Loading...
PC Minutes 1-4-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction on the role and procedures for the Planning Commission meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Deb Lloyd Deborah Zorn Curt Kobilarcsik Melissa Gilman 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7574 Ridgeview Point 9149 Springfield Drive Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41. SOUTH OF HIGHWAY OVER DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL. YOBERRY FARMS. LLC. DAVID HURREL. AND KAREN WEATHERS. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43. Public Present: Name Address Bill Borrell Rodd Wagner Karen Weathers Tom Stokes Steve Johnston Chuck Alcon Bill Coffman Dean & Jackie Simpson Stuart Henderson Larry Lovik Rick Pinamonti Stacey Riecks Mark Brown 2300 Longacres Drive 6915 Highover Drive 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard 2200 Shadywood Road 510 1st Avenue No, Minneapolis 55403 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield, MN 600 West 78th Street 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard 7240 Gunflint Trail 2475 Gunflint Court 2527 Longacres Drive 7256 Gunflint Trail 7210 Gunflint Trail Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Tom Kirsch Scott Wosje Jennifer & Michael Rysso Rachel Wexler Lisa Hokkanen Kim Keyes Abby DuMoulin 2290 Longacres Drive 7125 Northwood Court 7108 Harrison Hill Trail 7200 Madison Avenue W, Golden Valley 2456 Hunter Drive 2448 Longacres Drive 6966 Highover Drive Sacchet: Now before I ask staff to give their staff reports, I want to recluse myself from leading this discussion since I do have a personal interest in this development. I'm one of the immediately adjacent neighbors and so therefore I will participate as a resident from the audience side. So I will join you in the audience for this one item and then I will resume leading the meeting after that and pass leading the meeting to our Vice Chair Rich Slagle. Slagle: Alright, staff report please. Sharmeen AI-JatT and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Okay, any questions for staff? Steve, you want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a couple and this would be probably more towards Sharmeen. Looking at this e-mail that was sitting in front of us here, it really just raised the pretty important question to me and that is, regarding the proposed roadway on the very east side. How it impacts the 4, 5, 6 parcels so they have a road on basically each side of them, the way this is laid out. And the way these plans were showing it, I guess I really didn't see that until reading this e-mail here. What is your thoughts and opinions on that I guess? AI-Jaff: We do have situations such as this one in the city. In this case it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Lillehaug: What exactly would meet the requirements? AI-Jaff: The fact that you have a city street with homes off of that city street. There is a separation between the street and the neighboring property. The back yards of the neighboring property. Maybe what we should point out to the uniqueness about the situation is the fact that you have an electric easement and that's really what this e-mail is focusing on. The fact that. Lillehaug: Do you have a layout that actually shows this? Shows the, I mean it's good on the rest of the layout. I mean it shows the adjacent parcels and the roadway systems, yet on the very east side, even the layout that you have on the desk there really doesn't show the adjacent road. The next one over to the east and I don't have that name off the top of my head. Slagle: Harrison Hill. Lillehaug: Harrison Hill Trail. Is there a layout there that really shows that? But then this one doesn't show the proposed roadway. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 AI-Jaff: No, well. If you look at the e-mail came from the occupant of parcel number 5. And this is where the right-of-way sits in relationship to their parcel. The house sits further back on the property or more towards the front of the property. There is definitely a separation. There is a conservation easement first and then after the conservation easement there is the electric easement. And of course no vegetation can grow within an electric easement, and I think that's the uniqueness of this situation. That's what the applicant is trying to get across. Lillehaug: Okay. What are the, what would your comments be on, you know this whole meeting the minimum or maximum standards once again in reference to, you know they're impacting a wetland exactly equal to 2,000 square feet which is the absolute minimum before they have to mitigate for wetland impacts. Also on basically laying out the lots on many of these parcels they're meeting the absolute minimum to get a house on these pads. I mean just in general what would your comment be on, I mean are they trying to fit too much into this spot? Looking at the contour and grading issues. Changing the grading drastically. AI-Jaff: Sure. Bear in mind that this application has gone through numerous revisions. We've been working with the applicant for several months and the number, the total number overall lots on the site has changed. Over the course of time. Lillehaug: Increased? AI-Jaff: Decreased. Another thing is the grading. The size of retaining walls. The number of retaining walls on this site. There has been numerous changes that have taken place before this appeared before you, and I think Matt touched upon some of these issues. He also mentioned the limitations as far as there are touch points on this site that include Gunflint Trail, we've got Highover. There are existing homes that need to have access so there are certain challenges and limitations within the site and the applicant has done their best to work within these limitations. As far as average lot size, for instance it is over 19,000 and the minimum is 15,000. ~ ~ ¡ ~ ~ I I t Lillehaug: So it's fairly larger then. AI-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: It's not meeting the minimum like I'm alluding to. AI-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: So it's above that. One other question would be the specific question and maybe engineering can help out a little bit would be the, looking at the pads where the houses go on some of these lots, it doesn't look like there's going to be even a minimal back yard with even a manageable like a 10 percent slope. I mean on some of these pads it looks like right out the walkout it's going to be a 1 to 3 slope. Is that fair to say or am I not quite seeing it on some of these pads? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Saam: Yeah, the hand full of pads that I mentioned, there may need to be some smaller type retaining walls shown in order to accomplish the quote useable, or the 10 percent gentler slope area. And that's what I was getting at. That I'll have to take a look at that indeed if retaining walls are needed, those should be shown on here so we know about them. Lillehaug: So we need, they need to revise these with retaining walls even to get a manageable or a legitimate back yard. Saam: Well, that's one option. You know the other one would be to lower, if it's possible, lower the street. And by that you'd lower the whole house pad so you wouldn't need then a retaining wall. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Slagle: Dan, you go next. Keefe: Can you speak to the, one of the questions that we had which I didn't hear any resolution to is the radius of the northeast cul-de-sac and whether that required a variance or not and kind of, apparently it doesn't or does or? Saam: I guess technically we could say yeah, it would require a variance. I know, no? It doesn't? AI-Jaff: No. Saam: Okay. Keefe: So it's not less than. AI-Jaff: No, because it's not an ordinance that requires that, and I did go through the ordinance and checked because that was an issue that was raised by actually Commissioner Sacchet. Do they requires a variance or not and I went through the ordinance again. Their requirement, the radius is not spelled out so it's more of a policy. Keefe: Alright. Can you speak to the removal of trees. You know there's a grading, you know there's a lot of grading which is done on this site. Some ofthem are custom graded lots which I'm assuming they'll be able to save some of the trees but I think the canopy is down to what, 11 percent or something like that. I think final analysis is in, and we're proposing that they would come in and plant more but there's still a lot of trees to be removed. Can you just speak to kind of how they balance the grading with the. AI-Jaff: Sure. We worked very hard with the applicant. There were some significant trees that both the applicant as well as staff wanted to see saved. Some of the trees that were questionable, whether they would be removed or not, they chose to show them as removed. The majority of the trees that the applicant had chosen to save are significant trees. There are some trees that again that are significant but stand no chance of remaining even with retaining walls. One of 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 them is a substantially large oak on the site, and we looked at every possible solution. And we didn't see any that would allow it to stay. Keefe: Is it your opinion that they've done a pretty good job in trying to save the ones that they can given the limitations of the site? AI-Jaff: Yes. We believe they have done a very good job. Keefe: Okay. One last question in regards to, in regards to gaining access off of 41. In tenns of just construction traffic. One of the questions that came up previously that I saw was you know construction traffic either coming up Gunflint Trail or down from Highover. I mean is there a way to route construction traffic off 41 for this project or not? Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. The applicant is proposing, it's shown on the grading plan a rock entrance off of 41. They're going to utilize one of the existing driveways to one of the homes that I believe is being demolished. As the construction access point for the site grading, utilities, that sort of thing. Until the streets are in and paved. Keefe: And then at that point to build the homes they might use interior roads from Gunflint Trail? Saam: Yes. Yep, to build the homes I would foresee them using the existing roads. One of the MnDot requirements is to, actually city requirement also before we finalize the project, these existing driveways off of 41 have to be closed off, except for the houses that are outside of this plat but. Keefe: Okay. Slagle: Kurt. Papke. Did any of the existing or previous perinutations or plans for this examine the possibility of eliminating the 3 existing homes that are on the site? You mentioned that we have a couple touch points here. One of them are the two existing roads coming down from Highover and then up from Longacres. Those are there. That's incontrovertible. But is there any possibility that we could minimize or decrease the impact here if those 3 homes were scrubbed out of the plan? Saam: Well I think your first question was whether the previous plans showed them being gone? No. They've always been proposed to remain. Papke: So that was never considered? Saam: Well that's a question for the developer I think, but to answer your second question, if they weren't touch down points, yeah I think it could help him. You know it's a restriction basically having those lots there. They have to match into those grades. But that doesn't take, I mean saying that if those houses were gone it might limit the amount of grading, or change the 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 amount of grading doesn't take into account that there's people living there that wish to remain there and want to keep their houses so. Papke: Okay. Second question. My second and third questions both relate to the large hill in the center of Block 1 there that's going to be shaved down. Do we know how close this comes to a bluff? I mean I went out and climbed the hill yesterday and I was out of breath by the time I got to the top. We're saving a couple bluffs there. Do we know how close that hill is to the definition of a bluff? AI-Jaff: We know it doesn't meet the definition of a bluff. Papke: But we don't know. AI-Jaff: But I don't know how close, no. I haven't run those calculations. Papke: Okay. Is there anything in the city code, the comprehensive plan or any other guidance that the Planning Commission should be looking at that would give us any indication about the extent of the grading here? We're eliminating about 44 feet, if my memory serves me correctly off the top of that hill. Is there anything that would give us any indication that this isoutside of what the city desires to do, either in letter or in spirit. Aanenson: Maybe I'll just address that. We have had similar circumstances where we've had extensive amount of grading. Again we've indicated we're trying to match a couple of points, for one. And actually as the city has done more development we've evolved and been stricter on grading. For example in Longacres, and the Woods and the Meadows, there wasn't a grading ordinance. There were substantial cuts that probably wouldn't have been made if, you know we changed our bluff regulations to date. But we have done significant, for example Ashling Meadows. Significant amount of grading. Again when you're trying to blend some topography with certain touch down points, you get grades to meet collector roads. That's what drive some of those. There's certain parameters that drive the design so I think in this circumstance we've worked our best to try to blend those. And the high point that we went around actually makes an interesting project because instead of going through the middle of the road to connect, it actually takes a bend in the road which reduces some of the speed and coming down the hill which makes it a more interesting project in our mind. Papke: That's all. Slagle: I've got a couple. Let me go back to the point that was mentioned Sharmeen earlier that the number of homes have decreased as this has gone on. What have they decreased from, just curious. AI-Jaff: I believe they've reduced the number by 3 or 4 homes. Slagle: 3 or 4. Okay. A Matt question. I'm assuming Matt condition 21 is the one you're referring to about lowering the street. I think on page 17. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Saam: Yes, that's correct. Slagle: How much are you thinking? You would be happy with. Saam: I'd like to get rid of that wall along the east side so that would be about 3 to 5 feet. Slagle: Okay. And if I can ask, was there a response from the applicant on that discussion? Saam: Not since this report's gone out but as I alluded to earlier, in the previous pennutations of the plan, I mentioned that and they have reduced that wall significantly. Before it was in the 11 foot range. Now they have it down to 4. I'm just asking them to go a little more. Slagle: Okay. With respect to traffic, I know this is three stages. Will both the north and the south connecting roads open up at the same time? Basically. Saam: I think the developer can add something but it's my understanding, while it is three additions. .. Slagle: Okay. I don't know who this is for but I noticed on condition 44. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. Can you tell me a little bit about that. Saam: It's been done. I believe, Sharmeen. It's on the east side now. AI-Jaff: Correct. If you look at, Nann can you zoom in please? The sidewalk is shown on both sides of the street and staff is recommending that the extension takes place on one side only rather than both sides. Slagle: Okay. AI-Jaff: So it's just this portion right here that is a piece of Lot 3. Slagle: Gotch ya. And so we will continue down Gunflint on the east side of Gunflint only affecting 2 lots versus 3 or 4 which would be on the west side. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Aanenson: There is no sidewalk there currently. Slagle: Correct, I understand. But there will be. Aanenson: Someone will have to pursue that, correct. Slagle: Okay. Well I'm only thinking though that in the last discussions from, I thought I saw it in writing from the Park and Rec Director that it would continue on the west side. Aanenson: That would be his desire to pursue that, correct. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: Okay. Alright. And then one last question. Sharmeen, not to put you on the spot but the calculations of the bluff or not a bluff, getting back to Kurt's question of the hill in the center. We know it's not a bluff but we don't know the, I mean how close is it? And maybe that's a Matt question. Saam: Yeah, I'm just looking at quick, if I can add something. The bluff requires a 3 to 1, I think 30 percent. I just threw my scale on here. Many of the contours are in the 5 to 1 or greater range so that shoots it right there. Slagle: Okay. Alright, anything else for staff folks? Okay, I'm going to ask the applicant to come up. State your name and address and we'd love to hear what you have. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Mr. Chainnan, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 76th Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. With me this evening, I'd like to introduce Bill Coffman and Tom Stokes, also of the development team and from Landfonn who's doing the surveying and engineering, the President Steve Johnston and his assistant Jesse Larson. Also in attendance this evening are Dean and Jackie Simpson, property owners and Karen Weathers, property owner involved in the plat. Slagle: Welcome. Chuck Alcon: I think what we'd like to do first is respond to a couple of the comments, if you'd allow us, and then we'll stand by for questions. Just a clarification of the staff report. Item 22 which deals with lift station 27. In talking with staff beforehand we believe the intent of that comment is to pro-rate that upgrade for the 11 lots that are being added, and I just want to make sure we understood that as clarification. I'm going to ask Steve Johnston to address 3 items under item II(b), (c) and (h) but prior to that, there's a comment made on the back yards. As was mentioned, this is as difficult site and there will be some custom homes for these lots. A couple things that can be done and will be done in order to make these back yards usable, we took a couple of shots over at Ashling Meadows, if I can just put these up here. Not quite as difficult as our site but clearly in order to have a useable back yard, the use of boulder walls less than 4 feet high can be extensively employed and that can help that problem out. And we intend to do that. We talked about the pre-existing homes. The homeowners do plan to stay and the touch down points we touched on also. I want to ask Steve to, as I said, comment on items ll(b), (c) and (h) and also on item 21. Steve will have the technical details but I should point out that in that area our sewer is already 30 feet deep so the more that we lower the road to get rid of the retaining walls, the deeper the sewer goes and Steve will have some specifics on that. So with that I'd like to ask Steve Johnston to step forward. Steve Johnston: I'll just put that up there for reference as well. Good evening. My name is Steve Johnston, Landfonn Engineering Company in Minneapolis. First of all to address the issue of the street grades in this general area. What's driving that is our sanitary sewer connects at this location. We brought back the sanitary sewer at basically minimum grade up into this point. We lowered the street down until we were about 9 feet deep at this location. We can go another foot and a half or so and still have cover on that sanitary sewer, but beyond that it's going to be very 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 difficult to lower it. Be happy to look at it again when we get into final design and look at the street grades and try to minimize it as much as possible in here, but I really am being pushed by that sewer depth issue. What Chuck was mentioning, the sewer as it comes through, this comes up in a hill in this area. The sewer at this point is 30 feet deep, so we're that much higher here than here, and to get, keep, maintain the cover on the pipe is the main driving fact and not pushing that road down, but I'd be happy to try to minimize that as much as we can and work with your staff to do that. The items in the staff report that I just wanted to clarify from our standpoint. This is items II(b) talks about maintaining 10 foot horizontal separation between all sanitary, water and stonn sewer mains. We have one location on the project and that is on the Weathers property in this location. Where the sanitary sewer and water will come down this lot line through these back yards and through an easement that's in this location to connect into the existing system. It was too, much, much too deep to try to run the sewer around it, the street. As we're coming down these lot lines we're proposing to keep those two mains 5 feet apart as opposed to 10 feet apart to minimize the easement area in there. We're also proposing then to use watennain quality pipe for the sanitary sewer which ten state standards allows us then to move those closer than 10 feet so hopefully the city can accept that. That condition. If they will, we'd be happy to work with them on it. Item (c), revise the stonn sewer pipe size to maintain a minimum 15 inch. We have a stonn sewer that's stubbed into our site at this location. It's only a 12 inch pipe. I can't connect a 15 into a 12 inch pipe without having potential problems so I should, anything that goes upstream of that should be the 12 inch pipe and not a 15 inch pipe. But again I'd look to your city engineer to help make that decision. And finally, item (h). Re- route the proposed watennain in the southwest corner of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30 foot utility easement. I already talked about that. We did relocate it as requested but we're requesting to keep those pipes 5 feet apart and use watennain quality on the sanitary sewer. Other than that we did not have any issues with what was being requested in the staff report. Slagle: Okay. Chuck Alcon: That would complete our comments. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Slagle: Okay. Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, can you talk about your landscaping. I mean since you're doing, you know this is kind of an infilllocation with a lot of lots adjacent to these properties. You know, if I lived in one of the homes on, adjoining this, I'd be interested in having as much buffering as I possibly could. Can you just speak to how you went about your landscaping plan? Chuck Alcon: Well we have a landscaping plan and that was done by Steve's group and the developer will be responsible for that landscaping plan throughout the development and it was intended to match existing neighborhoods around it, exempt those areas as mentioned where the utility easements are in place. So that was the fundamentals behind it. Slagle: Steve. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Lillehaug: Yeah, I have a few questions and it'd be on some of the comments here. You're indicating that the sanitary is one of the driving forces of the grading, which is legitimate. Could you tell me, what is the depth of the sanitary sewer where you're proposing to tie into on Gunflint? I mean I want to understand, since it's a driving force, I really want to understand how and why it's a driving force. Steve Johnston: Okay, the depth of the sewer where we're connecting to at this location is of an adequate depth to serve the property. The issue is keeping enough coverage over the pipe. When we first came in with the plan prior to the December meeting, we had immediately came out of that main and came up about 5 or 6 feet. Because it was deeper actually than what we needed. We received the staff comments then that they wanted us to try to lower the grade on this end of the project and as we did that, in the last month, we tried to respond to all the staff comments, we lowered that to the point where the sanitary sewer now on Gunflint Trail is at minimum grade to the low point in the road which is here adjacent to the wetland. That is essentially all the further we can push that point down and maintain adequate coverage in this location. By pushing that down though we ended up with a grade in this location. The street grade in this location stayed the same and then now that's gone from 24 feet of coverage to about 30 feet of cover on that sanitary sewer line. And that was all done in an attempt to minimize the height of this wall which we have done. Originally that wall was about 8 to 10 feet tall and now it's in the area generally of 4 feet tall. There's one spot that's 6 feet tall. Lillehaug: I guess I'm not seeing the whole picture but you're saying where you tie into Gunflint Trail, you're stepping up 5 feet. A 5 foot drop and then. Chuck Alcon: Originally we were. Lillehaug: Originally. Chuck Alcon: But now we're keeping the sewer as deep as we possibly can to have the minimum impact in this general location. Lillehaug: Okay, so from where you're tying in back to that other, back to the cul-de-sac, you're at a minimum grade the entire length. Chuck Alcon: Correct. Lillehaug: And does staff concur with that then? Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Another question would be, stonn sewer. You're indicating you're not, you point out one of the conditions where the city would like to maintain a minimum of 15 inch diameter stonn sewer. Is that, are you talking just for that one small segment where you're tying in or are you alluding further upstream. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Steve Johnston: We have no problem with the rest of the project being all 15 inch pipe, if that's your preference. My point only is that right now we're showing, we're showing this intersection draining into an existing pipe that was stubbed at this part of the project. That stub is only a 12 inch pipe. So if you connect a 15 inch into a 12 inch, it isn't a very good condition. Lillehaug: Okay. And then the 10 foot grade separation that you indicated down on Street B. Is there, what are the grade differences between, is it the watennain and sanitary? Steve Johnston: They're both within a foot or two of the same elevation. The desire there was just not spreading them out. 10 feet apart. Trying to keep them at 5 was only to keep the buildable width of those lots intact. If we were to add, separate the pipe, we need more easement. That reduces the size of those lots. The effective size of those lots. Lillehaug: Does staff, is there another option that you were looking at that they could easily get 10 foot separation to work? Or is that a condition that I guess that we would, that you would like to maintain there? Saam: When we had previously talked with the applicant, we were under the assumption that the pipes would stay at 10 feet and then their concern was the amount of easement area. We told them we wanted a 30 foot, basically 10 feet between all the pipes. Their concern was how that would restrict the house pad size, as I understand it. So we said we could go down to a 25 foot easement. But still keeping the 10 foot separation in the pipes, so at this point that's something we'd still like to do. I think we can work with them on that but, yeah. Steve Johnston: I think we're getting real technical here and we can work this out. Lillehaug: So let's not get technical and let's go the other direction. Your cul-de-sac and road that goes up to Outlot D, what have you done for the residents to the east of your development to help this development work in with their development and make this you know more, really fit in with their back yards rather than putting a road right up against their lot line? Steve Johnston: With the, and I think Chuck mentioned this as well. We, our original landscape plan showed re-vegetating this area that you can see where there are no trees planted now, and then we became aware of that Xcel was not going to let us do any of those plantings underneath the power line. So those have now been pulled out ofthere. It's very limited as far as what we can do. We can't have anything that's going to grow up and interfere with those lines. Lillehaug: As far as possibly pulling that road away and losing a lot or two, is that an option? And creating a bigger buffer between their back lot line and the actual right-of-way for the roadway. I mean I can, I'm sure you understand my concerns here. You're living there. Can you anticipate a roadway being on your back property line? I certainly would not anticipate that. Steve Johnston: There basically is enough room to put lots on one side of that street. We put the road, we kept it 10 feet off the property line with the right-of-way so the road itself was going to be about 25 feet off the property line. To put the road on the other side, on the west side of those lots would mean that all of those lots were above the, above the street. Instead of walking out 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 they would become tuckunders which is not a very desirable house type. When we first came in we looked at that area with a private drive and for a lot size we were directed by staff that this was a preferable option to placing a cul-de-sac in this location and doing this with a private drive, so we have looked at other alternatives and this one was the best alternative to gain access to that part of the property owner/developer's property. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have for now. Slagle: Kurt. Papke: I'd like to get to resident questions as quickly as possible so I'll limit my questions at this time. Slagle: We might call you back if you wouldn't mind. Steve Johnston: ThaJ!k you. Slagle: I am going to open it up now to the public and what I would ask is that you limit your questions and discussion to let's say 5 minutes or less. Obviously some will carry over if they need to. If some of you are from a neighborhood where there's many folks, all we would ask as courtesy is not to repeat the same comments or concerns. We'll certainly get the feel for that as we go forward so what I'd like to do is just invite you up one at a time. State your name, your address and we'd love to hear from you. So whoever wants to go first, you're welcome. Tom Hirsch: Hi. My name's Tom Hirsch. I live at 2290 Longacres Drive in the Longacres subdivision. I was recently elected President of the Board of the Longacres Homeowners Associations and I represent the 222 lots and homes that make up the Longacres subdivision. If we could scan on a picture of the Longacres, I'd like to give just a brief overview of our subdivision. The connection into the proposed property is here on the picture. The road that connects across from here is Longacres Drive. We have monuments and landscaping on a cul- de-sac type arrangement or a center median arrangement that already comes off of Highway 41. And off of Galpin, and we have a connector down through our subdivision that also has a monument and landscaped entrance into our subdivision off of Galpin Road to the south. We maintain two parks, both of which are on the north side of Longacres Drive. Here on the picture and here on the picture. Both of these parks have kiddie playgrounds. A tennis court is in the west one that's adjacent to the proposed development. We spend approximately $71,000 a year maintaining our entrances and our parks for the 222 lots that are contained within our subdivision. 76 percent of our residents must cross Longacres Drive to gain access to these parks. The new subdivision is in the Chaska School District, as I understand. Chaska School District to get to the middle schools and the high school is a straight shot down Highway 41 and Bluff Creek Elementary would be at the corner of Galpin and Highway 5. I would estimate approximately 90 percent of the traffic coming out of this proposed subdivision would be cutting through the Longacres subdivision to gain access to the schools, Highway 41. To go south, or across to Galpin to get to the middle school for school activities. And it's a retail corridor as you're well aware throughout Highway 5. That's the main growth area of retail in your master plan. I have two issues I'd like to bring to the table. Number one is, I didn't see in the staff 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 report any traffic studies, environmental impact studies or any application or a rule as to the feasibility from the State on access into Highway 41 that could potentially disperse traffic out away from Longacres to provide that access to go southbound to the middle schools and the high schools. And into Chaska. I think we must conduct due diligence of assessing the risk to our children associated with the increased traffic into our neighborhood. We owe it to the children to conduct these studies and implement any mitigations to this risk. A couple traffic solutions that came to my mind again would be open, direct access to Highway 41 to disperse some of that traffic for the southbound traffic to the middle schools and the high schools. There's, I don't think the State is going to say absolutely no. We are shutting down with this development some of the access that's currently coming off of Highway 41, and there are other accesses that have been granted with the proper left turns and the right turns coming in and out of that access. It would provide a safe access in and out of these 57 lots. A couple other ideas that I had that would, that might come up through an assessment and mitigation techniques would be installing stop signs on Longacres Drive. There are no stop signs on Longacres Drive currently. And perhaps reduce speed on Longacres Drive. My second issue I'll move to now is, I'll reference page 9 in the staff report. In there it's documented that there are no parks planned in the development. There are no trails in the development and the only nearest public park is Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and it's recommended by staff that the neighborhood not gain access to that by walking to it. Therefore the nearest park is our kiddie park, which is right down their street. Park access, it's a private park. We, as I stated earlier, maintain it. It's a beautiful park and has very expensive equipment in it. We do have capital reserve studies that we've done and we maintain a capital reserve to provide maintenance to that equipment based upon it's useful life. I estimate, our first point is park access is easy and direct for these new residents and it's really an unenforceable thing for us to enforce no trespassing into our park. These residents have nowhere to walk to take their children to play. They will come to our's. It creates a maintenance and a cost and a risk and a liability risk to all of the homeowners of Longacres. I estimate about 22, 26 percent increase usage based upon the 57 lots and some calculations of average children per household that would reduce the useful life of our equipment by 26 percent, which would cause us to increase our reserves to maintain that. This really is not an expense or a liability that I think we should be expected to absorb. Possibly mitigations would be to require a kiddie park in the new subdivision. Provide Longacres homeowners with a barrier fence and no trespassing signs to limit our liability and reimburse us for our increased insurance rates. Or possibly join the Longacres Homeowners Association. In conclusion, as a board member I'm obligated to bring these risks to the table. I request your time, cooperation, assistance and guidance to resolve them. If we ever are asked at any point in the future whether we did due diligence on this traffic due to some sort of accident and have we implemented mitigations, I think we all must be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that we did. The safety of our children is the highest priority. Development's a great addition to our city. I'm happy to see this type of development showing in this rural area. We must be responsible, prudent in our decisions and to protect the safety of our children. I thank you for your time and your consideration. Slagle: You're welcome. Any questions? Of this gentleman. Okay, thank you. 13 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Papke: I have a quick one. Have there been any conversations with the developer about having this development join your homeowners association? That sounds to me like a very proactive, positive way of going after this problem. Tom Hirsch: I have gotten engaged in this process rather late. I saw the sign that went up on December 22nd at the stub within our neighborhood. I do not live within 500 feet of the neighborhood so I was, I live up Longacres towards the Galpin side and did not see any activity going on so we had about 2 weeks. There were some phone calls made today with my management company and the developer and we've started those conversations. Slagle: Thank you. I want to ask a question of staff if I may. How do we address, and I know you're not the park director Kate or Sharmeen but how do we address this, what I think is a pretty common question and I think a sensible one that here you're putting 57 homes into an area that really there are no parks, at least that we're aware of. Are there others that you're aware that are potentially planned? Aanenson: Well this isn't the first situation where this has occurred. We recently had the same issue come up on Settlers. Settlers West where you had a long cul-de-sac adjacent to an existing subdivision that had a swimming pool and a totlot and there was the same concern of the new people are going to feel like they can come over and use it. We have the same situation on Lake Lucy Ridge adjacent to Ashling Meadows, which also has a private. You know, I guess from our perspective is, if it's tots more than likely they're going to be with parents so it's an education issue of where you can and can't go. If it's children are within that, going to that. Slagle: Let me ask it a different way. I'll use the two examples you brought up. Settlers Ridge, we got the applicant to create their own totlot inside the development, if we're talking about Pemtom. Aanenson: No, they just put a trail to connect back and forth. Slagle: But the last I remember is they were going to add their own totlot on the west side. Aanenson: Their own totlot? Okay. Slagle: So they created their own and as far as the one off Ashling Meadows, if I'm not mistaken, if you go up Lake Lucy a quarter of a mile you're at Pheasant Hill Park. And all I'm trying to say is, is I look where this is geographically situated and unless there's plans to go up the trail, or the power line and connect to potentially the Jerome Carlson land, if there's a park planned for that, I could see that. But if something didn't happen there and it really is Minnewashta or nothing. Aanenson: Right, or walking towards the junior. Slagle: Or going to Longacres. Aanenson: Or to the junior high to the north. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: To the junior high to the north. Aanenson: Up to West. Slagle: That's a pretty far walk though. And I'm not trying to put you in a difficult spot but I'm just trying to say these are fair questions. Aanenson: Well first of all the Park Commission went one, you cannot do an extraction to say you have to put in a private park. You can't ask for that. That's something that this development chose not to do as a part of... That would be an independent decision. The Park Commission looks and makes a decision whether or not they want to take an extraction or take park and trail fees, and they chose to do the park and trail fees. Slagle: And what is that because on page 9 it says the City is not seeking parkland dedication as a condition of this platting. Paying of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. Typically we see what they're going to pay. Aanenson: The City Council at it's last meeting in December just increased those rates based on cost of living so I'm sorry, I don't have those in front of me but they will be. Slagle: Fully. Aanenson: Yep, in force, yes. Slagle: Okay. It's a touch one. Aanenson: It's their decision, right so. Can we usurp that? Um. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Lillehaug: Rich, can I ask a question before we leave the traffic here since questions were raised. Slagle: Sure. Lillehaug: Gunflint Trail stub, I mean to me it looks like there was a proposed road. I mean it looks like it was going to continue on, as well as coming out of Highover. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: How did Longacres, going through that process and Highover plan review process, how did they anticipate, I mean did city staff and those developments anticipate connecting into this property to serve that? Aanenson: Yes. 15 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Saam: Yeah, I'll take that. Both of the development contracts for both Longacres, I'm not sure which addition it was and then Highover. I researched them both. They both have conditions where it said that the street, these streets will be extended in the future so it was all laid out. It's always been planned. Lillehaug: Thanks. Aanenson: And actually let me just add to that. When Longacres came in, there was a request from the developer at that time to actually narrow the road because that was always shown as a minor collector which typically you make a little bit wider. At that time the developer wanted a request so it had a more neighborhood appearance so actually the city gave relief to that to actually kind of narrow that cross section as opposed to a typical cross section for a minor collector. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Whoever's next. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Chainnan, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. I took the liberty of superimposing two documents from the city. This from the back of the pink copy showing these, I believe it's just grade in on the inside front cover of the report that you have. And then I took a copy of the development plan and reduced it down. My concern is primarily around traffic, particularly the number of homes that are being picked up by Highover Drive specifically. As was referenced earlier, there are various levels of road. Arterial, collector, and local but I think as a practical matter sometimes there are short cuts and maybe something that's kind of between a collector and a local road and my concern, a number of my neighbors concern is that Highover Drive in this delineation, based on it's relative straightness compared to the other roads and it's length will be picking up a tremendous amount of traffic in a neighborhood that now, you know 7 years in has an awful lot of kids on it where we already see quite high speeds. We've had to call the sheriff a couple times to bring the sign up there to show people their speeds and try to get them to slow down. And I don't see provision in here for slowing down the traffic or quite frankly just the pure traffic counts. I don't know which way the traffic would split. How much of it would go south, how much of it would go north but I suspect we might have as much as 37 additional homes that might be served by Highover Drive as they go north to get onto Lake Lucy and to get onto Highway 41 and go from there. While there was a sign, has been a sign as long as I've lived there. I've lived there 6 years or so, that said the road would go through, I think it was a reasonable assumption by the residents that it would either be a cul-de-sac. That there would be access to 41 or if it did go through that we'd be picking up a smaller number of homes consistent with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood like Longacres is, has a homeowners association. We pay dues to the homeowners association to maintain the properties and the common areas and I do have the same concern as my distant neighbor from Longacres that this development will be taking advantage of the fact that they have people both on the north and the south that are paying dues into a neighborhood association to maintain those properties and this is a property that's kind of jumping in, taking advantage of, or enjoying the benefit if you will of those properties north and south and the way they're maintained without being a party to either one of those homeowner associations. My overall impression is that this plan tries to squeeze too much 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 into too small of a space. The applicant himself said this is a difficult site. I think it's a difficult site only if you try to put too much in too small of a space. That creates a difficulty. If you spread it out, put fewer home sites in it, make accommodations either for cul-de-sacs that come into each other or access to 41 or somehow limit the number of homes, then it doesn't have the difficulty. Nature imposes the difficulty. Maybe they're just trying to put too much into one place. And as may be evidenced by the concern that was mentioned earlier about these homes to the east where you do have a road running right up against someone's back yard, it doesn't affect me but I feel for the people that are in that situation. I think that covers my concerns. Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Your homeowner's association dues, do you know what that goes toward in the Highover neighborhood? Rodd Wagner: Sure. It goes for insurance on the common properties. It goes for maintaining the mailboxes. The mailboxes all have a consistent look to them. That kind of, there's a rock wall I believe, I'm not exactly sure what the situation is there. I believe the city technically owns it but we have to maintain the liability insurance there. There's some pools and things, you know standing water and such that we have to take care of. Keefe: Okay. And then you guys don't have a totlot? Rodd Wagner: No, we don't have any kind of common properties or things like that but that's not to say we wouldn't like to build some at some point and this could have an adverse affect on something like that. But my main concern is just the traffic. I don't think Longacres was ever, I think this creates a situation where the road is taking on traffic that it wasn't anticipated to do so when it was designated a local road. That it's becoming too close to a collector and there's going to be people learn short cuts and they'll be going through to move from one collector to another. From Lake Lucy to get to Longacres, or excuse me. Yeah, Longacres to Lake Lucy and I don't think that was ever anticipated. Certainly wasn't by the residents in that neighborhood. I appreciate your time. Slagle: Thank you. Larry Lovik: Good evening. My name's Larry Lovik and I live at 2475 Gunflint Court. It'd be this right here. Slagle: Can we do that again Nann? Zoom up just a. Okay. Larry Lovik: This corner lot. Slagle: You have the fence behind your house. Larry Lovik: Yes. And the two big dogs. I wanted to raise three points if I may. Elaborate really on two, so I'll try not to repeat what's been stated before. But Matt, the engineer spoke earlier about the three types of roads and the two we're concerned with would be I believe the feeder and then local roads. As you see the map here, there's a problem with the way Longacres was originally built. It trends northerly as it heads east. And see where I live and for any 17 . - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 individuals coming out of the new development, if they need to go to 5 to head east for any direction, 494, what have you, they'll come down past my house but they'll end up coming across the Hunter, and Hunter is a local road. It's a very, very narrow, windy road and our association already has many complaints about traffic going too fast. Too much traffic. There's often times parked cars with kids playing in the road there. I would anticipate that if you look at the total map here that all these homes, including possibly homes from here would travel south and end up going through Hunter to get on Galpin to hit 5. If you look at the map the connection of Longacres to Galpin is so far away it's not even on the map. Now some of the problems with the connection to 41, in discussing this with the staff and engineers is there's a bluff on the west side along 41. And I guess my comments about the bluff is, does the origin of the bluff come into play when you're trying to protect the bluff. If you look at how 41 was cut in, that was it seems to me the creation of the bluff in the first place, and if you walk along 41 there, you'll see where there's already a cut in for a bike trail. It was just never developed so it became overgrown with trees and things. Along the westerly side of the development there's three spots, and correct me if I'm wrong, that are not designated as a bluff. Two of them are the already existing driveways that I think should be explored to expand access into the development. The third one is the dead center middle. Other recent driveways along 41 would include the W ooddale Church which is about half a mile to the south. It seems to me they cut through a very similar looking area as what we'd be requesting occur here. Similar situation where I believe it was a driveway that was expanded to become a regular street, West 78th. If that's not feasible then I'd strongly urge the council to find ways of lowering the density, installing stop signs, possibly even at my corner and especially along Longacres and Hunter. Two other points. The park. I think that's very important. If you look at the map again, this is the park here. It actually is adjoining to the development. So it's a very hard case to make that we are not going to allow a resident who's back yards back up to a park, not to use the park. If it was just a few incidental extra kids playing in the park I don't think our association members would have too much of a problem if the rest of the association had their, or the rest of the development had their park to go to too. And finally I noticed in the recommendations about street cleaning. Street cleaning daily as needed. I'd like to suggest that you drop the as needed and just include it as street cleaning daily. If that's not dropped, who gets to decide what as needed means? I'm sure that the existing owners would probably have a little bit different opinion about as needed as a developer. And that concludes my remarks. Any questions? Slagle: Thank you very much. Stuart Henderson: I don't have a map. I feel bad. So maybe I'll just use one of these. Stuart Henderson. I live at 7240 Gunflint Trail. I back up on what I now know is a bluff. I live right out here, which actually raised another question because I had, I do have a question at some point on what happens with the whole bluff thing. Slagle: Show me where you live again sir? Stuart Henderson: Here. Yeah, similarly I saw the sign, I've been there 3 years. Sign at the end of the road. Figured it was going to extend at some point. I don't have a problem with development, etc. My issues do so I'm not going to beat on a, other than a couple different points. Whether it's the traffic. I figure if something went in it would probably hook to 41. I 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 also didn't necessarily figure we'd be talking you know 57 homes. I don't know about collectors and things of that nature. All I, I just drive and I can tell you that I go down Hunter, which is like this wide. If anyone doesn't park in their driveway, you can't get by. It's only 2 cars wide. No sidewalks, etc. So I'd say perhaps well, and by the way, thanks Matt. Spent some time on the phone with me today. It may have been when the thing's designed that people said oh yeah, this is going to be the road. We always anticipated it. But of course there was no one living there when it was designed. On either end so it's fairly easy to design something when nobody's there. I was a little surprised to hear in tenns of the hook-up at 41, that no one has asked. That I guess I thought that maybe it's been checked and you can't so I would suggest that that's a good way to route traffic, maybe somebody should ask. Last thing is on that one little corner, in that circle you see there, there's like 20 kids. With the exception of mine, all under 12 which is good because they're babysitting material for my kids but, and I think there's been a couple more born recently. Yeah okay, 22. So it is, you know it may well have changed in character from what the engineers envisioned when designing this in tenns of the whole traffic flow so I'm quite concerned about the traffic piece and appreciate whatever you can do to address it. Slagle: Thank you very much. Dr. Jennifer Rysso: Thank you first for your time and attention in this matter. My name is Dr. Jennifer Rysso. I am a full time internal medicine physician at Park Nicollet Clinic. I live at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail in Longacres which has been talked a lot about tonight. Which is at the bend of this road. This property right adjacent where everybody is saying they are sorry if they were me. That's me. I am also the mother of a 4 year old and an 8 year old daughter and I'm going to talk to you as a mother actually. I enjoy neighbors to the north and south of me also adjacent to the proposed development with children numbering 13 on that side alone, including those of ages less than a year to 9 years of age. My concerns regarding the current plan are multiple. The first and foremost involves safety. I lived in South Minneapolis prior to building in Longacres in Chanhassen. My property bordered an alley way along the back of my house. A very common feature of homes in South Minneapolis but not in Chanhassen. One of my neighbors watched as her young son was hit by a car coming down that alley way. I used to sit at the edge of the alley way while my children were younger, while they were playing in the back yard to keep them safe so they didn't go into that alley way. I moved to Chanhassen in part to allow my children and vision of being allowed to play freely outside without being monitored continuously by a fearful parent waiting for the next flying car to come down the alley way or around the curve. I built on our property understanding up front that a development would follow to border our back yard. My husband and I understood that ultimately another back yard would join our back yard and we were quite content with that thought with a sense of community and neighbors in mind. With the current plan in front of you I am being robbed of my vision. I am not alone. My neighbors had the same vision and built in Longacres for the same reason. The current plan involves a street that provides access to driveways of approximately 5 homes. That street directly borders my back yard and in essence becomes my new alley way. Not only is it an alley way, but it is a street that can be accessed by young children by jumping off a retaining wall an act the children in my neighborhood do over and over every single day I'm watching them play in my back yard. This cannot be prevented, believe me as parents we have tried. The higher the wall along the street, the more challenging it is for the children to jump from. This street makes a curve that appears to be blind to those that might be standing on a wall 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 waiting to jump. I don't see the children seeing the car or the driver seeing the children in this current plan. I see the danger of children jumping and stumbling in front of a moving car and then being hit, perhaps mortally to be too much of a risk. Fences and trees, which of course in this area won't be allowed with the electric easement anyway, will not prevent the challenge of the jump but will make it all the more challenging. The only answer in my view to the safety is that the road not be there. If the current plan is developed it will place the safety of the 15 children on the west side of Harrison Hill Trail and the safety of the 23 children on the east side of Harrison Hill Trail who tend to focus most oftheirplay on our side because there's really not a lot of back yards on their side, will put them at risk. 38 children. That doesn't include the unborn children due in a few months on our road, or the friends and relatives of the children on the street. We are a young community. That number of children is only going to get larger. I am not a builder, nor can I claim to be experienced in looking at plans. However it does appear that this street that will access 5 houses at most, will compromise the safety of over 38 children and drivers using the road. Perhaps one could re-route the road to the west side of the house adjacent to the wetlands which I've heard developers talk about. If not, perhaps the road shouldn't exist and perhaps as mentioned several times tonight a proper use for that area would be a park for the people in that area. Understandably the goal of the developers was to allow these new properties to have their back yards against the wetlands. Perhaps even the property will be able tobe sold for more if they are marketed as back yards adjacent to wetland, but at what cost to the community. Compromising the safety of every house hold, at least 19 homes along Longacres/Harrison Hill to place a road to access only 5 homes does not reasonably a constitute a community decision. Others will discuss with you the financial impact that this road has on my property value and on those of my neighbors. Others will discuss with you the destroyed aesthetic appearance of my property and that of my neighbors should this road be built. Others will discuss with you the fact that this new planned neighborhood offers no access to major thoroughfares, I think which has been mentioned quite a lot. I however will emphasize to you the issues of safety and community. Is it a community decision to allow the current road to be built as on your blueprint when it serves only to allow an appealing location of a back yard adjacent to a wetland when they could have an appealing location to my back yard. Is it a community action to approve a road that serves only to access 5 houses when it compromises the 19 homes along the Harrison Hill neighborhood and the over 38 children that live in those homes. My answer to you is that approval of that road will be solely a financial decision and not one that city commissioners should make when their ultimate goal is to serve the community. Thank you. Sorry, it was a prepared statement. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Uli Sacchet: Well good evening from this side of the crowd. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South, which is the property right here. I also represent my neighbor which is the property right here. As a matter of fact I want to address first a point or two from my neighbors that hasn't been raised yet. Before I do that I want to make it clear that I address you as a resident, local resident and not as a member of the Planning Commission. The neighbor over here on Lot 22 of Highover, that's Ruth and Tom Rolfs. They've written a letter I think that was handed out to you this evening, and I wanted to summarize some of their points and focus on two points that have not been brought up yet that they bring up here. Their letter is basically an outcry against urban sprawl. Against the destruction of the existing wildlife corridor. The 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 beautiful wooded area on the rolling topography against the extreme grading and the effort to pack in as many lots, as many buildings as possible. In addition their's is a concern about drainage that they're bringing up. But first of all I'd like to point out that there is a major wildlife corridor on, between basically the two developments. On the south edge of Highover, that northern edge of this development in that corner of it is a major wildlife corridor and there is really no reason to believe that that corridor will totally go away. Even with all this development because there will be still significant woodland left, even when the Carlson property will be developed and as we saw at our last meeting also the property north, the Mancino property, there is a significant piece of woods preserved on the west side which will still attract wildlife, so this will remain to some extent a wildlife corridor, which deserves to be noted. Which by squeezing as many houses as close into that, it's going to have an impact. Obviously this neighbor shares the concerns I have about that wildlife corridor. He's concerned about the extent of the tree cutting. The extent of the grading, and then another specific concern that is raised that I share very much is that Lot 1, Block 4 of the Yoberry development is not just a wildlife corridor. It' s also drainage path. Basically the whole area of Highover, this southeastern part of Highover drains into that lot and it's not a minimal drain. I mean when there is a heavy rain or snow melt, it's enough to have a little creek. I mean it's enough to wash away a little twigs and little leafs and all that, so what Ruth and Tom Rolfs want to bring to your attention is that, is that good planning? To put in a questionable lot. They point out that it's an irregular shape, which I don't know whether that is necessarily something that can be held against it, if it fulfills the requirements. But is that consistent with good development planning? And just to quote their closing, their interest. They say our interest as adjacent homeowners that are, that the property is not developed in a typical urban sprawl manner but developed responsibly in a manner consistent with maintaining the character of the area. We believe and hope you will agree that this plan should be modified to better fit into the existing landscape. We believe that extreme destruction of wooded areas and extreme grading require it to change the elevations is not responsible development. So that's my word of my neighbors since there were unable to be here tonight. Now speaking for myself, we've heard of several neighbors that are being impacted. Now personally I'm ending up with a cul-de-sac next to my back yard. I'm ending up with a side yard next to my back yard so I get a double hit here. Not necessarily what I was hoping for. I do believe the developer's within their rights. What can be done to mitigate that? It's, there's some things. I've had some discussions with the developer and they actually are open, actually it's scary I start trusting them after a while even. One aspect also that is mentioned, it has not come up so far that's mentioned in the report is that with this development being considered a strip of no man's land was discovered between Highover to the north and the owners to the south. It's still kind of fuzzy a little bit how big that no man's land is, and when I go out there with my measurement, it seems to be like 28 feet or something like that, but the agreement the way I understand it is that it's going to be split evenly between the two sides, so that is not something that the city gets involved with but I do want to mention this here for the record. In tenns of the points that I have personally with this as a resident. You know after looking at this proposal, I have to admit that except for the impact it has on this corner, this development is actually pretty solid. It has a lot of qualities. I think it's pretty well cooked. I actually have to commend the developer for their efforts. As you know, those of you that are here that know me, I usually look in some detail at the large trees because I love trees, and I do want to share that with you. Because I think this developer does better in tenns of preserving large trees than just about any other development this size that I've seen come before this Planning Commission in quite a 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 while. To give you the specifics, I looked at the trees on the tree inventory are 24 inches or bigger. Initially with initial grading they save 29 of them. They cut 13. And 3 are questionable, so even if you include the ones that are questionable, and the ones they cut, they're saving 2/3 of them. They are a couple of custom graded lots, which is going to be roughly about 6 more of those significant trees that are going to be cut. Even with that they're still saving half of the really large trees, which is really commendable. Which is really quite remarkable because I don't remember another development that scored that well with that, and I reluctantly make this admission because I'd rather have this held up a little bit and improved a little bit in my corner. But in all fairness I have to point this out to you. My favorite tree, 216 apparently, unfortunately cannot be saved. Which is probably the most spectacular specimen of an oak that I've seen anywhere. I mean this thing is just a beauty so, I'm still waiting for a miracle. Find out how you can save 213. Ah, 216 it is. However, to be specific to my corner of the concern here, there is one tree, 192 which is about right here. Just directly north of the cul-de-sac. At this point, according to the plan it appears about 10-15 feet away from the nearest grading line. I'm not sure it's exactly placed accurately on the plat. I think it's actually slightly further to the south by probably about 2-3 feet. It's not in that Outlot G strip by my estimation that will be transferred to the north neighbors. It's probably about a foot or two beyond that. And it's a really nice tree. I think considering that this whole strip to the north is a tree preservation zone, considering that we get stuck with a cul-de-sac in our back yard, and side yard rammed in next to our back yard, it still hurts that my... You know we get spoiled. You're out there. I may even have to get curtains in my bathroom but. But that aside, I really want to put a plea in for this tree 192. I mentioned that to you before. I do believe it can be saved but according to the staff report it's put into the category of questionable trees. There's a bunch of other trees that I have interest in, in the other parts of the development and I'm not going to go into this in the interest of time. I did mention it to staff so you're aware of it. I also would like to ask for whatever possible to minimize the grading and tree cutting in the area adjacent to this back yard. And also potentially, right now the landscaping plan foresees a number of evergreens on top of the retaining wall, but then birches on the side. Maybe at least one of these birches could be exchanged to an evergreen or two to increase the maximum buffer, because frankly what I'm concerned about is cars coming up this hill. This is steep. They're going to shine right into my bedroom. They're going to shine right into the back of the house so whatever can be done through buffering with evergreens. I mean there's some buffering in place through the retaining wall, which is really good, and to make every possible effort to preserve as much of the trees that are savable there. Now I do have another concern, I used to be a member of the Board of the Highover neighborhood association. I'm not part of that now so I'm not speaking in any official capacity for the Highover neighborhood. However there are three aspects in this that touch on the Highover neighborhood as a whole. The first one is a very good one. Is that pond here actually stays and I don't even want to express the gratitude for the Highover that that stays because it was considered a temporary pond that would be moving south at some point. It's not doing that, that's great. The other thing is the lift station that is currently up here. That is being eliminated. It's important to, and I believe that's being settled that that is not, that that's going to be moved and there is not going to be another lift station. Is that accurate? Saam: Correct. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 VIi Sacchet: Okay. And then the other aspect I also want to point out is that we actually do get a trail connection to the neighborhood. The Highover neighborhood trail there which is very commendable. I want to make sure that stays there. So in closing, one key point. The findings in the staff report say that this development will not cause environmental damage. That just simply is not true. That will have to be modified to state something like, will not cause excessive environmental damage or efforts are being made to minimize it. Since that will ultimately effect me when I'm sitting back up there again, I want to point that out too. And I believe that's all that I want to share with you. Thank you for the attention and again, I address to you as a resident... Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. John Graham: My name is John Graham. I'm from 6935 Highover and I'll use Rodd's map here again. Currently, and it's just with traffic. On Highover there's currently a bus stop there. There is no stop sign. That's pretty much at the top of the hill. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Highover Drive but it's a very steep grade from there on down. With the amount of traffic going down there I think there's got to be at least 80 percent of the kids under 10 years old and I'd like at least a stop sign along that way. The next one down, Highover Trail might be tough because that grade coming up in the winter time might be tough to get going again but again, to reiterate a lot of concerns with the traffic coming through there. The amount of kids for both the north and the south ofthese. Just want to reiterate that, ifthere's any way to outlet that traffic to 41 would be preferable. Slagle: Thank you. Stacy Riecks: Thank you again for taking the time. I'm Stacy Riecks and I live at 7256 Gunflint Trail which is right here on the corner of Gunflint Trail and Longacres. We would be adjacent to what is called Lot 5 on the current plat. Like the folks that spoke before me, I am concerned about the traffic that would be traveling, and like my brother and I also travel down Hunter to get out to work and to Highway 5. One of the concerns that has not been brought up, which the gentleman before me just did was the bus stop and currently there are 4 bus stops for various ages of children that do stop right there on Gunflint Trail and Longacres so obviously during our high traffic times ofthe morning, that's when the bus stops are being used. They start at 6:30, 7:00, continue to 8:00 and 8:30. So that's right there during the prime traffic time. Another concern that was not brought up, which I did learn more about today was the drainage issue that is potentially taking place back there. Currently during any type of rain stonn my back yard is already flooded as it already is. Currently the water flows like a river, through the back yard. Goes over the sidewalk and out into the street so considering all the movement that is going to be taking place, I have more concerns about what the drainage issues would be with some of the rigging that appears to be going on back there as well. And then also obviously I would not necessarily be in favor of having a sidewalk in my front yard but I am concerned about the safety on our street so would love to obviously understand how we're going to reorganize those roads to make them safe for our children, which we did mention are 22 just in our little 9 home area so, that's really all I have to say. Slagle: Thank you. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Paul Addiston: Paul Addiston, 7080 Harrison Hill Trail. I'll be very brief. I live here. And I know this issue's been brought up and skirted briefly a couple times but I can't tell you the personal investment and what we've gone through as a family to try to get to a place like we are now, and I have literally looked at over 100 houses before buying this one and I have never seen another house that has a road on the back side of my property and the front side of my property. I've got two kids, 9 and 7. There's got to be something else they can do besides that. Thank you. Rich Bray: My name's Rich Bray. I live at 6983 Highover Drive. To show you where I'm at. I'm right on the corner of Highover Drive and Highover Way and I want to just give a real brief history if I could of the acquisition of my lot and the building of the home and what I was told by Jerome Carlson and our realtors, which may not have any legal precedence any longer but just want to give you some history. We knew the road was going through. We were told there was a cul-de-sac that was going to be developed on the end of that, which I think is becoming a common known twist on where it was. Worst case scenario we certainly thought there'd be access from 41, other than through Lake Lucy coming down our road. If you look at this part of the development that runs along the western side, it's important to keep in mind that those people deal with an extremely busy highway, which is 41 right now. That's very noisy and unfortunately traffic on Highover Drive runs close to 30 miles per hour up that hill, and that's why we've got a lot of issues with regard to the traffic and speed and trying to control it in a dead end community. So we can only understand or guess at this point what the traffic's going to be like to try and feed another 150 to 100 automobiles developing or trying to find a shortcut, not to get onto the traffic. Not to try and go down Hunter but to exit out through Lake Lucy, and that's our concern. A majority of the children in that area are under 10 years of age. Multiple families. Now the history on my lot, the city actually made me move my trees after I planted them on the corner back 2 feet. I planted 3 evergreen trees on the corner and they made me remove the trees, move them 3 feet back for the purpose that at some point there's going to be a stop sign at that intersection and they didn't want a blind intersection. Slagle: If I could ask, would that be on the northwest corner of your property? Rich Bray: That would be, yes. The northwest corner. And so I guess I have a question, is there any intention of putting a 3 way stop at that corner? Slagle: Mr. Saam. Saam: Not that I'm aware of. Rich Bray: Yeah, and that would make a blind hill that they would over the top with traffic and that would be a real concern I think for our community and our neighborhood about 25-30 miles per hour speeds going over the top of a blind hill with kids playing out. Right now a number of the neighbors put the little Child Playing out in the driveway. We're a pretty close community and we're concerned that the speed and the development on that road is going to split up the community from that and make people just stay to their back yards solely. So I wanted to bring up the fact that I personally spent a considerable amount of money because the trees died after 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 we moved them and I had to put them in again. And I can't remember who's the lady's name was but the developer's called her the tree lady. Slagle: Jill Sinclair. Rich Bray: Could have been. I don't know. I don't know but I was told that one, don't cut one of my 30 foot evergreens down, which we didn't do, and the other one was, move those trees back 2 feet. But at any rate that's, I'm very disappointed I guess to find out that we haven't considered some type of traffic control on that road, and that we haven't looked at Highway 41 another potential entrance. With 50 something homes going in there, to only have 2 routes in and out to me is also a fire hazard in a community issue but you guys know technically whether that meets the exact number of footage or feet between one home to the next and what it requires but would like you to reconsider and possibly at a minimum put a stop sign in on that corner. Slagle: Thank you. I'm going to ask Matt a question if I may before we have the next person come up. Matt, would it be safe in saying that if you use Settlers West as an example where we actually put in two entrances on Pioneer, all within what would you say, a fifth of a mile. Saam: Yes. Slagle: And I mean I remember the discussion of trying to connect it to one because of the desire to not have two entrance/exits into that community. Is it a fair request by folks and I'll say myself to ask that we at least explore that with MnDot? And maybe they say no but maybe they'll come back and surprise us and say, yeah that will work. I mean I'm just throwing that out. Saam: Yeah, sure it is. Slagle: Hold on. Sir, if you could just have a seat for a sec, if you wouldn't mind. Saam: Yeah MnDot has, we received written comments back from MnDot and those comments do say they want access control along 41. What that basically means is they want to have rights to limit no access along 41. With that said and what I said earlier with the existing street system being in place, I don't foresee MnDot saying that a public street can go through there. But I could be wrong. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Saam: But we can definitely yes, check into that. Slagle: Sure Steve. Lillehaug: Further on this. Do you know the spacing because what MnDot will judge us on is the spacing between Lake Lucy and Longacres. Do you know the actual distance between those streets? And then also comment on actual city policy with spacing of collectors and arterials. 25 - - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Saam: I don't know the spacing offthe top of my head. It must be something, a half mile. I'm not sure Commissioner Lillehaug. As far as our spacing requirements, yeah. We have certain requirements. In this case 41's an arterial, like I said, so that spacing is a much greater distance than local street spacing is. Slagle: It's got to be at least half a mile I would think. Saam: Yeah, something in that. Slagle: Okay. Anything else Steve? Did you want to say? Rich Bray: Yeah, I actually forgot to mention one item and that's that I was also infonned that there were negotiations at the time, this is about 4 years ago in putting some type of a connection between the east side of 41 to the west side of 41 for access to Minnewashta, and that the City turned that down. That MnDot was in support of some type of a, what do you want to call it? It went underneath the road. Yeah, an underpass type concept. Secondly I know I've worked on a process in another community and understand that MnDot really doesn't control that. They give recommendation. If the City wants to put an intersection there with a stop light on 41, they can do that. I don't know what the repercussions from the State are in doing that but ideally at some point it would be nice from a community standpoint to have a stop sign on 41 that allows access to Minnewashta, and from this community which quite frankly once this new development is in, the two developments from last week also will end up being a substantial revenue base for this county and for the city, which it already is I'm sure from a tax base perspective. Slagle: Thank you. Mark Brown: My name is Mark Brown. I live at 7210 Gunflint Trail. It is the lot right next that goes up to 2 on this side and back. And besides the same concerns I have as my neighbors, I also have young children. In addition to those same concerns about the traffic and the lack of access to 41, from just by house alone, maybe it shows up better on this picture right here. It appears I'm going to have, right as people come out of the new subdivision, there's no driveways right here so I'm a little concerned about line of sight. Since my driveway is right at, right where that street cuts over. That's one ofthe concerns that I have. The other concern that I have that I deal with right now is because of this large hill, there's a drainage situation. A lot of water runs up that particular during the spring thaw when the ground's still frozen. So I'm a little concerned about what that's going to be like after it's developed so, and that all flows down to all the neighbors and everything so, we're all part of that but those are two major concerns that I have along with all the other ones. On a real positive standpoint, the barn's going right? Karen Weathers: Hey. Yeah. Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I just had some questions about the report itself. The fonnat's a little bit different and in the compliance table, in the RSF district, there are 1Slots that don't meet the 90 foot requirement for width, and I'm wondering, there was no plat in here that showed where the setback line is. In looking at the beautiful drawing, you know the development, I think it might be a little deceptive because it looks like all the homes 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 are set back pretty evenly. I'm wondering if the building setback line could be delineated for these 15 lots and shown, so people realize how far back some of those houses may be. I didn't have a chance to look at the plat beforehand but I think that's a real important point because it looks like it's 30 feet back and I think some of them are going to be quite substantially back. An issue related to that, for those of you that have measurements, I'd like to just out of curiosity to know if any of those run short of meeting a 60 by 60. Curiosity and you know why the question's raised. And then the other issue on that same compliance table is, there are 4 lots that show a rear lot setback as NA rather than not having the 30 feet. I'd like to understand why those 4 lots have NA. And their Lot 7, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2; Lot 4, Block 4; Lot 1, Block 5. I just didn't understand that. That seems unusual. Aanenson: They're all corner lots so they have two fronts. Deb Lloyd: Okay. Without again the plat being in here, it's hard to recognize what's going on. So I would like to know though where the lot setback line is for all the lots that do not meet the 90 foot requirement. So how far back is that building setback line. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Matt, do you want to just touch upon that a little bit, just take a couple as an example. Or Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: All the lots meet the 90 foot requirement. They are all on a curve and. Lillehaug: Is it 30 feet or 25 feet? AI-Jaff: It's 30 feet. So basically you take the setback parallel to the radius and they all meet, all 15 parcels meet the 90 foot. If they don't exceed it. Lillehaug: Can you comment on the 60 by 60 pad then also? AI-Jaff: They all have a buildable area that exceeds 60 by 60. Slagle: I'm going to think about that one but anybody else like to speak? Scott Wosje: Just a quick note. Scott Wosje. I live in the Longacres neighborhood so I can speak to that neighborhood only. Lived there 6 years. A board member up until the 31st of December and did not get reappointed. Tom fortunately stepped up to the table with some new energy. We already have an existing traffic problem on Longacres that I've been trying to work with Beth Hoiseth, community representative. Safety and also the Sergeant as well to try and figure out what we can do to slow down traffic. There's so many kids in the neighborhood. What we can do to slow down traffic on that road so it should be noted to the commission that we already know we have an existing traffic issue that's on record with the City. We're only going to add to it with this potential development. The other thing that should be noted for clarification purposes is that the Longacres Association does pay dues that maintain the sidewalks along Longacres as well and we pay to have those sidewalks cleared. Again, is it fair? Is it right? You know no, but life isn't fair but it should be noted that we're paying to maintain 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 those sidewalks in addition to the parks. That is going to come into play so, thank you. Any questions? Lillehaug: I have a question of Matt quickly. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: Is there a problem on Longacres? Has it been measured? Has there been traffic surveys done? I mean do we have a speeding problem, because it's a collector road and I, if it's a collector road I would anticipate higher levels of traffic but what about speed? Saam: Yeah, I think that's what Mr. Wosje's referring to is the speed issue. That's what both Jim, the Sergeant and Beth Hoiseth work with, with Project Leadfoot and that. The new speed indicator that we purchased. I forget the name of it but I believe that's the issue and yes, we do take counts since it's not only a collector road. It's a state aid road. Longacres Drive is so we're required every other year to get counts out there which we do. Lillehaug: Do you know of the speeds on that road? Saam: Um no. Not off the top of my head. We would have that info though. Slagle: You know if I can add something. When it comes to that development, Hunter would probably fall into a different category and a sense of speed, the narrowness of the road and the fact that there's no sidewalks. And I certainly think that people who have presented here tonight are correct that people will cut through as they work their way to Galpin because it is a shorter drive down Hunter than it is to go Longacres to Galpin, so I don't know if there's a solution but it's certainly a valid concern. There you go. Bill Borrell: Hi. My name's Bill Borrell and I live at 2300 Longacres Drive. Been there about 7 years and was surprised to hear that I live on a collector road on Longacres. I guess how much narrower is Longacres than Lake Lucy or Galpin? You allowed the developer to make it more. Aanenson: Would have been 80. Saam: Oh in tenns of right-of-way, yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, correct. Bill Borrell: So is narrower. I guess if we look at the map you see it's very windy between the two roads and I would not even compare it to, I walk along Lake Lucy, which is a very straight, wide open road and I guess if you guys are talking about Longacres as being a collector road in the same sense that Lake Lucy or Galpin, I don't know how you can. Aanenson: My point is Lundgren, when they developed that specifically for marketing purposes asked to have it narrow to give the appearance that it didn't function as a collector. Bill Borrell: But the problem is that now it does have the appearance and because of the density of the homes, it is different than a standard collector road I'm saying and that, like everybody 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 speaking about these kids playing out on the street. It's a little bit different than Lake Lucy or, especially Galpin, the way it is right now so I just want to. Aanenson: Right, and I would agree and there is, actually the City is considering changing the profile on Lake Lucy and actually narrowing that and putting the sidewalk, raising the sidewalk. That issue is going to the City Council next, raising the sidewalk so right now when you're on Lake Lucy. Slagle: You walk on the road. Aanenson: You walk on grade so narrowing that and raising the sidewalk for that specific reason. Give a different cross section. Different feel for safety reasons. Slagle: Any other comments? One more. Stuart Henderson: ...1 forgot. Does this mean this is a bluff? Aanenson: No. Stuart Henderson: The green, no it doesn't? Aanenson: No it does not. Stuart Henderson: Okay. Then my question is simply, Stuart Henderson. I live right over here. This is a very steep hill. Very steep. I'm not sure what a bluff is, but I'm kind of concerned about the drainage here and our ground stuff comes up and runs through my back yard, which I think. . . Stacy's yard. It's not a big deal for me but it is quite a drainage problem. I know, when I called Matt said there is a drainage map somewhere so maybe there's some provision made for it. I didn't get a chance to look at that but Ijust raise the concern. Slagle: Any other comments? Okay, I'm going to. Oh, Deb you got one more? Deb Lloyd: Yeah I'm not just sure if I made my point so. My point being is lots where frontage is measured at the setback, it's not the street frontage. You've got to measure it at the setback line. Correct? And I just want the residents to see, would you mind pointing out how far back some of these houses could be. You know Ijust think you owe it to them to know that they're not at the street. Slagle: Sharmeen, just take a couple. And I guess Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: I'll use this as an example. If you look at the frontage, this is Lot 5, Block 1. Yoberry Farm Third Addition. The frontage along this cul-de-sac is 55 feet. At the setback line it is 95 feet. And that's permitted by ordinance. AT the setback line you need to maintain a minimum of 90 feet. This exceeds it. The buildable area on this site is basically, so the home can maintain a 30 foot setback. Does that answer the question? Thank you. 29 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: Okay. I am going to close the public hearing now. At this point I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anyone want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a few questions before we go to discussion. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Lillehaug: Wow. The, what are my questions now? Parks. Does staff have any further comment on parks? I mean are we doing a dis-service to Longacres because we're not adding a park in this area? Are we, I mean Longacres and Highover, they're not gated communities but I think we need to respect the homeowners association so does planning have any comments or suggestions regarding specifically parks. Aanenson: Not at this time. Lillehaug: No? Okay. Slagle: If I may, I do have to ask Kate... with the Park and Rec Department, with respect to parks in this area. Any? Aanenson: Well yeah. Slagle: What I'm going to call the general area. Aanenson: Yeah. They've got a map of the areas where the parks are and it was the Park and Rec Director and the commission that made a recommendation not to take that so, if you want to add additional comments, just of your, for the council to consider. Slagle: Well I guess what I'm asking is, is there any, has there been discussion about a park in another location that's adjacent or in the near vicinity of these developments that we've looked at the last 2 meetings? Aanenson: Not an active park, no. I think there may be, when the Carlson property comes in adjacent to the large Lake Harrison, maybe some open space. Some scenic overlooks but probably not another active park. Slagle: Okay. I'm sorry Steve. Lillehaug: No, that's fine. We heard a couple residents from Highover concerned with the blind hill at the very top, so that kind of alludes me, does engineering get actual profiles? This happened in our 2 weeks ago when we reviewed the other larger development. I had problems with the profiles of the road because they were meeting the absolute minimums for the profile grades. Does the developer give engineering profiles of these roads so we don't have these problem high spots with very limited sight lines, because this is what I saw in that other development, exactly what our residents are complaining about. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Saam: Yes, at the time of final plat, final construction plans. Lillehaug: They give you profiles. Saam: Yep. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all the questions. Well one more question. At the very south end of Street B, the very south end of the D development, Lots 3, 4 and 5. It appears that those contours are a lot closer together. Has that been evaluated to ensure that that's not a bluff on that very south end? You know at the very high point you're saying they're about 5 foot apart so that'd be a 1 to 5, but looking at this, they look about 3 feet plus or minus. I mean are we looking at a bluff for that whole entire south end of that section? Is that something staff can verify and, or has it been. Maybe the applicant knows. What the steepness of the grades are. 30 percent, plus or minus. If it's a bluff, it's a bluff. If it's not, it's not. Steve Johnston: At the very beginning of this process the first thing we did was identify where the bluffs were. The only bluffs that are there are along Highway 41. Those bluffs are about 30 feet high and just while I'm up here, to add to it, besides the access control that MnDot would be looking for, a 30 foot grade change in approximately 50 feet there is going to make it very difficult to try to get a roadway off of 41 anywhere along the west property. Just from an engineering standpoint would be very, very difficult. That bluff being 30 feet, we'd have to come into the site about 400 feet before that grade at maximum street grades would match existing grades so it would be very, very difficult to do. Lillehaug: So you're saying that is not a bluff on Lots 3, 4 and 5? Steve Johnston: No it is not. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all for the questions I have I guess. Slagle: Okay. Dan. Keefe: With comments? Is it comments or are we. Lillehaug: I'm not done with comments. Somebody else want to go first? Another question I guess is that, that cul-de-sac, we saw that in our previous plan. What do you call it, an eyebrow cul-de-sac. Is that our new trend here? We're going to have one in every development now? Saam: They were at the last meeting and they heard you all recommend approval to it. Lillehaug: Okay. Who wants to comment first then? Keefe: I'll start on comments. Slagle: Dan, you want to talk into your mic more. 31 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Keefe: Yeah, sure. Wow, there's a lot of stuff here. Let me start on the northeast corner. I don't know if I'm real comfortable with the layout, and I know they've just been, you guys have hammered this out probably 10 different ways but the way that that street backs up to the neighbors on the right, I just, I'm having a hard time getting comfortable with that. And I don't know, I almost want to see a plan where the street goes on the west side of that, of those lots and see how, because I heard that that was a possibility, or had been looked at. And anyway I'll just leave it, I'm just uncomfortable with that northeast corner. In tenns of like the Longacres development and the Highover development, they both have association dues. Do we have, in tenns of like neighborhoods stacking up next to each other. One pays. One doesn't pay. One has a park. One doesn't have a park. You know utilization from one neighborhood to the next. Is there any sort of policy or can you comment at all in regards to, it's really just individual developments and how they occur? Okay. Huh. I'd really like to see, you know definitely we need to look at Highway 41 and access to 41. I guess I made the assumption of looking at it but that really wasn't an option. I know that was discussed at length in this but I mean, I think it should definitely be considered and maybe pushed out a little bit more to the State in regards, or the State. What else? In regards to internal traffic Matt, I mean you know, you guys have done studies. Or maybe you haven't done a study on this but in tenns of the sort of traffic count coming out of here. If we find that there's more traffic, I mean how do you typically go forward. I mean after it's been built, you do traffic counts at that point and then establish whether you need to put stop signs in in the other neighborhoods or how does that work? Saam: Yeah, if you're talking about stop signs, there's certain warrants that need to be met. Amount of traffic approaching the different legs of the intersection is one of the main issues. So yeah, we'd have to do traffic counts and see if it would warrant a stop sign. Keefe: But your study of this says that you think right now the road as laid out would accommodate it and without putting undue pressure on the extra, or on the roads into Highover and/or Longacres. Saam: We do think Lake Lucy and Longacres Drive can accommodate the traffic coming from this development. Yes. Keefe: Okay. Papke: Okay, there's been a lot of discussion about the parks tonight and the homeowners situation. I think the best solution here and the one I would support would be to only move forward if the developer was willing to work with Longacres to the south, and make this development part of that homeowners association. I think there's plenty of parks here, as was amply pointed out. One of the parks backs right up to this development and it seems kind of silly to force another park in here or, where you have one sitting right there. I think that would be the real win/win scenario here is to have this developer perhaps work with Longacres to see if we can't solve the problem in that fashion. Would you like to comment? Chuck Alcon: Yes. We very much intend to pursue that offer from Longacres. We think it makes a lot of sense. I would comment though that there's going to have to be two organizational entities. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Papke: Sure. Chuck Alcon: The existing Longacres HOA has it's covenants. We plan to have our's. Papke: You bet. Chuck Alcon: Not to say that an agreement between the associations can't be reached. We think it makes a lot of sense for the park and I understand there's a plan for a pool on the eastern side I believe and we fully support that and would move forward and try to make that happen. Papke: And that would give the Longacres development 57 new homes, revenue opportunities. Chuck Alcon: And obviously we'll have to work out a dues arrangement and capitalization and all those things but. . . Papke: How you work it organizationally is up to you. Chuck Alcon: And we would commit to do that. Papke: Great. Super. I think there's been ample evidence tonight that moving the northeast cul- de-sac to the west over by the wetland I think is the best scenario for all involved. I think the way it lays out right now, the developer can charge a little bit more for the homes along the wetland but I think it really negatively impacts the people to the east to have an alley in their back yard, or however you want to put it. And I think that's too much negative impact to the people who are already there so, unless there's some structural reason or civil engineering reason why that cul-de-sac and road can't be moved so that the wetland would be on the other side of the street, that would be necessary for me to approve this. As to the 41, there's been a lot of issues around traffic tonight. The 41 access. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that that's a long pull to try to get access out to 41 here. So I think if we look at ways of mitigating some of the traffic concerns. Now we've heard from interestingly enough we've heard from both communities, both the Longacres to the south and Highover to the north are both concerned that they're going to get the bulk of the traffic, and you know obviously they're both not going to get 75 percent of the traffic from this subdivision. There's going to be some kind of natural split here so, you know I don't think there's, we really know which way the traffic's going to flow. But I don't see an easy way to solve the access to 41 problem, looking at the drawings and the elevation changes. So that's all the comments. Slagle: I just have a couple. On the 41 connection, as far as an entrance/exit. With that grade I just don't think that's going to be workable but it might be Matt worth at least the actual discussion or actual request, depending on how you see it, just so we have a record that they say either no or not such a good idea. I like the park idea with Longacres. My only concern with all respect is that if something doesn't get worked out, and we all know contracts and those things sometimes can be difficult to have happen, we are now looking at a major development with literally no parks anywhere within walking distance. And if it's quote unquote bike distance, it's across some fairly significant roads. And, if I can add, without even a commitment yet that a 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 sidewalk will be extended either on the east side or the west side of Gunflint Trail. I certainly hope that is going to happen and I would love to put a condition in there. I just don't know if we can put a condition on this case applying to another development. But it certainly would make sense to have a sidewalk going down the side the road and then stopping along an area that has an easement already. The grading area to the north, I think that is a real issue. We've seen too many developments come in that are squeezing parcels and you just wonder how it works with the grade. Lastly, I along with my other commissions have a real issue with that east side and that road. And as a citizen more than a commissioner I think that what's the give and take? Is the give that you move the road to the west and you now have 2 or 3 parcels with back yards facing an electrical easement. Is it the most appealing? Probably not. But certainly is a win/win in the overall what I'm going to call community sense. So I would tend to say that that's something that needs to happen, at least from my perspective. So with that, that's my comments. I will open it up for a motion. Lillehaug: I've got a couple, I have some comments. Slagle: Oh, did I forget you? Alright, go ahead. Lillehaug: I reiterate basically what everyone said. Also on the northeast side there, I think in my opinion that the cul-de-sac is too close to Uli's property on the north there, so likewise on the east and on the north I think it needs to be pulled away and a reasonable buffer or back yards in that whole area needs to be in place before I would recommend this to the council for approval. Parks, just to reiterate on that. Am I under the understanding that Longacres does want this development to be part of maintaining the parks? Is it, you live in Longacres. Slagle: Well, not really. I'm the one lot next to Longacres, but the point of it I think is that we have to be careful in this in that we've had a representative of the Board speak, but I don't know if that person can speak for the whole Board. There's legal issues and so that's where I'm just saying to all of us, I'm concerned that if we say hey, we'll hopefully the applicant and Longacres can reach an agreement. Not to mention what will happen to Highover. You know, I mean so it's sort of a wishful thinking and hopeful and again, with all integrity assumed that something works out. So I don't know if we can really bank on it at this point. Lillehaug: Okay. I guess I'm okay with most of the development except for the northeast. I think it's too much crammed in there. Too restrictive. But are you guys willing to make a recommendation I guess just to get a feel for it, without seeing an alternate plan of what we're doing up here? I'm not ready to make a recommendation I guess without seeing that. My opinion. Slagle: I would, as guidance just suggest to the 4 of us that someone make a motion, whatever way they feel is appropriate and then we let the vote decide that. Lillehaug: Sure. Okay. One other, two other questions I guess before we make a motion and it's regarding the conditions. Condition number 20 and it's regarding all lots must have a minimal, minimum useable area off the back of the house pad. But it's not defined what that minimum useable area is. Does staff have a recommendation for a minimum useable area such 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 as a square footage or a depth as in like 20 feet from the back of the house? Is that something staff wants to make a recommendation on? Because it says minimum. Aanenson: Yeah, I guess a lot of it has to do with the life style choice. Some people like that and we looked at, they showed examples of Ashling Meadows, which coincidentally was the one I was saying because they have different, some people like the choice of not having a back yard. What we want to make sure is that it's done in a way that's not creating drainage problems or long tenn maintenance problems for those down below but no, so you at least have a patio or deck area. Some flat area that you can walk right out on, so maybe it's 10 feet or. . .like that. Lillehaug: Okay, no further comments I guess. Slagle: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion we table this until we see a revision in the northeast corner per our comments that we've discussed. Papke: Second. Slagle: Okay. I have a motion and a second. To table this. Do we need to be more specific Kate? Aanenson: I think we have clear direction that the issue we're trying to resolve is the cul-de-sac on the northwest side. Slagle: And can I also add to that, some, well friendly amendment to your motion. If I may. Can that motion address what I will call the lack of a clear direction of a park. And I use park in a parenthesis. And Kate you know, it's not. Aanenson: You're asking me to usurp the power of the park commission which I'm very reluctant to do. I think at this point, you know if you want to put something in as part of your, what you typically do kind of a summary point, I think if you want to add that you're concerned under summary point, that you want the council to consider that. Because they take your input plus the park commission's going forward. Slagle: How about this? How about if we table this and we ask either the Park Director or someone from the park to come and present to us as to what the thoughts are. Aanenson: You can ask, sure. Slagle: Okay. To me that, because sometimes we're trying to find an answer and the person who has the answer isn't here so. Is that a friendly amendment accepted? Lillehaug: Certainly. Keefe: I was going to add. Just as. 35 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Slagle: Okay, friendly amendment to the table. Keefe: Friendly amendment to, at least have a discussion with the State in regards to access to Highway 41. Lillehaug: Well, I guess stating my opinion. I'm looking at the grade difference and I agree with the developer. It's a very limited factor. And my history with MnDot is, is they're not going to grant that. They'll look at it but I think staff would concur that they will not grant another access point. Especially if it's only a half mile between Lake Lucy and... Aanenson: Just to be clear what their letter said to us, is they want to restrict the access. You know just to be clear, we did look at that. You know this actually has a lot of revisions so obviously it's something that we considered but it was eliminated based on, as the engineer said, the length going back and the steepness. To get the grades to work. The touch down points so you're not coming at a steep angle down to. Slagle: But I think just to be clear to the audience though, it was in essence you're saying dismissed or rejected by the. Aanenson: Right, and a letter from MnDot said that they want to control the access. Slagle: Fair enough. I don't think that was clear. Keefe: It wasn't clear to me. Aanenson: I was waiting for the Assistant to say something so. Slagle: Okay. Keefe: Okay, so in a sense they've already said no. Saam: Yeah, I previously said we have a memo where MnDot wants to gain access control along 41 which means they're not going to allow any access along that stretch of 41. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Saam: They don't want access on 41. Keefe: I withdraw my amendment. Slagle: Okay. And then I just one last one, and that would be Commissioner Lillehaug, if you wouldn't mind, something to the effect of where we can get some traffic numbers, Matt, if I can ask you. You mentioned that Longacres is some type of a classification where you have to get numbers. Traffic numbers every so often. Would be interested to see what that is. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Lillehaug: We know what this is going to generate. I mean there's 54 residences there. It's going to generate between 10-14 trips per day so we're looking at 600 to 700 trips a day from this development, either going north or south so split down the middle. You're looking at 350 going north and 350 south. I mean it's a reasonable number on a local street in my opinion. And so I don't think, in my opinion, I don't want to give staff direction to do that because in my opinion it's reasonable on the local street. On Gunflint Trail to the south as well as Highover to the north. I think the traffic levels that would be distributed on those streets are still going to be within the local 750 to 1,000 maximum. I know that's high but that's city, what's in the city comprehensive plan. Slagle: Well you're within your rights to reject the friendly amendment. Lillehaug: And I reject it. Slagle: Fair enough. So we have a motion on the floor to table this with direction to staff to re- work, if at all possible, the northeast quadrant. Invite the Park and Rec Director to speak to us at our next meeting. Anything else I'm missing? Okay. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table the rezoning and subdivision request for Yoberry Farms with direction to staff to re-work the northeast quadrant and to invite the Park and Rec Director to speak or provide written comment regarding the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Slagle: We're going to take a 5 minute break. Chuck Alcon: Question. Tabled until? Slagle: Well. Aanenson: We can turn it around. Slagle; Sounds good. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL. OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BLVD AND THE FUTURE REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101. SAND COMPANIES. INC.. PLANNING CASE No. 05-01. Public Present: Name Address Jamie Thelen 366 South 10th A venue, Waite Park, MN 37