Loading...
PC Minutes 1-18-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave a brief introduction of the role of the Planning Commission and how the meeting and public hearings will be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Rich Slagle, Jerry McDonald, and Steve Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive OATH OF OFFICE: Chairman Sacchet administered the Oath of Office to Jerry McDonald. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER DRIVE, AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL, YOBERRY FARMS, LLC., DAVID HURREL, AND KAREN WEATHERS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43. Public Present: Name Address Mark Erickson 2216 Hunter Drive Dan Lun 2373 Hunter Drive Lauren Damman 6934 Highover Drive Laura Bray 6983 Highover Drive Michael Horn 7024 Highover Court Karen Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard Dean Simpson 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard Candice McGraw 2446 Highover Trail Kathy Mack 6984 Highover Drive Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail Larry DuMoulin 6966 Highover Drive th Bill Coffman 600 West 78 Street st Steve Johnston 510 1 Avenue North, Minneapolis Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 th Chuck Alcon 6138 76 Lane, Greenfield David Hurrell 7420 Bent Bow Trail Scott Bittner 2398 Hunter Drive Bob Krueger 2350 Hunter Drive David & Kathleen Fulkerson 6900 Highover Drive Larry Lovig 2475 Gunflint Court Philip Haarstad 7066 Harrison Hill Trail Patrick Brunner 2443 Hunter Drive Matt Mesenburg 2428 Hunter Drive Jo Mueller 2529 Longacres Drive Mark Zaebst 2325 Hunter Drive Carrie Sprosty 7163 Fawn Hill Road Lori Dinnis 2362 Hunter Drive Kathy Koscak 2351 Hunter Drive Kristin Bunkenburg 2300 Hunter Drive John Graham 6935 Highover Drive Jeff Tritoh 2313 Hunter Drive Dave Bordeau 2418 Hunter Drive Todd Rech 2408 Hunter Drive Keith Abrahamson 2403 Hunter Drive Rosalie J. Nast 2448 Hunter Drive Scott Smith 2395 Hunter Drive Dan Hanson 2390 Longacres Drive Julie Lohse 7094 Harrison Hill Trail Bill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive Jennifer Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Andrew & Tina White 7122 Harrison Hill Trail Paul Ottoson 7080 Harrison Hill Trail Mike & Candi McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Ping Chung 7000 Highover Drive Chairman Sacchet excused himself from the Planning Commission for this item due to a personal conflict of interest. Vice Chair Slagle conducted the meeting for this item. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report. Slagle: Why don’t we start down, Kurt if you wouldn’t mind. Let’s start with questions for staff. Papke: Sure. The topo map of the Harrison Hill Trail lot was very helpful. Approximately what is the distance from the back end of that house to the proposed street? Saam: Approximately 170 feet. Papke: So it’s almost, okay. 170. And the bushes that are being proposed are lilac bushes, is that correct? 3 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Saam: I believe that’s the last thing we heard but you could ask the developer. Papke: Okay. Slagle: Actually sir, we’ll ask you when. Papke: That’s all I have at this point. Slagle: Dan. Keefe: Yeah Matt. Can you speak a little bit more what access, I’m not sure when you say we dedicated, what does that really mean? Saam: As I understand it, and I called MnDot and asked them this. They really didn’t have a definition. The person I spoke within right-of-way said, he explains it this way. Where MnDot does have not access control, when people want to install an access, they have to apply to MnDot to get a permit for access. So MnDot can either then review it and say yeah or nay. But he said where MnDot has access control, they don’t even have to review anything. They just say nay. So basically it’s whether by plat dedication or by them buying it. It’s like an easement. You can purchase it also. They are getting the right to say no access in this area along our road. Keefe; But they don’t have it now but by virtue of platting it they get it? Is that. Saam: And I’m not an attorney on it but that’s what they’re requesting in their memo. Keefe: Do you know, do we have instances of where we are less than a half mile on 41? Saam: I don’t know but I would guess there may be but I don’t know off the top of my head. th Let me back up. West 78 and Highway 5 I don’t believe are half mile spacing, but there we get into a collector road and then a highway so I think that’s what alleviates the spacing requirement. Keefe: Alright, that’s it. Slagle: Jerry. McDonald: No questions. Slagle: I’ve got a couple, if I may Matt. Getting to Dan’s question regarding the half mile. Can you, as best you can, tell me what happened with Settlers Ridge, that last addition that we saw with Pemtom where we had the two entrances, exits fairly close together. I think within a half of mile and the city requested MnDot to approve that, if you will. Remember how the talk was, we wanted to send it through the other part of Settlers Ridge and. Saam: Yeah, I don’t know that they’re apples to apples. First of all Pioneer Trail is a county road and it doesn’t carry the same amount of traffic as 41 would. So the county may have less spacing requirements. A quarter of a mile, that sort of thing versus a half a mile. But as far as 4 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 that, in that situation we would have been routing everybody through one access out to Pioneer Trail, whereas here there’s two accesses. I think there might be more of an argument if say there wouldn’t be an access both to the north and south. Then there might be more of an argument to say hey, maybe we need a second way in and out of this development. Slagle: Going out to 41? Saam; Yes, correct. And then in Settlers West that you referred to, we only have the one, so that’s why we were looking to get another onto Pioneer Trail. Slagle: Second question. How much did we, or did the applicant reduce the grade in I believe the option that we’re seeing before us. At least the one you’re recommending. Saam: Depends on where, exactly which part of the street you look at but just in glancing at it, approximately 4 feet. It’s been reduced. I think the retaining wall before was about a 4 foot or so, that would make sense. Slagle: Okay. And then last question, the bushes you’re referring to that would add buffering, would those be placed underneath the power lines or would that be on the property to the west. Do you know? Saam: Let me show it. Slagle: Okay, appreciate it. Saam: Okay here’s the revised landscaping plan. This shows the bushes in this area. My finger is designating the limits of the utility easement. Now as for where the exactly power lines are, I’m assuming they’d be somewhere in the middle, so yeah in some situations I would guess they would be under the power lines. Slagle: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Well, I think with as many people as I see here, and if I look at my fellow commissioners there’s probably would you agree additional people than we had last time. So I’m going to open the public hearing again, if you would, or continue it just because I do think there’s some folks here who probably have something new to add, if you will. I would ask all to be considerate of time and repeating the same concerns probably doesn’t help the cause but I do think it’s fair to have folks have a chance to speak. Oh I’m sorry, applicant. I’m sorry. Let’s have the applicant. I’m jumping ahead. Sorry about that. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of Planning Commission. My name is th Chuck Alcon, representing Yoberry Farms. I reside at 6138 76 Lane, Greenfield, Minnesota. With me this evening for the development team are Mr. Bill Coffman and Steve Johnston, the project engineer and land owners Dean Simpson and Karen Weathers. Just briefly, you asked us last time to look at the northeast corner and we have done that. I think the only comment I would add is that the recommended Option A is also the minimum tree removal option. Preserves the tree preservation around that northern bank. Other than that we have no 5 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 comments. We concur with the staff recommendations and also the findings. And we would stand by to answer any questions. Slagle: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Keefe: Can you just go over the grade a little bit, and I’m trying to understand exactly how that land flows where the road comes out. Can you give me, actually what I’d love to see is kind of like a bisect. You know kind of going north to south, but I mean if you can kind of describe that. Chuck Alcon: Unfortunately I do not have a cross section with me, but in this general area now we have come back and we’ve kept the road as flat as possible back up into here. So that we were able to eliminate the retaining wall in this location. From a grade perspective, from this spot if you were to draw a line straight through here, the grade rises about 4 feet to the back of this retaining wall. Then it drops down to a walkout elevation that is, I can’t remember the exact number. I think it was about 15-16 feet below the street at this location. So we’re actually rising, the rise should in and of itself block the headlights. But beyond that the house is set down below this retaining wall so headlights should not be an impact. That combined with this is a conservation easement back here, where the trees have been saved. The natural vegetation is in place and then we are going to augment that with additional plantings. They run from about this location down to about here. Once we get to here the street is set well below the street and we didn’t feel that additional plantings were necessary. Keefe: So just so I’m clear, at the point where the road gets to Lot 5 there. Close to Lot 5. The road is on grade. You’re not taking it down much. It’s sort of on grade at that point or, I’m trying to get a, you know from. Chuck Alcon: The grade right here actually has about 6 feet of fill on the street. If we go to, right about here we match into grade. From this point to this point we’re in a cut situation. From this point down, this is fill. And then. Keefe: Sorry for being a little bit slow here but, you’re filling to put, you’re filling up to 6 feet and then as I look to the east it’s still going to rise up to the back of that retaining wall or does it go down? Chuck Alcon: From the street here it will drop down about 3 feet, and then it starts coming back up again. So there will be, end up being a ditch along this section of the property line. Not a ditch but a swale. Where we match into grade we’ll actually form a swale down that property line. Keefe: And at the bottom of that swale it comes up approximately 4 feet to the back of that retaining wall, is that what I understood? Chuck Alcon: That is correct. Keefe: Okay. Alright, so net/net, from the road to the back of that retaining wall you’re approximately at that point 1 foot below? 6 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Chuck Alcon: No, maybe I wasn’t clear on that. I’m sorry. From the street we drop down 3. We almost immediately come back up that 3 feet, then we continue to slowly rise 4 feet through the back yard. So at this point in the back yard is actually going to be about 4 feet above this elevation on the street. Keefe: That’s good. Thank you. Slagle: Kurt. Papke: Ah yeah. The bushes that are being planted along that eastern border there, could you comment on the density of the plantings. The expected height of the plantings. Year round character, etc. Steve Johnston: There’s a color representation of where the, where they’re being planted. What our landscape architects have selected are viburum. They will get to be 8 feet high and 8 feet wide with a very dense multi stems, so that even in the winter there’s a fair amount of coverage in there. Switching to something like an arborvitae or something like that that’s evergreen, the problem is this close to the road you start to get the road salts and then they don’t do very well. So that was what the landscape architects have selected. Papke: The expected mature height is again? Steve Johnston: 8 feet. Chuck Alcon: The actual representatives from Xcel are Mike Hawkinson and Scott Johnson and they will allow you to go up to as high as 12 to 15 feet, but we felt in this case it was better to keep it down to 8 because of that corridor. McDonald: You’ll have to excuse me, I’m kind of coming up to speed on all this myself. One of the major concerns, as I read it, seems to be about the traffic, especially at night on this road. What kind of studies have you done as far as cars coming back in this area? How far in, how remote is it? Who should be back there? Chuck Alcon: Frankly the only people that really, besides these you know from the point that we’re concerned on, there’s only 4 residents. If we count this, there’s 5 residents. Those people are going to generate 50 trips a day. The other people that are going to be there are ones that frankly are lost. They’ve wandered back into the cul-de-sac and they need to get back out, because those 10 trips include their guests so, and those are spread out throughout the day, so your nighttime traffic should be very low. McDonald: Is this going to be a problem of people from the outside coming in to gain access to the area inbetween? Is that the trail? Between the properties. I could be wrong. I’m just trying to look at why would people be back here. 7 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Chuck Alcon: Other than to local residents, I can’t imagine that trail is, as it exists is going to be a very attractive destination. So I don’t think you’re going to see people driving to come and use that trail. Slagle: Go ahead Kurt. Papke: Kind of a follow along comment to that. Where will the dead end sign be placed that will prevent people from going back in there, and assuming that they can get through to some other spot? Chuck Alcon: I was just going to comment on that. There’s a couple options. Obviously this point right here will probably be the best point. No thru street. No outlet, etc. Whatever signage you decide to put there. I think that would take care of this entire area. Slagle: I just have a couple, if we may. I just want to confirm that the sidewalk will be on the east side of the road, going from that north connection down to your southern most property line, is that correct? Chuck Alcon: The sidewalk is on the east side of the road. It’s on the south side of the road here, and what we did as part of making up some of this grade and fitting room for the shrubs and so forth, is that this point, after we cross this driveway, we’re showing that sidewalk coming up directly behind the back of curb instead of being out at the right-of-way line, and then after get that, past that little bit of a tight spot, we’re bringing it back out to a typical location. And I’ve got more copies of this if you’d like to have. Slagle: Yeah, actually I’d like to see that. So are you suggesting, if I understand you right, that the sidewalk stays off the road completely or it goes onto the road at the curb? Chuck Alcon: You never actually travel on the road. The sidewalk would be adjacent to the back of curb. So you still have that separation for safety but you wouldn’t have the typical 8 or so feet between the sidewalk and the curb. Slagle: The park. We received a letter from the Park and Rec Director. I guess just for the record I want to be clear on this. Were you asked to have a, or consider a totlot. Chuck Alcon: I believe we were asked to consider a totlot and as you drive around the neighborhood, both kind of north and south, you look and you will see several Rainbow systems in the back yards of each of these houses, and I think that’s going to be our approach here also. Although we are meeting still with the Longacres Homeowners Association to the south of us, we’ve had one meeting to see if we can work out some kind of an arrangement to share their totlot, and we’re going to continue to pursue that. Slagle: And if I may, can I ask for your summary of that meeting. I mean how. Chuck Alcon: We exchanged some ideas. There are some legal issues concerning one association versus two associations. Their request was for a swimming pool to be installed by us 8 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 on their far eastern park, and we’re trying to understand the value of that versus the marketability of our property, and we haven’t completed that yet. We certainly will continue the discussions. As I mentioned, both north and south there appears to be heavy usage of the back yard Rainbow systems, i.e. their own individual totlots. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Thank you very much. Chuck Alcon: Thank you. Slagle: Anything else? Okay now, as I was saying earlier, I think we will open it up to comments from the public. What I’d like to ask is, approach the microphone. State your name and your address and again try and keep it within a few minutes and just be courteous of the time and the topic. Papke: Mr. Chair? Slagle: Yes. Papke: May I suggest that we have the Chair of the Homeowners Association start out so we can make sure that we get that from him. Slagle: Good idea. Where is that gentleman? There he is. Tom Hirsch: Hi, my name’s Tom Hirsch, 2290 Longacres Drive. I want to orient you in a package that I handed out at the beginning of this meeting. Page 1 and page 2 are an executive summary that has 8 conditions on it, which I’ll be talking to. There’s a set of pictures which I’ll be paging through to exemplify some of the issues that the homeowners have. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I promise I won’t use a thousand words. The next section is a 7 page detailed description and quote some comprehensive plan inconsistencies and expands upon the issues that are being presented and those are presented in the same order as the executive summary. And the final 2 pages of the package are a letter I received from staff dated, that was received by staff th December 17 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation concerning the access off of Highway 41. For your reference. I am the President of Longacres Homeowners Association. All of the other members of that Board of Directors are in, present here tonight. And as you see on page 2 of the executive summary, they’ve all signed this request for your consideration of these conditions for attachment to this proposal. Item number 1 is access via Route 41. I measured the distance from Longacres to Lake Lucy Road. It was just, I would say 100 feet shy of a mile. The distance from the Longacres Drive to this particular point on Highway 41 was exactly a half a mile on my odometer of my car. So this would be in line with the recommendations of the Department of Transportation. This particular blow up picture is that spot which is a half a mile between the two entrances, Lake Lucy Road and Longacres, and as you can see an existing abandoned road that is, I’m not an engineer but it’s not on the bluff or having to destroy a bluff to utilize that type of access. I did want to point out one other item in the upper right hand picture of this foursome, the bluff is on the right side of the picture and you can see where it starts to gain some elevation as it heads south. You’re looking east across Highway 41 on these pictures. We would request that you attach a condition that the applicant 9 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 work with city staff to make application for an entrance off of State Highway 41. And obtain a definitive decision from the State, yes or no. And that a desired type of recommendation but a yes or no. Make formal application. Get a yes, no and if it’s a yes, then we would request that the applicant put the access in directly off of 41. If it’s a no, the Longacres would like to have a copy of that denial of application. I’ll move onto the second issue. Increased traffic on Longacres streets. Shown here are 4 pictures of Hunter Drive. It’s a very narrow residential street. No sidewalks and this would be the cut through our neighborhood as it was shown at the last planning meeting where Longacres Drive trends southwest to northeast and Hunter cuts down south so traffic going to the retail corridor on Highway 5 and to the schools, most likely would cut down through Hunter Drive. There’s a very narrow, windy road. And several residents are here that are living on Hunter and they’ll probably expand on that. We would ask the commissioners to consider a condition where the applicant would conduct traffic studies on the current and projected traffic on Longacres, Hunter, and I did include Highover Drive because I did measure Highover and Highover is a very similar type road in width of road as this Hunter Drive. It’s a residential road and the width is just as narrow as this. Applicant to study recommend design and implement all necessary traffic calming measures for the families of Longacres. The third item is actually on the lower right hand corner of these 4 pictures. This is a picture looking north from Longacres Drive up Gunflint Trail. The hill in the background of the picture is where the houses will be going. Slagle: Move that just a bit so we can get the right pictures. Tom Hirsch: This picture right here. These 3 are the Hunter Drive windy street. This is a picture looking north from Longacres Drive up Gunflint Trail. The hill in the very back of the picture is where the housing development is going in. This street is stubbed off at the end of that street. And there’s construction of sidewalks on Gunflint Trail. To connect to existing sidewalks on Longacres Drive, I characterize it as depending on the park and traffic issue resolution, but it’s an item nonetheless that needs to be addressed for community sake. Item number 4, the cul- de-sac too close to Harrison Hill residents. There’s been a lot of discussion on that tonight. I won’t expand upon that any more. I believe that there are residents here that are affected out of the Longacres subdivision that will speak to that. Item number 5. Use of Longacres private parks by Yoberry Farm residents. These are 2 pictures of our west park. Private park. The lower picture is looking northbound. Again the hill in the background is where the houses will be from this new development. That is Longacres Drive that has that car on it. The upper picture is looking west at the totlot and tennis courts in the back. You’ll notice in the upper left hand picture on the very far left corner, our Longacres houses that are separated from the park by a pond, by design, and similarly on the lower picture on the far right you will see houses that are again separated from the park by a significant amount of distance, again by design to get the houses out of the park. Lower picture again I would point out that setbacks, we would want to look very closely at that and the houses of this new subdivision will in fact have this park as their back yard. And indeed all the residents of this neighborhood because of the proximity of this park, and a significant distance to access public parks will indeed use our parks. I would characterize, expand a little further on the characterization of our meetings with the developer. We had one meeting. We discussed 4 options. We eliminated 2 options. We conceptually talked about 2 other options and the developers are pursuing as they stated with their investors the value that this could provide in marketing materials and value to their residence. And we’re 10 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 waiting for a reply back on that. Again I would note that it’s a very long, drawn out process. The developers have to work with their investors and get approval from their investors and then our board must conduct a special meeting and conduct a vote. We must obtain a quorum of the residents in Longacres and then obtain a simple majority of that quorum, so if we were given the go ahead tonight, with a proposal, I would guess it would be at least 30 days to conduct that and wrap it up and get approval. We would, in lieu of that agreement we would ask that the applicant have a condition placed on this development to develop their own playground or mini park or totlot within their development. Construct a fence or natural barrier along the south rd border of the 3 Addition between the existing Longacres Park and Yoberry to restrict access to the existing private park of Longacres HOA and reimburse Longacres for no trespassing signs, and then I did state, or a condition that if this condition were placed, it could be waived if there were an agreement established in the future. For your consideration. I’ll move along to item number 6. These are 4 pictures of the entranceways to the Longacres subdivision on the I believe what’s been characterized as a collector street, or connector street. We have a significant maintenance for these entryways with the monuments, the pine trees. The 3 rail fences that you can see in the pictures. Lighting. Christmas lights in the holidays. Just numerous expenses. Water, electricity. It’s a significant expense to maintain these 3 entrances. We would ask that the applicant reimburse, a condition be placed that the applicant reimburse Longacres Homeowners Association for the maintenance and repair expenses of these 3 common areas. Payment would be form of an annual assessment, just like we run in our homeowners association. And it would be a prorated formula that we can have accountants figure out what a fair proration is for the 57 of what then would be 264 or 279 homes. I’ll move along to item number 7. Again, Highway 41 are the pictures here. Access on an existing abandoned road coming off of Highway 4 that’s halfway between Longacres and Lake Lucy Road. It’s a half a mile north of Longacres Drive. We would ask that either this location or another location, which is just south of this location, which has a flat grade into the proposed subdivision, be used as a construction site. We would ask that a condition be placed on approval, that construction site access points minimize to a construction site entrance established directly off of State Highway 41 with rock entrance exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction beyond the construction of the road that was suggested at the last Planning Commission meeting, but to maintain this entrance to some critical mass of development in the neighborhood to avoid cement trucks, hauling trucks, sub contractor trucks, just a myriad of very dangerous traffic coming through the Longacres development. I did want to note for reference, and it does lead into item number 8. Again the upper 2 pictures are Longacres subdivision entrances with monuments and common areas. The 3 pictures around the, these 3 pictures here. These are the entrance at Lake Lucy Road, and I present this just for a contrast in looking at the Longacres with the monument and the significant common area and the expenses in a more neighborhood look versus Lake Lucy Road which I would probably agree is a connector and through type street. Again Longacres is about 2 miles long. It only services currently our subdivision so I present that as just a comparing contrast of our entrances to the Lake Lucy Road. And the last item is, it was mentioned several times at the last Planning Commission meeting, environmental impacts. I have not seen in the staff report any significant studies relevant to perhaps chemical, pesticide risks. This was farming land previously. Drainage. Water hazards. Wildlife corridor impacts and I will reference this picture right here and that is the well that would be servicing both Highover and this, I believe it would serve this new subdivision so we would ask for a condition to conduct those environmental studies. That concludes my remarks. Any questions? 11 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: Questions for. Keefe: I had a quick question on that last point. Are you aware of any environmental issues? Tom Hirsch: Well as it was mentioned in the last Planning Commission, this is a significant wildlife corridor that comes from Lake Harrison, through the north end of this development and into, across Highway 41 and into the Tanadoona property. That would be an environmental impact that I think should be studied, to minimize that impact. I’m personally not an environmentalist. I simply draw a conclusion that if it was farmland in the past, I understand there is a lot of chemicals and pesticides in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that have now been deemed very hazardous to health. Leeching into ground water is a risk. I simply read newspapers and I would have to draw a conclusion that stirring up and grading and tipping over all of this earth, that there would be, but I have no specific studies to quote, no. Slagle: Thank you very much. Tom Hirsch: Any other questions? Thank you for your consideration. Slagle: Thank you. Matt, I’m going to ask Matt if you can just in the back of your mind keep that, I want to have folks come and address, but keep that because I’m going to come back to that. Just a question. Okay. Who’s next? Please come up. Mark Zaebst: Good evening. Slagle: If you can state your name and address, that’d be great. Mark Zaebst: My name is Mark Zaebst. I live at 2325 Hunter Drive in the Longacres development and as requested in respect of everyone’s time I’m going to be speaking on behalf of a large number of homeowners who are behind me here, that live on Hunter Drive. To add a few comments to our association president’s comments that are specific to some of the traffic conditions that we’re experiencing on Hunter Drive right now. If I could have the overhead briefly. What I’d like to do this evening is first of all just state a number of challenges that we’re currently experiencing on Hunter Drive. Challenges that we feel will definitely be exacerbated by the addition of, according to staff’s report, a potential of 700 additional trips per day would be generated by the Yoberry Farms, and obviously we’re concerned with how that will impact some of the problems that we’re experiencing on Hunter Drive. First of all, as a number of people have mentioned, Hunter Drive, even though it was never designed to be a cut over street from State Highway 41 over to Galpin, that is how it’s used, and I, you know we truly believe that that’s just a function of human nature. Call attention to this particular map possibly if we could zoom in a little bit more. You can see here the Longacres development. Highway 41. Galpin and I’ve highlighted in red, coming off of Gunflint Court the quickest and probably least impeded route for someone living in the new subdivision to make their way back into the Chanhassen trade corridor area. It’s simply to come down Gunflint Court, cut across Longacres and come through Hunter Drive and pick up Galpin. Measure the distances for the 3 possible routes out of there. It’s much more circuitous to come all the way back to 41, then come down to 12 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 the light and Highway 5. It’s almost double the road distance, and obviously you can see if you used Longacres, which was probably the developer’s original intent to be the through street, as is evidenced when you look at that street by it’s width and the fact that it has a sidewalk running along it, it unfortunately takes people away from their destination, so the majority of folks that live in Longacres have made Hunter Drive their cut through and unfortunately it’s turned into a Nascar race on that road. Since it is a cut through, no one is even coming close to respecting the, which we feel, which is too high of a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. So as I mentioned, we already have a problem with the massive number of people that are using Hunter Drive as a cut through, and adding this additional traffic is only going to make that problem worst. As I alluded to, Hunter Drive is not designed correctly as a main thoroughfare. If you have not driven on Hunter Drive, I would ask folks from the planning staff and the board to please take a drive down it so you can see how winding it is and how excessive some of the grade changes are. I have a number of photographs here that will correspond to the map, but we have 3 actually blind turns. This is the first turn as you come in off of Galpin and head into the development. As you can see, very difficult to see with the pine trees that are up close to the road. That’s heading east, or west and if you’re coming east, this is the same turn coming the other way so as you can see, as our president mentioned, a narrow street with very tight curves. A number of excessive grade changes also. This is the second blind curve. Massive grade change coming off of that, and people come blowing up over the top of that curve. We have a large number of families that live on that street with children and have had many near accidents there. This is the same blind curve as you are then heading down toward Galpin. As you can see, very little visibility as you come around that corner, and the third blind curve that we have is actually labeled by the city as a blind intersection, as you can see here, and coming up to, this is going towards Galpin. You’re looking at the intersection of Fawn Hill and Hunter Drive, which has no traffic control on Hunter Drive and so people are approaching that blind intersection well in excess of 30 miles per hour. That intersection also serves as our main…but there are kids lined up to both sides of there so 3 very dangerous curves in our street. Excuse me, I misplaced my page here. As I mentioned, also the blind intersection, substantial grade changes. 30 miles per hour speed limit is excessive. We again ask that you please come to that street. Drive it. The other night I drove it at 30 miles per hour and it is uncomfortably fast, as you go around those corners. We’ve had numerous spin out’s. Numerous accidents on that street. Cars ending up in people’s yards, and as I mentioned we have a large number of families. We currently, on that short stretch of road have 78 children live along that street so the solutions that we would like to bring forward are the following. We would like to see the city lower the speed limit on that street to 20 miles per hour. Precedence has been set for that with another Lundgren development which is in the Summit. The Summit has residential streets speed limits at 20 miles per hour. We ask that there are additional speed limit signs posted on Hunter Drive. As you enter the development, the only speed limit sign is right at the entryway, and if you’re making the turn off of Galpin into the entryway, your eyes are not picking up that speed limit sign, so people are coming into that neighborhood not knowing what those speed limits are. We’re also asking that the City assist us in posting slow, children at play signs so people do understand a large number of homes and a lot of kids playing out along the streets. The next bullet item, I’m sorry we don’t have the word stop in there but we’re asking that the intersection of Fawn Hill and Hunter Drive have a stop sign put on Hunter Drive to impede traffic flow along Hunter Drive and slow folks down as they go through that blink intersection that’s always full of children. We’re also asking for an additional traffic calming measure, which would be to place a speed bump somewhere along the course of Hunter 13 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Drive and the reason that we’re looking for those 5 traffic calming measures are, we know that people are going to cut through Hunter Drive. There’s no way that we’re going to stop them. We know that Yoberry Farms is going to cut through Hunter Drive, but what we want to be able to do is slow the traffic down in there. We need to be able to create a safer environment for what was intended to be a relatively quiet residential street, which has now become a busy cut through street, and we are asking for your assistance in that measure. The last two bullet items, forgive me for being redundant but again we feel very strongly that if at all possible to get an additional entry point out of, for Yoberry Farms off to 41, and also make a strict demand that all construction traffic, including subcontractors use that particular entrance off of 41 to keep that construction traffic out of the neighborhood. So again, in conclusion we’re asking that if you approve the applicant’s plan, that you please place these conditions upon it. Please put yourselves in our place. If you lived on that street, with those speed limits and that traffic amount and you had children, you would be just as concerned as we are, and we do not want to have an accident. We do not want to have a death. It’s a residential street. Our concern should not be how quickly can people cut through there. It should be, how safe can we make the people that live on that street yet still allow traffic to flow through. I’d be glad to answer any questions that you have. Slagle: Any questions? Okay, thank you very much. Next person. Somebody else? Julie Lohse: Hi. My name is Julie Lohse. I live at 7094 Harrison Hill Trail. One of the. Slagle: Julie, I’m going to ask a favor. If you can pull that, there you go. Julie Lohse: I have a bunch of notes here. I’m going to try to cut some things out in the interest of time. Slagle: Thank you. Julie Lohse: My main concern tonight are two. One is the road that’s being proposed adjacent to my back yard. I know you’ve heard a lot about it. The first point is, I’m just in awe that it’s still on the map, seeing that the last City Council meeting it was said that you did not want to approve a road that was there and you’d like to see it re-worked. Not to mention that the lack of acknowledgement of the safety concerns of our children by adding lilacs is the answer. Regarding Option B, I think it was Option B with the private road. One thing that I wanted to suggest is possibly considering that on the west side of the house. Perhaps that would cut down some of the challenges that are posing the problem for the developer. They said there was a large retaining wall at the end of the cul-de-sac if they did it on the west side of the houses, and if they did a private road there, it might minimize some of those. It appears that Option C is undesirable. The issue that they want walkout’s, which I read as more money, what is the issue? I’d really like to know what the challenges are so we can address those. I do not want a road in my back yard so someone else can make more money on a walkout, is my point. I would also like clarification on what the city code says about creating double frontage lots. I know there is an easement behind my yard but…what is being created. I watched the last meeting on tape and I want to just thank the Planning Commission for consideration it gave regarding approval. My neighbors and I appreciate the common sense approach of what would I want in my back yard. I 14 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 just wanted to thank you for that. …I’ll skip some of these. In one of the pictures that I saw that were reworked was showing lush greenery behind our yards. We do appreciate you know a wooded lot behind our yard and it is very lush for a few months of the year. What you don’t see hidden under there are the play yards that we have placed up there, and that is basically where all the kids are on our street. So it’s not a buffer. It’s where we live. It’s where the kids are. I just was curious about why the safety of my back yard is at risk in order to take financial gain that can be made by the developer. What authority are they answering to that is dictating that they must squeeze every last dime out of this piece of land? Surely they could manage a hefty profit without the need of stealing from the neighbors. I also am struck by the weak arguments regarding the park. I want to know why not put a park in. I have two parks in my neighborhood and I still have one of those Rainbow system things. It’s just not healthy for people not to get out once in a while. Obviously the answer you get is money and it might make the developer appear greedy. They don’t need their own park… because they have our parks that are accessible. This neighborhood as I understand is going to be an affluent neighborhood, yet they’re completely creating a dependency on our neighborhood. That does nothing but take from our safety, quality of life and financial investments in our home and park. I guarantee you, any real estate agent will enter this development from Longacres so their clients can see the park they can walk to as they drive to their new home. It will be mentioned as a selling point and as a mom with young kids, a park to walk to is gold. Not having a park in this neighborhood creates an atmosphere of dependency. Where is the reciprocity? I agree in sharing but share it and share alike. Regarding the pool option, I have not heard of this. This has been raised twice in our neighborhood. It has been voted down and I personally do not support that and I also think that with Lifetime Fitness coming in, we all now have a reasonable distance to a pool so I just want to throw that in there. The Park and Recreation Director apparently agrees about the park and said regarding the two lots that were built by our developer, and they’re maintained by our association, and this is the quote. The close proximity to such association facilities prompted staff to encourage developers of the Yoberry Farms subdivision to consider incorporating an association totlot in their plans. Sure there are public parks around but none that they can walk to. Do you know where I will find the residents of this new neighborhood? I venture to say that even Highover neighborhood would gain a park that they can now easily access. I predict that many of these visits may also be accessed by car, either on the way in or out of the neighborhood, as some of us do that already. Parking will only add to our safety concerns with kids crossing the street to park cars on a very busy street where we already have speeding issues. At the last meeting the developer was very accepting of the idea of having a homeowners in Yoberry pay our association for the use of parks. By showing such eager interest in building a relationship with Longacres Association, and potentially contributing funds toward the park, they’re acknowledging the value their new homeowners will play on having an equally accessible park. Isn’t it creative that the developer can provide this? By pushing the expense onto their new homeowners without having to invest in the park of their own and experience higher property values and demand. The developer gets the win/win again. The builders seem more than happy to invest nothing and reap the benefits. They are also assuming that our neighborhood will be open to and agree on the option of accepting these funds. My vote is no. Build a park. I beg the Planning Commission to be true to the community. This new neighborhood will be here long after any of us or the money it makes the developer. Save those who end up buying in Yoberry Farms, I’m asking the question why didn’t they build a park here? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Even though, as we know, it all boils down to greed and those who built the homes and moved on. Thank you for listening. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Rodd Wagner: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. I appeared before you at the last meeting and would incorporate by reference my comments from the last meeting in the interest of everyone’s time. I did however want to raise anew the traffic issue, given the fact that the commissioners were concerned last time that the traffic ought to be addressed in some fashion by access to 41 and that that was one avenue to be explored. Given the fact that that may not happen, I wanted to raise that anew that somehow, whether by access to 41 with some kind of traffic dampening procedures or some how that that issue is still something that’s crucial both to the those in the Highover neighborhood and those in the Longacres neighborhood. Particularly as it relates to Highover Drive I think we run the same risk that we see the folks from Hunter Way seeing that while Highover Drive is designated a local street, and even under the plan as it exists right now according to the staff may fit the definition of a local street, I think it still runs the same risk that it would be, create an unintended collector or connector, whatever that designation is between an artery and a local street, and would create traffic problems that were not part of the original plan for the street. I also concur with the concerns raised by my neighbors to the south about the, how do you make a division between two neighborhoods, both of which have homeowners associations. Slightly different provisions there when you have a continuous street that goes through. I would raise the possibility that, although I know that generally city rules suggest that roads go through for access to buses and emergency equipment, that in this case we may in fact create the need for an emergency vehicle to go through because of an accident on one of those streets if that access in fact happens, and I would recommend that one of the possibilities to be explored is two cul-de-sacs. One coming in from the south and one from the north. One of the advantages of that approach would be that you would have a delineation between homes that could be adopted into the Highover neighborhood, my neighbors consenting, and homes that could be adopted into the Longacres neighborhood, not wanting to speak for them but would at least make that delineation because I don’t see how you can put up a sign and say, you are now leaving Highover and entering Yoberry, and you can use this park. You are now leaving Yoberry and entering Longacres, and you may not use this park. And it just doesn’t, it doesn’t match the way people actually act in the same way that telling people you are now on a local street, don’t use this street to drive from two collector streets. One on the south and to the north to cut through traffic. That simply doesn’t work. So I would request that the commission recommend that the plan be rejected as it stands right now. That I would concur with the president of the Longacres Homeowners Association. That the 41 access request be made formally and that failing that, that serious consideration be given to a two cul-de-sac solution given the fact that the connection doesn’t work for a whole number of reasons. Thank you very much. Slagle: Thank you. Andrew White: Good evening. My name is Andrew White. I reside at 7122 Harrison Hill Trail. I’m just going to mention very brief observations because I think everybody around here has 16 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 mentioned exceptionally eloquent and I’ve got to say Julie, passionate. I am shall we say in the business, and I’ll give you an example of why this process is both exceptional and not exceptional. I’m involved in a project in downtown Minneapolis where the first thing that the developer did was approach the neighborhood and ask them for their input into the scheme, and that scheme has gone as smoothly and efficiently as you can imagine. I would have asked the development team if they had done the same, then a lot of this conversation may have been moot. One other thing and then I’ll leave. It is a red herring to think that the utility easement and the tree conservation at the rear of the homes on Harrison Hill has any relevance to what are the things that these gentlemen are suggesting. That space is exceptional space. Everybody on the hill uses it. The kids are in there all the time. I take my kids in there all the time. It is superb space. Nobody here is suggesting that this development shouldn’t go ahead. This is really all about the sensitivity that the development team and the owners have to the existing residents. And I don’t think I can add any more, thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Paul Ottoson: Paul Ottoson, 7080 Harrison Hill Trail. I spoke at the last meeting. I’ll take less than 20 seconds just to reiterate the fact that I looked at seriously over 100 homes before I moved here 3 ½ years ago. Not one single residence had a street on the front side and a street in the back yard. Like I said, we worked our entire lives to get to a place like this and we didn’t expect that it wouldn’t be developed, but to have a road in my back yard and my front yard, for this kind of a neighborhood I just think is ludicrous, and to see the plans revised come back with some shrubbery versus an alternate for that road, I just think is disappointing at least. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Larry Lovig: Good evening gentlemen, Planning Commission. I too spoke at the last meeting so thank you very much for allowing us to speak again and I’ll be very brief. I believe it was Matt, our Assistant Engineer that spoke at the last City Council meeting about a development named Pinehurst, and for those who aren’t familiar with Pinehurst, it’s north of Longacres, along Gunflint. And the discussion was about a turning lane coming from the north into the new development and the statement that I saw on TV was that that shouldn’t be a large concern because we are planning on most the traffic coming from the south. Is that a fair paraphrase? Slagle: I’m going to ask, if you wouldn’t mind, can you state your name and. Larry Lovig: Oh I’m sorry. Larry Lovig, 2475 Gunflint Court. So my point in bringing that up is, I think we have a very serious problem with the traffic that’s going to be going along Hunter and I would like to recommend that the council please find a way to find access to 41. Thanks. Slagle: Thank you. Jennifer Rysso: My name is Jennifer Rysso. I spoke at the last meeting as well. I appreciate. I’m going to be extremely brief. I live at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail. Again the property that has been discussed a significant amount of time today so I did feel that it was worth my due to put my input in as the builder got their input. I do wish to emphasize again that the purpose of this 17 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 proposed road that is lying directly adjacent to my property is to serve 4 to 5 homes and is at the risk of compromising 8 homes that are already existing. I feel that a road, the public road that has already brought up so much public outcry and so much debate and so much participation in the community needs to be re-thought and needs to be considered maybe not appropriate and perhaps rejected. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Uli Sacchet: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South and I’m addressing you as a resident, not as a commissioner. In addition to the points that we looked at last time and to round off the picture a little bit that we’re hearing here tonight, I would like to submit your consideration that my property, as well as the one immediately next door, which I, where are we? Which is this, if you want to? Yep, right here. They are far closer to the cul-de-sac than any other properties. As a matter of fact, I would say that the cul-de-sac is about twice as far away from the other properties because we don’t have a utility easement between us and that cul-de-sac. I do want to state that I don’t see how I could argue that that cul-de-sac should not be there short of trying to buy that property myself, which I do not have the means to do. However there are a few small things that I’d like to ask that I think are significant for my particular situation. I’d like to ask that a condition be added that the grading limit and tree preservation line is adjusted to, if you can zoom on that please Nann. That, okay. If the tree preservation and grading limit can be adjusted to where the actual grading takes place, which would, everything that’s here in red would not be clear cut on that basis. I mean that’s a reasonable request to make. And the second request is that it would be considered that these two red things are birches on the planting plan. If they could be replaced with evergreens because with the cars coming up this hill, they’re going to be shining into the back of my house as well as my neighbors. Even with the grade changes and the retaining wall that remains there, that’s still a concern and I think it would be reasonable to mitigate that as much as possible. Then finally in view of the Highover neighborhood, I’m not on the board of the neighborhood association so I’m not speaking in any official capacity but I think there is one point that was not brought up or clarified enough at the last meeting, is that drainage pond on the south side of Highover, which was originally a temporary pond and now it’s becoming permanent with this development. The issue is who is going to have ownership and maintenance responsibility for that pond? It’s my understanding at this point that responsibility resides with the neighbors of Highover. I think as that pond becomes a shared drainage pond between the new development and Highover, and I believe it was the plan originally that the city would take over ownership and maintenance of that pond. That’s an issue that I’d like to see clarified in the context of this application. That’s all I have to add here. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Okay, let’s wrap it up. Is there anything else? Larry Dimlin: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Larry Dimlin. I live at 6966 Highover Drive and I would just like to echo what Rodd Wagner and some of the other people, actually the people of Gunther, or I mean Hunter Street have so eloquently spoke about. I live on Highover. I have 4 small children. Highover Street, being as a connector street or a through street to me is a very big concern and I would like to know further what the City is planning on doing with regard to possible speed bumps or traffic speed deterrents, if you will. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Also I would like to echo what Rodd Wagner said in taking a look at a cul-de-sac on the north as well as the south end of this new proposed development and access from 41 into this development. Keeping the three developments separate and individual entities. That’s really all I have. Slagle: Than you very much. Michael Horn: My name’s Michael Horn, 7024 Highover Court. I’m right next to Uli. I’d just like to go on record just to concur with what the comments that were made by Rodd. From our neighborhood and also the representatives of the Longacres neighborhoods, and specifically with regard to the traffic and then the access off Highway 41. I think the pictures demonstrate it very well. The access that’s already there doesn’t seem to be impacted by the grade, and I think that needs to be looked at. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Lauren Damman: Hi, my name is Laura Damman and I live next to Larry on Highover Drive. 6934 and I’d like to concur again with the possibility of an access from 41. We have lived there for less than a year and it’s not a street that will deal with a lot of traffic. There’s kids everywhere and it’s not, I just can’t see it going through. It’s just going to be, I don’t know. A cul-de-sac would be a good idea. An access and what they said. Thanks. Slagle: Thank you. Alright, anything else? Anybody? Last chance. Nora Wagner: One of my neighbors who couldn’t be here, I’m Nora Wagner. My husband just spoke. I’m on Highover Drive. A couple of the issues on Highway 41. The traffic, the speed limit has been raised to 55 on there. That is just a scary road any more with the amount of traffic that’s going on there and feeding through all of our neighborhoods. We were wondering about some kind of a sound walls for the neighbors who are, who’s properties face 41 because if you have all this traffic cruising in our front and on our back, it’s just, it’s a race track on both sides. 41 has had many deaths, or a number of deaths, let’s put it that way with the traffic that’s existing there. With adding this extra traffic from Yoberry onto 41 and on our streets, there should be some kind of access from 41 right into their own development, and some kind of sound barriers that will protect the Highover neighbors that are right here along Highway 41. The sound is just, it’s getting, it’s just getting worst and worst and I’m sure that road will probably eventually be widened. I do not in fact reside along that. I just feel sorry for these people who are being trampled by you know the development and no one’s taking any consideration in my opinion on that issue. Another issue is that there’s a property, a street on Lake Riley in the Chanhassen side of Lake Riley called Kiowa Trail, and Kiowa Trail has about, I don’t know about 15 homes or so on it. Half of them on the lake side and half of them not on the lake side. When a Lundgren development went in, I believe it was in that Lyman Boulevard or Lyman Road, on the other side they fought off having their street connect to the Lundgren development of Springfield. I again would like with that same plea towards our neighborhood of Highover Drive. When this, when Highover Drive was put together, I’m one of the original residences. Many of them are also who are here, and our developer, Jerome Carlson had told all of us that this property would go through on Highover Drive but that it would go through to a 19 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 cul-de-sac with 5 or 6 homes on it and that’s where this idea has grown. And I’ve been told that you know, he’s quite a pillar in the community and I’m sure his word is his bond and you work well with him. It would alleviate many of the issues that have been discussed here already tonight and these meetings would not probably even take place if any number of these areas, things would be considered. One, the two cul-de-sacs and Highway 41. This room would be cleared out and we would be able to get on, they would be able to make their development I’m sure with a nice profit, as they should, and the rest of us would be happy and we wouldn’t have to come to these meetings anymore. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. I’m going to close the public hearing, and if I can ask Matt before we ask questions and make comments fellow commissioners. Matt, are there any thing of those points that you can make comment to? Let’s, and if we can, let’s start with the 41. If we can just have a current situation and is their request that a formal application to MnDot reasonable? Saam: Yeah, the issue of 41. That’s why again I brought it up at the beginning was to try to address that. We have a development review memo from MnDot which we get with every development. We called MnDot. We emailed MnDot. We got the same response each time. As far as a formal application, no. That’s done by the landowner. So the developer would have to do that. I guess we as a city, we’re not in favor of an additional access to 41. I think I’ve given the reasons why. Unless there’s anything else on it. Slagle: Let me ask you this question if I may fellow commissioners and then I’m going to open it up to you. Is there Matt, is there merit to a concern that we have in essence a development that is fairly high, and works it way to the south and to the north on streets, and I use Highover and I use Hunter, that would be not your usual thoroughfares with wide streets and sidewalks and so forth? I mean is there merit do you think of having that concern by the residents that this traffic streaming from the middle… Saam: Hunter, the Hunter Drive residents, sure. I think they even said they know that people use it and I mean it’s a public street. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t issues on it. There’s speed limit issues. That’s enforcement that maybe we look at the speed. If it’s too fast. But I don’t believe that’s this developer’s or the next developer’s issue to correct. That’s a city issue if we have a speed problem for example on there, and that’s something we can definitely look at. Slagle: Okay. I’m going to open it up to fellow Commissioners for questions or comments. Kurt, can I start with you? Papke: From the, just a question from the city’s perspective. What if any responsibility or liability do we bear relative to the private parks in Longacres? And other people using them or safety issues. What if any responsibility does the city carry? And if the answer is none, that’s fine. Al-Jaff: None. Papke: None. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I’m clear. Are we going right to comments or are we still in questions? 20 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: Are there any other questions? Lillehaug: I have questions. Bob and Sharmeen I think and Matt, you guys have been around here a while. A lot longer than I have. With the approval of the Highover development and the Longacres development, and I hit on this before but it sounds like Mr. Carlson was leading the residents of Highover anyway to believe that there would only be a few houses and it would be cul-de-saced on the north end. From a city perspective and what the city has been planning for the past, I don’t know how many years. 10 years? 15 years? For this connection. Is it the city’s position that it has always been anticipated to be connected with a through road and never be connected onto 41 or a combination of cul-de-sacs? What can, can you give us a better take on that? Al-Jaff: It was always intended to be connected. Never with two separate cul-de-sacs and never with access off of 41. Saam: Yeah I’ll just add. As I said at the last meeting, I reviewed the development contracts for both Highover and Longacres to the south. In each of them there’s a condition that says the street in each case, Highover and Gunflint Trail will be extended in the future. So it’s always been planned to be extended. Slagle: If I may though. Can I just be clear? Do we have or has there been any documents, public papers that would have shown otherwise? Stub to a cul-de-sac? So it always showed that it was a connection to Highover or to Longacres, depending on which way you’re looking? Saam: I mean not that I’m aware of. I haven’t seen any… Slagle: I mean let’s just be clear because extended is different than connection. Al-Jaff: One of the things we did when we were working on Highover was we asked the developer to show us how the property to the south could potentially develop, and they did submit a sketch that looked at the roads being connected. Slagle: And I’m just, what I’m trying to get at with the three of you is just, I don’t want to think that a resident thinking of buying a property in one of those two developments would have seen any public document that showed cul-de-sacs, dead ending or no connections, okay? Al-Jaff: Not from the City. Slagle: Okay. I’m sorry Steve. Keefe: Are you still going? Slagle: No Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: No, no, no. That was my question. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: Okay. Keefe: Just a couple. Is an association planned for this development? Do you know? There is? And in regards to, and my concern is in regards to some of the comments from the Longacres people where they’re actually maintaining the entrance ways into Longacres which presumably some of these people might get the benefit of because that’s one of the entrance ways. And then also the potential for the utilization of their parks, particularly with the visuals that, and the pictures that these people put up in regards to the proximity of some of these homes to the parks, but in terms of the association which is planned, can you speak to that at all? In terms of what kind of association would be formed? Chuck Alcon: We do have a homeowners association planned for two basic reasons. There are a couple of cul-de-sacs and center areas that will have to be maintained. Plantings. Generally we quite frankly are struggling with our own identity a little bit. We’d like to have an entrance monument into our subdivision to distinguish us from Highover and Longacres. So we’re still trying to work our way through that. As far as these two associations, we think it makes sense to have two separate associations for architectural control. For neighborhood identity, etc, etc. And for us to have our own maintenance requirements for our own subdivision. Not to say that the argument that will people drift south to that park, the answer is probably absolutely and we’re going to have to find a solution to that. That’s why we’ve been talking to the Longacres people. But we do plan an association. Keefe: The second question is in regards to, one of the residents brought up a question regard to the private drive on the west side. When we’re talking about that northeast corner. Again was that an option which was, I know we’re not crazy about private drives but was that an option that was explored? I didn’t see it in the options that were presented. Chuck Alcon: That particular option was not explored and the reason was, when you look at the west road, it’s a public road. The total devastation of the trees along that entire corridor all the way up to the north and the retaining wall would be very similar for a private road. Plus we introduced the private road concept versus the public road concept. And we just didn’t feel that was appropriate. Keefe: Does the city concur with that pretty much for the most part? Slagle: Jerry. McDonald: I don’t have any questions. Slagle: Okay. Let’s, we’ll finish with questions and I’ll open it up for discussion. Kurt, I’m going to ask you to go first again. I’m sorry. Papke: Oh boy. Okay. 41. Access to 41. It sounds like it isn’t going to happen. And it also, it seems pretty evident to me that an access to Highway 41 is not going to help Hunter Drive. I mean that’s going the wrong way. If people are using Hunter Drive as a short cut to get to the 22 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Highway 5 corridor, then access to Highway 41 is going in the opposite direction so I don’t think that’s going to solve the problem. So I think eventually here the city is going to have to look at some independent actions as to what do we do about Hunter Drive and this development is certainly going to exacerbate that situation, but I don’t think that’s a condition on this particular developer, as you pointed out very ably and that. That’s a city responsibility and I think we’re going to, that’s inevitable we’re going to have to deal with that. The cul-de-sac and drive on the northeast corner here, it’s not a beautiful solution but I think it’s within our comprehensive plan. Our city code. Our ordinances. I think the developer has made a good faith effort to try to make the best of an undesirable situation. The only possibility I see is eliminating Lot 4 to move it farther away from the other houses along that far east side. I don’t see any other ways of mitigating that problem beyond what the developer has already looked at. It looks like options B and C are just unworkable. I’m disappointed that we couldn’t find a way to move the street closer to the pond and have the street go in between the pond and those lots but I understand the topography and nature is nature. I mean the land and the contours are what they are and we can’t change those, so I don’t see any way of mitigating that situation beyond eliminating Lot 4. That may be our only viable solution and given all the other issues here, that would be the one I would propose. Would be to eliminate one lot and try to cut that corner and move the street a little bit farther away. And with that stipulation I would support this. The parks are going to be an issue. I think our park director ably pointed out the responsibility of the city in this situation. I think the developer is doing, is following the letter of the law, if you will, and I think the residents of Longacres have an issue here that they’re going to have to work out with the developer as to access to their park. I think the developer has shown very good faith in working through that situation but I don’t see an easy way around that one. And that’s about all I have so I would support this development on the condition that we eliminate Lot 4. Audience: Is there something…that you’re referring to? I missed that whole. Slagle: Let’s, we’ll do the discussion. Go ahead Dan. Keefe: I’ll go in similar order to what Kurt just said. I’d like to see a formal application to the State in regards to 41. I just, I know I’ve received a lot of feedback but I think it isn’t that big of a step for the developer to go to the State and request. They get rejected, they get rejected. Then we would know for sure and I’d like to know the answer to that. I think Kurt’s suggestion on the northeast corner is a reasonable one. To bring that road away from the residents and create an additional buffer. That might also give us an opportunity to do some berming in that location which would create more of a buffer between that particular road and the residents behind. I don’t know how much that road can move but I think it can move some and I’d like to see that explored. In regards to the parks piece of it, I’d really like to see Longacres and this development get together and comment. There’s been some movement in regards to that. I think that would be kind of a win/win for everybody if we could get that lined up. And not knowing that, it makes it difficult to sort of resolve the park issue in my mind unless we would make a requirement for them to put a park in place on this particular development. I think in regards to the Hunter Drive and going up on the Highover, I do believe that’s a city issue in terms of the speed in regards to, in controlling the traffic. I think that’s something the city can resolve. I do think that an access to 41 would help to alleviate some of the traffic off of those two roads. Would it alleviate all the traffic going down to Hunter Drive? No. I still think that’s going to be 23 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 a problem as well, but I do think it would alleviate some of the traffic off of there and might be a reasonable request at least from the State in regards to that. I think that’s it for now. Slagle: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: Wow. Well, there’s a lot of unanswered questions here and I’m not comfortable, totally comfortable recommending something to the council and I guess I’ll go ahead with my comments. It’s a long connection from Lake Lucy all the way down to Longacres. There’s no doubt about it. There’s a lot of traffic generation inbetween there. There are higher levels on Highover Drive. Higher levels of traffic. Then I want to ask one question before I get to this, because all of this is planning and some of this, some of this planning was limited because of the topography, but it’s not the best planning in this area obviously here and I want to make sure we’re not kicking ourselves here. There’s another large parcel right to the east of the Highover development and if staff can just quick like give a synopsis of the access points, because I’m looking at the traffic, more traffic in the future possibly going on Highover Drive. So can you comment quick like, and I apologize for being out of the order of questions, comments. Slagle: What I’d like Sharmeen, if we could, can we get that out? I do think that’s a relevant question. Lillehaug: And are you familiar with the parcel I’m talking about? I mean it’s the undeveloped parcel there. It looks like there’s an access off of Lake Lucy, so possibly that would be the main access. There it is? Al-Jaff: Off of Highover Trail? Lillehaug: That’s the one. The big empty box there. Al-Jaff: There is an access point, road is intended to be extended at a future date. We don’t have… Slagle: If I can, do we know if it’s going to connect or is it just going to extend? Do we know? Lillehaug: And are you talking only off of Highover Drive or. It looks like there’s, just on the, if you can scoot that over a little bit so we can see the whole parcel. Is there city right-of-way coming off of Lake Lucy and does the City anticipate the roadway connection being from the north there or is that just a long parcel? Do you see the one I’m looking at? Saam: I haven’t seen the layout. Al-Jaff: We haven’t received a layout for it yet. Saam: I mean with that said, I would anticipate there would be an additional access to that parcel, and not just Highover Trail. I mean that one goes, I think that property owner owns all the way over to Galpin, and just south of Manchester Drive which is also a temporary cul-de-sac so. 24 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Keefe: You’ve got a big elevation change. Saam: Yeah, that’s the other thing. I think there’s a big wetland in there so I wouldn’t foresee like a huge development coming back through Highover Trail. Lillehaug: Well, I’m not 100 percent comfortable with this. I mean this is quite a bit of topography change on this development also. I mean it has a potential for just as dense as this project and I’m just not comfortable with all the traffic that’s going to be on Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail. I want to comment on the traffic on Hunter Drive. I understand the traffic on Hunter Drive. I’ve got, my kids have friends on the opposite side. On opposite sides there and I used to drive Hunter Drive all the time until I was made aware of this problem so now I go Longacres Drive, so who are the people cutting across on Hunter Drive? It’s us, so I recommend the Longacres homeowners association that you distribute a flyer in your own neighborhood and ask people to use Longacres Drive because I do it and I think it’s easy enough. For your homeowners association to do also, to minimize some of that traffic on Hunter Drive. It’s a suggestion and I hope you take it for what it’s worth. The stop signs, children at play. That’s a staff issue and they should only be installed if warranted. And I’ll leave it at that. I’m rambling on here. I just, boy. I missed the beginning of it with Option C and I don’t see a huge impact to trees with Option C. They can still eliminate some of the lots up there. I’m just not in full support with any option that I’m looking at but the dilemma that I’m seeing is, what would we do if we’re not in full support of it and if we don’t make, if we deny this, they can still appeal it to the City Council and then ultimately the City Council’s going to have to make these decisions so I guess we just give our best input. So my further input is I definitely support reducing a couple lots in that northeast corner. I guess that’s probably all I have. Slagle: Anything else? Alright, my comments. I’ll make them quick. Oh Jerry, I’m sorry. Oh, go ahead Steve. We’re going to let Steve go Jerry. Lillehaug: I’m looking down at my notes here and to address one of Mr. Sacchet’s questions. Can I call you Mister in this case? Who maintains that pond? Did the City ever comment on that? Did I miss that? It’s my understanding that the City could easily have an easement, if they don’t already and maintain that pond. Is that not the case? Saam: That’s correct. That’s what we plan on. Lillehaug: So that’s a non-issue. One other questions/comment. Sound walls. Boy, what’s the City’s policy on that? Is it strictly assessment at this case? I mean if residents want sound walls, especially in this case where we’re not really adding or the City’s not adding to this, is it strictly a petition process and 100 percent assessed? I mean personally me as a resident, I don’t want to pay for a sound wall there. Does the City have a different policy? Saam: The new improvements are 100 percent assessment. Lillehaug: And one other comment, I’m sorry. Speed bumps. I don’t support speed bumps. Maybe some other type of traffic calming. The problem I have, speed bumps or other traffic 25 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 calming, speed table or something on Hunter Drive. Again that’s an issue that should be addressed with staff. But if we’re at this point asking for speed humps within this neighborhood, then we have a problem with our speed limit because this is a new neighborhood and we’re asking for speed calming right adjacent to this neighborhood already. The speed limit’s 30 miles an hour and that’s by state statute so all these requests to lower the speed limit, I think they’re unfounded. I mean the speed limit is 30 miles an hour. Audience: Go drive it… Lillehaug: As I indicated to you, I drive it all the time. I mean I understand it. Audience: Somebody’s going to get killed and you guys are going to be responsible. Lillehaug: You guys, I’m a resident out there myself so I’m not going to, it’s designed to 30 miles an hour standards, just like every other street in the city of Chanhassen and it’s an issue with the design standards there. I understand there’s higher traffic levels there. Slagle: Fair enough. Actually can I ask Matt one last question before, Jerry if you wouldn’t mind. A resident mentioned that there was a location in Chanhassen that actually had posted speed limits of less than 30. Would that be correct? To your knowledge. Saam: Yes. Slagle: Okay, so it is not without precedent? Saam: No, they are, I mean they’re few and far between. Slagle: I understand. Saam: There’s a process, as Steve alluded to. It’s set by state statute. You have to do traffic studies. Present that to MnDot. But yeah, it can be done. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Jerry. McDonald: Well I guess the only comments I have in this, I listened to some of these options. Highway 41 entrance. You know what exactly would that do? It might take some of the load off of Longacres because to go in through that way you definitely got to slow down whereas to just go in another half mile or so, you probably get into that development quicker, but that seems possible so I guess I would support something along those lines. The cul-de-sac at the north and south end. At that point you’ve landlocked the development. You only have one entrance in. There’s safety concerns with that. I wouldn’t support that but I would support the Highway 41. I think that would be viable. That may relieve some of the traffic at least on the west end. You get over to the Galpin Road problem, again I don’t see a solution that the developer can work on there. That’s probably a city issue and that’s something that we’ve got to work on but removing a lot, I’d like to see what effect that has on the circle. Does that move it back so that now it doesn’t protrude as far in which then again to address some of these issues on the lots up on the, 26 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 if you’ll give me what the development is. Well, it would address some of those issues. It might take care of this issue on this turn. I don’t know, what’s the effect. If you take away a lot for the developer, is that still a viable area to develop? So I guess I’d like to see some of that. I’d like to see the 41 that they explore it because I think that may really, part of the problem. It’s not going to solve everything because it doesn’t take care of the stuff over on Hunter Drive. That’s still the best route to get in there. I guess that’s the only comments I have at this point, but I would like to see something, you know I think we’re talking about taking away a lot, that might make that a little bit more easy on everybody so what’s the effect of doing that. Slagle: Okay. Thank you Jerry. I’ll make mine brief. I have 3 areas that I have concerns about, in no particular order. One is the park situation. I think all of you know my interest in the parks. If a park, which has been discussed, happens at the property to the east, which was referred to just briefly, that would solve a lot of this issue. The problem is we don’t know that’s going to happen. Secondly with the parks, I’m encouraged by the discussions between the applicant and the Longacres association with the sharing of the two parks, but again that’s not a definitive. That could fall apart and then we have this development going in. And on the third point of the parks, I have to be honest. I’m disappointed in the applicant with respect to the totlot because I think the city, and maybe in hind sight would rather have not created private parks in Longacres, but we have a situation where a neighborhood’s going to go in without access to their own park and they will use that. And I think that is an issue that is not fair to the land owners of the Longacres Association. If you’re able to work out some type of agreement, that’s a win/win but again it’s not definitive. Second area is the northeast corner, which I recommended initially as looking at that because it is a difficult area to build, as maybe the area for a totlot. And I think that would solve the issues with the folks to the east, and I do think that Option C could work. At the very least I would want to see Lot 4 taken away and bring that road further to the west. And the third thing is, the traffic and again it is not the issue of the applicant to deal with traffic and Matt, you and your group I think do a wonderful job but there’s probably not many situations in the city recently where we’ve tried to put a development in the middle of some developments, because the city has been old enough that we’ve sort of grown out and it’s been I think more organized and so forth, but now all of a sudden we’re putting developments in the middle of developments because the land is becoming available. And I would just ask again when we talk about sidewalks and so forth, if we address these ahead of time, we will I think avert some of these situations with speed and the concerns, and real concerns of the residents. So with all that said, I don’t know where I stand to be honest with you. I mean I could be swayed either way. Again this is a difficult one. For those who are in attendance, I’ve been doing this for 5 years now and I can’t think of too many that have had the difficulty that this one has, so with that said I would entertain a motion. Lillehaug: Can I make a couple more points? Slagle: Absolutely. Lillehaug: At the previous meeting I mean I personally I gave some specific direction and some specific non-direction and some of the non-direction was not looking at the connection on Highway 41. But that was based off of some facts that it was only a half mile spacing between Lake Lucy Road and Longacres Drive when in fact it’s closer to a mile, ¾ to a mile and the 27 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 comprehensive plan and typical planning strategies for the spacing of collector roads I think is anywhere between a quarter mile and ¾ of a mile for the spacing of collector roads, and staff correct me if I’m wrong. That’s my understanding of it. So when you look at this, say the spacing between the existing roadway is ¾ of a mile, well the standards are, the Met Council likes to see spacing of collectors every ¾ of a mile so in actuality there could be, this could be midway on 41, there could be another collector road. And I’m going this direction because I’m very concerned about the traffic on Highover and Gunflint. Keefe: Let me interrupt you just one second. In regard to the location about half way through. I mean is that where we’re really dealing with the bluff or are there some possible entry points onto 41? You know kind of in that middle quarter to third mile, right in the sort of middle. I’m assuming we try to put it halfway inbetween if indeed again that’s even a possibility. Saam: Yeah sure, and there’s not a bluff along the whole stretch. No. I mean they show pictures of driveways and what not and it’s not bluff there. Slagle: Let me clear though to the commission. While we share those questions and concerns, correct me if I’m wrong staff but it is staff’s recommendation that you oppose a 41 connection. I mean period. Is that correct? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but. Saam: Correct. Slagle: Okay. McDonald: Can I ask a question about that because we’ve got two different pieces of information here. The gentleman from the homeowners association states that he makes the measurement roughly a mile. This is right about in the middle at a half a mile. In your report what you recommend is that that should be the spacing is a half a mile between the roads. Now if what he is saying is true, that’s why I would support we need to look…his is taken in an automobile. I would not say that’s the most accurate but it’s got to be close. Saam: Let me try to explain that. Yes, you could install or situate a new access that would be say half a mile south of Lake Lucy but then you’re closer than half a mile, you don’t have the half a mile spacing to the south with Longacres Drive. And vice versa. You could space one to the north of Longacres at a half mile but then you start to get closer to Lake Lucy than a half mile because the distance between Longacres and Lake Lucy is not a mile. It’s not a mile plus. It’s less than a mile. The other issue, in talking with MnDot, they did say if we wanted to pursue that then they would look to close one of the existing accesses off of 41. They do not want another access off 41, so now we’re talking about closing Longacres and routing the traffic that would be on Longacres possibly through this development. So we don’t want to get into, that’s why we’re… Papke: Are all those minimum distances stipulated just for one side of the highway, because there are also accesses on the other side of the highway like Lake Minnewashta Park. Are the accesses on the west side taken into account at all or do we completely ignore those? 28 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Saam: As far as MnDot is concerned? Papke: Yes. Saam: Well in this case it’s the ones on the east side. Papke: So we disregard completely the accesses on the west side and all the safety issues engendered by spacing. Saam: I guess I’m not following you. I mean if there’s one on the west side, then we want it to line up or to meet the minimum spacing. Papke: Like the Lake Minnewashta entrance. Lillehaug: If I can add on that too. I mean we have a public street across there in what is it, Ches Mar. Saam: Ches Mar. Lillehaug: So there, and of all people that go this direction, I apologize Matt because I, because access control is one of the main things here. But when I go, when I look at this, there are high levels on these local streets period and truthfully, I wouldn’t want that in my neighborhood. Yeah, it’s planned but we really need to look at feasible alternatives because these are bumping the upper limits of traffic that are going to be on Gunflint and Highover. So we really need to look at a feasible alternative in my mind and I know personally I didn’t give that direction last time but yeah, it’s a bluff. There is possibly something that can tie in there, in my mind and I don’t just want to shoe horn this in there and say this is it. This is how it has to be. Either there are people at MnDot that, I mean it’s their policy. You know a quarter to three-quarter mile. It’s not set in stone whether it’s a half mile. But, so it is a possibility. I know staff doesn’t want it and oppose it and I would also be in their position if I was in their shoes, but as a resident and Planning Commissioner, I don’t want to see those higher levels of traffic on those streets. So what’s my recommendation and where to go from here? Obviously we probably can’t table this one more time unless we were to ask the applicant if he were willing to extend, is that correct? Al-Jaff: He’s already extended it. It was tabled. Lillehaug: Again? And this, I mean this is extremely important, otherwise I wouldn’t be going this direction, and I apologize but. Slagle: Point of clarification, if I may Sharmeen. Pull this back. What is our time line right here? th Al-Jaff: March 5 is the deadline to process this application. Papke: Through the council? 29 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Lillehaug: So we have to. Slagle: Here’s what I’m going to suggest to my fellow commissioners. I think at this point tabling it, and I’m typically in favor of tabling when we have these issues but I think in this situation it’s pretty clear to me that it’s, you know we’re either in support of this or we’re not and we’ll let the powers to be at the City Council make the final decision on this so I would personally be against tabling but I’m only 1 of 5. Keefe: Just given the amount of time available yet, if the developer’s willing to consider you know re-addressing these issues and I don’t know what the timeframe is to get a response back from MnDot if they were to make application. They have to do a study, correct and they have to, I mean would they even have time to pull that together? Saam: You’re probably talking 4 weeks. Something like that. Keefe: Yeah, right so would it even, would we really even have enough time to address the issues? Saam: I don’t think. I would recommend, as the Chairman said, either recommend denial or you’re for it and move it on. Keefe: Yeah. Slagle: So with that said, I will entertain a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for planning case #04-43 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004, subject to conditions 1 through 46 and in addition I would like to add condition number 47. That the developer remove Lot 4, Block 4 to move Gunflint Trail as far west as feasible and to allocate use of that space as a totlot. Slagle: Is there a second? McDonald: I’ll second that motion. Slagle: Okay. Point of clarification. Kurt, can you describe that more specifically with respect to the road? If you want. Papke: I’m not sure I can under the circumstances. Slagle: Okay. So you’re proposing deletion of Lot 4. Papke: Deletion of Lot 4 and movement of the road as far west as is feasible given grading constraints to maximize the separation from that road and the development to the east and then to utilize that space as a totlot. 30 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Slagle: Okay. Papke: I don’t know how more specific I can be without stipulating the contours. Slagle: Is there any friendly amendments? Seeing none, we’ll take a vote. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for planning case #04-43 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004, subject to conditions 1 through 46. In addition adding condition number 47. That the developer remove Lot 4, Block 4 to move Gunflint Trail as far west as feasible and to allocate use of that space as a totlot. Papke and McDonald voted in favor. Slagle, Keefe and Lillehaug voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Slagle: The nays have it. It will carry on. Sharmeen, you were going to say? Al-Jaff: It will go to the City Council. Slagle: City Council. And what day will that be on? At least as planned now? Al-Jaff: February. Lillehaug: Don’t we still have to have a motion that’s approved? Al-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: As in a negative motion. Or not? Slagle: No. thth Al-Jaff: Yes you do. February 4. 14. th Slagle: So February 14 will be the City Council? Al-Jaff: City Council. Slagle: Okay. Point of clarification. Addressing Commissioner Lillehaug’s point. By denying it, it just automatically goes to council, correct? Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: But we didn’t deny it. We just didn’t approve that motion. Don’t we need a motion to deny this applicant? 31 Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005 Al-Jaff: I apologize. Yes you do. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Okay with that, you’re correct Commissioner Lillehaug. With that motion not being passed, can I entertain another motion? Lillehaug: I make a motion to deny this applicant. Slagle: Okay. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. Slagle: Any additional comments? Leave it at that? Okay. Lillehaug moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the application for planning case #04-43 for Yoberry Farms for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown in the plans received December 20, 2004. All voted in favor, except Papke and McDonald who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) Lillehaug: Chairman Sacchet, can we, a few of us if we want, can we give a quick summary as to our reasons why I… Sacchet: Yes. I think it would be beneficial and I’m going to not participate obviously in that discussion. If you would want to summarize for the benefit of council why you took the decision you just took for the Yoberry Farms proposal, that’s what you’re suggesting Steve, right? That’s good suggestion. Please go ahead. Do you want to start since you made the suggestion. Lillehaug: I’ll put on a few of my comments anyways. One would be, I think it is possibly feasible to connect to Trunk Highway 41 and make that connection, regardless of what I previously indicated. I do have concerns with the traffic volumes on the north and south streets from the development. The easterly cul-de-sac, there’s other options there that could minimize a couple of lots. Create a totlot. I don’t think it was fine tuned enough to approve and make something feasible. There’s underlying issues that simply there’s not an answer at this point that deal with specifically with the park issue. That needs to be handled. It’s my opinion there needs to be a connection from the north to the south to the two developments. That’s all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Any other Commissioner want to add comments for in summary for council to the previous decision? No? Alright. With that we get to the third item on our agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.19 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD, JOHN HENRY ADDITION, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-05. 32