's recommendations on this. Peterson: Thanks. Matt. Burton: I agree with all the comments really. Especially with respect to the comprehensive plan. I also think that the proposal is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, which I think was noted by the staff2 I'm also swayed by the substantial neighborhood opposition, and I also do think that since the first proposal was made, something has changed and that's that the one lot was removed and in fact that neighbor's opposed to this project so based on all those reasons and everything that was said earlier, I would be opposed also. Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Peterson: Well my comments aren't dissimilar from my peers. It gives the feel of being plopped in there without proper planning and doesn't present a good feel I think for the development itself so... may I have a motion and a second please. Blackowiak: I recommend that the Planning Commission deny the land use map amendment from residential large lot to residential low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. Should I make these three separate or keep going? Peterson: Keep going. Blackowiak: Okay. I recommend that the Planning Commission deny rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate district to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. And I recommend the Planning Commission deny the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Peterson: Second please. Burton: I second the motion. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hffiside Oaks, and recommends denial of a rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, and recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: This moves on to Council? Generous: February 9th. Peterson: Thank you all for coming. 1997 TRAIL REFERENDUM PROJECTS - REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Conrad Schmid Sandy Kuidera 7251 Pontiac Circle 6850 Chaparral Lane 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Anne Devitt Art Partridge A1 Klingelhulz 6209 Powers Blvd. 6280 Hummingbird Road 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Hoffman: Chair Peterson, members of the Planning Commission. I'll step to the podium and start the presentation on the 1998 trail project. Welcome to members of the audience as well. Last evening at the Park and Recreation Commission we probably had oh 50 members in the audience. Audience: How many? Hoffman: About 50. Audience: I didn't even know they had it last night. I missed your letter. Hoffman: And we talked at length about all six trail segments. There's 7 miles in total and all of the trails were included in the 1997 park trail and open space referendum, which was approved by the voters on June 14th of this past year. Just briefly to discuss some background about why these segments were selected, and then we also have David Nyberg from Howard R. Green who was retained by the City Council to perform the engineering and planning services and construction management for the projects here this evening, and Dave will give a brief overview of the segments. I should tell you that last evening the Park and Recreation Commission did approve four of the six segments. Those being Highway 7 to the north. The Highway 101 south connection trail, the Bluff Creek connection trail, and then Highway 101 and Lake Riley trail. The Galpin Boulevard trail and Powers Boulevard trail they tabled until next Tuesday evening for a couple of reasons. On the Galpin Boulevard trail, it was a staff recommendation to terminate the trail at Lake Lucy north for cost considerations. Also to terminate the Powers Boulevard trail from Pleasant View north, again to save dollars in an attempt to keep the project on budget. Our preliminary budget numbers are telling us that our easement preparation and easement acquisition costs are higher than anticipated and that's driving the budget which is a total of $1.24 million, up into the range of a million and a half. Just slightly less than that so we have to bring those costs down. Or add more dollars to the budget... On Powers Boulevard it was tabled due to some input from residents, generally in the area of the Chaparral townhomes. The proximity of the trail to those dwelling units and what we could do to mitigate their concerns. So the Park and Recreation Commission made two separate motions dealing with Galpin Boulevard and Powers Boulevard giving us direction to look at some alternatives and then to bring those alternatives back next Tuesday evening. So we will certainly take additional comment here tonight on those two trails, but bear in mind that there is no recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission to move those forward to the City Council at this time. It's been about 3 years since the original idea behind this Park and Recreation referendum was put into place and public open space acquisition was really the driving force behind the referendum. However the task force, which worked for just over some 2 1/2 years recognized that just open space acquisition would not see the approval of the voters and the residents. So they chose to add other components to the referendum. The development of Bandimere Community Park at this location. The redevelopment of City Center Park which is just located on on this campus. Behind us. And then the construction of these six trails for a total of 7 miles which we're discussing this evening. And 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 then improvements to 18 neighborhood parks and that was the total package for a referendum amount of $4.9 million. These trail segments were selected based on the City's comprehensive plan and some staging which is called out in the comprehensive plan. There is a segment which is omitted from the referendum intentionally and it has, it's the TH 101 north trail segment which is called out in the comprehensive plan even prior to any of the other segments, but due to some tumback situations and forth coming road improvements, that was not included in the project. These other more prominent, of these other prominent trail roads were selected to make trail connections and to start to form a recognizable trail system. Before this referendum was approved, the City of Chanhassen maintained approximately 15 to 17 miles of trail. If you look to cities such as Eden Prairie, they have 85 miles of bituminous trail. Chaska's somewhere in the vicinity of 40 to 50. And so we were behind in the development and implementation of a trail system. So this will bring on 7 miles. A good third or so of what we have again today and really start to make some connections where people can leave their home, connect to some trails, access our park systems or our downtown and then come back in another route. Some of those circular type connections would be the Lake Riley circle so you can leave your home in this area. Get on this trail. Gain access to the Hennepin County regional light rail trail and then swing back around the top side. The Highway 101 connection trail, eventually will gain you access to Bandimere Park. This segment was left out intentionally because at the time the referendum was being developed, the Highway 212 toll road question was... This will soon be connected so they can gain access out of these neighborhoods to Bandimere Park and then there was a major east/west trail connection here which these residents would like to gain access to. Powers Boulevard connects the most densely populated area of our community with four trail connectors this side of Carver Beach. Or excuse me, Carver Beach Road. Kerber Boulevard, Saddlebrook... We also have the system initiated on the east side down here just at the, into West 78th Street. This goes north and then terminates right... Saddlebrook area. Then residents can use the Lake Lucy Road, which is an on street trail to gain access to Galpin and down Galpin and then either cross Highway 5 at this controlled intersection and gain access to the newly developed trail system on Galpin or the Recreation Center or in the near future gain access to the frontage road, access boulevard back to Lake Ann Park and then back down. The Bluff Creek connection trail is the last segment of the Bluff Creek, the last segment of what I call the first developed segment of Bluff Creek corridor from Highway 5 to Lyman Boulevard. There are trails that connect you all the way through, underneath the railroad tracks. Underneath the new Coulter Boulevard and then up to the Recreation Center... and so it allows these communities as they develop, to gain access to that Bluff Creek corridor. Travel up and down this length. Then we move over to a Highway 7 trail, and again it's allowing residents who are landlocked between Lake Minnewashta to the south and Highway 7 to the north, to exit their homes, either by foot, Rollerblade, bike, what have you without having to get into their car, and then access the, both the Minnewashta Parkway trail, which has been out there for some halfa dozen years now. They can also gain access to the newly developing Roundhouse Park, which will have a public beach located here. Or they can cross, however it's not a very pleasant crossing, at Highway 7. It's not controlled, to gain access to the northern LRT route, which is maintained by Hennepin Parks. They can also gain access to the east and then the reason for this terminus location was again just to reduce the overall length of the segments but get them to a point where they can become internal on Washta Bay Road and other residential streets to gain access to the small commercial site which is here. Herman Field Park, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, or the school campus in this location. So that's a brief 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 background about why these segments were selected. Obviously we're very happy the referendum was approved so these can be constructed and to bring that system a little bit more intact as a developing community. With that I'll answer any questions that you may have and then turn it over to David. Audience... Hoffman: It was a topic of conversation for some time last evening and you're absolutely correct. There is more open space on the west side. Really there's some specific reasons for the selection of the east side alignment, and those start with the fact that the trail is already developing on the east side from the downtown. So if you were to walk downtown on West 78th to Powers Boulevard past Byerly's, the sidewalk system there starts on the east side. There is no sidewalk on the west side and then it continues north. If you're familiar, you've got the large valley which was just recently the road was upgraded in there and a trail or a sidewalk was constructed on the east side which necessitated a lot of earthwork and replacement of retaining walls and then the sidewalk, the fence, the guardrail and so that's all on the east side. If we would continue up at this point and then try to find a location to cross, Saddlebrook Curve could be a possible location to cross. Saddlebrook Trail on the top side here but we didn't see those as very desirable locations to cross that trail to getto the other side of Powers Boulevard. Furthermore, the connection point I spoke to earlier really established on the east side of Powers Boulevard and so you're emptying a large residential area out onto Powers Boulevard, connection trails and then allowing you to get north or south in this trail without having to cross the road. The numbers were calculated and.., have those in my packet but it's approximately a quarter mile I think we used back. There's about 900 residents in this side of the street and about 200 residents on this side of the street. So you have a greater population density who would be seeking access to the trail and want, you know you'd just as soon have 200 residents crossing the road versus 900, and again those are just figures to use for comparison purposes. So those are some of the reasons that the east side was selected. You could build a trail on either side but again we really lack a good crossing point at the southern end to cross the trail... Audience... Hoffman: Chair Peterson, I guess I'd like to answer his questions and then ask that Dave come forward and speak a little bit to each alignment and then allow for public testimony at that time. As far as the cost, really either side of crossing that drainage ditch there is, as the water flows through.., would have been the same cost. There was no cost savings on the Eckankar side but the crossing. And then regarding the power poles. NSP will move those poles at no cost for the project to occur, but I would like to allow this gentlemen to be on the record with his statements as we move forward to the discussion. With that I'd like to call on Dave Nyberg to provide the commission and the audience with a brief overview of the segments, and if need be, we can pull out the plan sheets and take a look at a specific location as we move through. Dave Nyberg: Thanks Todd. Yeah I think the commission all has the plans that I provided at the beginning of the meeting.., as people speak to their initial lots, we'll put their lot up on the camera and you can follow along... I think what I'll do is just give you a brief overview of the trails and 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 what kind of coordination efforts we've had with different agencies. The Highway 7 trail is included within MnDot right-of-way. They have plans that.., comments back from them.., by Dogwood and Elm Tree. We're coordinating with those properly owners.., or give it a straight shot through the north edge of that park properly and then make a connection into that park properly. We had a meeting with the residents about a week and a half ago on a Saturday. Several of them attended and gave us some good input on that segment. Galpin Boulevard and Powers Boulevard are both under the jurisdiction of Carver Counly. Galpin Boulevard is scheduled in the near future to be turned back.., but right now it is under the jurisdiction of Carver Counly... we are coordinating those efforts with Carver Counly. Galpin Boulevard, the trail right now beginning at Lake Lucy Road and extending the trail on the west side of Lake Lucy Road to just south of Brinker... connection point with existing, right across from the mini golf course. Powers Boulevard, as Todd has been talking about. Right now we're proposing a trail on the east side to Pleasant View. As Todd said, and NSP has said that they will move poles if needed and there's a good reason to do it, at no charge to the city. We have reviewed those plans and several of the poles can remain in place .... trail in and out of the poles. We've also got a lot of concern from the townhome development in this area about their trees and fence up on the berm, if you know that area. To the greatest extent possible, we've pushed the trail closer towards Powers Boulevard. We're requesting from Carver Counly a variance on the typical 30 foot clear zone requirement to allow that trail in closer to the road and thus save many of those evergreen trees along that berm. Much of that split rail fence can remain in place and if you know that area of the trail, it would be just about 2 feet of so towards Powers Boulevard from that. Peterson: Do you have any sense as to probability of them approving a variance or not? Dave Nyberg: I think it's very likely that they'll approve something. I just talked to Bill Weckman again today. He's going to meet with Roger Gustafson, the Counly Engineer next week. Roger's out on vacation apparently all this week but Bill's recommendation to Roger is going to be to allow those trails within that clear zone provided that none of the side slope embankments of the road are increased in steepness. If you can imagine, on every one of these segments this trail is really built into the side of the ditch. It's an 8 foot trail so then the slope coming off of that trail has a tendency to fill in the ditch or create a new slope where an old one exists. And what Bill's comment was to me today, and this isn't in writing or anything, but their primary concern is going to be that the slopes don't increase in steepness. I think we'll have more information next week for Council and Park and Rec again so. Moving on to the three southern segments. Bluff Creek is a shorter segment... That trail segment is proposed entirely within the City of Chanhassen park properly. A connection proposed to... trail system by the postal transfer station, or they can head south down to the connection.., on Audubon Road. This segment really doesn't have any coordination with the highway department other than... Moving on to these two segments. This segment is entirely on Highway 101. The Lake Riley segment... the north south segment is on TH 101. Those two segments are the other segments besides Highway 7 that we're coordinating with MnDot. Highway 101, we're proposing a trail on the east side of TH 101... The Lake Riley segment runs on the east side of TH 101. We've got a gentleman on the comer here, the Novotney's who have said that he would like the trail actually moved closer to his house. We had.., last week and he wants to save all evergreen trees along the Highway 101 right-of-way.., so that trail will be pushed in a little bit... On the east/west 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 connection on the south end, that's along Pioneer Trail. Again we're back to the County portion. Carver County and that trail is proposed entirely on the north side of Pioneer Trail. There will be a connection at this point in the.., with the Hennepin County Regional Trail... gravel trail who as Todd said... Lake Riley. That's all I have for a presentation. I can answer any questions from the commission or the audience at this time. Peterson: Questions from commissioners? Joyce: I had one question. On Galpin Boulevard... the trail on the west side and then it crosses over to the east side. How many of those types of crossings right now, as a plan, are there? There's the one from Powers to get across onto Lake Lucy, correct? I'm saying where you go from one, you're crossing at... yeah, how many would you say there are? Dave Nyberg: Galpin and TH 101 are the only trail segments right now with the proposed crossing. Joyce: Don't you have to cross over from Powers if you're on the east side going to the west side, to get the trail again? Dave Nyberg: You would have to cross but that's not, our proposed trail is entirely on the east side. So anybody making that crossing would make that to an existing trail or an existing street. Joyce: Oh, so what you're saying, the crossing for Galpin is actually a planned crossing? Dave Nyberg: Exactly, right. Joyce: Right, so there's only that one and where else? Dave Nyberg: On TH 101 South at 86th Street. Joyce: Could you show? Dave Nyberg: Yeah. In fact why don't I get. Joyce: The reason I'm bringing that up is because there was some input in that, in the Galpin neighborhood it was very good that the crossing was dangerous where it was. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, that's correct. Joyce: And they moved it down. Dave Nyberg: There's a lot of... in your plans. That's what they are... This is on the trail... This is probably a good item to discuss. There's a resident living here, Mr. Jim Amundson. I talked to him on the telephone. He's had some written correspondence to the City on this issue over the crossing there. He's very concerned about the speed of traffic. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Joyce: I was just about to ask you. What's the mile per hour? What's the speed limit here? Dave Nyberg: It's posted at 45 with a sign close to Highway 5. That's really the last sign until you get down to that sharp turn by the Klingelhulz residence. I see Al's here tonight. What Jim's concern is, is that the sight distance for this crossing is not there given the speed the vehicles travel on TH 101 southbound. The sight distance is met if vehicles are traveling at the posted speeds. I believe it's at 55 mph and above that sight distance is not met. So on one hand the sight distance is met by the posted speeds but do people always travel that speed? Apparently not. He has a difficult time getting out of that driveway and other people have said that same thing. So we've talked to MnDot about this and they may suggest some kind of a reduced posted speed on TH 101. This segment of TH 101 along with, well really all of TH 101 down to Pioneer Trail, much like Galpin is scheduled to be a tumback to the City from the County, MnDot wants to turn that over to the County. Everything just has a trickle down effect with the highway like this. Joyce: I can see both those being a problem if the posted speeds are kept. I know Galpin it's 50, either 50 or 55... Dave Nyberg: Yep. Joyce: I don't want to think about kids crossing that thing thinking that they're safe.., you're on a trail and you're crossing, you have the believe that well I'm on a, you know, and you'll have the striped lines. You're thinking okay. Everything's alright. I'm concerned about that. Dave Nyberg: On the Galpin crossing, that's on sheet 22, if you want to turn to that page. We originally had proposed the crossing closer to Majestic Way. As Commissioner Joyce said, we had a neighborhood meeting back in December. Several residents in this vicinity asked.., the option of moving Brinker. Todd and I met and talked about that and given the proximity of the park plan here, it was a very... It is an improved sight line and this is much the same case. At Majestic Way... sight distance is met. However once, if people are traveling above the speed, then that reduces the reaction time. Joyce: Like I said, I just wanted to, if it would reduce the speed, that you're saying the road will be going back to the City, I'd be all in favor of raising the speed out there. It's too high as it is now. But that will be a four lane highway anyhow. Isn't it scheduled to be a, they're redoing Galpin eventually also so I would imagine that would be incorporated in as well. Okay. I just wanted to bring that up because that was... Dave Nyberg: That's a good point. We've had a lot of people comment on that. On the posted speeds. Peterson: Other questions from commissioners? Audience: ...but I'm wondering if... 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Dave Nyberg: Bluff Creek trail is a relatively short segment so I'll just kind of walk through the plan set here. Here's our connection point with Audubon. Peterson: What page are you on? Dave Nyberg: Oh, I'm sorry. 60. We mn along the north side of...north of Bluff Creek. There's a large wetland area down in this area... Along this stretch in the trail, where we're proposing the trail.., possible to the existing trail easement... City of Chanhassen park property. ... gives you an idea of the space and trail and the lots... Many of the residents, we've met with a few residents. Actually just one resident. I think it was A1 Gomez. He lives at Lot 4. Ms. Fink who just spoke, she lives on Lot 1 ...the residents an idea of how this trail will look. We staked it prior to the meeting in December and the silt fence around here.., development, a very good indicator to people where that trail is going to go. It's on the wetland side or far away side from the home of where that silt fence is. The last sheet, page, or sheet 53 where it's extending northward to a connection point with the existing trail... I'm not quite sure what that is but it's some kind of transfer station. Does that answer any of your questions or do you have any more specific questions? Audience: The next question is... Dave Nyberg: Do you mean that connection right here, along your property or just the whole? Audience... Hoffman: I can address that. Dave Nyberg: Yeah, go ahead Todd. Hoffman: Typically what we would see is more or less where that cut off line, where the tall grass starts. That would be maintained to the west. And in this area we'd like to work with the homeowners.., to maintain your yard out to that trail. And if you desire to do that, great. We'd appreciate that. If not, we will come and mow that on our normal mowing schedule. Mow that easement on both one, or both sides of that trail. But in, I would say 90% of the cases, the home owners adjacent to the trail adopt these areas and maintain them as a portion of their yard. Audience... Hoffman: Again that's a choice that we can work with you on, if you would like to... at this location. Anytime the adjoining property landscapes that area, we allow that landscaping to flow out of the yard into that area. Depending on the specific, your specific concerns, we'd like to work with you... Peterson: Other comments, questions? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Audience: ... I'm very concerned.., cross the road... In our particular neighborhood, I spent three years sitting where you're sitting right now.., my years on the Planning Commission I spent a lot of time... Dave Nyberg: Yeah I think that view is shared by some of the members of the Park and Recreation Committee. Last night they made a recommendation to study several options to try and be able to fund that trail north of Lake Lucy Road on Galpin Boulevard. We're going to present some of that data to them next Tuesday. There was several options, along with Powers Boulevard, of saving costs. One was to put the trail right up by the road, as this gentleman is saying. The problem with doing that is there are requirements the County and/or MnDot may require with that. That can include a guardrail which is very expensive. It may include putting a curb along the road to act as a barrier between the road and the trail. Another, in response to this gentleman's question about easement, or the cost of the project and what happened between years ago and now. Todd can give you a lot more on the history but a primary overran on the cost at this point is the cost of easements. There are several easement issues on most of these segments. Powers is a good example of a segment where we thought we had, or the City thought there was 50 foot easement, or 50 foot right-of-way from center line on Powers Boulevard and it turned out when we got into this project and started talking to Carver County, they do not have 50 feet all along Powers Boulevard. They have 50 feet or some odd number of feet by a perscriptive rights issue which many of you may know sitting on the commission, but they have that right solely by the fact that the ditch is there. It's always been there and they're utilizing it. But we're not allowed to put a trail there by just their permission. So what we have to do is get additional easements outside their 33 foot, which they do have, to fill in that gap where the trail's going to go. I don't think there's any way that that could have been anticipated by staff three years ago or even maybe a year ago until we got rolling on this project. Got the plans to Carver County and had them digging in to... I don't know if you, maybe Todd wants to add something to that. Hoffman: I have Mr. Partridge's letter on file and would like to again respond and help him and answer his questions. Again he starts off with an opposition to terminating that trail north of Lake Lucy and we would certainly like to connect that portion of our community if could be. When we're looking at reducing the budget, the overall budget, I liken it to you know maintaining the body while eliminating the extremities. Last night they referred to this elimination as arbitrary and that's simply not the case. If you take a look at all six segments and try to make reductions and still make a meaningful connector, the trail from Highway 5 to Lake Lucy allows that continuation around the community. You know at the expense of those residents who are north of Lake Lucy obviously for the short term. The commission and I feel an obligation that that trail needs to continue at some point in the near future and if it does in fact not see construction as part of this project, the commission is committed to that. It is not a correct belief that we are obligated by the terms of the referendum to complete the project as it was proposed. The City Council has the latitude to construct all or any of these trail segments or buy 1 acre or 100 acres of land or no land. The referendum was certainly proposed in good faith but again we are not obligated by law to complete it as submitted, word by word or picture by picture to the. And then again, it talks about that seeming inconceivable that we cannot complete the project on budget. We estimated $45.00 per foot, lineal foot for these trails, which at the time of the estimate was very conservative. It goes back a couple of years and at that time, if you can imagine the City Council 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 preparing for a referendum and attempting to establish costs, they certainly weren't willing at that time to order a full feasibility study to investigate all of the issues that could perhaps, or would come up with a proposed project prior to even being aware that they would have the successful passage of this referendum. So the estimates which were made were in good faith and were very close in reality when you take a look at, we're dealing with $100,000.00 or $200,000.00, plus or minus, with some real volatile type of estimates. Easements, and we're talking 90 easements start to add up. The square feet add up very fast and depending on where those easements are settled, the numbers can jostle around quite quickly so in reality the estimates are pretty close. And again to, just to let every, those people that were in the audience concerned about the Galpin Boulevard trail, or the Powers Boulevard trail, those were not the alignments and the projects as presented last night were not approved by the Park and Recreation Commission. They asked that staff go back with Howard R. Green to take a look at some alternatives and bring those back to their attention, and to the attention of the residents next Tuesday evening. Peterson: Thank you. Follow-up comment? Audience... Dave Nyberg: That's an issue that really has to be addressed with the County, as it is a county road. Galpin, very soon Galpin may be a city street and the city can do a speed study that may not reduce speed but they can do a study to find out what the typical travel speeds are out there. Galpin is, or Powers excuse me, is a different story. That's under the county jurisdiction and the city really doesn't have any jurisdiction to post speeds there. They can comment to the County about that but really that's where it ends. Audience: I was just going to ask, we live north... Dave Nyberg: Yeah, that's the representative for the City Attorney, Mr. Joel Jamneck. He's just beginning to start the process of gathering a lot of the information from the plans to get the appraisers out to do an assessment on the value of the land. What has to happen is first we've got to look at the design and figure out what kind of impacts we have to land or how much land we need to take to put the trail in. He's gathering a lot of that now working with us on that. Then I would think sometime in February he will begin making contact with individual residents, either by phone or letter. Audience... Dave Nyberg: A lot of people have asked that. We've told people that once the trail's constructed, you can put a fence up or any kind of landscape barrier as long as it meets any setback requirements of the city. We've suggested that to a lot of people. Some of the people on the Bluff Creek trail segment for instance. Mr. Gomez who lives on that segment said that he's going to talk to his neighbors or they're already talking about going in together to construct some kind of fence along the property line once the trail's done so, that is an option. Audience: So you're saying that we... 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Dave Nyberg: Yeah, absolutely. We really can't. Audience... Dave Nyberg: It may not be before it's approved but it's certainly going to be before the project's awarded by the City Council, and that really is kind of a Council issue that they're going to have to wrestle with on whether to put the project out for bids before all the easements are in hand. But we really can't do the project until we have the easements to go on the land to do it. Otherwise we'd be trespassing. Audience: Are you telling me that the individual... Dave Nyberg: Yeah right now with the trail project as it is, there is no plan to construct any type of privacy fence along any of these segments. Any addition offence like that to the project would only increase the budget, yeah. Audience... Dave Nyberg: It's their option to put up a fence. Audience... Dave Nyberg: No. Audience: I would just like to address though, how would you... Blackowiak: I live down by Rice Marsh Lake and there's a trail that connects, right. So I live near there. We were concerned when the trail went in, and this was I don't know Todd, 4 or 5 years ago did the trail go in by Rice Marsh Lake? Hoffman: 6-7. Blackowiak: Well I'm thinking more of the eastern part because that was the part that impacted us most, connecting over into Eden Prairie. We were very concerned about privacy. About people coming into our neighborhoods, so on and so forth. We, our neighbors and I we have not had any problems aside from the bank robbery last year. That was you know, that was not trail related but. Audience: What I'm saying Alison though, I see the setback from your... Blackowiak: No. No it doesn't. The back, yeah the houses are a little farther forward. Audience: I bike that whole area. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Blackowiak: Yeah, but if you've noticed if you've biked, I don't think anybody's added a fence since the trail went in. There's a fence that was there. Audience: There's one right on the comer there. Blackowiak: Yeah, that was an existing fence. There's a fence around a pool but aside from that, nobody's has added a fence and we haven't experienced any problems with trespassing or, and again I'm saying it's not right there but yet without a fence there would be an opportunity, if somebody really wanted to trespass, they could do it and we just haven't seen that problem, and that is a fairly well traveled area. Audience... Blackowiak: It is. It is well utilized and based on, you know, I live there so we are, you know we kind of are aware of what's going on and we were very skeptical to begin with but haven't had any problems. Audience... Blackowiak: I don't think quite that much. Boy, I'm not great with distances but. Audience... Blackowiak: No, I would say that the closest deck might be 50 feet. 40 feet. I don't know exactly. Again, I'm not real great with measuring. Audience... Blackowiak: No, I certainly understand what you're saying. I've driven that. Audience... Peterson: It's obvious we're not going to solve all the issues tonight, and the intent is to bring us up to speed on what those issues are and for us to help shepherd the process through so we're not going to solve this all... We want to hear as many as we can. We'll go onto the next issue is anybody else has additional comments. Hoffman: Chair Peterson, I guess I would like to note that there was considerable testimony on both Powers and Galpin and with that testimony on Powers, the recommendation was delivered by the Park and Recreation Commission and it did not include the investigation of the trail being switched from the east to the west side. It however did include recommendations to again lessen the impact on the east side for those homeowners. Blackowiak: Could I make a quick comment or suggestion maybe? Would it be helpful, I guess maybe a question. Would it be helpful for us to get the transcrips of last night's meeting and 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 review that before we made a recommendation or meet with the Park Commission? I mean how could we do it to not only expedite it but yet bring us up to speed on what went on last night and what their concerns were? Hoffman: If you would like to act this evening, you could only do so on the four segments which were approved last night. The other remaining two, Galpin and Powers will come back to the Planning Commission. A1 Klingelhulz: ... pretty much the way it was the last time I went to the meeting... Lake Susan trail or... Dave Nyberg: Ah no. You were right on the first count. Here's the section he's talking about. It's, I'm not sure what the name of this street is... have proposed, or Todd and I have at least talked about is, trying to make that crossing a bit safer with the advent of this project and what we'd probably do is maybe stripe it with a crosswalk, if MnDot will allow us to do that. We could try to get them to allow us to put a pedestrian X-ing sign ahead or something like that ahead and we could also sign the pedestrian crossing with a stop sign to warn pedestrians that they must stop there before crossing. Hoffman: A1 you may bring up a good point there. We have been.., that access is the new St. Hubert's campus and the Villages on the Pond and if we could connect on the east side, that last remaining segment, we should take a look at that... A1 Klingelhulz: The other question I have... Dave Nyberg: Yeah, I can answer that. What we really did, this process has been going on since probably the end of October. Before we stake the trails for the neighborhood meetings and the first week in December, we had meetings with both MnDot representatives and Carver County. We wanted to get comments from them right up front on what we were going to be expected to do, and frankly that's why a lot of the stakes that were put out there for those December meetings were shown so far back from the road, with a lot of trees impacted. The city I don't think would ever choose to do that but we're responding to comments from MnDot and the County and they're really requiring us to do, or get that trail as far away from the road, or out of that 30 foot clear zone wherever it's possible or feasible. So we talked to them in November. We staked the trail for the meetings in December. We've been proceeding with design with modifications from a lot of neighborhood or neighborhood meetings, residential input. Meetings like this and we're continuing that process to talk to them so I think we're confident that on a connection trail for example, there was a gentleman at MnDot who told us this is a real odd highway for us. There's really not a lot of ditches out there. Nothing real deep. We don't have a lot of right-of-way. If you can get the trail 10 feet off the edge of the travel lane, that may be the best you can do. To work that design up, bring it in and we'll see if we can get it approved. So based on those statements, we didn't have anything in writing. It was all good faith statements at our meeting and conversations with them. That's how we've developed our design. A1 Klingelhulz... 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Dave Nyberg: Yeah, that's correct. I think everybody knows where Mr. Klingelhulz lives. It's down in this comer. That's a real sharp comer there. Al's driveway is a real problem for putting guardrail all the way around that comer but what we're proposing is guardrail where we can put it so that we don't infringe on his driveway opening with the hopes that not only would that provide a barrier should a car leave the road, but it will act as a visual impairment for people traveling on TH 101 to slow traffic down considerably. Just the fact that you'd put that guardrail there will warn drivers of the sharp turn better than not having that guardrail there at all. As far as what kind of guardrail, it's just a standard MnDot type guardrail like you see in many places in town. It isn't, there's really two kinds of guardrails. They use one as a steel guardrail with wooden posts. Another is wooden posts with three cables. We're proposing the guardrail with the steel. Not the cables. A1 Klingelhulz... Dave Nyberg: I guess I'm not sure ifI know what you're asking. A1 Klingelhulz: Well, are these... Hoffman: The Lake Lucy, the most significant roadway connection I think Chanhassen will see in quite some time as far as an east/west connector will be this last segment of Lake Lucy Road. So Lake Lucy will be a direct, actually that leads to this point and then you have to cross TH 41. We talked about an underpass at this location but we don't have the means to... There is an on street trail in this portion of Lake Lucy and then off street, 8 foot trail in this.., brings a great deal of the population to the front door of the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park... Hempel: Chairman Peterson, commissioners. If I could just add a comment with regards to speeds along the segment along Trunk Highway 101. We've had complaints with some of the existing neighbors along Lake Susan because they have to back out onto TH 101 and with Villages on the Ponds there, they felt the increase of traffic would justify doing a speed study in that area so we have petitioned MnDot to perform a speed study on that segment of Trunk Highway 101, lying south of Trunk Highway 5 down to 86th Street. The input that we received from MnDot saying that they'll get to it later on this spring when weather conditions improve and get back to us. We're requesting the speed limit be lowered to 35 in that area. It's posted at 40 but the 85th percentile, as a result of radar speed checks, is 40 plus. 45 even. They've had as high a reading as 60 mph, just to give you some insight there. We're also looking at improving sight lines on the west side of TH 101. There are future stormwater ponds proposed down where the Lake Susan stream flows underneath TH 101. There's some heavy low lying brash area there that we could thin out to improve sight lines around the curve too. Peterson: Alright, any other comments? Let's try to close up. Audience... Hoffman: Janet Lash. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Audience: ... I would also like to take this... Peterson: Thank you. A1 Klingelhulz... Peterson: Questions from commissioners? Comments? Okay. Audience... Dave Nyberg: At the next Tuesday, Park and Rec is going to consider Powers and Galpin again. This next Tuesday at 7:30 I believe. Peterson: Alright. Todd, what would you like from us? Would you like a motion? Hoffman: A motion to proceed... Peterson: How about the myriad of comments that you received tonight? ...need to look at again... Hoffman: On the four segments, if you have any specific issues which you would like us to look at on those segments, you could certainly include those as a part of the motion. We will continue to work with individual properly owners. We've invited that type of a personal meeting from the start. We continue on a weekly basis to meet with individual properly owners. On Powers and Galpin the issues are much larger than those individual and as a design and construction team, we will continue to meet with individuals once we get out into the field with the project. Staking it and talking about tree removal and grading and drainage and those type of issues so if you've heard something that stood out in your mind on the other four trails, please note that. Peterson: Okay. Commissioners with that, could I get a motion. Joyce: I'll make a motion recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the 1990 trail project, four sections: Highway 7 section, TH 101 section, Bluff Creek section and Highway 101/Lake Riley section. Is that alright Todd? Hoffman: Sure. Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? The only thing I'd have to add would be, some things were brought up, I didn't write them all down but relating to and you acknowledged them at the time so I think you did write them down so I'll trust that you take heed to the comments and move ahead. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the 1998 trail project plans for the Highway 7 segment, Highway 101 segment, Bluff Creed segment and Highway 101/Lake Riley segment, as presented with minor modifications and authorize the preparation of construction plans and bidding. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Joyce noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 7, 1998 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS: Generous: Kate wanted me to bring up at the next Planning Commission, we're having a work session. The intent is to visit the bungalow units out at Walnut Grove. What are they called, the custom home. And then also look at the entertainment center and they will be having a dinner for us. I think she wanted to start at 6:00 p.m. if possible. And it's in the senior center, and as part of that whole experience we will be contemplating ordering a sample of the senior dinners. And then heat it up there so, unless you have an objection to that, we'll go forward with that idea. As part of the work session, again we'll go out to Walnut Grove. We'll look at the theaters. We'll discuss a storm water project. Update you on the old town process that we're going through on the district to the east of downtown. And then also she requested if you have anything else you'd like us to discuss as part of this, or it also would be open if you come up with any ideas there to just banter around, but if you have anything specifically you'd like us to look into and provide some information, if you could let us know. We'd be happy to do that. Blackowiak: That's Bob, excuse me, February 4th? Is that right? Generous: Right. Blackowiak: 6:00, okay. Generous: 6:00. And it will be in the senior center. Sidney: I had asked before, I was wondering if you could ask Kate again about if there's any news about developments in Victoria or...boundaries of Chanhassen. Adjacent suburbs. Generous: We don't have any new. We did receive a report from the Met Council that talked about major developments. Sidney: ... construction. Generous: No, major commercial industrial. When we there are proposals adjacent to the border, adjacent communities do send us a notice in their request so we can make sure that that's passed forward. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 1998 Blackowiak: Bob also, the last meeting, it might have been two meetings ago when we talked about the old town, that area. I had asked that we get some type of an update as to what we know about the area and what we think is going to be happening. And if we're going to be discussing on the meeting on the 4th, I'd like to kind of have that, have a little, kind of a cheat sheet, info packet, whatever on that of you know what's presently there. What plans are in the works. Or what is anticipated to be there. Just kind of give us an idea of what's going to be happening in the next few years, or how you see things developing. That would really be helpful. Generous: Sure. Peterson: Any other items? Anybody? Can I have a motion and a second to adjourn? Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 22