PC Minutes 12-7-04
~
~
.
&
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 7,2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh, Dan Keefe, Rich Slagle, Kurt Papke,
Bethany Tjomhom, and Steve Lillehaug
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
7302 Laredo Drive
Chairman Sacchet outlined the rules of procedure for the Planning Commission meeting and
which items were on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO SINGLE
FA MIL Y RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 43
LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR pmV A TE STREETS LOCATED ON
LOTS 1 AND 2. OLD SLOCUM TREE FARM (6620 & 6640 GALPIN BOULEVARD).
PINEHURST. PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT. LLC. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-36.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Nathan Franzen
Chris Morrill
Darrin Labara
Alan Nikolai
Doris Nikolai
Lester Coyer
Tom Kuhn
Larry Marty
Richard Herrboldt
Charlie Hicks
Steve Buresh
John Moberg
Troy Bader & Gina Sauer
Kim Goers
Paul Tungseth
Lori Abblett
Plowshares Development
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
6282 Cartway Lane, Excelsior
6570 Galpin Boulevard
6719 Brenden Court
6693 Brenden Court
2117 Lake Lucy Road
6464 Murray Hill Road
1941 Crestview Circle
6651 Galpin Boulevard
6738 Manchester Drive
2244 Lake Lucy Road
6673 Brenden Court
2051 Crestview Drive
2081 Crestview Drive
y,
t
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Beverly Jackson
Michael Stachowski
Jianping Mei & Ruopei Cao
Allen Taylor
2110 Crestview Drive
2050 Crestview Drive
2135 Lake Lucy Road
2340 Lake Lucy Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Want to go Craig?
Claybaugh: Let's see here. One thing that I was a little bit uncomfortable with was the sheer
quantity of private streets. Could you comment on that a little bit. Typically it's smaller
developments that would put private streets in. There's quite a bit of pavement in this, and the
question was, I didn't catch it in the staff report I'm sure identified who was going to maintain
those but could you comment on that.
Generous: Maintenance of private streets are for the benefiting property owners. The southerly
private street provides access to 3 properties. They would have a cross access easement that
would be recorded as part of the subdivision and it would have a maintenance agreement as a
part of that. The northerly one provides access for 2 properties and they would both be in the
same situation.
Claybaugh: Does the City have input with respect to the drafting of the maintenance agreement
for that private street? Or is that something pretty much...
Generous: Yeah, I believe we have a standard.
Saam: Yeah, we have a standard agreement and we review it also.
Claybaugh: It may be in there Matt, I didn't catch it. Is there any provision for independent
testing or reporting to the city per the construction specifications of that private street?
Saam: Give me one minute, I'll check. It should be in there though.
Claybaugh: Okay. Another question I had, give Matt a chance to find that. On page number 9,
for my benefit could you just clarify the footnotes with respect to the lot frontage. Down at the
bottom just above recommendation identifies, meets 100 foot width. Meets a 90 foot width.
Generous: Yeah, for lots that are on the outside edges of curves, the ordinance says you don't
have to meet the 90 foot frontage at the public right-of-way, as long as you can meet it at the
building setback line which is.
Claybaugh: The 30 foot setback?
Generous: Right. So at those points actually they exceed.
Claybaugh: That satisfies that code requirement.
2
t
~
l
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
¡¡
Generous: Yes. And then for private streets you have to have 100 feet of width and so in that
instance they met it in that case.
p
Claybaugh: Okay. With, you commented in your opening statements on the elevation of private
drive D. In your correspondence with the applicant, was any dialogue specifically why the
elevation they selected is what they went forth with. Is it a cut and fill issue or is it something
else that the City's aware of?
Saam: I believe it is a balance issue. That's a good question for the applicant though. One of
the issues they did point out is to achieve, to drain that site, storm sewer wise, drainage back to
this pond, they need by gravity flow to be so high. So I believe that.
Claybaugh: I believe in your review of that was there an alternative way to drain the area to the
west? I'm assuming they're looking at draining with that.
Saam: Well we want to get that water to a pond to treat it.
Claybaugh: Right, but one of the comments bothered me in his opening statements was possibly
dropping the elevation on that street. With that recommendation do you have a Plan B to drain
that westerly portion of the development?
Saam: Sure. One of the options is to increase pipe size. That gives you, you can flatten out the
pipe that way to catch, to drain more water versus a smaller pipe size. The course from the other
side is more cost, it's a higher cost for the bigger pipes so.
Claybaugh: Okay, but there is a Plan B that would assist the development?
Saam: Y es. Yep, we believe the 2 to 5 feet can work.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any other questions?
Saam: Commissioner Chair?
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead.
Saam: Ijust wanted to answer Commissioner Claybaugh's question on the private street. I
believe we are missing the easement and the testing requirements so you could add that at the
end of your comments.
Sacchet: Okay. For is that one or both?
Saam: It'd be both private streets.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Alright. Easement. Okay. Any other questions from staff?
Slagle: I've got a few. Bob if we may, do you happen to have an overhead that will show the
properties to the north. Thank you. And what I'm trying to understand and my first question is
the Street B, which looks like it hits. Show me where it hits.
Generous: It will come to right at this comer of the property. And connect up to the Crestview.
Slagle: So it's on a border of two properties, correct? Basically.
Generous: Yeah, it would be on the left side of the one and in the middle of the other.
Slagle: Okay. And that's the one you referred to that we received an application?
Generous: Yes. We received last Friday.
Slagle: Okay. Just one other question. On the western side of this property, I mean just give me
your input. Is it a lot of fill? I mean are we, give me a comparison from something we've seen
recently. Would this be similar to Ashling Meadows? The Noecker development.
Saam: Yeah. I'm not sure Ashling Meadows but Noecker had some significant grading as I
remember, and we worked very hard on that one to try to minimize it. There it was I believe
more cutting along the west side, and then they did fill the east side adjacent to wetlands so this
one appears to be about 10 feet at the north side of this private street cul-de-sac so.
Slagle: I guess I just thought of one more. I happen to run along Lake Lucy and often times just
to the south of this property, literally the water coming off this property will freeze up, during the
winter and during the summer obviously be wet. Is it your belief that with this development and
channeling into that storm water pond we will avoid a fair amount of that runoff to the properties
in the Crestview division? What is it Bob?
Generous: Woodridge Heights.
Slagle: Woodridge Heights, yeah.
Saam: Yeah, W oodridge Heights to the south. Yes, they are taking a lot of the drainage that
would have been going down the hill so to speak to Lake Lucy and routing it to their pond. The
pond then discharges or drains out into an existing storm sewer system. And again they're
required to meet the runoff rate leaving the site, and they are doing that.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: You have any questions Steve? Bethany?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
~
t
t
~
Tjomhom: I have one question regarding the island, I think it's Street C. And staff is
recommending that it just go back to a normal cul-de-sac because of maintenance. Explain that
to me a little bit. I kind of liked the island so I want to be convinced.
Saam: Yeah, let me add to that. Maintenance is one issue. Of course in meeting with the
developer they've brought up the subject that they would sign an encroachment agreement to
basically take over maintenance of the island portion of it. The other issue is that the streets in
that area actually are less than our 31. They're 24 feet along each side of that big island so that
brings up issues with parking. These are public streets so that tends to get rather tight when it's
24 feet and if you have parking on both sides, that sort of thing. If there's parties, whatever.
That's another issue. And frankly we don't have one of these in the city and in reviewing it with
the City Engineer we really didn't want to have this be a guinea pig so to speak. Plowing issues
at the end of this. We'd rather see a normal cul-de-sac.
"
,
Tjomhom: Okay.
Papke: She beat me to the punch on that one. Just one further clarification on that, just to make
sure I understand that street configuration. Is it proposed, and this gets to the width issue. Is this
proposed to be a one way circular drive or is this?
Saam: No. In meeting with the developer, they're not proposing it to be a one way. However it
almost looks and acts like that.
Papke: It looks like it would act like a one way circular drive.
Saam: That's another concern of our's. It's kind of a cross between a round about and a cul-de-
sac and we'd like it to go the cul-de-sac route.
Papke: Okay, thanks. That's all I had.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Good evening.
Sacchet: Do you have any questions?
Lillehaug: I do. Sanitary sewer. Staff supports re-routing it a different route but my
measurements looks to be a 40 foot deep sanitary, and we may have some in other locations of
the city but that's awfully deep and there has to be a different solution rather than putting a 40
foot deep sanitary in there. Are there other solutions that are feasible?
Saam: Well they're proposing another solution that we don't feel is very feasible due to the
steep slopes that it goes down for maintenance purposes. If you can imagine manholes there.
Half of them will be exposed or you're filling around it. And a sheer wall of dirt. Issues like
that, we don't want to get into for access purposes. It makes it very difficult. We did review this
as a staff. Myself, City Engineer, our Utility Superintendent who maintains the sewer. He was
5
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
fine with the depth of this. Keep in mind we are recommending that the site be lowered so it
may not be the 40 feet. You may be in the 35 foot range so. It's still rather deep but it's not as
deep.
Lillehaug: That's all I have for now, thanks.
Sacchet: I got a couple of questions real quick. Bob, did you say that Outlot A would be taken
over by the City or by a neighborhood?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: By the City.
Generous: By the City.
Sacchet: It will go over to City. And, okay. And that Shivley Addition that's mentioned in the
staff report, is that, that is actually going to come in?
Generous: Yes. It came in on Friday.
Sacchet: It's 5 lots as expected or?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: The retaining walls. We don't see how tall they are. Is that something you can
enlighten us please?
Saam: Yeah. The tallest ones are along the south, in the southwest. That rather long one. That
appears to be 14 feet at it's most high, then also on the southeast comer, that one gets to about 14
feet also. Those are the most severe. The others are in the 5 to 6 foot. The one in the rear yard
of Lot 13, which is just north of Street D is about 10 feet at it's highest. And then the one
adjacent to the pond is about 11 feet also at it's highest.
Sacchet: Okay. So what's staff's impression is that they're balanced or is that excessive or is
that desirable or not desirable?
Saam: I mean whenever we can do without them we try to, and I'm sure the developer would
concur because they're costly. Costly to build. That's one of the reasons when we looked at this
we thought well, these walls are holding up this dirt allover the place in the south end of the
property. Why don't we try to lower this, realizing we would need the one along the northeast
comer of the site. That may even get a little taller, but if we could, in exchange for that getting
taller, eliminate or shorten up all these along the south. We thought that was a good trade-off.
What's the fill balance? Are they actually importing the earth or they can pretty much push it
around on the site?
6
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Saam: I believe they're balancing but I think that's a question we should ask the applicant for
their latest numbers.
Sacchet: The applicant. Okay.
Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, can I ask another question regarding the wall?
Sacchet: Sure.
Lillehaug: Do we have any other neighborhoods that have 14 foot boulder walls without any
protection on the top of the wall in a residential neighborhood as this?
Saam: The Noecker development along the west side of that site I believe has a wall. I'm not
sure ifthere's a fence there.
Claybaugh: I thought we made provisions to put fencing in there.
Saam: Yeah, we can certainly add one here.
Sacchet: When we say we want lower the private drives on the western side, both the northern
and the southern one, I don't see anywhere, any quantative information by how much.
Saam: In Bob's presentation we talked about 2 to 5 feet.
Sacchet: 2 to 5 feet.
Saam: Yes. And that's based on just looking at street grades and taking them to their maximum.
Slagle: Mr. Chair, if I could ask one thing.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Slagle: Matt, was in your professional opinion be the reason that they would not want to lower
that grade.
Saam: One of the reasons the developer brought up was they would have to look at if again they
could drain this western end back to the pond, keeping in mind that that all drains by gravity. So
if you set the pond at one elevation, you have a target elevation at the other end. And that's
where I previously referred to, you can go to a slightly larger pipe size to minimize the slope. It
won't have to be as steep then.
Slagle: Any other reasons?
Saam: Trees I believe was brought up, and that leads also to the walls and there might be a cost
factor. If they're balanced now, and they lower the site, they might have extra dirt then to
7
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
export. However, we think you can balance that with maybe losing some of the southern
retaining walls.
Sacchet: You touched on the pond being enlarged and that 27 lot, Lot number 27 being given up
for that. Is that, that is in the context of enlarging the pond to accommodate the runoff from the
Shivley Addition to the north, is that correct?
Saam: It's one of the reasons.
Sacchet: Partially.
Generous: Partially. The other was the concern about the utility of that lot with those houses
draining down into.
Sacchet: Right, but the pond part is tied in with accommodating runoff from the property to the
north?
Generous: Definitely. 10 acres to the north.
Sacchet: Okay. There is a connection, what is it, a water connection or a sewer connection. No,
it's a water connection over to Brenden Pond, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: And that's supposed to be directionally bored. I assume that means we don't have to
dig a whole trench. We just shoot it under the ground, is that the idea?
Saam: That was our idea. Staff's idea. Again it goes back to cost. In meeting with the
developer they would like to go with a trench box, so doing an open cutting operation with the
backhoe and keeping.
Sacchet: It's less expensive?
Saam; Yes, it's less expensive than boring.
Sacchet: And then that stub of the private road... that would remain even though it's not being
used?
Saam: Yes, at this point it would.
Sacchet: At this point. Yeah. And you already answered that it would be able to do this gravity
wise without the sewer line to the south. Except it would be deep in the ground. It wouldn't
need a lift station. The additional right-of-way that's required along Galpin Boulevard, is an
extra 10 feet I understand additional required. Does that have an impact at all?
8
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Saam: Just let me clarify that. In meeting with the developer, we met with them Monday, they
are saying that they do show it at 50 feet.
Sacchet: They actually show it at 50 feet?
Saam; Yeah.
Sacchet: And that would accommodate also the right turn lane without taking, needing an extra
lane?
Saam: I believe so. That I'm not sure of.
Sacchet: The trees. Do you feel that sufficient effort was made to try to save as many trees as
possible? I mean there's a ton of trees, some of them really nice trees. What's staff's position
on that I guess?
Saam: I'll let Bob.
Sacchet: It's kind of a hot potato question but I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Generous: They did work hard to do it. The previous plan saved an additional 1.7 acres of trees,
but then they were reducing the right-of-way width and having a greater than 10 percent slope on
their streets. Yeah, part of the reason they have the retaining walls in this development is to save
trees, so that's one of the issues that they have. We were, we wanted to get a contiguous piece of
trees that are preserved within this development to create a more natural corridor, so our
concentration was on the western end. They did even go to some, instead of having walkouts
and rambler style housing units, to reduce the amount of grading, but yeah. With the 60 foot
elevation change you're going to have a lot of grading that has to be done for the development
so.
Sacchet: Isn't there, wouldn't there be a possibility with having more custom grade lots to be
able to.
Saam: I'm not sure about that. I mean when we talk custom grade initially, yeah the trees won't
be taken out but we had to keep it in a context of once a builder comes in, really how much are
they going to take out and Bob made a good point. Along the south side here, west of the pond
they have ramblers there versus forcing walkouts. And that enabled them to minimize the
grading. Keep it off the back property line so they are doing things like that to save...
Sacchet: So they made a distinct effort.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: To save trees and minimize grading. Okay. Well, I think that's the main questions I
have for right now. Unless anybody else has questions. Yes, go ahead Rich.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Slagle: I've just got one more. And it ties in, if I can add, it ties into one of our discussions at
our last meeting. And if the fellow commissioners remember, there was discussion about the
building sites and where the house would be relative to the frontage, and whether there would be
back yard that would be usable. And I'm just wondering, from staff's opinion, if some of these
that technically meet Bob the frontage requirements but I mean are they going to have with some
of these grades any type of usable back yard?
Generous: Well I believe so. Maybe Matt would be better. That's one of the reasons I drew the
brown boxes on this. The actual building sites goes beyond this but these are, these are big
house pads if you will so the developer would like to have at least a 20 foot area behind the
house that they can, the future owner would have area that they can do it. Most of these have
more than that. The only issue is the comer of these lots on the western side but then in other
spots they do have more area, so they're bigger. They're wider.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, can I pose one more question?
Sacchet: Go ahead Craig.
Claybaugh: Item, or recommendation (q) on page 13. I believe it's delete the western sanitary
line. During your introduction you identified that they proposed that and the city was re-
directing that with a little more information that was provided after the fact by engineering.
Could you come back and possibly fill in some of the blanks of why you feel that isn't the best
solution or a possible solution?
Generous: I think I'll leave it up to Matt.
Saam: You're referring to the sanitary sewer that they're proposing through the city's outlot?
Claybaugh: Right. In the opening statements Bob had identified that they were proposing to
bring it down the westerly sanitary sewer line, and that you were recommending that they
redirect it to Manchester Drive. You didn't expound on your reasoning why. We've heard a bit
of discussion of why not or some of the other stuff, but none with respect to item (q) so from the
city standpoint, why do you think that isn't a reasonable proposal?
Saam: Strictly maintenance and access of the sewer line. It would go down a 3 to 1 slope down
to Lake Lucy.
Claybaugh: Is this part of what you were discussing with respect to access to manholes, so on
and so forth?
Saam: Correct. Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. Alright. Alright, thank you.
Sacchet: One more area question. It's condition (g)(3) says the maximum allowable slope is 3
to 1 and that some of the rear yards have to be revised. Lot 14 and 15, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block
10
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
2. How big an impact would that have? Is that going to, expected to have? Is that relatively
easy to accommodate?
Saam: Yes. Just looking at the areas on the plan here, yes it can be accommodated. In the
southwest what it may mean is increased retaining wall by a foot or two. And then in the rear of
Lot 3, Block 2, mainly extending that retaining wall down, or to the west. It can be
accomplished. We don't see it as a deal breaker.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all the questions. With that, yeah Steve go ahead.
Lillehaug: Condition 3(c). The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the
wetland setback requirements. With that revision, will there be enough of a building pad for Lot
9?
Generous: They actually show that on the plan. The City revised it's wetland ordinance and so
now we have a 16 Y2 foot buffer requirement. It used to be 10 foot minimum so, and they
showed it cuts into the comer but as I showed on those pads that. . . the ground pad, it is a wider
lot. They can probably put the 72 foot wide houses in there.
Lillehaug: So then do we even need condition 3(c) if they're showing it?
Generous: Well that will continue with the subdivision. So it goes with the land so that they
always have to, that lot will have to, when they come in for building, they'll have to show us that
they're meeting the wetland setback.
Lillehaug: Alright.
Sacchet: Alright.
Keefe: I have one question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Dan.
Keefe: Construction site access. Where do we think they would come in off of? Galpin or up
Manchester or?
Saam: They're proposing or they're showing a construction site rock entrance off of Galpin.
They'll utilize existing driveway until the streets are.
Sacchet: Alright. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and give us your part
of the story. And you may want to state your name and address for the record please.
Nathan Franzen: Good evening commissioners. My name is Nathan Franzen. I'm with
Plowshares Development at 1851 Lake Drive West in Chanhassen. We at Plowshares are very
pleased to be back in Chanhassen introducing another quality neighborhood. Our most recent
project in Chanhassen is the Highlands at Bluff Creek, and that was a great success and I hope
11
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
you have the opportunity to drive by that and take a look at how it turned out. Our goal with
Highlands was to create a high quality neighborhood and I think we accomplished that. In fact
just recently we were forwarded a letter from Bob that we received from some neighbors at the
Arboretum Village neighborhood complimenting Plowshares on how well the landscaping and
trees turned out, and that Plowshares had been a very neighbor friendly developer to work with.
It's always nice to receive a little unsolicited praise from the neighbors and I wanted to share that
with you to remind you that we are committed to providing quality neighborhoods in the cities
we work in. Likewise with the introduction of Pinehurst tonight we hope to achieve that same
thing and create a very high quality neighborhood. And to that end we put together a very
extensive submission packet and our goal with that is to really help you understand the complex
nature of this site. It's got a lot of issues with it and we wanted you to understand why we're
proposing what we're proposing. The other thing I would like to bring up is that we've really
tried to be proactive with this development. We tried to eliminate as many issues as possible
before coming here tonight. Bob and Matt have alluded to the fact that we met yesterday with
staff and went over the 50 or so remaining items that are in front of you tonight as conditions for
approval and we got down to all but 3 issues that we didn't get a consensus on. And to explain
the 3 items remaining for discussion tonight I brought with our site designer from Westwood
Professional Services, Darrin Labara and our engineer Chris Morrell. But before I invite them
up to go over those 3 remaining issues, I'd just like to ask the commission to please take into
account of proactive approach on this project and that eliminating the 3 lots on the western side
of the property that we talked about briefly off of Brenden Court and the private drive, we think
really shows our willingness to be proactive and do the right thing and those lots felt forced and
we traded a win/win situation with the development in front of you. I just hope that you can
appreciate the balancing of the needs of the city, ourselves, the surrounding neighborhoods and
the future residents of this community. So with that I would like to have Darrin come up and just
briefly discuss the site design and then have Christ come and talk about some engineering issues
that remain. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Darrin Labara: Thank you Nathan. As Nathan stated, my name is Darrin Labara. I work with
Westwood Professional Services. I'm a landscape architect and site planner for the site. I was
going to do kind of a small speech on the whole overview of the project but I think Bob did a
really great job of it so I think I'll just get down to the nuts and bolts and go over the 3 issues and
start off with that right away.
Sacchet: Great.
Darrin Labara: The one issue I'm going to address is the cul-de-sac, Street C.
Sacchet: The wide one?
Generous: Yes.
Darrin Labara: Yes, the wide one.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: We want to hear about that. I'm curious.
Darrin Labara: And then I'll have Chris Morrill come up and address the other two issues since
they're more engineering based. Is there any way you can zoom in around? After our meeting
yesterday, Matt Saam, when we were talking it over in the meeting he was worried about the 24
foot wide drive aisles and he asked me during the meeting, is this a one way circumstance? Is
this a one way around, and I kind of waffled on it and I said, no. And really it's designed to be,
but the caveat about that is, is that if someone didn't see it as a one way and came in the wrong
way, it's not going to kill anybody. The route doesn't really affect it. We have used this
standard in other neighborhoods, the 24 foot wide. We take off of what most cities have
requested of us for maintenance issues. Plow trucks to get in, make their radius turn, plow over
it and be able to get out. And the 24 foot is wide enough to do that and that's kind of the
minimum that we used. From Matt's perspective he thought wider would be better, and we have
done wider ones in other communities. I did bring some examples of some communities that we
have proposed these and they have built them and have been approved. As you can see we used
two of them, this is in Chaska, Minnesota. Town Course Heights. We used two eyebrow, we
call these eyebrow type cul-de-sacs where we have the things because they look like eyebrows.
But the driveways in this site are actually 22 foot wide, and this is the narrowest example that we
have used in the past. And they work fine. We have had no complaints with them. To go onto
some other projects, some people may be aware of Stone Mill Farms out in Woodbury. They use
these a lot. And the benefits that come with these is that they just create a lot more aesthetically
pleasing, more neighborhood like feel to this whole thing and everybody seems to like them, and
we haven't had one complaint about them. I can see where Matt not had them before and been
using them before might be a little bit hesitant. It's something new. Something Chanhassen
hasn't done. What we have done in the past, we have been very successful. Here's one ofthe
wider ones, and this is where I've have to give Matt some credit where the city did force us to go
wider than 24. This actually at a 28 foot wide driveway and their concerns were the same thing
as Matt's. Parking. What happens if people try to park in here? It's only 5 lots. The amount of
parking we're predicting on this cul-de-sac is very minimal and the amount, the benefit we can
get from this planted green space, especially if you look at the way that the plan is laid out. If
Lot 1 here is kind of a double fronted lot. It's allowed by city code on corner lots like that. One
thing we wanted to do, why we want to put that green in there is that it's going to really help out
with the buffering between someone looking out their back yard on Lot 1. You don't have to
look right across a street to the front yard of a neighbors and vice versa. People aren't looking
right into the windows of somebody else's basement. It provides that screen. Provides that
green and it's just an amenity that we feel the pro's far outweigh the con's and we've really, I am
willing to work with Matt. Hopefully we can come to a, if he's not comfortable with the 24 foot
wide drive aisles, we can hopefully come to an agreement of how wide those can be. Maintain a
good, solid green and come to a happy medium. We just want further review of this issue.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Chris Morrill: Commissioners, Chair, my name is Chris Morrill with Westwood. I'm the project
engineer on the job. What I'm going to do is just go through some of the issues that were raised
and some of the issues in the staff report that we wanted to address. One of the things that I
heard was the issue of trying to lower the site on the west end. And I should start this out by
13
·
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
saying we've done a number of different generations of grading plans on this project and as we
got into this job we knew the number one concern was trees so every effort we've made and
we've done quite a few iterations. It's really all for trees and you can look at the retaining walls
around the site. Those aren't in there so that we can keep out grading on the project. I'd say 90
percent of those walls are in there to save trees. We did meet with staff on Monday and
discussed lowering that west end and in the 2 to 4 foot range I'm confident that we can do that
with construction plans. We have looked at that a little bit. One thing that Matt did say with the
private drive that we can steepen that up just a little bit more and that would still be in
conformance with the city code. So with that flexibility we can do that to some extent. I don't
want to say we can lower it more than that because this really is a balance on saving trees. If we
lower this road here it creates problems on the north end on saving trees. I know Matt had talked
about the rambler lots on the south end, and without getting too, into too much detail, if we do
lower the public street there, that's going to drive that rambler lower and you can see that there
are quite a few trees on the back side of that lot that would start to push that grading limit that
much closer to those trees and potentially jeopardize them being saved. But I am confident that
we can tweak the plan a little bit and get it in that 2 to 4 foot range. I think we can work with
staff and work that out. The other issue that's come up quite a few times is the sanitary sewer.
We'd like to continue to work with staff but I think we can come up with a could of different
options. My understanding is the biggest concern with the connection on the west side is the
existing 3 to 1 slopes. We can show some different options. One option might be, instead of
having this manhole on that slope, we could push it further to the south. There is an existing
bituminous trail along Lake Lucy Road and somewhat of a flat area that I think we can set those
manholes close to that trail to facilitate access. And if it weren't something that I think is
somewhat important, or at least to look at, I wouldn't be talking about it and it does have to do
with the sewer depths of the project. If you go through and look at the site and you look at the
grades, basically there's a big hill in the middle of the site, and we need to get sewer service to
the lots on the west end. Now I'm not going to tell you that we can't serve all the way to just
Manchester. We can do that but we are going to end up with somewhere in the 40 to 45 foot
deep sewer range. And it's not something, you know it could go either way. I'd just like to keep
working with Matt and I think we can kick around some different options and see what we can
come up with on that issue. And then Lot 27. This is a blow-up of the grading plan in that area.
It's a little bit hard to see but Lot 27 is right here. And one of the concerns that staff had raised
was drainage going to the lot and you can see there are about 3 lots to the north of Lot 27. There
is a steep slope there, and there would be back yard drainage coming down towards the lot line
of Lot 27. Now in order to design a lot properly you want to make sure that the water's draining
away from the pad. In order to facilitate that you normally would see a swale on the side lot line
which is what we're proposing, and I understand staff's concern because it is somewhat of a tight
area but we feel that that will be a nice lot and we can make that work from an engineering
standpoint. We did take a look, I know in the staff report too it also mentioned if that lot comes
out we might be able to reduce some retaining wall and shift the pond to the northeast. And this
graphic again, it basically shows in the blue is what our current water level area is. In the pink is
the additional water level area that we would be able to obtain if we removed the lot. And you
can see it's not a real significant portion, and I can't say that it won't lower the wall. It probably
would lower the wall maybe in the 1 foot, 1 Y2 foot range. But we feel that the lot that we have
there right now and how we have it designed does work. Another thing that came up in staff
discussions on Lot 27 is the ability to control the construction and to make sure that this lot
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
would get built as designed. And I understand with some of these tight lots, you know I'm not
going to tell you that a house goes in and maybe a swale doesn't get graded properly. It happens.
That's life, but what we would like to propose to ensure that that doesn't happen, certainly we
can add this as a condition that when the house is constructed, the builder would be required to
submit the record drawing to certify that everything is graded and in place before they place the
sod on that lot to address that issue. There are other things too that I think we can help improve
the situation. Some other options might be pulling another catch basin up on that swale to accept
some more of that drainage. But again, we have designed it in conformance with code and I
know someone else brought up the concern ofthe pond. That it's close to the pond. We are
holding the basement elevation or the walkout elevation 3 feet above the 100 year high water
level. The pond. And also 2 feet above the emergency overflow which means if the entire storm
sewer system failed, the water would still have a place to get out before flooding any houses. So
I guess it's our view, we would like to keep that lot and that is a significant issue for us and I
think we too can continue to work with staff and see if there's some other things that we can
make them, or help them to feel more comfortable about this lot and the design.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions for the applicant?
Keefe: I've got a question in regards to the west end grading. I wasn't clear to me exactly where
you guys would start grading. I was looking at the private drive B and it looks like, at least as
it's designed right now, it's got what, about a 7 percent incline on it and I mean are you just
talking that street or are you talking further to the east in grading?
Chris Morrill: I think mainly that street and increasing the grades of that private drive. City
code will allow up to 10 percent on a private drive. On a public street you're 7 percent is your
maximum grade. There might be somewhat of a flexibility to, it's a street that connects to the
north. Right now we have about a 5 percent grade on that street. We might be able to increase
that a little bit to raise grades to some extent, but the problem is, I mean you start raising grades
on one end of the site and it starts creating problems. You can see right now these lots up here
match in quite nicely with the trees up here so if we start pulling things up here, you know it just
kind of reverberates throughout the project and can potentially create some problems in these
trees and we don't have a lot of area back here and we Were kind of trying to keep this wall more
to a minimum. I think we're somewhere in the range of, it varies but I'd say 4 to 7, 8 feet on that
wall right now. So again, in grading the site out it's really a balance between saving trees on this
end and this end. And maybe we can raise the road 4 feet and we save 2 trees on the north end
but we lose 4 on the south so it's really an intricate process and I would say you know in the 2 to
4 foot range again I think we can tweak the plan a little bit and work with staff. I'm confident
about that.
Claybaugh: Yeah. You touched a little bit with respect to the question you just responded to
about touch down points but you said there was a number of generations of plans that you ran
through. Could you just briefly discuss the priority of touch down points and what they are.
Chris Morrill: Right now essentially we've got grades controlling the site. We've got a
connection on Galpin so that's one control. We have a connection on Manchester Drive. We
have the future connection to the north. Those are some of the main touch down points and then
'1
F
f:
I,
15
· .
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
we've got all these perimeter trees around the entire site, so we're trying to work with those
touch down points, and I think if you look at some of the previous concepts that we've pushed
around, we actually had less distance from this connection to the connection on Manchester,
which actually was driving the grades steeper than what we'd like to be and I think staff had
referenced that too in their presentation. We did propose 10 percent grades on a public streets in
order to try and facilitate some tree savings, but I think with this plan what we've done is create a
little more distance in there so it's giving us a little bit more flexibility and we've been able to
stay at those 7 percent grades. When you're looking at this we not only have the street touch
down points but then again we've got the perimeter trees up here that we're trying to save.
Perimeter trees on the south end. There was also a stand of hemlocks identified early on in the
project by the pond. So those were set as a priority. We're also saving some internal trees in the
back yard areas here, and then again the west side was of high importance to set aside that areas,
existing treed area. And again I think that's why you see the retaining walls on the site is to save
trees.
Claybaugh: As part of that process of generating plans, were any alternative areas for the NURP
pond explored?
Chris Morrill: Really if you look, areas for the NURP pond are really driven on the existing
topography of the site. If you try to put a pond on a hill it just doesn't work. You can't get the
storm sewer there, so we did in the site investigation look at that and if you look at the existing
slopes there are basically two low points on the site. One of them is right here. And the other
one would be on the west side of the ravine. Another ponding option, and I don't think it's a
good option but you could potentially put a pond down in this ravine, but the destruction of trees
would just be phenomenal and the clearing of it would be.
Claybaugh: Lot 27. Is there a pad elevation available?
Chris Morrill: Yes. Lot 27, the garage elevation is at 1040, and the walkout grade is at 1031.0.
Claybaugh: Okay. And I'm assuming that was discussed with staff and you still recommended
the elimination of Lot 27? With respect to resolving that issue with staff, beyond the discussions
you had the other day, do you have anything new to add to that?
Darrin Labara: I think again you know if we can show you more detail. If there's anything we
can do to keep that lot to make you guys feel more comfortable. Another thing I was thinking,
we could also lower the swale that is on the north lot line of 27, which would adjoin the lots to
the north that we are, would be getting drainage from.
Keefe: So· the swa1e that you're proposing, .. .can you kind of draw a line on where on the lot
you'd put the swale?
Chris Morrill: It's a little bit hard to see here but, here's the side lot line of 27. Basically vle'd
have a high point here and that swale line would break to the left and break to the right. Water
that breaks to the right would go into this catch basin. The water that breaks to the left would go
around the lot and then into the pond. As a possible alternative, we could look at maybe adding
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
another catch basin in here to increase the comfort level for the drainage control. We could also
lower this high point. Right now it's about a foot below the pad of the house. We could lower
that another foot. We could also submit more detailed calculations to show that the swale we're
proposing will handle the water that's coming from the north lots and we could be conservative
in those calculations.
Claybaugh: Alright, thank you. That's all the questions I had.
Slagle: I just have a couple of ones I just thought of. Touching upon that Lot 27. Was there any
consideration given to a neighborhood park? Community park.
Nathan Franzen: When we talked to, can you hear me? We were not considering any park for
this development. We approached city staff and that just hasn't been planned in this area so we
didn't include it.
Slagle: Okay. Second question then, if I'm a potential homeowner and I buy a lot here, any idea
where I would send my kids to a park?
Nathan Franzen: I guess the Minnetonka West School is directly adjacent to this site in the
northwest corner and that has park on it.
Slagle: Has playground equipment and such?
Nathan Franzen: It does not have playground equipment. It does have ballfields, tennis courts.
Stuff like that.
Slagle: Okay. And this is, would be the Minnetonka school district, correct?
Nathan Franzen: Correct.
Slagle: Was there any thought as, any connection between your private street on the northwest
corner and the ballfields, similar to the development to the west?
Nathan Franzen: I guess I'm not following you. Having a trail connection?
Slagle: Yeah.
Nathan Franzen: We didn't propose anything through that. Through the ravine area because it is
a pretty sensitive area.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: Questions from the applicant?
Tjornhom: No.
.
..
I,
17
..
Ii!
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Steve?
Lillehaug: I have a couple detailed ones. Looking at the profiles I have a couple safety issues
with the profiles. Do you have your vertical curves designed for a 30 miles an hour street here?
And do you have any safety issues with the shortness of the vertical curves?
Chris Morrill: What the city requires is a K value of 20 on all the curves. And then you also
require 20 foot landing for 30 feet which we are proposing in this development.
Lillehaug: At 3 percent grade? Minimum 20 feet?
Chris Morrill: Yep. 30 foot minimum landing at 3 percent, yeah. With a K value of 20, is that
right Matt?
Saam: Yeah, that's correct.
Lillehaug: And you're telling me that's a speed limit designed for 30 miles an hour?
Chris Morrill: That is a design probably closer to 25. If you look at MnDot standards.
Lillehaug: Yeah, that's all I have.
Sacchet: That's it? I have a quick question. First of all the question I posed to staff. In terms of
the dirt, does it pretty much balance on the site or do you need to import?
Nathan Franzen: We're pretty close to a balance. If anything I would anticipate exporting some.
Sacchet: You'd rather have a little extra than not enough. The trees and the amount of grading.
That's certainly the two most delicate things in this development. I hear that, and I can see in the
proposal you obviously have made efforts to minimize the grading and maximize the tree
preservation. Do you think you've exhausted?
Nathan Franzen: I think we have. I think when we talk about moving streets up and down a
couple feet, I think there are always some tweaks that we can make going to final plans. But I
think we put enormous amounts of efforts into this project, above and beyond any other project
that I've worked on as far as how many iterations, how many different concept plans we've
looked at. I think we've probably made the best effort that I can think of on this project than any
other one I can think of.
Sacchet: I mean I am curious. Because I looked at some examples of do I see something, do I
see a tree that could possibly be additionally saved. And I'm just curious to ask you two specific
ones. Just as examples kind of probe you. There is on Lot 18, bordering to what, 19? There are
a couple of trees on the south side, specifically I guess it's 8517. Do you see that? It's 8517.
It's just, it's probably a couple of feet off where the grading line would be. Something like that,
I wonder if it is close to the lot line, what would prevent in a case like that to extend a little bit
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
the protection to add a couple trees more? Do you see what I'm talking about? Between, that's
south of Street A. Lot 18, 19. And if you want the number, it's like 8517. 8518.
Nathan Franzen: 8519?
Sacchet: 17. 17 and 18. Yeah, 19 could be lumped in there too. It's right next to it.
Nathan Franzen: Outside of the clearing limits there?
Sacchet: Right. I mean it's a type of thing like that that I wonder whether you couldn't have
done a little more, and I'm not the expert so I don't want to double guess you guys but.
Nathan Franzen: I'm looking at, I'm seeing specifically on Lot 18 there are some trees just on
the back ofthe pad. Based on the pad size there, I think anything that's within 10 feet ofthe
building is really.
Sacchet: Is not very likely, yeah.
Nathan Franzen: Yes. And I wouldn't want to say that we can save this tree and then we go to
build the house and it ends up dying because of construction traffic or the branches of the trees
extend into the building, you know 20 feet and it needs to be turned and then the tree dies 2 or 3
years later and then it becomes more of a problem then.
Sacchet: So you'd rather cut them up front and cut a little more?
Nathan Franzen: Yes. I mean generally if they're within 10 feet of that building pad there's not
a chance of it being saved. Some of those too, I'm just seeing another one. That is, and I'm not
sure if it's the one that you had looked at between 18 and 19, kind of on the side lot line. Right
on the edge ofthe grading limit there. That one you can see it's right on the side line and to
facilitate drainage we're always grading swales in on the side lines of the buildings. We also
have a swale along the back there to get drainage to go to the east. And that tree happens to be
right in the middle of it. And again that one's relatively close to the pad. It's not as close as
some of the others but it is, that one's probably more like 20 or 30 feet. But that one there is
caused more by a drainage design.
Sacchet: I did have another couple of examples but in the interest of time I'll spare you that. I
think we want to move onto the public hearing. We've got a lot of people here. I want to give
them a chance to speak. Did you want to add anything else from your end?
Nathan Franzen: There are, I mean I could assure you too as we go to final plans that again we'll
be working with staff and looking for those individual trees, if we think we can save a couple
more we'll make efforts to do that.
Sacchet: Okay. So yeah, we could put something in like work with staff and I think that's
commonly what staff does when you do the final walk through before you do grading and put the
limits and tree protection in. That you would look at it in the detail at that point. That sounds
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
good. Alright. Thank you very much. Got anything else for the applicant? No? Okay. Thank
you. With that I'd like to open the public hearing. Anybody who'd like to address this item,
please come forward at this time. State your name and address and let us hear what you have to
say.
Jianping Mei: My name is Jianping Mei. I live in Lake Lucy. 2135 Lake Lucy Road. There's a
small pond on the wetland area. One concern is, I know there's a lot of tree cut. I don't know
how many tree cut, but they left some trees... We know the north side of Lake Lucy there's a
two neighbor. We know that. They're crying every summer. They get flood in their basement
and.. .has a year so we are worried about is construction. We are interest not only for them, only
for us so any concern or study for this?
Sacchet: You're concerned about the drainage?
Jianping Mei: Yes.
Sacchet: Drainage coming down towards Lake Lucy for the houses that are on the north side of
it?
Jianping Mei: Yes, that's true. But even south side.
Sacchet: Even on the south side too. Is that something you can address briefly Matt?
Saam: Sure.
Slagle: Matt, where is he by the way? 2130.
Saam: I believe he said the south side of Lake Lucy Road?
Jianping Mei: South side, yeah.
Saam: South side of Lake Lucy so maybe in Manchester south of Lake Lucy I'm guessing.
Okay.
Sacchet: Sharmeen can point out where he is at. Thank you Sharmeen.
Saam: Okay. I think what he's referring to is, and I think somebody on the commission alluded
to it earlier, the amount of water that comes off this site and comes over the trail. I think you
mentioned it. Again every new development is required to meet the existing runoff rates so
whatever water is leaving this site now, it can't be increased based on this development. And in
fact most of the time it's decreased because they put in a pond which holds back the water and
can store a lot of water. That's basically what they're doing here, so in essence they'll be
decreasing the runoff rate for the water during a storm going off the site.
Jianping Mei: Yes, naturally treed we have buffer...so we make it...but without trees the
water's pouring down in big rain days. That's concern.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Saam: Okay. That's true with developments. The runoff curb number. The amount of water
that can runoff the site typically goes up, and again that's one of the reasons that through storm
sewer they capture that water and route it to a pond which then stores it so it releases it slower
off of the site.
Sacchet: So it should improve basically. The drainage issues should improve?
Saam: Correct, yep.
Sacchet: Through the development. That's the aim.
Keefe: Matt, is there a pond up there right now or is this going to be a new one?
Saam: This will be a new one.
Keefe: So they're actually creating a pond for that purpose to capture the runoff.
Saam: Correct. They're installing a new pond.
Keefe: So there isn't a pond up there right now so this would help that issue.
Sacchet: Okay. We have some other people that want to speak up.
Beverly Jackson: Hi. I'm Beverly Jackson. Part of the Crestview Drive neighborhood. I know
someone on the City Council has received a couple of letters of concern from our entire
neighborhood.
Sacchet: Actually we all have received those.
Beverly Jackson: Okay. And I know tonight it's been referred to as this street here.
Sacchet: Can you point out again.
Beverly Jackson: Street B.
Sacchet: Okay.
Beverly Jackson: Would be a future hook-up, and I'm interested, I think we all are in knowing
what future means because right now we have a wonderfully private street. We don't worry
about safety because everybody on our street knows each other's vehicles so we all watch out for
one another. And the idea of connecting up to a neighborhood that's 43 homes, which means in
all likelihood at least 86 drivers, is a lot to add to a street that right now has a couple dozen
maximum. So that's one concern, and one question as far as what is future.
.
Sacchet: Well we hear future was January.
I!
21
II'
-
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Generous: Well they're submitting, yes so the public hearing will be in January. Construction I
would imagine would begin in the spring.
Sacchet: And that's really out of our control. I mean that's the landowners there that made those
decisions. Now do we know whether they would connect to that road at that time? I would
expect so since they're developing.
Generous: Yes, we'd make them do that as part oftheir design.
Sacchet: Yeah, since they're developing, yeah. And have the extra houses, there would be a
justification to connect it so future could mean like a year or less.
Beverly Jackson: Okay, and how does that affect Crestview Drive? I heard something about this
development having a 31 foot street requirement. Street width, if I understood correctly, except
for the one that was discussed with the 24.
Sacchet: Would that affect, let me make sure we understand your question. So is your question
is something going to happen to Crestview itself? Is that what you're asking, right?
Beverly Jackson: Yes. Does that one get widen to the 31 feet as well?
Sacchet: Okay, could you address that please Matt.
Saam: Sure. At this time the City has no plans to increase the width of Crestview Drive. What I
could see happening in the future, and future 10 to 15 years, whenever Crestview Drive, that
pavement deteriorates to a point where the city would need to do a project in there to upgrade it,
maybe at that time it would be looked at to upgrade it to a current city standard or something
more in line with the current city standard but again at this time we don't have any plans to do
anything in Crestview Drive other than, if the development to the north would go, that cul-de-sac
would basically be moved into that property.
Beverly Jackson: I'm sorry, into what property?
Sacchet: The new one that's being developed.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: From Crestview.
Beverly Jackson: Okay. And as far as it is right now, it would pretty much have to do a 90
degree angle to come onto Crestview Drive. Or does that mean eliminating part of some
property? I happen to live on the property right here on this side, so that would mean that
anyone coming up that street has headlights coming right into my house.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Saam: We, at least I haven't done an in-depth review of the plans for that development to the
north. But it would be, like a T intersection is what they're showing. So yeah, there would have
to be a turn, a right hand turn to Crestview Drive.
Sacchet: I mean to mitigate your concerns a little bit, in a situation like that certainly would be a
reasonable request that you ask for some evergreens or some buffering. Possibly even berming.
Beverly Jackson: We have those right now but I'm afraid that all of our beautiful Norway pines
are going to be eliminated if this comes through and those are something that can't be replaced
because I probably won't be in the house in 40 or 50 years to see them look like they look now.
Saam: Mr. Chair?
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Saam: If I can just address that, and maybe we're getting into the next development but at this
time they're not proposing to take any land or anything like that. They're doing all their work
either on their property or within existing city right-of-way.
Sacchet: Is your concern that partially it would impact your land actually?
Beverly Jackson: Absolutely.
Sacchet: I mean the development would have to take place on the land where it takes place. I
mean they can't put a claim on your land per se.
Beverly Jackson: Alright, but also the traffic is a very large concern. Like I said with as few of
us that live on this street, if a car goes down our street and turns around in the turn around,
especially at night, I'm sure everyone else, as well as my husband and I are looking out the
window to see how it is. Trying to identify if it's a police officer coming to check on our street,
which is always wonderful, and if it's anyone else within a few minutes if they haven't moved,
one of us is out there checking out to see who it is, so it's very safe. And so the idea of safety
being attaching neighborhoods, I can't see how 40 to 60 more cars makes it safer than the little
street that we have right now.
Sacchet: Well let's do one more now on this. Crestview is not going to be a thru street. I mean
the idea is not to have that as a traffic lane. Maybe you can say something about that Matt.
Saam: Sure. On the submitted plans it still keeps a cul-de-sac. It just has, as I said, a T
intersection, basically a street going to the south to connect with this. And if we think about it
for a moment, the traffic or the residents in this area I doubt, at least if I lived on there, if I
wanted to go north, unless a road was closed, I would go through Crestview Drive to get to
Galpin versus just going out to Galpin.
Sacchet: It's hard to imagine why they would want to make a detour through a road that has all
kinds of quirky turns. It's not a straight road by any stretch of the imagination.
23
"
Ie
J
-
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Saam: Right. That's why I'm trying to understand why the connection would be there.
Slagle: If I can ask Mr. Chair, can we hear from staff and maybe apologies for not asking this
prior, but why are we extending the road? I mean if we're not, if the anticipation is not going to
be used as a thru street. We have the access onto Galpin. We have the access south on
Manchester. I'm just curious, is that not enough?
Saam: Again I think Bob read one of the biggest reasons. It's been adopted in the city comp
plan in the transportation planning. He listed off I think 3 reasons. Safety being one of the
biggest ones with emergency access. If Crestview Drive was closed or if there was a fire or
some sort ofthing, there's only one way in and out. It really limits the access to that whole
street.
Sacchet: So it's access to that neighborhood for like emergency vehicles.
Slagle: Mostly Crestview.
Sacchet: Crestview, yeah.
Generous: Right.
Saam: Correct.
Sacchet: Not for the other neighborhood.
Saam: This development that we're reviewing tonight already has the two accesses set up. One
proposed off Galpin and another off Manchester. We, as a city want an additional access off of
Crestview for future.
Sacchet: So from a city planning viewpoint it's for the benefit of that Crestview neighborhood.
We could say to a large extent.
Saam: Well, yes.
Beverly Jackson: May I make one comment about that? The only time there has ever been a
problem with any of us as residents on the street being able to access our own homes on that
street is when the lot across from Crestview Drive was being developed. Still for sale but they
were putting in, they were raising the grade and all of that, and the people working on it parked
on both sides of Crestview so us in the large pick-ups couldn't get through and that was one of
my husband and my comment that day was, you know what if an ambulance or a fire truck had
to get up here, they wouldn't be able to. Us as residents don't park on the streets because we
know that we need to have that access, but when the dump trucks on either side of Crestview, it
made it very difficult for us to be able to get in or out without possible damage to our vehicle or
taking off one of their mirrors.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Yeah, it's not necessarily in view of the current amount of people that live there, but
it's more in view of the development that is obviously already starting to take place. Alright,
you may want to put that into the equation as well. But I think we hear where you're at with
that. Appreciate your comments.
Beverly Jackson: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. We have somebody else. Do you want to state your name and
address please for the record.
Paul Tungseth: Paul Tungseth, 2051 Crestview Drive. Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Chair rather.
You all talk about the fact that Crestview is not at this point affected. That is incorrect. The
entire neighborhood has asked that we not be connected because we do not see any safety
concerns. We do not anticipate school buses up our road. We like our cul-de-sac. We would
prefer to be a private neighborhood. As long as our neighborhood is using the road, we don't
have problems. As Bev pointed out, we have problems when other people decide to use the road,
and we don't, it's not as if one or two people are parking as you've seen, you know there's a
developer or what have you. We just respectfully decline your invitation to participate in the
new neighborhood. Respectfully we decline. We would also like to point out the number of
trees that you're counting and tagging aren't necessarily even part of that property. You guys
really need to review that part as well.
Sacchet: Can you be more specific about that? That's important.
Paul Tungseth: I'll let the property owner discuss that.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, yeah.
Paul Tungseth: So that's what I have to say for right now. But I find it interesting that you're
willing to talk about all the different pieces except for what the existing neighborhood is
concerned about. That you need to think about because that is sense of neighborhood. That is
sense of community.
Lillehaug: Sir, can I ask you a question?
Paul Tungseth: Yes.
Lillehaug: What is your opinion when the Shivley property's developed and there's dump trucks
parked all up and down your road and you can't get emergency access to your homes up there.
Paul Tungseth: They have 3 acres up there. We have a cul-de-sac which is mammoth. We have
a cul-de-sac 3 times the size of a normal cul-de-sac which we do like.
Lillehaug: You don't have any concerns with any access problems?
t
Rt
25
.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Paul Tungseth: No. In fact if you look very carefully at the later, it plainly states that if you
added up to 5 houses, maybe even 7 houses up there, you still meet the same requirements that
have been laid out in these drawings. Amazingly. I guess those cul-de-sacs in the existing
drawings ought to change as well. There's as many houses on anyone given cul-de-sac as there
is on all of the entire Crestview Drive. If not more. So the density of houses is plainly more
here in the new development than it is in Crestview. We don't have a problem. We don't have a
problem. Even with additional houses we still don't have a problem.
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate your comment. We have some other people. Please come
forward. State your name and address for the record.
Steve Buresh: Hi. I'm Steve Buresh. I live directly across Galpin Boulevard from this proposed
development at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. I do have some concerns about the fact that we're going
to maintain this access on Galpin Boulevard. For several years now with the developments out
there at, to the south. The amount of volume of traffic that is coming through there is basically
making my property, devaluating my property because of the amount of traffic that is going
through there. By adding 43 more houses, and up to you know an average from let's say 50 to
60 cars coming out of that neighborhood, which is going to be nearly directly across from my
property and my neighbors, it's going to make it very difficult for me to access Galpin
Boulevard. It's also, I'm a little concerned that that's going to be the construction entrance. I'll
be competing with all of the traffic going in and out of there during this building process, and our
property and Lake Lucy Highlands is zoned large lot residential. The people that live out there
on Lake Lucy chose that type of property to have. The large lots and that and you know all of
this development is basically destroying what we moved out there to do, and have a you know
large lot and open spaces. I do appreciate the fact that they're maintaining the trees on the
easterly side. That's appreciated. I understand that the, it's going to go forward and that because
everybody agrees that it's to the betterment ofthe community, although I do have grave concerns
with the amount of access, amount of traffic that's going to be coming out of that, the Galpin
access. And I'll be competing with that traffic trying to get out of my driveway.
Sacchet: Can you say something to that Matt from an engineering viewpoint? Traffic viewpoint.
Saam: Sure. First of all I'll mention Galpin Road as I'm sure Mr. Buresh is aware is a county
road so this development is required to get a access permit from the County. Again they have an
existing driveway off of that road so they already have some argument or right I'll call it to
access their property onto Galpin, just like Mr. Buresh does. We did look at it from a safety
standpoint. That is the location of the access. It is proposed in roughly the same location as
existing driveway and that's actually at the high point of a crest or a small hill, so there's good
sight distance to each side, both the north and south. So from that viewpoint, in addition to the
right turn lane that the County will be requiring, we feel it will operate effectively.
Sacchet: So within reason this should work well?
Saam: Correct.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: As far as city standards are concerned. Now obviously it will have an impact on the
neighbor across the street.
Steve Buresh: Yeah, I mean I'm going to have 40 to 60 cars that are going to be going in and out
of there in a, you know multiple times in a day possibly and that, and my driveway is directly
across from this driveway and so that's going to make it very difficult. The other issue, which I
don't know if that's part of this meeting, I would think that, I would hope that and the
recommendations we take into account at some point, either here or at the next level, is with the
additional 43 homes and the additional traffic. We nearly have zero enforcement of speed limits
and stuff out there at this point. We've had a long standing problems with speeding in that area.
I have kids. My neighbor has kids and that. You know so with adding another 40 to 60 cars in
that neighborhood, there's concerns about that. I don't know if that's beyond the scope...
Sacchet: Yeah, you're right. I mean that's certainly related but it's not really part of this
development. On the other hand I also want to point out, I mean there is the access to the south,
so you wouldn't necessarily have everybody going out onto Galpin.
Steve Buresh: Right.
Sacchet: And I also wouldn't compare it to Lake Lucy. I mean Lake Lucy is a thru road, while
here we're looking at plain neighborhood access so, that makes it a little more bearable I would
expect. But you're right. I mean once it comes through to speed considerations, that's obviously
something that will have to be addressed with the sheriff. And they do pay attention to that and
they're sensitive to requests, complains from residents so that would be the route to go with that.
Steve Buresh: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much for your comment.
Gina Sauer: Hi, my name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road, and my question for
the council is more of a procedural question in terms of how certain guidelines are set and on
what criteria you base a decision when you go below your own set guidelines, specifically with
respect to the trees that are being lost. And please correct me if I have these numbers wrong but
from looking at the report it's my understanding that currently there's about 18 acres
approximately of canopy that under the normal guidelines and percentages that the city would
follow, this development would be expected to maintain or to continue to have about 12 acres
and that what will be left now when it's all said and done will be approximately 7.
Sacchet: That's correct.
Gina Sauer: So from a procedural standpoint could you explain on what the guidelines are based
that 12 out of 18, how that was originally set and under what criteria the city decided to allow the
developer to go considerably below that in this case to 7. And I understand the penaltation that
they'll be having to replacing trees but I think most people would agree that replacing a
neighborhood with new trees is not the same as leaving a stand of continuous mature trees.
I
27
·
-
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Do you want to try that one Bob?
Generous: I was here when we first adopted the ordinance. It was one of my first projects was
to get that through. The guideline, the City in developing our tree preservation ordinance tried to
determine, look at what a potential development would take out as part of their development
based on the existing tree coverage. We know that any development that goes is going to
remove some trees and so we provided a nature to sliding scale of targets for tree preservation.
These are numbers that if the developer meets that, then they don't have to replace them. They
don't have, they just have a normal 1 tree per front yard. Now if they go below that, then we
penalize them. We say yes, it's true that preserving trees is better than.. . existing tree is a lot
better than planting a new one but you have to permit people to, the opportunity to develop their
land and so we use these targets that we encourage them through use of retaining walls, the use
of private streets. They came in originally with a steeper grade on the street than the city code
permitted to meet these targets, but development by definition will remove trees and those
targets, if they can't be met then the ordinance says then you have to replace them. It doesn't say
you can't take them out.
Sacchet: Yeah, to answer your question I think it's important to distinguish that we do have
what we call the required canopy coverage, but that doesn't mean they can't go below it. That
means if they go below it, they have to do replacement plantings in addition to the standard
amount of planting. Plus that would then be multiplied by 1.2 factor so they have to replace a
little more but I mean, it's obvious. If you cut a big tree and then you put a little tree, it's
something quite different.
Gina Sauer: Right. I have a follow-up question that I do appreciate the modifications that have
been made to the plan to, as I understand it dedicate the very western edge which is the water
preservation area or the ravine in the western area to the city. I'm just wondering again from a
procedural standpoint, for those of us who are new to this whole kind of thing, what kind of
protection and assurances is the city willing and able to provide with respect to the preservation
of those few remaining acres of mature trees? That there won't be further development. That
the city's not going to put some kind of building on there or put a park on there. That the
vegetation and the wildlife habitat will remain in perpetuity in it's natural state.
Sacchet: Do you want to address that?
Generous: Well that's ultimately it's up to council but if it's donated to the city as open space,
then the city will have to preserve it as open space. Initially we were looking at one potential
city use of the property as a well site, but we're not sure that that's going to work out because of
the piping issue. We don't have a watermain in this area so we would just preserve it. It's like
other areas in the community that are dedicated. Yeah, we'd like to, the city isn't, tries to create
these corridors of green space so that we have habitat area and also because of the benefits that
as a community we receive for the preservation of trees. There"s value in that so, while we can't,
council will accept it as a donation for open space, ultimately for council to do anything else
they'd have to go through a public hearing process to change that.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Can it not be changed? Of course it can be changed but it would have to be changed in
a very public forum. It would have to be announced to the neighborhood. There would be a
hearing. There would be discussion about it. And there would be an easement on it.
Preservation easement so it's not something that's just on a whim of somebody could be changed
so there is some solidity to that framework.
Gina Sauer: Okay, thank you for the information.
Sacchet: You're very welcome. Anybody else want to address this one? Yes, please come
forward.
Mike Stachowski: Council, my name's Mike Stachowski, 2050 Crestview Drive. Quick
question. Talking about joining onto our street was fora safety reason. What about all the other
cul-de-sacs in the city? There's only one access. I think it's more convenience for the new
development more than safety for us.
Sacchet: Got any comment?
Saam: Sure. Yeah, we do have many cul-de-sacs in the city, but whenever we can through
developments or improvements we look to, especially the longer ones. When I say longer maybe
over 500 feet. Many cities limit the length of cul-de-sacs. We don't do that here. But we do
look for alternate access on the longer cul-de-sacs.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bob.
Generous: When the developer originally came in, they proposed a cul-de-sac in this location
instead of connecting. It was the city staff that told them to make the street connection.
Ultimately it will be up to council to see if they're going to do that. That's part of our job. We
want to make those inter-connections. We think that community is more than one neighborhood.
It's a little bigger.
Mike Stachowski: How would you feel if you lived there, you bought your house purposely for
that reason and someone from the outside tells you, we're going to do this because we think it's
good for you?
Generous: That's rhetorical.
Sacchet: Yeah, I don't think we're going to try to answer that one.
Mike Stachowski: No, I understand that but you see what I'm saying?
Sacchet: Yeah, I understand your point.
Mike Stachowski: You know I purposely bought that house a year ago for this reason.
29
~
r
~;
·
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Let me ask you a question back though.
Mike Stachowski: Yeah.
Sacchet: How about that development that's coming in within a month's time for us to look at?
At the very end of your cul-de-sac there's going to be 5 or what additional houses. What does
that do to this whole thing? Does that have any bearing?
Mike Stachowski: Well I don't want any more travel on that road than anybody else in that
neighborhood, to be perfectly honest. I mean people buy houses for certain reasons. You know
you bought your's for certain reasons, and then they start to develop something which they have
enough access in and out, and we're being told it's for safety reasons. it's for this reason, and I
think that's why basically the whole neighborhood's here saying, we don't have these issues.
Everybody else does.
Sacchet: In terms of the new development that goes in, we really don't want to belabor this here
but maybe there is a way that you can make it a win/win. That the new development is more
connecting into that and then you have your little windy huge cul-de-sac, windy road.
Mike Stachowski: You know it might be.
Sacchet: There are ways.
Mike Stachowski: It might be a win/win but from what I see everybody's talking about what's
best for the new development and once this gets developed and they're saying well we really
haven't looked at that. Well once it's developed there's really no choice if you're going to start
changing that road, you're going to have to do it because there's no other option. I think this is
the time to look at it.
Sacchet: Right, this is definitely the time to look at it, and from a city planning viewpoint, I
mean as a general rule we try to connect neighborhoods which in general is a good thing. Now
you're telling us you don't want it. We hear that and it's certainly going to be considered.
Mike Stachowski: Okay.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else wants to come forward? Yes, we got a couple more takers
here. One at a time will be just fine.
Lori Abblett: Hi. My name is Lori Abblett and I live on Crestview Drive also and my concern is
the trees. I'm actually, the Shivley Addition, there's two rows of pine trees and mine on the
north side and their's on the south side. So I'm concerned what's going to happen to my side of
the pine trees.
Slagle: Help us out with that Bob.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Can you point it out on the drawing maybe, so we know exactly what you're referring
to.
Lori Abblett: I'm right here. I butt up to.
Sacchet: Over there, okay.
Lori Abblett: Yeah, right here so there's two rows of pines. So I guess my concern is what's
going to happen to these trees with these homes going in here and a road. I'm actually going to
lose, well I've got, you know my side of my yard, the back side of my yard.
Sacchet: Do you see the green color part?
Slagle: Is she east of the road or?
Keefe: She's east ofthe road isn't she?
Lori Abblett: Okay, sorry. I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong spot.
Generous: Here's the Shivley property...
Lori Abblett: So I might be on the comer.
Generous: Yeah, they're proposing to preserve all that.
Lori Abblett: All these trees back here?
Sacchet: Yep, all that was colored green, and actually on the other side of the street not
everything is colored green that they're trying to preserve.
Lori Abblett: Okay. So nothing will happen? All those trees are tagged back there.
Sacchet: They have to be tagged because they're inventory. That doesn't mean they're slated
for cutting. Unfortunately a lot of them are but the tag is just an inventory.
Generous: ... the trees as part of this process.
Lori Abblett: My trees are tagged too. What is that? Why are my trees part of this?
Generous: They must have just went over the line on that.
.
i
.
Lori Abblett: But there are several of my trees that have a tag you know.
Sacchet: Yeah, that was just inventory. So they were put on a map and I mean if the inventory
is accurate, we should actually see those, either not on the inventory or across the lot line. As far
"
31
~
í
·
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
as I see, the ones that we see on our drawing are all, actually no, they do go across. There are
clearly trees tagged on the other side. So that's nothing to be concerned about.
Lori Abblett: Okay. Don't they typically contact the homeowner though and let them know
they're going to take their trees?
Sacchet: Actually I would take it as a positive that they're really trying to do a thorough job to
inventory them to know what's there. Yeah.
Lori Abblett: And then if that road goes through that we're talking about here, how will that
affect all the trees through there? That's all woods.
Sacchet: Well there where the road is, obviously trees are going to go.
Lori Abblett: And then what will happen to like my property? We've got a pool and swing set
and stuff back there.
Generous: They shouldn't come onto your property for any of that.
Sacchet: Your property should not be touched.
Lori Abblett: But how will they be able to get through there?
Claybaugh: Has the site been staked at this point, do you know? The boundaries have been
staked? Okay.
Lori Abblett: Okay. Thank you.
Claybaugh: Is there anything as you look at the boundary stakes that you see out there that
causes you alarm?
Lori Abblett: Well, there aren't really. Some of the monuments have actually been removed out
of the ground so we've had it surveyed but we need to have it re-done because one of the corner
pins are missing, so that is a big concern because where are the developers going to go from
without that, my corner pin?
Saam: I can address that Mr. Chair. Each new development is required to certify the city that if
there's any pins missing, that they replace them. Of course that's at the end of a development
but just.
Lori Abblett: At the end of, well how will they know what to go off of?
Saam: Well when they put the new lots in, is what I'm saying you know. So when they
establish that north property line with all these new lot lines, they have to certify to the city that
all about the pins are in for the new lots.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Lori Abblett: But they'll do that before they start?
Sacchet: Yeah, when you say.
Saam: They'll verify the boundary, yeah.
Sacchet: When you say at the end, you mean at the end of the lines? Not at the end of when
everything is done so we can distinguish that one.
Lori Abblett: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Sacchet: You're welcome.
Lillehaug: Matt, could you clarify as far as the impacts to her property? Maybe not directly but
if that road were extended up to Crestview Lane, there would be indirect because that road would
be directly adjacent to her property line, correct? So in essence, her indirect result is going to be
she's going to have a road running on the west side of her property line.
Saam: Yes, if both of these plats get approved as they're currently being proposed, yeah. Yes,
there'd be a proper, she'd be a corner lot then.
Sacchet: Actually that raises an interesting question. That proposed development, have we seen
a plan and does it have a connection?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: It does have a connection planned for that? Okay, that's important. Alright, we had a
couple of other people I think over there.
Ann Taylor: Hi. I'm Ann Taylor. I'm from 2340 Lake Lucy Road on the Brenden Pond and my
question concern the pond. I wasn't sure if I understood that there's going to be runoff into
Brenden Pond, is that correct?
Sacchet: There's a different, what we call a NURP pond. A storm water pond on this property.
Ann Taylor: Okay, but I thought there was some that was going to the Brenden Pond and some
to that pond.
Sacchet: There's no drainage into Brenden Pond is there?
Saam: I'm sorry, is Brenden Pond...
I
Sacchet: That's the little lake. That's the little lake over towards 41. No, Brenden Pond is to the
west.
Saam: .. . subdivision yes, but where's the actual pond?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: The pond is to the west. You're talking about that little lake. To the west. Next to 41.
Saam: The only thing that will drain to the west are the rear yard areas along the western side
and that will go to this ravine and follow the natural drainage. It won't go towards that...
Sacchet: It will drain south. It will drain south. Never gets into Brenden Pond. Nothing goes
into Brenden Pond.
Ann Taylor: Oh, okay. Well, that's good. That's what I was...
Sacchet: That's all you needed to know?
Ann Taylor: Yes.
Sacchet: I wish all the questions.
Ann Taylor: I'm a little concerned about the traffic but I'm sure that it doesn't matter so.
Sacchet: I wish all the questions were this easy. I think we have some other people. Yes, there
are a couple more.
Alan Nikolai: I'm Alan Nikolai, 6282 Cartway Lane, Chanhassen. I'm here for my mother.
She's on 6570 Galpin which is the northeast comer of this development. Where exactly is this
northeast retaining wall in relation to the property line? Could somebody address that please.
Sacchet: On the northeast. Okay, that long, straight one? The one up there.
Alan Nikolai: Exactly how far is it off the property line is that one?
Sacchet: Can you measure that for us Matt? What is it, about 10-20 feet?
Saam: Approximately 15 to 20 feet south of the property line.
Alan Nikolai: How close to the southerly row of pine trees is that?
Sacchet: 10, more or less.
Saam: Yeah, about 10 feet.
Alan Nikolai: Have you been out to the site and actually looked at that?
Saam: Yeah, I've walked this site before.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Alan Nikolai: That is, the southerly row of pine trees is over 15, or approximately 15 feet from
the property line and you're putting the wall right on the trees then. My concern is the root
system. If you're going to put a retaining wall right up to the trunk of those trees, they're dead.
Sacchet: Right.
Alan Nikolai: Somebody else mentioned about, you know like if it's within 10 feet of a house, it
will just because of all the excavation will kill a tree. Ifthey're within 10 feet of those trees, it
will most likely kill them, if not even you know. My point is, from a point of, from an arborist
point of view, what would be the recommended distance from those tree trunks for that wall to
be?
Sacchet: Probably the drip line.
Generous: Yes.
Alan Nikolai: Pardon?
I'
Sacchet: The drip line of the tree would be the site.
Alan Nikolai: No, well that's not accurate according to arborists though. Arborists say 3 times
the drip line is the root system, and did you consult the city arborist at all?
Sacchet: It has been reviewed by the forester, right.
Generous: She reviewed this plan.
Sacchet: But we can certainly make a note that we want that...
Alan Nikolai: I'm very concerned about it because you said well 15 to 20 feet from that property
line. That's within 5 feet of those southerly trunks of those trees.
Sacchet: Well looking at where they're on the plat, the trees are considerably closer to the lot
line than to the retaining wall, if that's any consolation. It's something I think, it's a very valid
point that we would want to bring to the forester's attention to do a double check on it.
Alan Nikolai: Somebody mentioned that basically this wall here. ..but based on that northeast
side, it said 4 to 7 feet high. Which side is 4 feet, which side is 7 feet?
Saam: The taller end, it's tall down at the west and then it starts to go down as you go to the
east, but then it does raise up again and that's just based on the elevation change in that area.
Nathan Franzen: I think you're asking whether the lots are lower. The lots are lower than the
trees.
35
I
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: The lots are lower than the trees. That's why he's concerned. You're going to cut
potentially roots off.
Alan Nikolai: Approximately how much are the site pads lower than the trees? Are we talking 2
feet? Are we talking 10 feet? You were talking a lot of grade differences here earlier.
Saam: I mean it varies. Again it drops as it goes to the east generally speaking. 8 feet. Some of
these are different. I mean generally if the wall is 4 to 6 feet, the trees might be a little taller so
you're in that 5 to 7 foot elevation difference. Generally speaking.
Alan Nikolai: Okay, thank you. I'd like to explore a little bit about this turn lane which also,
there's the trail.
Sacchet: Do you want to point it out on the drawing so we know where you're at. Okay.
Alan Nikolai: Right here... How is that, there's an existing trail there right now with a curb.
How are you going to add the trail and a turn lane without impacting the arborvitae trees?
Sacchet: Has that been looked at?
Saam: I would pass that onto the applicant. I don't know if they looked at that yet. I don't
believe it's on these plans yet so maybe they've looked at it.
Alan Nikolai: Well, have any of the people been out to the site and looked at the site?
Sacchet: Oh yeah.
Alan Nikolai: Okay. If you understand, you have the trail and it's approximately 8 feet from the
trail's edge. You have the edge of the arborvitae trees along, all along Galpin Boulevard there.
Now how are you going to put a turn lane in and have a trail there without impacting those
arborvitaes?
Lillehaug: I think there's probably going to be some impact.
Alan Nikolai: Is this right here.. .trying to be saved or not? Or is it this right here? This is
where all the arborvitaes are.
Sacchet: Yeah please.
Nathan Franzen: This current plan does not show a turn. We just received that request last week
and we've just started looking at where that turn lane will be and there will be some impacts in
this northern section ofthe arborvitaes. We don't know how extensive that it but there will be
some significant effects.
Keefe: And what would happen to the trail then?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Nathan Franzen: The trail, it's all going to be moved.
Keefe: It's all going to have to be pushed, yeah.
Alan Nikolai: May I ask who asked you to look at that for a turn lane.
Nathan Franzen: The County.
Alan Nikolai: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Alan Nikolai: I guess, one of the things about the arborvitaes there on that east side, it is a major
buffer year round. They're well established. Been there well over 50 years and now you're
removing some of the other neighbors across the street, you're removing the buffer strips.
You're talking about how much you're conserving the trees and yet you're taking out many of
these arborvitaes along the Galpin Boulevard there. I don't consider that conservation ladies
and gentlemen. Not nearly.
Sacchet: Well unfortunately this is development more than conservation. I think that's the. . .
Alan Nikolai: Well you're conserving on the west end and yet you're not doing anything on this
site where there's a fairly high traffic road and you're going to have traffic noise, which is going
to affect these landowners. These landowners, they're going to have to be looking out their door
and they're going to have all this traffic, and here you have already a natural buffer of trees that
you're going to be removing. That does not make sense.
Sacchet: I'm with you. I'm with you on that one.
Alan Nikolai: One of the things I'd like to see there, how about a conservation easement
protecting those arborvitae. I understand you have to have the road coming in, but protect those
trees on that easterly side of the new, ofthat development and also the Norway pines on the
north side. What's going to prevent the future homeowner from cutting them down? I'd like to
see, if you want try managed development, have a conservation easement that basically it's to be
kept in trees, not to be touched by the landowners. Including the Norway's and the arborvitae
there. That is a doable thing at this point in time. I think that is something that really needs to be
looked at in this development. One of the things was brought up earlier a little bit about is Lot
27 concern and lack of parkland and I'm not so concerned about the kids that they can hop on
their bicycles and run up to the school property and play ball. I'm a little bit more concerned,
how about the kids that are 6 years old and the mom wants to go, have the kids go play
somewhere. You know go down to the swing set and on a slide. There's no area for that. More
of that type of park development, not the big you know open areas but a little area that you know
the kids can play. The little kids, the tykes in the neighborhood can play. I think Lot 27 would
be much better served in that capacity. And as far as the development, as far as this road going
up through, up here. Up here, potentially connecting to Crestview, put back into the cul-de-sac.
The plan that was originally requested by the developer. There's no need for that road to go up
~
if
37
..
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
there. I don't know if any of you've actually went up Crestview or have driven it, there's an
extremely sharp curve. Very limited sight. Visibility right about here. And it's very tight. I
mean if you go through there more than 15 miles an hour you risk a head on with another
vehicle. And now you're going to add 40-60 other people. Crestview's an extremely steep hill.
It's very icy this time of year, and what happened the other day with, yesterday morning with the
ice, you're going to add all this additional traffic going down that hill and extremely, that's an
accident waiting to happen with a head on, to add all this additional traffic. I talked to my
mother about it and she's very much opposed to adding additional traffic on that road for safety
considerations. Someone's going to get hurt there. If you add that extra traffic up there, so I
would request that you reconsider adding that connection to Crestview. Go back to a cul-de-sac.
Maybe the developer can add an extra lot up in that area to replace Lot 27 being used as a park
area. That type of thing. I think that's all that I have. I respectfully ask that you, especially
reconsider the conservation easements for the existing trees on that east and north side. That is
something that would have the, lessen the impact upon the existing neighborhood. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Larry Marty: Good evening. Larry Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. I'm also a member of the
W oodridge Heights Association representing that neighborhood. Couple of concerns that I have.
The two revolve around a big part of what we've already heard tonight. The drainage and the
trees. The drainage element, I'm hearing that this is going to improve drainage but I guess I'm
not seeing enough information to give me confidence in that. I live just directly south of this
development. Directly down the hill on the south side of Lake Lucy. The, we are dealing with a
lot of runoff already. If anybody has walked or run the path, they've seen the year round, the
drainage that comes across that path now. You will be removing a lot of trees that are directly
going to impact that, even though you may put in some swales and try to drain it away from the
northern side, the reality is there's still a very steep slope there. Water is going to come down
that and with reduced canopy you're going to have greater amounts of water there. I know the
one homeowner specifically has had severe problems. They've had, they run two sump pumps.
One of them, they're both on battery back-up. They've already burned one out because it was
running nonstop. So I'm sure they would have direct concerns with that. To the tree element, I
see all of the properties on the north side of the W oodridge Heights development that abut this
development have a significant amount of tree cover that will be reduced significantly. When
our development in W oodridge Heights was put in, even though there was all of that tree cover
there, there were trees that were planted on the north side of our property. On the specific, on the
top side along this outlot here. All along here there were evergreens that were planted along the
top of that property. Some ofthem have been cut down, but we'd like to see it, some ofthem
have died but we'd like to see if there is any development that proceeds, we'd like to see
additional trees put in there to provide that buffer that was put in, even when our development
went in and it wasn't even impacting that particular area so I think it's only fair for any
development also to continue to add to that. And I guess lastly, the concern I have is just with
regards to the access roads. The concern about the road coming out onto Manchester. That's
going to create additional traffic. We do have a bus stop there. There's not a four way stop at
that point which has already been raised and we would have concerns about that would increase
traffic on that site. And I guess the last piece to our Crestview friends, I think the comments that
have been made about the security that's being created by creating the access to Crestview
38
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
through this development is somewhat of an oxymoron in the sense that we're creating a cul-de-
sac that I would imagine is very close to 500 feet in length and has a lot of homes that would be
in a similar setting that Crestview is currently in now without having to have any additional
access so if security is the reason we're putting, granting that access, then why are we building a
cul-de-sac that's creating that same situation. To me, as I look at this plan, I think the access
road probably adds for another lot and just another opportunity for the developer and not
necessarily the, what's best for the neighborhood and the best for Chanhassen.
Sacchet: Thank you sir. Anybody else? Yes. Please come forward.
Ruopei Cao: My name is Ruopei Cao. I live at 2135 Lake Lucy Road. My question is regarding
the privacy. We live down the south of the Lake Lucy Road and our house is, we're up the field
back here and we're, I'm consider of, is it possible that this new houses you there will oversee
our house or that you invade our privacy.
Sacchet: Well they're going to be up on the hill there, and I don't know to what extent it would
have a view down onto Lake Lucy. When I walked the property I, you're definitely going to get
to the edge. You can even see down to Lake Lucy. You can see the road so I would assume,
from the house, further up you may see the house below but it's considerable distance.
Ruopei Cao: Okay. So I mean the house will be like here? This side of.
Sacchet: Right, there should be a little bit of a hill but I don't know whether we can be more
specific than that.
Saam: Yes Mr. Chair, just looking at the grading plan. The houses will be approximately 45
plus feet higher. They're proposing ramblers so their base.
Sacchet: So they're not tall.
Saam: When they look out their windows it will be even a bit higher than that. 4 feet upwards
or what have you so they're going to be considerably higher than the street level down on Lake
Lucy is. I would think it would be hard to peer into windows, that sort of thing.
Ruopei Cao: But do you have a plan that has like trees block the view so if you watch.
Sacchet: Well some trees are being preserved. I mean there is this strip of trees that is being
preserved. It's not, we're trying to preserve as many trees as possible. Personally I'd like to
preserve more but they definitely made a valiant effort to preserve a good amount. So there will
be a buffer from where I understand you're referring to, there'd be a buffer of evergreens
actually that's being preserved.
~...
Ruopei Cao: And my other comments will be, I, we bought the house, we moved into this
neighborhood 5 years ago... the low density of the residence, this residential area and I like this
area with all kinds of animals and deers and with those are cut off, my more concern is we're
kind of losing the environment.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Well hopefully you won't lose all of it.
Ruopei Cao: And with this 43 houses you build there, I'm not sure how, what is the average of
the lot size for this?
Sacchet: What are we looking, about 18-19,000?
Generous: 19.5.
Sacchet: 19,500 square feet per lot is the average.
Generous: Almost a half acre.
Ruopei Cao: Half acre.
Sacchet: Half an acre, yeah.
Ruopei Cao: Okay. Alright.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you for your questions. We got somebody else?
Troy Bader: Hello. Troy Bader, 2244 Lake Lucy Road. One question I have really relates to the
ravine that would run on the west side of the development. We are, the ravine will actually come
out of the woods, out of the nature area. It will run down and actually discharges just on the east
side of our property. No problems with it right now. My concern though relates to the
construction, the clearing, the grading period and construction period. I know there are some
standard protections that have been established to keep the ravine in it's natural state. Keep the
debris out of it. I'm concerned though, is that actually sufficient? There's going to be a lot of
dirt that's going to be moved. There's going to be a lot of retaining walls going to be in there,
and if that silt and dirt and ground comes down into that ravine, that ravine will be changed from
it's natural state on a permanent basis. I'm also concerned what it could obviously do from the
total drainage going through that area. Who's going to maintain that and who's going to watch
for that during the construction period?
Sacchet: Do you want to touch on the silt fencing and that sort of stuff Matt?
Saam: Sure. Yeah, silt fence is some of the standard types of methods that are used to hold the
construction dirt on the site during rain events. We also require temporary sediment ponds
basically so if drainage, the drainage that does flow off the site, if it has the dirt in it, it can settle
out in a dirt type basin. And then it will be both the City's responsibility but with the new PCA
requirements, the contractor is responsible to maintain the site. The City contracts with Carver
Soil and Water District to inspect sites around town, so we'll be checking on them but the
contractor is responsible. He signs a permit. He's a liable for fines with the PCA if he's not up
to snuff.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Troy Bader: Okay, have those methods proven to be successful, because I'm looking at this
grade. You know when I'm looking at a standard building lot where there may be a slight grade,
we've got a big grade with a lot of dirt that's going to be moved, and Ijust want to make sure
that we're okay.
Saam: Yes, again if it's maintained correctly, the silt fence should hold up. We have a pretty
sturdy silt fence. It's not just wood stakes. It's metal posts so.
Troy Bader: Okay, and is that the maximum level? Is there anything else that can be done or is
this, you know as you look at the levels of protection that can be taken, is this the maximum that
can be taken that's reasonable for this type of a development?
Saam: Some additional items that we're going to require them to do once they grade a slope is
put a blanket on the steep slope to keep the dirt from leaving the site and there will be seed under
that. The blanket helps both keep the dirt on there and then the moisture and so the seed can
take, so that in addition to silt fencing, temporary sediment basins. Those are the 3 that we
typically use.
Troy Bader: Alright, because the concern is obviously we're losing a lot of trees in that area. A
lot of dirt's going to be moved in that area and I'm very concerned, we talk here about trying to
maintain the natural integrity of that area, but I think it's going to be very difficult to actually
carry that through.
Sacchet: Well if it's any reassurance, I mean the city does inspect those silt fences and all
periodically. It's not like they get put in and forgotten and washed out. From my experience
usually the issue we sometimes run into is that they don't get removed afterwards so, but while
they're there, they tend to get checked and as Matt pointed out, I think it's very significant that
once grading is complete, it has to be reseeded. If it's steeper, it has to be done right away. I
think there's, if it's steeper slope it's within 7 days or something like that, that it needs to have an
erosion protection blanket on it with the seed. I mean I think that concern, we are certainly doing
what we can to mitigate.
Troy Bader: Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair?
~
Sacchet: Yes.
I'
Claybaugh: Staff may want to get together with them later and they can look at details on Sheet
10 of 11.
II
Sacchet: It actually specifies.
Claybaugh: Slope blankets, stabilization as well as silt fencing.
pt
41
~
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: Good point. Thanks Craig. Do we have anybody else that wants to address this
development? Yes we do.
Charlie Hicks: I'm Charlie Hicks at 19, excuse me, 1941 Crestview Circle. I'm not part of the
Drive consortium here. I'm part of the circle, but I have a quick comment and a question. The
comment is, I don't live at Crestview Circle but I thought everybody here that does was really far
more eloquent than what I would have said had I lived there. This reminds me of kind of a
twisted suburban renewal, if you think about it. My comment would be, if it has to happen, I
mean development has to happen. We can't stop that but I would like to have you think about
messing up their cul-de-sac because it is beautiful. I live on the east side of it and I get to walk
my dog up it every once in a while. It's great. My other question would be traffic on Galpin.
Galpin's like the Indy 500. If you live there it's like walking down by Daytona. And if we're
going to have another 80 some odd cars, how are we going to manage it?
Sacchet: Well, I don't want to minimize that but 80 cars on that type of road, does that really
have an impact?
Saam: Galpin is classified as a major thoroughfare in town. A collector. Arterial type road
that's meant to handle the traffic. That's meant to take cars on it. To take traffic. We're not
talking a residential street. With that said, I mean we do believe the traffic's going to work. It is
a county road. They're putting in the turn lane to help get traffic that's coming into the site off
of the main drag so to speak. We think it's going to work.
Charlie Hicks: Thanks.
Sacchet: You're welcome. Thank you. Now I think there was somebody else. Yes there.
Kim Goers: I just have a quick question. My name is Kim Goers and I live on Brenden Court. I
live at 6709 Brenden. I also own a property at 6673 Brenden Court which is currently for sale.
6673 Brenden Court is right next to the road. There's a road running between.
Sacchet: That private drive there.
Kim Goers: What will happen to that road? Is that going to be.
Sacchet: Well I think we touched on that before that at this point nothing would happen with it.
Kim Goers: It will just stay there?
Sacchet: It will just sit there for now. That's what I understood what he said Matt.
Saam: Yes. We actually haven't put much thought into, you know if we're going to remove...
Sacchet: I mean realistically it could go away because it's not being used.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Saam: However there is a sewer line in there and the water line...
Sacchet: There would definitely be an easement, a utility easement right?
Saam: We may want to keep that for access purposes. The pavement but frankly we haven't
really given it much thought as to you know, do we want to keep that or do we want to remove
the pavement.
Kim Goers: Okay, so as of right now.
Sacchet: So definitely it's an easement for the sewer and water line.
Saam: Definitely the easement will stay.
Sacchet: That is firm, that part.
Kim Goers: Okay, so it will still be City owned property.
Sacchet: The City would have, at a minimum have access.
Kim Goers: Okay. So when you say access, does that mean you would continue the road into
the property?
Saam: No, it's just for maintenance access. If the City would need to get in, if there's a
watermain break or that sort of thing. We're not talking trip, multiple trips per day access.
Anything like that.
Kim Goers: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay? Alright, anybody else? I'm not seeing anybody, last chance. I'm closing this
public hearing. Thank you all for your comments. Appreciate it. Bring it back to
commissioners. Discussion. Comments...
Claybaugh: Out of the public comments something came up and I was wondering if I could pose
a question to the developer?
Sacchet: Certainly.
~
Claybaugh: With respect to the right turn lane. Do you have any input with respect to how that
may impact your Lot number 8?
Nathan Franzen: There is enough room within the right-of-way to accommodate the turn lane.
We know that at this point. As far as effects on the trees, is that what you're alluding to?
Claybaugh: Both.
43
t
E
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Nathan Franzen: Both. As far as what's going to be left remaining of that stand, it's probably
not going to be the best looking, if there is any that we can save. It is our belief to replant that
area with another hedge.
Claybaugh: Okay, and that's what I want to get out there.
Nathan Franzen: And to get to that comment about the conserve, conservation easement as well
that was brought up.
Sacchet: Sure, go ahead.
Nathan Franzen: I did ask Jill about that when we first started this whole process.
Sacchet: Jill being the City Forester?
Nathan Franzen: Yes, that's right. And it wasn't really looked highly upon because there are
some issues, particularly even surrounding this property where people aren't following and
there's no enforcement of it, and it just seems like it's anotherlayer of government. We're
certainly open to doing that, ifthat's something you wish to do, but it wasn't approved by Jill.
Sacchet: Yeah, unfortunately our experience with conservation easements is not very
encouraging. It doesn't get enough respect and it's hard to enforce, so that might be an
important. . .
Claybaugh: Certainly we can't get any worst for trying?
Sacchet: It certainly well worth trying. Now in that context, I mean there's also the question is
Galpin being, did you say collector road? Or.
Saam: Yeah, I believe arterial.
Sacchet: So I mean at some point chances are it's going to be widen. Is that realistic statement?
I mean not to scare everybody out of their wits but in terms of how the city develops, Galpin is
considered a road that could potentially get bigger.
Saam: Right.
Sacchet: Not as a thru road but as an access road for the neighbors, okay. And that's another
element to balance. I mean it's delicate to balance all these things. Craig, do you have more
stuff?
Claybaugh: If we're going to move onto comments?
Sacchet: Yes, we are comments and discussion. That's where we're at.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Claybaugh: Okay. I appreciate all the public comments. We hear a lot of them on projects like
this, and some of them are certainly gut wrenching. Other ones are just a function of a
definition. When I moved in on Lake Lucy Road it was a dirt road. There were 100 horses
down at the end. If you've driven on Lake Lucy Road recently, you'll know that's not what I
have any more. But when we come back to it from a city government standpoint and the
engineer's job, city staff's job, they rely upon their engineering. They rely on the city's best
management practices. So we kind of get lost in the definition. Your's is very subjective
standpoint of what your personal experience is. They function from a different level and I'd like
to make that point. I think that having seen Plowshares bring a number of developments in front
of this body previously, I hold them in reasonably high regard with respect to the effort they set
forth in bringing the development forward. There is always going to be issues that seem that
they're not fully baked. Sometimes it turns out that they are and we're just pushing it from the
left side to the right side. Other times we do make strides with respect to the public comments
and the discussions that take place here and I think some of that is what's going to take place
here tonight so. I am in favor, I am concerned with the number of outstanding issues we have
regarding this or surrounding this here yet tonight. The least of which isn't Lot 27 drainage, the
street elevation. We've got a dialogue present but we don't have any concrete solutions.
Sanitary sewer. Street C eyebrow, as well as some of the things that came out from the
neighborhoods with respect to tying in Street C. Conservation easements. So on and so forth so
I guess I'd sit back and listen to the commissioners, my fellow commissioners comments and see
if I can reach some conclusion myself here yet tonight.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Who wants to go next? Any other comments?
Lillehaug: I will.
Sacchet: Jump over there. Alright, go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Well the eyebrow cul-de-sac, I don't support that. It's not a very standard cul-de-sac.
Who maintains the middle portion of it, of the cul-de-sac. I mean there are ways to do that but I
don't support it. If it does go through though, it should have I think like staff would support is a
wider street undoubtedly. There are issues with narrower streets. I don't support conservation
easements, for the reasons that Commissioner Sacchet indicated. Lot 27, I think that should be
turned into a park or.
Sacchet: Totlot?
Lillehaug: Or an outlot or increase the pond size. My opinion. The right turn lane versus saving
the trees. I weigh the safety of the traffic on Galpin more than I weigh those trees, so definitely
if it's a right turn lane versus taking those trees, in my mind it's definitely putting a right turn
lane in. And a couple issues I have here. Is it the best for the City of Chanhassen? I don't
believe so but it's the people who own those properties have a right to develop it so we're here to
get the best development as possible, so that's what I'm trying to do here. A couple issues I
have. Minimum versus maximum standards. It seems like every time we get a development
we're always right on the edge of meeting the minimum standards and it's one of my pet peeves.
As far as you know maximizing the maximum amount of lots we can get out here by forcing a
45
~
~
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
swale. Trying to get the drainage to work. I just don't think we need to go that route. If we lose
a lot, that's what happens. And I know that's not advantageous to the pockets of the landowners
but I think that's something we should weigh in on. As far as the profile of the road, again every
single one of them curves is meeting the absolute minimum standard that the City would allow,
and actually MnDot wouldn't allow that on their roads because like the designer said, it meets 25
miles an hour. Well this is a 30 mile an hour road so with, I would ask staff when they go back
and look at that, when they're lowering the road, don't let them meet the minimum on every
single, every single vertical curve. Let's try to get a better fit out there. Not a better fit but a
safer fit. As far as the minimum landing area before we get onto Galpin, another one of my pet
peeves. We're going from a 7 percent down to a 3 percent. Icy Minnesota winters. It's not the
best situation. Yes, it meets the minimum but I think that's another area where I'd like to see
staff work a little bit with the consultant and increase that. And I think I've talked enough.
Generally I support it. Next.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Okay. In the budding tradition of the Chanhassen Planning Commission I respectfully
disagree with Commissioner Lillehaug on the eyebrow. I think it's very creative and I commend
the landscape designer for trying to do something different. I understand from the city
engineer's perspective this might create some challenges to, with the plowing crews and so on,
but they might have to learn how to plow that particular configuration but I think one of the
concerns that was raised by the Crestview residents was another McMansion development I
believe was the term used that I think this helps mitigate the cookie cutter look that some of our
developments engender after a while so I actually support the eyebrow. Regards to Lot 27, I
think this is just a disaster waiting to happen here. There's what, a 24 foot grade difference from
Lots 23, 24 and 25 immediately behind this and the amount of snow pack, if we ever get snow
this year. You know in the spring when that melts, I just think you're going to have horrendous
problems trying to keep that basement dry if you build a house there. So I think that one's going
to be problematic. In regards to the connection to Crestview, Street B. I think there's real value
in looking at this holistically. Obviously many of the residents here tonight are concerned about
the connection to Crestview, and to be honest that's what, that's not what we're here tonight to,
you know to decide on. All we are going to decide on here tonight is taking it to the border of
this particular development, but I think there is value in looking at this together with the Shivley
proposal and say let's look at these two at the same time. Let's look at them as one big holistic
plan and understand the total impact to the neighborhood so that we don't stall out here. I would
also like to point out to residents, or encourage you, one of the reasons we have this conflict here
tonight is the city's comprehensive plan is driving city staff to make these connections so the city
has a policy that encourages developers to develop this way, so I would strongly encourage the
residents of Chanhassen to get involved in the review of the comprehensive plan so that the next
time it gets revised, it reflects the desires of the residents of the city. You know you're very
vocal in what you're speaking out on and I respect that, but your feelings are in direct
contradiction to the city's comprehensive plan and I think the best way to deal with that issue, in
the long run, is for the residents of the city to get involved in that comprehensive plan. So with
that, I've said enough. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Want to go?
46
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Tjomhom: Yeah, I've got some things to say. Ijust want, first of all to say that I really, I think I
have good feelings about this developer. I think that he really will try to work with the city and
with the staff in making the right decisions for this development. I think a developer is only as
good as his developments are, and so it's in his best interest also to make sure that all these
issues we discussed tonight are taken care of and that he has a quality product in the end. Even
though tonight we're not deciding access to Crestview or not, I think the neighbors have spoken
and I think we have to respect what they've said. It is the city's goal to promote access to
neighborhoods, but it's promote. That's what it says. It doesn't say demand. It doesn't say
acquire. It says promote and so I think when a neighborhood obviously gets together like you
have tonight and you rallied and you spoke your mind, I think we have to listen to that and
respect that. Getting on to my favorite thing now is Street C, the island, and I think I'm willing
to be brave and throw caution to the wind and say let's go for it. I think that the developer said
he would work with Matt to make the streets perhaps a little wider, and to accommodate him any
way he can and I think it would just be a new, wonderful addition to our city. So I'm in favor for
the island. And Lot 27. Once again, well not once again. No one else has said that but I'm
going to say that I'm going to put my trust in the developer that he would work with engineering
and he would try to make a building pad and put swales around it to protect water damage or any
problems with drainage. I don't think it would be a good park or a totlot, especially because
there's a pond right next to it. In my mind that would be a hazard for children. So I think that's
all I have to say but I am in support of it.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. We haven't heard from you Dan.
!
~
-'!
I
I
I
I
-~
Keefe: Sure. Further study obviously needs to occur in regards to the right turn lane off of
Galpin and I don't think I'm in favor of a conservation easement, just due to the difficulty in
trying to maintain it. It also sounds like, even if we're required to put in a right turn lane which
it sounds like we are, I don't know how those reconcile themselves concerning those arborvitaes
along with putting in a right turn lane. It doesn't sound like there's room for that anyway, so I
don't know ifthat isn't kind of a moot thought. Lot 27,1 actually agree with Bethany on that. I
think that they can work on that lot and I think they can work with the city and make the
appropriate swales to make that a viable lot. I like the eyebrow lot, or eyebrow street. I think it
is a creative solution. I think a lot of thought has gone into looking at that. I think they've
worked with the city in terms of the width. I think that can be reconciled. I would like the
runoff calc's to be looked at really closely in regards to this, in regards to the properties to the
south. We've heard a lot of comments in regards to water, already existing water problems. We
don't want to add to the problem. Problems that are already occurring. And is it true that Street
B, I think I saw in the staff report that we're going to have a temporary cul-de-sac on that right
now, is that correct?
(
1'.-
i
i
¡
i
Generous: If the two projects don't go concurrently, then yes we'd have to have a turn around.
f
Keefe: Right, so we really won't know the answer to that until we get the proposal in for the
other two when we're considering the next one, right?
Generous: When they come in for final plat.
,
47
I
· .
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Keefe: You know we definitely need to consider what the residents have brought forth and, but I
don't think that's going to be resolved probably until the next, until we see the next development
come in. That's all I have.
Sacchet: Thank you Dan. Rich, your turn.
Slagle: Just a few. I guess I'll state a couple of reasons I support the proposal and then I'll
suggest a couple reasons that cause me concern. One is, has been stated and I'll make it quick.
The developer is solid. To all the folks who are here, if this does go forward I think you'll find
they do more often than not than what I've seen, keep people's interest in mind. I support the
landscape island, although I would encourage 28 feet or some compromise between 24 and 28.
Support the private drive we're asked to consider. I also support a right hand turn, although
those arborvitaes are just unbelievable but in safety needs, but I will start to share my concerns
and needs I think that our lacking in this development. One is a park. I'm amazed that we now
have a development with this many units at this place in the city that I, seriously I can't think of
the nearest park.
Keefe: Pheasant Hills.
Slagle: You would have to go down Lake Lucy. Up Lake Lucy hill, which is a good mile and
along a pretty busy road if you're a lady pushing a stroller, so I sit here and say, if you look at the
southern part of our city, the central along Highway 5, we've had recent developments that have
been in front of this commission that we have requested and almost required neighborhood
totlots, and here we have one that doesn't have one. And then I think well okay we'll go with the
developer's idea that they'll go to the middle school. Well, there's no really connection to the
middle school. Someone would have to go out to Galpin, up the hill. Take a left on whatever,
Melody Hill and then work your way back, or go all the way down to Lake Lucy and then over
to Brenden and up Brenden. Not 41 but up that little path. So again in the essence of community
I think we're missing that. And I would really ask, and for those who are here, the difficulty of
this commission is we don't see this until Thursday of last week. So we get a little frustrated in
this position as to why this wasn't done before it got to us. So I just want to know if it's
something to consider. I am against, even though it's with city policy, the extension of Street B.
Only because I really don't sense in the common sense of things, other than safety and fire,
emergency, what that really does for us. If Crestview extended to the north, I can work it's way
down toward 7 or something to that effect, I could understand it. But to just add this to a cul-de-
sac and we have lots of cul-de-sacs that are as long that have one access so I would be against
that. And I do think it's appropriate to talk about it now because it'd be silly to approve this and
then have the next development come to us at that point, it's already done. And that leads to two
more points. Is should this development that we're talking about today, in light of the new
development, should they be tied in some sort together because we have had that happen before
where we have actually told a developer, hold on. There's other developers who want to develop
nearby and we really want to address this all together so I just throw that out as a concern. And
then the last one is, with respect to the landowners to the south and the runoff. If we remember
the development that we just approved 3-4 months ago on the south side of Pioneer, Pemtom I
believe it was, we actually required, or the city did, different mitigation on those lots on the bluff
48
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
to avoid additional erosion and mitigating the water runoff. I'm just curious as to why we didn't
see that here. Maybe it's not needed, but at least it raised a concern that maybe it is. That's it.
Sacchet: Alright, I've got a few comments too. First points that the developer brought up. I do
like the idea of the wide cul-de-sac personally. I think it's good to try something new. That's
just the way I am. Yeah, I think if it gets mitigated with the width of the street, that we can
accommodate, we should be able to accommodate something new. The private roads, I think
they make a lot of sense. They allow us to preserve more of the natural features. I'm
comfortable with the developer wanting to further explore the possibility of the sewer connection
to the south. Whether the concerns of staff can be mitigated. I don't think that's a reason to hold
it up. Lot 27. You know it's relatively infrequent that staff actually recommends a deletion of a
lot. Usually it's us from the Planning Commission that does that and when staff does it I believe
there's quite significant reason to it so I definitely support staff in that notion. In terms ofthe
drainage, I think it needs to be further considered. You know it's interesting. I came, when I
looked at this I kind of felt like this should be tabled because more effort should be done to
preserve more trees and lessen the amount of grading. Because I mean there are no two ways
about it. The tree loss is horrendous. There's no two ways about that. I usually spend some
time looking at the tree inventory and I want to thank the applicant of submitting a very detailed
tree inventory, and I usually look at the very significant trees. The biggest ones. And we're
losing 25, or even 27 of the biggest trees. We only saved 4. That trees 28 inch and bigger. I
went out there looking at a couple of trees like I hit you with one of them that I felt well if it can
be tweaked a little bit, it could be saved. There were a couple of other ones that I noticed. In
some places the grade change is just way too big to even start thinking about saving more trees,
but having worked with this developer before I feel comfortable that if they work with staff that
they will do their best to adjust some of these lines like the example that I gave you where maybe
a tree... but looking at it, I mean if that's an indication out of 25, actually out of what 30 trees, 25
get cut if you look at the most significant ones. Personally I'd like to definitely see more effort
there to the point that when I walked in here I was thinking I'd rather send you back to the
drawing board and do that effort and want to see it again. Considering the good will that's been
displayed, I'm tom. It seems like there's so much we can enforce that, so I'd rather foster the
good will. In terms of the Crestview connection, it's definitely clearly a city policy that we want
to connect neighborhoods. I mean that's not a staff idea. That's a comprehensive city plan issue
as Kurt pointed out very aptly. On the other hand I also want to point out that in the past we
definitely have been sensitive to neighborhoods that express a concern. Was it the Melody Hill
Lane or what's that called, that was supposed to go through. The neighborhood very clearly
expressed they didn't want that and we didn't do it so if the neighborhood really doesn't want it
and it seems like it's pretty unanimous, all the power to them. It has to be looked at in
conjunction though with this development that's coming in. Because all of a sudden we have,
you say what is it, 5 families and we add another 5 so we're only doubling there. It only takes an
outlot or two to develop and all of a sudden you have 3 times the people in one cul-de-sac. A
cul-de-sac that goes a couple of turns, it's very narrow, become an issue. But that's for the
residents first to give their input too. Tree preservation, we already touched on preservation
easements. They just don't have much teeth. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But then on
the other hand trying to preserve these trees along Galpin might be a moot point with the street.
With some likeliness extending at some point in the future, we might be better off starting to
plant a new hedge where it's going to stay where it has a chance to stay in the long run than
I
II
49
-
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
trying to preserve something that is very questionable and to what extent it can stay. Playground
I think would be really important. I think that Lot 27 is forced. Whether it's the right place for a
totlot, I have to admit it may not be but not having anyplace for little kids to play in any
proximity is a concern that I would like to see addressed. That's probably one of, between that
and the tree savings, that's the two most significant points I have. Let me see, do I have anything
else? I think I probably talked long enough and we do want to move on. So with that, anybody
want to shoot for a motion?
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission adopts the following two motions. The
Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the 27.62 acres
located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential
based on consistency with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with
surrounding development and recommendation and motion B. The Chanhassen Planning
Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for
the use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Incorporated dated
9/17/04, revised 9/22/04 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and
subject to the following conditions 1 through, you know I really like the other way of numbering.
Sacchet: 1 through 5 with all the letters.
Lillehaug: 1 through 5 with all the letters. With an exception of, jeepers. Give me a little bit
here. Revising, please change back to how we used to do it. 1 don't even have a clue of how to
look atthis. Page 13, (p).
Sacchet: 5(p).
Lillehaug: 5(p).
Claybaugh: 6(p).
Sacchet: Is there a 6 somewhere?
Claybaugh: Yes. No. Yeah, he's right. We've got to go back to the old way.
Sacchet: We've got double number layers.
Lillehaug: Page 13, (p). I want to stress that I agree with staff's position on that. Page 13 (0). I
want to revise that to say a standard cul-de-sac turn around for emergency vehicles will be
required at the north end of Street B and then delete the rest of it so in essence they're not
connecting up.
Generous: No connection.
Lillehaug: No connection to the north. Page 13 (r), I would like it to revise to say, revise Street
C to be a standard 28 feet width. And then I want to add a condition. Geotechnical testing report
and recommendation will be required and needs to be provided to the city. Someone help me out
50
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
with that easement requirement. I cannot remember. Craig, was there something with an
easement requirement?
Claybaugh: Yeah, it was in tandem with the independent testing or Matt, go ahead.
Saam: Yeah, a 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must
also be submitted for the private street.
Lillehaug: For the private streets?
Saam: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. And there's going to be others here but I'm going to just stop right there. And
maybe amend myself in a bit here.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We need a second first before we do amendments.
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Sacchet: We have a second. Friendly amendments. Well first point of clarification Steve if I
may. Your revision to point (r) on page 13.
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sacchet: You said to a 28 width, but you deleted standard. So you're supporting the eyebrow or
do you want it standard?
Lillehaug: I deleted cul-de-sac is what I meant to say, so it should read, revise Street C to be a
standard 28 foot width. So I deleted the words cul-de-sac so it is just like shown there but widen
it to 28 feet. Keeping the eyebrow. See I gave a little bit.
Sacchet: That's I just want to make sure what you gave. Thank you.
Claybaugh: It's all that time he spent in Edina, he's grown to appreciate the finer things.
Slagle: Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. Should we be voting first on A and then we vote
on B? Since there's two motions it says adopt the following two motions.
Sacchet: I think we can do it in one here.
I¥
re
Generous: You can do them in one.
~
Slagle: Do we want to do it in one hit? I guess I'm just throwing that out.
Sacchet: Is there any reason why we shouldn't?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Lillehaug: I'm okay with doing it in one.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
Lillehaug: I have an amendment to myself here. And I think this would be page 13 (q). I don't
want to just say delete the western sanitary sewer line because I do have concerns with the 40
plus or minus foot deep sanitary line and I want to, I'd like staffto revisit that and I'm not saying
that it won't go as staff is saying but just please revisit that and work with staff and come up with
a better plan.
Sacchet: Work with staff to in further investigate the feasibility of that sewer connection?
Something like that?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Alright, yeah that's good. So you accept that?
Lillehaug: I do. And another amendment is, or another condition would be to work with staff to
incorporate a tot or similar type playground on this site, and if that's eliminating another lot, so
be it. But it's not necessarily putting that playground on Lot 7, or 27. It's putting it somewhere
else within the development because I concur with the concerns that Bethany indicated about
having a playground right next to the water, but usually there's safety benches there but.
Sacchet: You did leave the deletion of Lot 27 though.
Lillehaug: I left page 13 (p) in there, yes.
Sacchet: Okay, just to be clear.
Lillehaug: Deletion of that Lot 27.
Sacchet: Okay. That's clear.
Slagle: Point of clarification Commissioner Lillehaug. Would any verbiage that would state
sufficient barriers from the pond be adequate? For Lot 27.
Lillehaug: Rather than eliminating another lot, I think it would be because another just...
Claybaugh: ...in conjunction with a 4 foot fence.
Lillehaug: And usually there's a safety bench in the pond, correct? Safety bench meaning
shallow area.
Claybaugh: Some kind of retain age wall to kind of level off that lot a little bit.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Lillehaug: So revising my last condition it would be, work with staff to incorporate a
playground within the site somewhere.
Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Could we add to that, some tree preservation. Put it in a place
where more trees can be preserved. Because a totlot doesn't need the same amount of grading as
a house pad. Just something to work with staff in that context.
Nathan Franzen: Some provision perhaps to where we work with Jill.
Sacchet: Right. Right, nothing specific at this point. Work with the city to determine, to
leverage out some more tree preservation at the same time.
Lillehaug: I accept that.
Sacchet: Okay. I would actually I'd like to add a general clause on that. Work with city to
make every effort to save more trees and minimize grading as much as possible through a
detailed look. Detailed walk through when the tree preservation fencing gets determined. Where
to fine tune things like the example that I pointed out.
Lillehaug: So then maybe we should revise page 11, condition 4(d).
Sacchet: 4( d). Preservation..., yes. Shall be, applicant shall work with city to make every effort
possible to preserve further trees beyond what's in the tree preservation plan. Something to that
point. I think I'm fine to leave it open ended. I would like to specifically however say
something about.
Lillehaug: I accept that.
Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Something about the concern from the neighbor to the north. About
this evergreen hedge and the proximity of that retaining wall. I think that's another element that
needs to be looked at or with the city. With the City Forester to ensure that these evergreens
have a realistic prospect of survival. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense at all. Can we do
something to that effect in there?
Lillehaug: I accept.
Sacchet: That's accepted?
Lillehaug: Yeah.
Sacchet: Alright. Anything else?
Slagle: I've got one more.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
I,'
.'¡'
53
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Slagle: Steve, if we could add a condition maybe (v). If we're to (v) or if we're past (v). But it
would be requiring an access trail on private road E that connects to the Middle School West
property, and I want to just state, the reason I'm asking for that is if you think about this school
district, these homes will go to that school, and every neighborhood that I'm aware of that
surrounds that school has a connection. You've got the water tower. You've got Brenden Court.
I believe to the north, whatever those homes are. There's a connection by the soccer fields and
so forth, and yet this neighborhood would literally would have to go completely out of it's way
for those kids to get to school and I'm sure they'll be walking to school.
Lillehaug: I accept that.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright. Is that it? Dan.
Keefe: In regards to the buffer on the northeast, very northeast comer where they're going to put
in the right turn lane, can we require replacement of the trees that are going to come out? And I
don't know where that would go.
Generous: Under 4.
Keefe: Under 4.
Sacchet: Under 4. I think that's a reasonable request. On the other hand we do have a buffer
planting requirement from the city, but since there isn't really explicit offer right now, I think it
would make sense.
Slagle: Well and the way that this developer, I mean in our past experiences, as good as they are,
they might be open to larger arborvitaes to plant than what we're calling for.
Nathan Franzen: Is it the desire of the council to replant with arborvitae? I guess that's our first
question.
Sacchet: Evergreen I think is the idea, the way I understand it.
Nathan Franzen: I'm sure we can, I know we can accommodate that and we will so.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Nathan Franzen: Yep.
Sacchet: Alright.
Lillehaug: That's an acceptable condition to page 11, put it in 4 somewhere. 4(e) or whatever it
would be so yes. I accept that.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
Sacchet: So that's accepted, okay. Any other ones?
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the Rezoning of the 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural
Residential (RR) to Single-Family Residential (RSF) based on consistency with the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with surrounding development.
And,
Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets,
plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 9/17/04, revised 9/22/04 and
11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street.
2. Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the city.
3. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands
on-site.
b. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edges.
c. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback
requirements.
d. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under
the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
e. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively bein2 worked)
Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and
gutter system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man
55
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
f. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time construction
site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would
allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance
system.
g. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock
entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction.
h. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due
payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $83,465.
1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
and side yard areas.
c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 09/17/04.
Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a
ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. The applicant will work with staff to make every effort
possible to preserve trees beyond what's in the tree preservation plan.
e. Work with City Forester to ensure that the evergreen hedge in the proximity of the
retaining wall survive.
f. The applicant wiD replace the arborvitae hedge along Galpin Boulevard if it is lost
due to installation of the right turn lane.
5. Engineer's Conditions:
a. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10-year and 100-
year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In addition, the proposed ponding must be sized to
accommodate the drainage generated from the property to the north, as shown in the
56
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).
b. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm
sewer sizing calcs and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval.
c. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the loo-year flood
level.
d. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to
the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control
blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1 slopes with an elevation change of
eight feet or more.
e. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
f. On the utility plan:
1. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements.
2. Maintain lO-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains.
3. Increase the watermain pipe size in Street D to 8-inches in diameter.
4. Add a storm sewer line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 with a catch basin at the north
property line for future connection by the property to the north.
5. Extend sanitary manhole #12 to the north property line with an invert elevation of
1049.0.
g. On the grading plan:
1. Show all existing and proposed easements.
2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
3. Maximum allowable side slope is 3:1; revise in the rearyard of Lots 14 and 15, Block
1 and the rearyard of Lot 3, Block 2.
4. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows; the elevation must be
1.5' lower than any adjacent house pad elevations.
5. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
6. Use storm sewer class 5 in roadway; revise note under general grading and drainage
notes accordingly.
h. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil
engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition,
encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public
easement.
1. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor
charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is
$1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total
2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per
unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially
assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
J. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
k. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
I. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
m. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH-20 to MH-17, the required
easement width will be increased to 50 feet.
n. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also
required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
o. A standard cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the north
end of Street B.
p. Eliminate Lot 27 and shift the proposed pond to the north to eliminate some of the
retaining wall.
q. The applicant shall work with staff to further investigate the feasibility of a sewer
connection before action is taken to delete the western sanitary sewer line; all sanitary
sewer must drain to Manchester Drive.
r. Revise Street C to be a standard 28 foot width.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004
s. Lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives.
t. This development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way which
results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin Boulevard centerline.
u. A right-turn lane into the site off of Galpin Boulevard will be required to be constructed.
The turn-lane must meet Carver County design requirements.
6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be
provided to the city.
7. A 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must also
be submitted for the private street.
8. The applicant will work with staff to incorporate a totlot or similar playground
facility within this development which will help preserve trees.
9. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School West.
All voted in favor except Papke who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good luck with it. Now, in summary for council. In summary
for council. Can we just say as discussed in the interest of time? As discussed. Before we take
a brief recess I want to ask the councilors, the commissioners are we willing to extend our
curfew of 1O:30? Are we willing to go later than 1O:30? Otherwise we should inform the
Yoberry Farms proposal that we're not getting to them today.
Claybaugh: Preferably not from my personal standpoint.
Sacchet: One nay.
Tjornhom: I agree. I think there's no quality.
Sacchet: One nay. I mean I'm still on Europe time. You're going to get glazed eyes.
Keefe: When is it going to come back?
Sacchet: The trouble is, what's the time line on Yoberry?
Lillehaug: Is there a point where we might have to have another meeting? I mean with all this
development I mean because the way I'm looking at it.
Sacchet: I asked Kate about that today. She didn't want to think that was a good idea.
Keefe: So we're going to run into the same problem in January aren't we? We're just going to
keep backing stuff up.
59