The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 2-14-05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site vNNI.ci .chanhassen.mn .us (jLJ-LJ3 v-:;::~'~~~-,;;."~ MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: ':~)~¡ . -\."./: \ . ~ Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43 February 14, 2005 SUBJ: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 4, 2005 and January 18,2005 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 4-2 to deny the proposed development. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends adoption of the motion approving the preliminary plat and rezoning as specified in the staffreport dated January 18,2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Staff Report dated January 18,2005. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated January 4,2005. 4. Planning Commission minutes dated January 18,2005. 5. Plans. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry fann\executive summary for preliminary plat and rezoning.doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Yoberry Farm - Planning Case 04-43 On January 4, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of a Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, and Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family - Yoberry Farm. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development on January 4, 2005 and continued on January 18, 2005 which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District, RR. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density (1.2 - 4.0 units per net acre). 3. The legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; 1 f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2. Lack of adequate roads. 3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 5. The planning report Planning Case 04-43, dated January 4,2005, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et aI, is incorporated herein. 6. The proposed Rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive plan. DECISION 1. The preliminary plat is approved subject to the conditions set forth in the planning report. 2. The rezoning of the property to RSF, Residential Single Family is approved. ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 2005. ATTEST: CITY OF CHANHASSEN Todd Gerhardt, City ClerklManager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry fann\findings of fact for city council.doc 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: January 4, 2005 January 18, 2005 CC DATE: January 21, 2005 February 14,2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 5, 2005 CASE #: 04-43 BY: AI-Jaff ~. .....JII ~ Z < U ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ..,... ........ - STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm. LOCATION: East of Highway 41, South of Highover Drive and North of Gunflint Trail. APPLICANT: Yoberry Farms, LLC 7105 Hazeltine Blvd Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 202-0692 David Hurrel, 7460 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 202-0692 Karen Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 202-0692 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 35.79 Acres DENSITY: Gross 1.59 Units/Ac Net~ 2.3 Units/Ac SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Rezoning of 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 35.79 Acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots, Yoberry Farm. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Location Map Yoberry Farm City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-43 SCANNED Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 2 This staff report has been revised to reflect changes made to the plans. All new information will appear in bold. PROPOSAL~UMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 35.79 acres into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential, and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The applicant is also proposing to fill 0.05 acres (2,000 square feet) of wetland. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, through the de minimis exemption (MR 8420.0122 Subp. 9), allows wetland impacts of 2,000 square feet or less without requiring an alternative analysis or wetland mitigation. The proposed wetland impacts equal 2,000 square feet, so no wetland replacement is required. A wetland exemption will be issued administratively by City staff prior to the commencement of grading on this project. The average lot size is 19,16118,962 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.59 units per acre and a net density of ~ 2.3 units per acre. The site is located east of Highway 41, south of Highover Drive and north of Gunflint Trail. Access to the subdivision will be provided via Highover Dri ve to the north and Gunflint Trail to the south. All lots are proposed to be served via internal residential streets. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in three additions. The central portion will be developed as the first addition, the north piece will be the second addition and the last segment - third addition, is the area occupying the southwest portion of the site. There are eight outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A of the first addition is proposed to be deeded to the neighboring property to the south, Outlots Band C will contain wetlands and stOllli water ponds, Outlot D will contain a sidewalk, and Outlots E, F, and G will be deeded to the neighboring lots to the north (when the applicant surveyed the land, it was discovered that the northern property line of Yoberry Farm 1st Addition Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 3 did not abut the rear property lines from the Highover Addition lots. A 25-foot wide strip of land was created. The applicant chose to split it equally between the Yoberry Farm 1st Addition and the Highover addition property owners). Outlot A of the 3rd Addition will contain a storm pond. The site consists of several parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. These parcels are owned by four individuals. Single-family homes and accessory structures exist on these parcels. Only the single-family homes are intended to remain. Five wetlands occupy the site. The site has bluffs and a meandering topography. The site has some mature trees. In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family. The area to the south and east is zoned Planned Unit Development - Residential. The area to the west is zoned Rural Residential and Planned Unit Development - Residential. All the surrounding property, with the exception of the area to the west of the subject site, is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the west is guided Residential Low Density and Public/Semi Public. The 2020 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4 or PUD-R. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.59 units per acre and ~ 2.3 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the MUSA. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and finds that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 35.79-acre site into 57 single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.59 units per acre gross and ~ 2.3 units per acre net after removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 19,16118,962 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of a few parcels that have deficient frontage. The lot lines can be easily adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. There are eight outlots shown on the plat. Outlot A of the first addition is proposed to be deeded to the neighboring property to the south, Outlots Band C will contain wetlands and storm water ponds, Outlot D will contain a neighborhood park, and Outlots E, F, and G will be deeded to the neighboring lots to the north (when the applicant surveyed the land, it was discovered that the northern property line of Yoberry Farm 1 st Addition did not abut the rear property lines from the Highover Addition lots. A 25-foot wide strip of land was created. The applicant chose to split it equally between the Yoberry Farm 1st Addition and the Highover addition property owners). Outlot A of the 3rd Addition will contain a storm pond. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 4 Lots 3 through 8, Block 3, Lots 1 through 4, Block 4, and Lots 1 through 7, Block 5 abut wetlands. The applicant is proposing to outlot the wetlands. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 40-foot setback from the outside edge of a wetland buffer strip. The ordinance also requires a buffer zone in addition to the wetland setback. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 5. A 20-foot wetland buffer must be maintained around Wetland 1. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Five wetlands exist on-site: one Natural wetland and four AglUrban wetlands. Kjolhaug Environmental Services delineated the wetlands in May 2004. The delineation was reviewed on- site by staff on October 22, 2004. The wetland numbering is not consistent between the wetland delineation and the plans. For the purposes of this report, staff used the wetland number from the plans. Wetland 4 is an AglUrban wetland (Type 1) located at the north edge of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, spotted touch-me-not and box elder. No impacts are proposed to Wetland 4. Wetland 3 is an Ag/Urban wetland (Type 1) located southeast of Wetland 1. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill the southeastern most portion of the wetland to accommodate a road. The total proposed impact to Wetland 3 is 1,577 square feet (0.04 acres). Wetland 2 is an Ag/Urban wetland (Type 1) located in the southeastern comer of the property. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill the northwestern most portion of the wetland to accommodate a road. The total proposed impact to Wetland 2 is 423 square feet (0.01 acres). Wetland 5 is an AglUrban wetland (Type 3) located in the southeast comer of the property. The wetland is dominated by cattail, reed canary grass, American elm and ash. No impacts are proposed to Wetland 5. Wetland 1 is a Natural wetland (Type 3) located west of Wetland 4 near the southeast comer of the property. The wetland is dominated by sedge and cattail. No impacts are proposed to Wetland 1. Wetland Impacts The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, through the de minimis exemption (MR 8420.0122 Subp. 9), allows wetland impacts of 2,000 square feet or less without requiring an alternative Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 5 analysis or wetland mitigation. The proposed wetland impacts equal 2,000 square feet, so no wetland replacement is required. A wetland exemption will be issued administratively by City staff prior to the commencement of grading on this project. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2,3,4 and 5. A wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain 40-foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges. BLUFFS Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). These areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 25.59 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $27,970. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $69,221 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of 2 NURP ponds and the provision of 2 outlet structures. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $97,191. OTHER AGENCIES The applicant should apply for and obtain pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase IT Construction Pennit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Yoberry Fam1s Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 6 Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The existing site is about 36 acres and has tree cover over approximately 16 acres (45% of the parcel). The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1084± to a low of 992±. These severe elevation differences make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. The plans propose to grade about 80% of the site for the 57 new house pads, a proposed street system, three cul-de-sacs and stormwater ponds. The proposed grading will prepare the site for full basement, look-out and walk-out type house pads. Retaining walls are proposed in numerous locations throughout the site. The applicant must be aware that any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. Staff is concerned with the large number of lots that have steep rear yard slopes off the house pad and very little useable rear yard. Staff is, therefore, recommending that all lots have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad that is relatively flat with a maximum slope of 10:1. In addition, the eastern end of Gunflint Trail contains three retaining walls just off the right-of- way. To better match the existing grades and minimize the wall height on two of the retaining walls, staff is recommending that the applicant increase the street grades moving west from the cul-de-sac. This would lower the street in the area of the curve and existing wetland and decrease the amount of fill that is required. The existing site drainage is encompassed within three main drainage areas. Under existing conditions, the eastern portion of the site drains to an existing wetland complex to the east and south; the northwestern part of the site drains off-site to a western TH 41 ditch; and the southwestern part of the site drains off-site to the south. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture the street drainage, front yard drainage and rear yard drainage from most of the lots. The stormwater that is captured will be conveyed via storm sewer to proposed ponds in the southeasterly and southwesterly comers of the site for treatment. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. Two storm water ponds are proposed in conjunction with this development. In addition, a temporary pond that was constructed with the Highover subdivision is proposed to remain.. The applicant has indicated that he has met with the property owners of Lot 23, Block 3, Highover who are aware that the temporary pond will not be relocated. The applicant has submitted a letter from the owners of Lot 23, Block 3 that indicate they understand that the pond will not be moved. The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. Ineaddition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 7 While the applicant is proposing to treat most of the site drainage with on-site ponding, there is a small area in the central portion of the site which will not be treated on site. Proposed catch basins at the intersection of Street B and Gunflint Trail will capture this drainage and connect with the existing storm sewer in Gunflint Trail. This storm sewer drains to an existing pond in the Longacres subdivision south of the site. Based on staff's review of the existing pond date, the existing pond is undersized for the proposed development area that will be draining to it from Yoberry Farm. The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for this area. Drainage calculations for the site have been submitted and some changes remain. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the lO-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted at the time of final plat application. The storm sewer must be sized for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10: 1 to 3: 1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 8 UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Gunflint Trail in the south and from Highover Drive to the north. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing watermain at both ends and loop it through the site. The City's Water System Master Plan calls for a 12-inch diameter watermain to connect the existing 12-inch main in Highover Drive to the north with the existing 16-inch main in Longacres Drive just south of the site. To comply with the Master Plan, the applicant is proposing to install the 12-inch watermain connection through the site. Since the applicant is only required to install an 8-inch main to serve the proposed lots, the watermain oversizing cost will be paid by the City from the water portion of the City's utility fund. With the development of this parcel, staff believes it is an opportune time to extend a raw water transmission main through the site for future connection to the City's 2nd Water Treatment Plant. This 10-inch watermain would run from WellS, just north of the site, through the property to the northeast corner of the Yoberry parcel. No service connections would come off of this transmission main since the raw water in the pipe will be untreated/unchlorinated prior to connecting to the treatment plant. Staff is proposing to directionally bore a portion of the pipe in order to preserve the existing trees along the northeast property line of the site. Because this is a system wide improvement, the construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the City from the water portion of the utility fund. The developer will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction. Currently, there is an existing temporary lift station at the south end of Highover Drive. The lift station pumps wastewater to a gravity sewer in Highover Drive to the north. This temporary lift station, which serves five homes, has only one pump and is not owned or maintained by the City. As part of the Highover subdivision approval and development contract, the temporary lift station was to be removed when the property to the south (Yoberry Farms) was developed. In fact, the City is holding a letter of credit to ensure this happens. When the temporary lift station is removed, it was always the intention to have a permanent lift station installed within the north part of the Yoberry Farms plat. The permanent lift station would be built to City standards and would be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. This is in accordance with the City's Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. Staff has previously informed the applicant of this requirement. As an alternative, the applicant is proposing to deviate from the sewer comprehensive plan and route the sanitary sewer from 11 homes (6 in Yoberry and 5 from Highover) through the Yoberry site. This sewer, which was originally supposed to drain to the north, will now drain to the south and eventually to lift station #27 (L.S. #27) in the Long Acres Development. Because the wastewater from these 11 homes was never meant to drain to L.S. #27, the existing pumps in L.S. #27 are not sized for this additional wastewater. As such, staff has no objection to the sanitary sewer layout as proposed but the applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the wastewater from the 11 additional homes. The underlying propelty has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements and those assessments have been paid. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 9 Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a pre-con meeting before building permit Issuance. STREETS Overall, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets in accordance with City design criteria. Sidewalk is proposed on one side of all the through streets. The plans propose to extend two public streets to service the site from Highover Drive to the north and Gunflint Trail from the south. The proposed streets will provide a connection between Gunflint Trail and Highover Drive. These types of street connections are always preferred for emergency access and to provide residents an alternate route to get to/from their homes. While the minimum curve radius allowed on public streets is 180 feet, staff is willing to allow the tight curve on the east end of Gunflint Trail because the curve is at the end of the street. Staff is recommending that a curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit be posted on both sides of the curve. There is a small portion of the proposed right-of-way for Gunflint Trail that encroaches into an existing electric utility easement along the eastern property line of the site. The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of-way outside of the existing easement area. LOCA TION OF GUNFLINT TRAIL CUL-DE-SAC At the January 18,2005, public hearing, both residents and Planning Commissioners expressed concerns over the location, lack of buffering, and the retaining wall adjacent to the eastern cul-de-sac of Gunflint Trail. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 10 The homes located along the westerly side of Harrison Hill Trail have meandering terrain. The homes are placed at an elevation that is lower than their rear yards. A retaining all, existing vegetation (within a conservation easement), and an electric line easement separate these homes from the proposed cul-de-sac. Option A In an attempt to address the concerns raised at the public hearing, the developer has made some revision to the public street option (Option A). This includes revising the grading to eliminate the retaining wall along the east side of the road and to save additional trees to the north of the cul-de-sac. The developer has also received approval from Xcel Energy to install Lilacs within the electric line easement along the east side of the road. This proposed vegetation (shown on the attached Landscaping Plan) will provide a buffer between the roadway and the exiting homes along Harrison Hill Trail to the east. Option A Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 11 Option B The developer also looked at the option of a private street at the end of Gunflint Trail (attached Option B). In staff's opinion, this option does not reduce the amount of grading versus the public street option. Also, the location of the private street is actually closer to the eastern property line than the original proposal. Finally, the private street option would require two variances to obtain the four lots that the public option obtains. One variance would be for the private street itself and the second would be for the width ofLot 1. Option C Option B One of the suggestions at the hearing was to consider moving the cul-de-sac to the west along the wetland and putting the lots on the east side of the road. The developer has looked at this option (shown as attached Option C). The option does not work for a few reasons. First, it requires extensive grading and tree removal along the wetland. In addition, it requires the construction of an ll-foot high retaining wall along the entire east side of the wetland in order to "hold up" the road. Finally, Option Option C C does not work with the natural contours of the land as well as the original proposal. Instead of having the rear yard walk- outs of the lots on the natural low side with the wetland, Option C has it reversed with the rear yards on the east side which is naturally high. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 12 With these revisions, staff is in favor of the public street option (Option A). With the public street option, no variances are required. The plans submitted by the applicant reflect this option. STREET CONNECTION TO HIGHWAY 41 Staff had received comments from MnDOT regarding access via Highway 41. After the last Planning Commission meeting, staff again contacted MnDOT personnel both by email (attached) and telephone. MnDOT stated that they are still not in favor of an additional street connection to Highway 41. They stated that their minimum spacing requirement for new street connections along arterial highways is a half mile. The current distance between Longacres Drive and Lake Lucy Road (approximately 4,100 feet) is less than one mile. This means any new access point between the two existing streets would be less than a half mile and, thus, not meet the spacing requirement. In addition, with the existing street system that is in place around the proposed development, MnDOT did not see a reason that an additional street connection to Highway 41 would be needed. It should be noted, MnDOT also stated in their attached development review memo that they would like access control along Highway 41 dedicated on the plat. Access control basically means that no access will be allowed where access control exists. Given the steep terrain and bluffs along the eastern side of Highway 41, the existing street system with collector roads immediately adjacent to the site on the north and south, and the fact that the local roads (Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail) which are stubbed to the property have always been planned to be extended to serve the site, staff is in concurrence with MnDOT on this issue. At the January 18,2005 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, the PC requested an official letter from MnJDOT on the possibility of a proposed street connection to TH 41 from the Yoberry Farms development. Attached is a letter from Lisa Freese, the South Metro Area Manager with MnJDOT, which states that since "...the Yoberry Farms development is already served by two collector streets with access to TH 41 in a very short distance, a new access in the vicinity is not warranted." Staff is in complete agreement with MnJDOT on this. PARK DEDICATION Parks Minnewashta Regional Park, a 200-acre property owned and operated by Carver County, is located just across Highway 41 from the subject property.' Pedestrian access from the Yoberry site to the Regional Park would prove difficult and is not advised. The County has long-range plans of providing a pedestrian underpass to the park. However, a future date for this improvement has not been established. There are no neighborhood parks within a half-mile service area of the site. This is largely due to the manner in which neighborhood park services have been provided in this area of the City. Two "association" properties providing park services exist in the Longacres neighborhoods to Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 13 the south of the Yoberry plat. These recreational properties will not be available to the future residents of the new neighborhood. The City is not seeking parkland dedication as a condition of the platting of this property. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. Trails The site does not contain any segment of the City's comprehensive trail plan. A linear grass outlot that serves as a neighborhood trail corridor does exist to the north and east of the Yoberry plat. This outlot was acquired at the time the Highover addition was platted. The applicant for the Yoberry plat has acknowledged the presence of this outlot and is providing a sidewalk and stairway connection to the outlot at an appropriate location. It should be noted that the terrain in this vicinity of the plat requires the installation of a stairway, a condition that will limit the types of uses appropriate in this corridor. Upon completion of the Yoberry neighborhood it will be necessary to complete the sidewalk connection to Longacres Drive. This will require the installation of sidewalk in front of two homes on the east side of Gunflint trail. On January 4, 2005, the Planning Commission requested additional information regarding park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry subdivision. The January 18, 2005 staff report included a memorandum from Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, which stated the following: "This memo is in response to a request from the Planning Commission for additional information regarding park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry subdivision. The City plans for the acquisition of public lands for neighborhood parks based on a park service area of Vz mile for each site. The comprehensive plan calls for neighborhood parks to contain 10 - 25 acres of land and service up to 5,000 residents per site. Community Parks serve a larger geographical region of the community, typically provide a broader set of amenities and serve up to 20,000 residents per site. The proposed Yoberry subdivision contains 57 homes generating a new population of approximately 175 people. The concept of public pocket parks or tot lots has not been utilized as a part of City Park planning to avoid the proliferation of small public land holdings and the associated expense in managing and maintaining these sites. However, numerous developers have chosen to embrace the "tot lot" model and construct private or association tot lots or parks as a component of their housing developments. The close proximity of two such association facilities prompted staff to encourage the developers of the Yoberry subdivision to consider incorporating an association tot lot in their plans. Whether or not this actually occurs is at the applicant's discretion. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 14 A park service area map is attached to this report. The map identifies that the Yoberry site as existing within the park service area of the Minnetonka Middle School West Campus. The property is also located on the fringe of the park service area for Sugarbush Park. In addition, the City currently owns public park property at the northern terminus of Century Boulevard that will be developed into a neighborhood park site at a future date. Again, the future park service area for this property reaches the Yoberry site. Finally, a proposed neighborhood park adjacent to Lake Harrison is being explored as a possible component of a future development in that area. If acquired, this future site would also provide recreation access to the Yoberry plat. The proximity of park/school facilities is one of the variables each of us take into consideration when purchasing our homes. One of the realities in working with a comprehensive park plan is that a good number of our residents will not live directly adjacent to or even down the street from a public park. A large portion of the City's homeowners reside a number of blocks away from a park. This community is blessed with a truly impressive array of public recreation facilities. In addition to City facilities, Minnewashta Regional Park, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and Camp Tanadoona are all located within ¥2 mile of the Yoberry site. It is Staff's position that the Yoberry site is well served by existing and future public recreation services and the additional development of public recreation amenities on this site is unwarranted." TREE PRESERV A TION/LANDSCAPING Tree canopy calculations have been submitted for the Yoberry development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 35.9 ac. 45% or 16.17 ac. 35% or 12.57 ac. 14% or 5.03 ac. Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 328,399 SF or 7.54 ac. 1.2 394,079 SF 362 trees Additional tree removal must be added to the submitted calculations to allow for tree removal on the custom graded lots. According to ordinance, 105 feet from the property line is considered a removal area for the construction of a home, driveway and any decks, porches or other such features. There are 7 custom-graded lots in the development. The approximate removal area for these lots is 49,200 square feet. Revised calculations are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 35.9 ac. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 15 Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 45% or 16.17 ac. 35 % or 12.57 ac. 11% or 3.90 ac. Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 377,599 SF or 7.54 ac. 1.2 453,119 SF 416 trees The applicant has shown a total of 416 trees in the landscape plan. Bufferyard requirements are as shown in the table: Landsca in Item Bufferyard B* - West property line (1290') Re uired 13 overstory trees 26 understory trees 26 shrubs Pro osed Existing tree/shrub line and existing difference in grade elevations Applicant meets minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings. According to the existing conditions and demolition plans (tree preservation) dated 12/20/04, Lot 3, Block 1 of Yoberry 2nd Addition is to be custom graded. However, on grading plans of the same date, the lot is being graded in conjunction with the street. This lot may represent additional tree removal for the development. Staff recommends that the developer clarify how tree removal for lot 3 has been calculated. Additional tree removal calculations need to be done for Lots 18-20, Block 1 since lot sizes have changed due to the additional Right-of-Way adjacent to them. Tree removal calculations will assume 105 feet of clearing on each lot. While the site has many lowland forest species such as boxelder, ash, willow and cottonwood there are a number of very large, upland hardwood specimens as well. Oaks, maples, some black cherry and a tamarack that range in diameter from 20 inches up to 55 inches dot the landscape on the western side of the property. Many of these are in direct conflict with street and home construction, but a handful of them will be left within custom-graded lots. Staff recommends that great care be taken during home construction to preserve as many of the significant trees as possible. Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250,46, 81,270 and #251. Yoberry Fanns Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 16 COMPL~CE~HORDrnANCE-RSFD~TRæT Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, Wetlan Bluff (feet) side, rear, d (feet) wetland buffer Buffer edge (feet) Code 15,000 90 125 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 or 30 20 Yoberry Farm L 1, Blk 1 17,689 110 ~132 30, 10, 30, na na na L 2, Blk 1 20,11320,156 &-l-- 90 W) 172 30,1O,30,na na na L 3, Blk 1 19,63019,537 63 @ curve 161 30,1O,30,na na na 90 @ Setback line L4, Blk 1 31,51034,159 50 @ curve 165 30, 10, 30, na na 30 90 @ Setback line L 5, Blk 1 25,509 71 @ curve 182 30, 10, 30, na na na 122 @ Setback line L 6, Blk 1 19,701 103 190 30,1O,30,na na na L 7, Blk 1 15,898 96 147 30,1O,na,na na na L 8, Blk 1 18,56918,573 90 218 30,1O,30,na na na L 9, Blk 1 17,16017,163 93 191 30,1O,30,na na na L 10, Blk 15,099 15,097 156 177 30, 10, 30, na na na 1 L 11, Blk 15,263 15,311 135 146 30, 10, 30, na na na 1 L 12, Blk 15,25115,026 113 154 30, 10, 30, na na na 1 L 13, Blk 15,029 16,281 102 184 30,1O,30,na na na 1 L 14, Blk 16,28718,298 95 197 30, 10, 30, na na na 1 L 15, Blk 18,296 16,342 92 183 30,1O,30,na na na 1 L 16, Blk 17,678 17,669 105 184 30, 10, 30, na na na 1 L 17, Blk 17,395 18,280 -l26 163 170 30, 10, 30, na na na 1 L 18, Blk 18,188 18,187 72 @ curve 157 30,1O,30,na na 30 1 90 @ Setback line L 19, Blk 20,558 20,029 79 @ curve 171 30, 10, 30, na na 30 1 90 @ Setback line L 20, Blk 22,73923,406 -lOO 143 271 30,1O,30,na na 30 1 L 21, Blk 37,11037,236 144 244 30,1O,30,na na 30 1 Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 17 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, Wetlan Bluff (feet) side, rear, d (feet) wetland buffer Buffer edge (feet) Code 15,000 90 125 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 or 30 20 L 1, Blk 2 15,015 15,015 179 172 30, 10, 30, na na na L 2, Blk 2 15,518 15,550 146 155 30,1O,na,na na na L 3, Blk 2 15,195 15,193 130 136 30,1O,30,na na na L 1, Blk 3 20,533 20,555 256 159 30, 10, na, na na na L 2, Blk 3 16,23616,207 86 @ curve 155 30, 10, 30, na na na 94 @ Setback line L 3, Blk 3 16,983 16,992 93 162 30,10,30,40 20 na L 4, Blk 3 15,010 15,023 93 160 30,10,30,40 20 na L 5, Blk 3 15,96116,039 91 161 30,10,30,40 20 na L 6, Blk 3 16,158 16,159 100 160 30,1O,30,na na na L 7, Blk 3 16,110 15,874 113 153 30,10,30,40 16.5 na L 8, Blk 3 29,91023,075 ~167 ~159 30,10,30,40 16.5 na L 1, Blk 4 27,557 84 @ curve 279 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na 111 @ Setback line L 2, Blk 4 15,033 15,084 88 @ curve 161 30,10,30,40 16.5 na 102 @ Setback line L 3, Blk 4 15,19115,049 ~109 153 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na L4, Blk4 15,011 15,813 105 149 30,10,na,40 16.5 na L 1, Blk 5 17,530 15,988 96 -±n 30, 10, na, 40 16.5 na 155 L 2, Blk 5 16,11015,073 96 -±+± 30,10,30,40 16.5 na 153 L 3, Blk 5 17,11815,349 ~91 -l-&& 30,10,30,40 16.5 na 171 L 4, Blk 5 21,193 19,110 86 @ curve ~ 30,10,30,40 16.5 na 93 @ Setback line 186 L 5, Blk 5 18,118 18,215 83 @ curve 158 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na L 6, Blk 5 16,38116,396 167 128 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na L 7, Blk 5 15,186 149 136 30, 10, 30, 40 16.5 na Outlot A ~4,517 Outlot B 81,15884,671 . Outlot C 78,995 85,224 Outlot D 17,08822,226 Yoberry Farm 2nd L 1, Blk 1 21,11724,399 ~116 223 30, 10, 30, na na na L 2, Blk 1 15,03915,074 101 156 30,1O,30,na na na L 3, Blk 1 19,90119,942 107 192 30,1O,30,na na na Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 18 Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (feet) Depth Setbacks: front, Wetlan Bluff (feet) side, rear, d (feet) wetland buffer Buffer edge (feet) Code 15,000 90 125 30,10,30,40 16.5 or 30 20 L 1, Blk 2 15,040 128 155 30,1O,30,na na na L 2, Blk 2 15,312 95 162 30,1O,30,na na na L 3, Blk 2 16,035 103 156 30,10,30,40 16.5 na Outlot A 15,908 15,896 Yoberry Farm 3rd L 1, Blk 1 31,19831,186 138 233 30, 10, 30, na na na L 2, Blk 1 17,91717,944 106 203 30, 10, 30, na na na L 3, Elk 1 24,284 57 @ curve 156 30, 10, 30, na na na 90 @ Setback line L4, Elk 1 19,050 55 @ curve 150 30,1O,30,na na na 90 @ Setback line L 5, Blk 1 31,832 55 @ curve 176 30,1O,30,na na na 95 @ Setback line L 6, Blk 1 20,681 20,682 85 @ curve 190 30,1O,30,na na na 92 @ Setback line L7,Blkl 17,033 17,038 91 187 30,1O,30,na na na L 8, Elk 1 17,305 17,307 90 187 30,1O,30,na na na Outlot A 16,964 ROW 211,115 239,695 Total 1,559,202 Average 19,161 18,962 @ Meets 90 foot width at the building setback line. na - Not Applicable SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District with the exception of Lot with deficient width which can easily be corrected. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 19 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; . Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motions: REZONING "The Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves Case #04-43 to rezone 35.79 acres of propelty zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, for Yoberry Farm as shown on the plans dated received December 20, 2004." Yoberry Fanns Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #04-43 for Yoberry Farm for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown on the plans received December 20,2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The applicant shall supply the city with a list of the number of trees required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 12120/04. 2. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. 3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 4. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 12120/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. 5. Tree removal calculations must be shown for lot 3, block 1, Yoberry 2nd Addition. Revised calculations for the entire development will be required before final plat approval. 6. Payment of park fees at the tate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. 7. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 8. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. 9. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. 10. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all areas with a steep slope of 3: 1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 11. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 21 12. On the utility plan: a. All watermain pipes must be PVC-C900. b. Maintain lO-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains. c. Re','ise the storm se\ver pipe size to maintain a minimum 15". d. Sanitary manhole #4 must be with outside drop structure. e. Show existing sanitary, storm, and watermain pipe type and size. f. Show all existing utilities in Longacres Drive. g. Minimum sanitary seVier pipe slope is 0.1% Rcvise accordingly. h. Reroute the proposed watermain in the southwest comer of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30-foot utility easement. 1. Add the following notes: Any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. 13. On the grading plan: a. Show the 100-year HWL of wetlands 1 and 5. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows. The elevation must be 1.5 feet lower than adjacent house elevations. d. Delete the proposed grading on the custom house pad of Lot 3, Block 1, Yoberry 2nd Addition. e. Revise the retaining wall top and bottom elevations on the southwest comer of the parcel. f. Remove existing temporary cul-de-sac pavement and re-sod it at the north on Highover Drive. g. Maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10% on Lot 21, Block 1, Yoberry 1st Addition. h. Remove the existing outlet control structure after installing the proposed outlet control structure on the existing north storm pond. 1. Show the location of the existing power lines along the eastern property line of the site. 13. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. Approved safety fence will be required on top of all retaining walls which are adjacent to sidewalk or trails. 14. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The WQ4 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,811.00 $2,955 per unit for watermain. The total ~2005 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 $2,270.00 per unit and the SAC fee is $1;125.00 $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees Yoberry Fanns Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 22 may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 15. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 16. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 17. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul rout~s. 18. All private driveway accesses for the demolished home sites off TH 41 must be removed. 19. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a Development Contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 20. All lots must have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad with a maximum slope of 10: 1. 21. To better match the existing grades and minimize the viall height on two of the retaining 'Nalls, staff is recommending that the applicant lo',ver the street grades moving west from the eastern cuI de sac on Gunflint Trail. 22. The applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the wastewater from the 11 additional homes. 23. A curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit at the eastern end of Gunflint Trail is required on both sides of the curve. 21. The applicant \vill need to provide additional information shmving that the outle-t pipe from the southwest pond is discharging to a public drainage and utility easement. 25. Existing drainage and utility easements within the site must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. 26. The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. In addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized. 27. The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for this area the drainage from the south-central portion of the site. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 23 28. The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of-way outside of the existing easement area. 29. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2,3,4 and 5. A wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 30. All structures must maintain 40-foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges. 31. All bluff areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 32. Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 33. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Tvpe of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 34. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 35. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $97,191. 36. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase IT Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. 37. Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval. 38. Building Department conditions: Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418,2005 Page 24 a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. e. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. f. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the three existing homes with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. 39. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. e. An additional hydrant will be required at the southernmost tip of Lot 4. Relocate the fire hydrant from between Lots 18 and 19 to between Lots 16 and 17 and add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 8. 40. On Sheets C3.1, C4.1, C5.1 andL2.1 of the plans, a gap appears on the western edge of Lots 4, 19, 20 and 21 of Block 1 and Outlot A, Yoberry Farm. This gap must be eliminated. 41. A windmill appears within the front yard setback on Lot 4, Block 1, Yoberry Farm. The applicant shall remove or relocate this structure prior to final plat recording. 42. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon vacation of existing drainage and utility easements located on Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Yoberry Farm 2nd Addition. 43. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. 44. Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46, 81, 270 and #251. Yoberry Farms Rezoning and Subdivision Planning Case No. 04-43 January 418, 2005 Page 25 15. Revise the cuI de sac and landscape design as shown in Option}~ on plans dated received January 11,2005 46. Revise the horseshoe turnaround off Street B to be a standard City cuI de sac, per detail plato it 5205. 47. The developer will be required to install a to-inch raw water transmission main for future connection to the City's second water treatment plant as a part of the utility construction and provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main. As this is a system-wide improvement, the construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the City from the water portion of the utility fund 48. The applicant shall provide a permanent trail easement on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Yoberry Farm 2nd Addition as depicted on the diagram:" , -J.. ,-;; ., : \ \ c< ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Application (3). 2. Letter from Candace Wisely dated November 30, 2004. 3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 4. Letter from William Coffman granting a 60-day extension dated December 3, 2004. 5. Letter from Mary Jackson of MnDOT dated December 15,2004. 6. Email from Lynn Clarkowski ofMnDOT dated January 6, 2005. 7. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 11,2005. 8. Letter from Lisa Freese of MnDOT dated January 31, 2005. 9. E-mail from Lee Broadston dated January 31, 2005. 10. E-mail from Michael Rysso dated January 4, 2005. 11. Letter from Thomas and Ruth Rolfs dated January 3, 2005. 12. Letter from Dr. Jennifer Rysso dated January 18, 2005. 13. E-mail from Leslie Wittershein dated January 18,2005. 14. Letter from Andrew White. 15. Letter from Charles and Lori Dinnis dated February 2, 2005. 16. Letter from Board of Directors, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc. dated 1/18/05. 17. Letter from James R. Valentine dated February 7, 2005. 18. Letter from Daniel and Penny Johnson dated February 9, 2005. 19. Examples of double frontage lots in Chanhassen. 20. Preliminary plat dated received December 20,2004. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-43 - yoberry farm\staff report cc 2005 revised<doc oL\--LJ-3 ,CITY QP-CHANHAS$EN ,77'ÖOMAR~IST;BOULEVARb ,CHANHASSEN,;MN55317 "(9~2r227~110() ~'t~'''';l"'''''ij 'h'," "it " ',/-.- ;¡ þ,.. ..¡¡,to ., r·1iI F. '.L .1,,",,,,, ,'" ;1" "" , ' DEVEtOÞMENTREVIEW APPL1CA TION í~'OV '0 - ~~:>I" !'> l,i,",",(I ". íJ :_'.¡':'~:. APPLICANT: ADDRESS: David Hurrel 7460 Bentbow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55331 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-202-0692 OWNER: Same CITY OF C}!¡¥iir.~Hii\\~t1~ ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements --:- Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal X Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits . Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRjVACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) X Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ on BuUding material samples must be submitted with sit~ pjan revj¡;N$. A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must bE! included\Nith tila application. "Twenty-six full size folded copies of the pians must be subl1Üted" including nn 8!/i' X ~ 1" r.}duc;ed copy of transparoncy ror each plan sheet. , ' , ' .'Ý EscroW'will be requredforotherappjëationsthr()U9h;thed~velopmeotcçIOÙact NOTE ~ When multiple appUcationsare processed, the appropriate fee šhaHbe charged for :e::;cÌl ;;¡ppHcé1!ÌC''1. ør"- PROJECT NAME YOBERRY FARM LOCATION 6451,7105,7185 & 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A, B & C TOTAL ACREAGE 35.9 AC. WETLANDS PRESENT X' YES NO PRESENT ZONING RR - Rural Residential District REQUESTED ZONING RSF - Single Family Residential District PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.) REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Allow small lot sino Ie familv subdivision Tllis applicCJtiön must be completed in fljll ¡me! be typewritten or c!O<.irly printoe! imd must be ;:H.:c.:ornrmrdcd by all inforrm:¡tion rind plans required by applic8ble City Ordimmco provi¡,;ions. ~3cforl~ filing this application. YOIA should COiiror vdh (tIe Plé1l'lninq DeparLmont to dotml11ine the spnGific ordinance and procodurùl r~}quir8rnents opplicable to your ~)pp¡¡c;llion. A de'erminatícm of cOl1lpletene~~5 of the application shall be made '.vithin ton bus¡noss days 01 ¡,!pplir,;)tíoJl subrniltaL A wril:!~n noticéof application deficiencies shall be rnfliled to the applicant \,vithin ton busirH,!f·~:-) d:-¡y~~ of <l.pplication. TIJis.istoqertify lhat I mn /l1oking application for the described action by Lt1G City and Hint I am re:::pcnsib!() for cornplyinn with ßII.City rÐCJuiremonts with regard Lo this request. This F.ìppHcntion sliüuld be rrocnsscd in Iny rJLlrno ~H1d I <.H11 the:! pady whom the City should contact mgmdinø any matter pertaining to this apr>!icntion, I havo allachcd n copy of prcof of ownership (either copy ofOwn0.r's Duplicate CertificfJte of Tille, Abst,<1ct of TiUH ur pUrdl[ISe Cl(:¡rcf;rnenl), or I i:lmlhe auLhori;:ed person to make this application and tho feo owner h8S ah;o sinned thi~ applicalion. ., [ will kèep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of rmJtori,,1 and the prO(r0SS of this t1pplíc;a~iofl. I furLher understand Lhat additional fees lTìay be chmÇJod for consullinn fees, feasibility studio;.;, (,Ie. with ..'Ill estinvllo prior to any uutllorizalion to pruceed wiLh tho study. The documents and information I hav;~ S!Jbrnilfnd ,irf, truG and com·;ct to the he~;t of my knowledge. notifies tho applicant that devoloprnent revi()\;\I cannot bl:¡ compl;;;tcd '",ithin £iO days d~K-! to public heming ageney rENicw. Therefore, the city is notifying lhe npplicanttballhe cily n;quiros aïl auton IDtiC GO day development review. Development mviov'l shDII be ccrnplntml wHt1in '120 day~ unless ndditional !'(,!vic;w approved tho applicant. ;,'\t5I~~'.. Oats' ,,' Application Received on Fee Paid ' RecE!ipt No. , ' , The applicant should contact statHor a copy at tMstâffreport whic.h;willbEHîvailablc on Friday prior to tha meeting. If not contacted, a copy of thereportwilfbe:l11aUed t() the"ápplicant~$ addross. Exhibit C Hurrell Parcel Legal Description LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WIRTZ ADDITION, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. ~D OUTLOT B, HIGHOVER, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. óLf-L/-3 , , , . ' '.. . , ' . . . '. . , . ' . , . . . . .. .. ......... , ' , CITY GFCHANHA$SEN " 170oMARKET:ElÖU(Ë'Ï ARD.. CHANHASSEN,MW55317" ' (952)221-1100 ." . ' .. ... . , .. . . . . . . , ' ' ..' '.. .. . . . .' , . .......:. .. ".,' ." CIT\( of CHANHASSEN' RECËIVEP. " , , ' " .' . . . , ' DEveLOPMENT REVIiBWAPPLtCA TION , , ' .. . . .. . . , " CHANHÀSSEN PLAt~NING DEP; .".. "' .. . ." . . . . . ",. . . . " , . ... , , , :. ""'.'.'"". .: , .. N()V'05 2004 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: Karen Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-202-0692 OWNER: Same ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal X Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign . Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRjVACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) X Subdivision* fOTAl FEE $ .-- - ......'.. A list of aI/property owners within 500 feet of thé Þound~r¡e$ of the property must be Includeðwith>tM application. ' , ' , , ' ' , ' auilding materia.l samples must be submitted with $it~ pian review$. ~Twenty'six full size folded copies of ~hä'plans mH$tbesubmitted; in¢lucJjngan81/,¡"Xntireduced:copyof transparency for each plan sheet. ",. " ' .~ Escrow wíll be required for other applications through the development' contract 1êANII!Þ' NOTE - When rnu!liplp. apí)!ici1tions tire pro:;r~:~sed. th() appn::pri ate fC(J shaill1e Ch:ll D!,:J ie,; <!,.:cí'l a¡.:,piici.ìti:)!l, PROJECT NAME YOBERRY FARM LOCATION 6451, 7105, 7185 & 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A, B & C TOTAL ACREAGE 35.9 AC. WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO PRESENT ZONING RR - Rural Residential District REQUESTED ZONING RSF - Single Family Residential District PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.) REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Allow small lot sinqle family subdivision , ThiS8pplication nïllst be completed in full and b<J lYPi~wíith,);l or doarly prinled Hnd must be acç()rrq)~mk;d I)y all information ancl plans required by applicable City Ordinrmc:') provisions. fJefnrn filing this õ:lpplÌ(;8tion, you should c()r;rr~r with lhe Planning Departm8nt to dotermine thH specific ordinance and r-rncodui,11 requirel1l()l1ls applicable to your Hpplicntiül1. AdeterminÐtion of completenesr; of the application shflil hn madE) within tan !;usinos::; dDYS of dpp¡¡(~nti0n suÖrnittal. A '..vrillBIl notice ofappiici:¡tion dnficioncics shall be mailed to the ,-,ppliwnt within ten busilles::; dn'¡l3 or npplicat¡un. This is to cBrtif~lthat I mn making application for the de:;¡cribed <1ction by nH~ City ¡:;nrlth8t ¡ am rf:)~;ponsibln For complyinq with aHCity requirements with regard 10 this request. This ,3ppHc8ticn 8houid bn proCOS3Ðd in rny flwne and I <lmltH3 party whOln the CitystlOUld contact íOÇJmdinø t3ny mallnr rcrtaining lo llii!; é'Jppib1tion, I hí:¡ve <,¡ltac-¡c;C a copy of proof of ownørship (either copy of Owner's Duplicäle CertifiC:8te of Tille, !\bstrac:t of Tillg or purché15c f)wor~men!), ()í 1;:1['1'1 Ihn ilulhoril.üd porson to make this <.Ipplicatiorl and Ihe fec O\vner Ilé-1S also sinnnd this (ipplicalion. I Will keep myself informed of the deadlirws for sUbrnission of nlfJtori3! and Itw rr0!Jl'ûss of thi~:: app[j¡;alion, I further understand thal additional fees may be chmnod for consultin~J f0.m;, feasibility :3tudi!!:,;, dc. with <.11'\ (:.stiln<tn prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. Thr. documents and inforlTlation I have sut.Hl1illc(j am tn.lo and correct to tho best of mykno\:vlodç;c. The city hereby notifies thn applicant thal dnvolopment ((:Ninw C8nnot be cornp!ol(:¡d within GO days due to public hearing requirements and auem:y mview. Therefore, the city is noliryin~J Ihe npplic;:¡,nl th¡'lllhe eily rocll..ír0.S <:in é1ulolìlntic 60 day extension for dcwelopment review. Development rnyinw stlall be cürnp!otcc! within '120 days unless 3ddiiiol1<:1lrovie\N e~a~~v~~»lll~/2,~<~ ¿fJc~:¥ A3._~,W~ / ,,'.',./.lo/,·;:¿Ót5£¡ d::r~;l;%~~; t Signature of Fee Owner .......... . ..'. Application ReCeiYedOn~F$eRçJ.Ìd Theappliçantshould contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. Ifnat contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Exhibit B Weathers Legal Description PARCEL A ALL THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER DISTANT 239.4 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH, AT A RIGHT ANGLE TO THE NORTH LINE 200 FEET; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTH LINE, 200 FEET; THENCE NORTH, AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING NORTH OF A LINE DRAWN FROM A POINT 14 FEET SOUTH, MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE, FROM A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, DISTANT 142.78 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF, TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41, DISTANT 16:3 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASURED ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE FROM IT'S POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER. INCLUDING AN EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES OVER A STRIP OF LAND 30 FEET WIDE LYING SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO SAID LAST DESCRIBED LINE, AND BETWEEN SAID FIRST HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41; AND ALSO OVER A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE PROPERTY FIRST HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO A POINT 107 FEET SOUTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE WEST AT RIGHT ANGLES 13.38 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING RIGHT 45 DEGREES TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B THAT PART OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER DISTANCE 239.4 FEET WEST FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, THENCE SOUTH AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 461.29 FEET, THENCE EAST AT RIGHT ANGLES A DISTANCE OF 464.44 FEET, THENCE NORTH AT RIGHT ANGLES A DISTANCE OF 461.29 FEET AT THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 464.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING EXCEPT THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 200 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. AND ALSO THAT CERTAIN PIECE OF PROPERTY 13.38 FEET IN WIDTH FROM EAST TO WEST, AND 152 FEET IN LENGTH FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, LYING IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST AND ADJACENT TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, DISTANCE 252.78 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 152 FEET; THENCE WEST AND PARALLEL TO SAID NORTH LINE TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY #41, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ðLf-tf3 , ' " ' , ' . . : " ... . . ... .... .. ' . .. . . .. .. " ' .. . ... , ' . . . . . .:. . . ,. . . . . . . . ". . . .. .. . , ' .. . ... . . ..". . . · . '.' .. . .. . ....... ... . .,. ':'. . .' . , " , ' , GFfYOF:ÇHANtlAS.5tšN: ' 7~~~Wñi!!~¡~¡~W CITY OF CH;',NHASSEN RECEIVED 'NOV 042004 ~ ' ..' ...... . .". ., .:".' . . ... . DEVELOPMENT RE;:VJEW APp(ìCA1ION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPr APPLICANT: Yoberrv Farms. LLC ADDRESS: 7105 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 TELEPHONE (Daytime) 612-202-0692 OWNER:Same ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit . Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned UnitDevelopment* Zoning Appeal X Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) , X Subdivision* h"OTAL FEE $ 2,640 ------ ---- -----..- ....--- . . .' . , ' , · . .. · . . ." . ... .. ... . .. A list Mall propertyowner$withlrF500feet olthe bourídårias oHhë'ptoperty'mÚst bø includðdwith'the' application. ' " ' Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~Tw~nty-sixfull size ~ c;opies ofthe plans mU$tbesubmiUed, inciuuingaJ:l 8%" X11" reducedcòpy of transparenCy for each plan sheet ' ' , ' , ' , ' .* Escrow wIU be required for Qthèràpp1ications lhrough~thedevel()pmel)t contract' NOTE.~ Whenmultipla applicationsara pröcassed"the approprjatefee shaH be charged for eachappiicatíon, aCANNED ,,' PROJECT NAME YOBERRY FARM LOCATION 6451,7105,7185 & 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Exhibit A, B & C TOTAL ACREAGE 35.9 AC. WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO PRESENT ZONING RR - Rural Residential District REQUESTED ZONING RSF - Single Family Residential District PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.) REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RES -Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2- 4/Ac.) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Allow small tot sino Ie familv subdivision This êlPplic;¡tion must be cornplded in full and be IYP(~\Nrillcn or cIeady prinled and must bo accornpwiic)d by aj! infonnéJi:on £uKI plans requir8d by applicnblH City OrdinÐnce provisiom;, Berow filin~J this applic:éJiion, YOll should conf¡')r 'with thH Plapninn Department to determine tt,e srr)cific ordinance and procndural requir(~n)()nl:; opplic<.de to YOlir Hrplicnt:on. 'A cetrmnination of compleleness of the application ::;l1all be made vvilhin t()n busino:;s days of <.1pµiicntion subrnittal. A'lvrillen notice of application dcfic'nncios shall be mailecllo the appiicant within ton business daYf; of ,;pplication. This is to certify that I m'l1 makinø application for Ihe describE!CJ 8ction by UH'¡ City andthntl "In re~;polls¡ble for complying with all City mquircmonts with regard to this request. Ttlis applir.ation sh:::>ultl bo proG':;ssed in Iny ni."Irne and I am the parly whom the City stlOuld conlact rogÐrcHng any mallcr pertaining tülhi!'; <.Jppiication. I hí:lve att,~ch()("j n coPy of pruof of ovvnership (eittler copy of OV'mer's Duplicäte Certificate of Title, Abstract of Tille or purchase nçmenmnl), ur ! ,-un the authorized person to mf.lke this applicé1tion and Iho fee owner hé1$ (;1150 signod this applic:'J!ion, JI -- 5 -oL.: - Ii: - I will keep myself informod of the deadlines for subrnissior; of material and ttm progress of this apqlicu¡iur1. ¡ furlher understand thaI additional fOGS may bi:! ch¡']fgod For consuHino fr)c~g, fOf.1sibiHly ;;tu~lios, ()Ic. with <'1n e~;tilni:110 prior to any aulllorizÐtion to proceed with tho study. The documents and infonnalion I have sl:brniilod am true and carmct to the best of my knowledge. "The city hereby nolifics tho applicant that c!cvüloprnent reviow cannot be compiE:Jlüd within GO duys due 10 public hearillg requirements and élOHI1CY rovicw. Therefore, H,c city is notifying Ihe applicant thai the city r('~quim" an aulOrTIntic 60 day Gxtcnsion for dovelaprnenl review. Development mvimv shall be cQmpl()tncJ within 120 day:) lJnlw;:"; mJc..!itional r\:!view extensions are approved by the applicant. , ' . .. . The appUcantshould contact staff for a copy of the stafft:téþortwhich wilLbeavsilable orfFriday priôrto the meeting. Jfnot contacted, a copy of the reportwi!tb~)1)àìle(Jt(Hhéåppncäht'$ ªd,dres$~, ,,', ' Exhibit A Youngquist Legal Description PARCEL A THE SOUTH 25.00 ACRES OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST. THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4) OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER RUNNING THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 960 FEET; RUNNING THENCE DUE WEST TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41; RUNNING THNCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF SAID HIGHWAY TO ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, RUNNING THENCE EASTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4) OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF 365.4 FEET; THENCE DEFLECTING 60 DEGREES 45 MINUTES TO THE LEFT AND RUNNING NORTHWESTERLY 195 FEET MORE OF LESS TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 41; THENCE RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE EAST ALONG SIAD LINE 445.5 FEET MORE OF LESS TO THE POINT BEGINNING, ACCORDING TO U.S. GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT FOR STATE HIGHWAY NO. 41. CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA REceIVED DEe 0 12004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN November 30, 2004 Ms. Lori Haak City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Highover / Yoberry Farm Pond Dear Lori: My husband James and I live at 7048 Highover Court in Chanhassen, and we overlook a pond the developer of High over constructed several years ago. A ~eek or so ago I met with Bill Coffinan, a member of the development team that is involved with the development of the Youngquist Property, and we discussed the pond in the rear of our property. We would like to inform the City that we would very much prefer the pond to stay in its present location as we feel it offers us a valuable amenity in several ways. It attracts wildlife (deer and water fowl) that we enjoy, it serves as a "water feature" that enhances our view and our family enjoys ice skating on it during the winter. Please be advised we support the current location of this pond whole heartedly. Thçmk you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, C~o!~ Candace Wisely CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on December 23, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Rezoning from RR to RSF and subdivision with variances, Yoberry Farm - Planning Case No. 04-43 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners'were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karen J. Engelhardt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of , 2004. Notary Public CI s::: ~ a> :äE CIS s:::.- .- en ... en CO._ a> E ::I:e .~ 0 ::ãU :JCI D.s::: '+- .- o s::: s::: a>CO 0- :;:=D. Os::: Za> en en CO ..s::: s::: CO ..s::: U CI s::: :;:= a> a> :äE s::: ClO .!: ëñ Cã.~ a> E J:E .~ 0 ::ãu :JCI c.t: -t: o t: a> CO 0- ._ c. - o t: Zm en CO ..s::: t: CO ..s::: U "OQ) Q)O£ § £O+-' enõ +-,1:"0 - '(i) ::I 0 ro ro '> CD £ 0 ..c ~ +::'6 £t ..c£_ C ..c +-' 0 ro 0)= ~::I ~C ::I(j)5 '(i) en > ~ 0 C .:: 'Q)"O >~ >'Q)ro "Oa:C cro E££ ~ ro ~Q) C1Ï~+-'0 CO "ê õ ro ,~ (. .8 E Q) +-' ::I'¡:: ~ ~ :¡:¡,~ e £ o.en ~a:-en 0 0 ~ "O~ co::::,..;.2 EroEO CQ) (fJ+-'::Ic'en å.:2E 0 ~ ~ 6 5 .~ a.".¡=; C> o 0 ~ E ~ -5> õ O).~ æ .~ <2 R £' ro ::; I·- CII .§.~ E 5 !'-- !'-- Q) LL, ..E :E ro ro .Q +-' a. I - (fJ Q).'Õ Q), 0 ct!cño..9:!ca "00 tI).c:o£..... 2 ~ c..~ ~ .~ ~ 4i .!2 0 0) ~ 0C\l E õ en t:: 0 0 ~ J5 ~ .§ +-' CD en.... ::I C ::I .J:: ~ ro O)(ü.c CII a. ro 0 0) '<;'£C+::o 0.,.: :5en+-, :J ~Oï=á5>- :J;, §;S~tE ro '(3 2 "0' en ro (fJ - ::I Q) +-' È C Q) '(i) en 5'- 0 Cí'~ 0> :J"-Q)Q) E£=9Q)~ec ~ 0 0 a: g ~ 0) ~ III en a. .¡:: ;.; ~ :::: .8 .çQ LL I I- ~ 8.. ~ .~ ¡g roroen+-,~ ~-ë.S!::;æ££ "OenI Q) 0 >^" ~ 0=- o.o+-' 0 :J .¡:: "J Q) +-' _ III '-::I ._ Q) ;> Cí (¡) £ "1 ..c en C g Q) ëi. 0 J5 :J :t= Q)._:t= '<;' 0 ro ::I - .J:: o...c :J I-Oa:050>-UJC}<tl-roroo. Q) E .. ¡:: s: .~ oë:I_ ,S! ~ ra 0 0-1 ra rn o a. o ... a. C .Q _en ro'> +::'6 C..c ~:J ,- en -ci ¡ß "0 ~a:æ co"êt) ã) :J '¡:: .:.::a:(¡) E~EO å.::2: e ~ o 0 ..... 'E oO>'roE !,--!'--tLL !'-- Q) ... (üeng-~ra LO ill ~ O)LL o ..c D...~ ~ ~Eõent:: _ ro o)(ü ~ '<;' £ C·- 0 >0'- ë ... cQ)>- ro '(3 2 "0 I :J C Q)'- en c:J~¡ßQ) ~ooa:g ;::; 0 :: .8 .çQ ro(ü~+-,~ -g I :J ,g > Q) ;> Cí (¡) £ ::J :!: Q)._:!: I-Oa:05 CD E .. ¡:: s: o oë:I:;:; $ ~ ra 0 D.J ra rn o c.. o ... 0.. ,g¡ ii:¡; g¡ij '2 .~ -ª8 a.<c .. >.s: t:o CD:;:; a.ra o CJ ... 0 a.-I Q)-g~ £O+-' ~ +-'.s:::."'O ~o '5oro Q)£ o..c~ £t ..c£_ (ü 0 ro 0)= Q)C :J'(j)5 35: -g 0 C .:: ... >'Q)ro CW E££ ~Q) C1Ï~+-'0 ro,~ .!:!.8 E Q) ~ 0 õ ,~ e £ R "O~ co::::,..;.2 C Q) (fJ +-' ::I c' en ro 6 ;Š Æ o..~ 0) a;.J:: Õ O).~ æ .~ t: 0) CII.~ C E 5 :J I :E ~.¡¡¡ .Q I..... (fJQ).'ÕQ)- "00 5!£0£.8 '> £ 4i .!2 0 0) ~ ro::l >-+-'C~ o 0 CII ..c "0 '¡:: +-' _en ...:Jc:J.J:: ° - ,êo.roog> ....Jr- _en+-, 0 -I"<t c:.cen,p..;... >. 0+-,Q)0.J:: enro (fJ_::IQ)+-' E 5 .- 0 Cí '0' 0> £=9Q)~"'c ~ 0) ~ III en D.. .¡:: LL .- I- Eo_en en ro ~ I co.+-' ,- Q) C - ë.S! ::; æ £ .J:: cY) CD 0 ¡¡:: 'IQ o..!2 '5 ,!2 "1 ..c (¡) ~ g Q) ëi. 0 J5 '<;' 0 ro ..J_£ o...c:J o>-UJC}<tl-roroo. ,g¡ ii:¡; g ¡ij ï: CJ ~~ 0..< .. >.s: t:o Q):;:; c.ra oCJ .. 0 0.. .J _"<t Q) CI) a. ðcY) £ Q) 0 ..c ::::: +-' en (¡) ro'o0Q) CI) 1'--+-,+-'''0 t g ~ E § ~ ~ ~.~ .~ ...; '5 ~ ci. Q) ~ g 0 c. ~o C o.oEO>.J::Q) a. .~ 0 - cY) 0 +-' 0 C 5 "0 e ëi) g>~ en ro:J 0:= Q)CI) a. ,~ Æ .- 0:::: 0 Q) '>- '-'E ã)o+-'ro>'>ro OQ)= Q)~~7:!::~U5 o.£.c E E ro ~ o+-':Jo ~+-,«cñO. c. § ~o jg ro .8 C :J ::: 0) Q) CI)£ Q) +-'00£ æ ¿2§ £ C +-' £ ~. . .~ E E .Q- Q) ::.EQE~ 0CX)5,,-¿Q)Q) oo.oc ã>cñ:JroQ)£E 5+-'~ro ..c"-O£CI)CI) .Q2 ~ "0 "0 ::I >. en CI)'- Q) .,.CI)Q)Q) eno,>-+-,ro~:E. ~ > C..c:-O.c: --c Q) ~.- ~ .EQ Q) . $ C ,£l 0 0 >o.Q)- o.o>'cCUcQ)'(i) o 00 >+=CUO£Q)OCl) C == ~ CI) Q) - "0 0 0 E C ,- CU ~ !D';;' £ o.¡:: Q)'c::5 E CU E ~- Q)O>LLen/Ñ' >E ~ C CU .~ Q) ,~ £ CU ~ g -g 0 ,- CU CI) ~...; CI) "- 0) Q) :::: \U ° 0).!2 +-' \U 0 :J::I - CU C C a. C Q) Q) .8 "0 0 a. =. Q) .- Q) ,- Q) £ ,'=' - ~ ~ ro +-' +-' £ 5 9-E 0 gë(ü£t) en 1: CQ)+-' - \U = >-L CU I +-' Q) -::> 0 (¡¡ Q) E.c ::> >..~ '¡¡¡ ;> E - +-' £ 0 :J Q) ;> >. CU ,e E :t= t CI) en I- 0 a.. £ :J:t= "0 a. E CU Q) o ° C CI) cÌ>..c a.';;::; >. >. 0 .- ... :J Q) 0' ,..-C\Ic<:i..,f :!::..c:::2:£OCl)"Oo cni:;) ai.s c.- c.Q) ra Q) :r::2 - Q) ra.c .c- ~'E CI) Q) en CI) ...; ~ as en '0...; '6 ~ 0 C o..~ 0 "0 e ëi) ~ D.. c5 .~ OQ)=E a. £ ..c E o-:Jo C. C 0.0 ° Q) Q)en£Q) .J::c-£ '::.EQE~ Oo.oc 5ë~CU ,Q2 Q) "0 "0 >CI)Q)Q) ill Q).~ CI) > c.Q).Q o=aso c·~ ~.~ CU +-' ~ 0> Q)ccuc > CU CI)'¡:: . 'õ>g ë ¡g t) a. Q) £ .~ ! g- E .!2 ~ (¡¡Q)EJ5Q) _£O:J CJ)I-Oa..£ ,..-C\Ìc<:i..,f U'læ ai.S c.- c.Q) ra Q) :r::2 -Q) ca.c .c- ;:-:¡; oë:I rnEl s: s: o Q) :;:;e :ß e ::J 0 00 +-,"<t Q) a. :JcY) £ o ..8::::: +-' (¡) cu'o°Q) 1'--+-,+-'''0 ~ ~ ê g Q) êl:'> cuEo' enoo Q) 'Q)C\IOo~ -D..EU'>O ...... 0.0 0>..c:Q)= - cY) 0 +-' 0 CO'S; O)..CI)CU:J ;> ,~ '<;' 0 - 0 Q) :::: ã) 0 +-' (¡¡ >. > CU Q)~~7:!::~U5 EE$« '0 Q) cù ° C ~+-' ci> .c. -+-' -J_ +-'o~Q)""::Jc 0~Q)~-+:: ~..ÆEE.Q-Q) 0CX)5~¿Q)Q) ã>cñ:JCUQ).J::E ..c::; 0 ë55 ~.~ Q) Cl)O>'+-,CU,~£....: C£:!:: o£ __ ~ .EQQ) .,g!c,£loo a. 0 >. C CU C Q)'OO Q)>+=CUo£Q)oen -"Oo~Ec'- £ o.¡:: Q) '(3 ro E Q) O>LL en/Ñ' E > E Q) .~ .J::CU ~ g -g 0 CI) ... 0) Q) :::: \U ° :J:J-CUcc .8 "0 0 D..:'::' Q) .- Q) ..-=L....;-ro:t::~...c C CU £ 0 en .¡:: C +-' CUI+-'Q)-::>Q)O 5 >..~(¡¡;> E +-' >.cueE:t=+-,CI) :J:t="O a. , E~Q) o 0 C CI) Q).c o.'Q >. >. 0._ "- :J Q) 0 :!::..c::2:£o en "0 0 oë:I.. rnEl s: s: o CD :;:;E :ß E ::J 0 00 cñ -õ rn ~ c Æ .Ot .Ew ~ m g _ §?:m 2£ £1 Q) -g~ ~ 0 ~.~ c.. m- ë >"·ÕJ c..<D en_ O)Q)u mè:m ã:0 co~c .2£ c.c¿ =£11) UØoo Q).2"- ID~ 0)000 <IDE ~>m ~~ ~"E ~O) ~.~~ u-- EO- ~> ~Q)m TI·- m ~ cEg ~~~~~ ro~rn ~ ;5~ .!!! Q) 0) E .c ° Q) t 'C -= Q) a. ~ as: I.-. I.-. >.:.;::: ~DD O~~~mom~E- -0 ~_O ~ 0> ~ ~ e ro a.·mE ..... 0 c Õ ~ Cf) - c >.£s -roa.E~E~æO~ ~ _2~~ cñ«ï2 rG Q) Q)"U Q)"QÆ.8t: >"ro ~ 0_ æ!·~ ~~~~~~~§E~ ~~ ~~§ ~oõ ro_~E~E~Cf)_Q) m> 0"0 E = Q) C = 0 Q) :;: '¡¡; ,- >- C 0 .c '" ..; Q) ~g~ 8~i~~~~~~0> ~g g~E .g!c..(f) rG1ij.:::£.c~Q)Eo-"5 -Cij cnO~ E~Q) ~~Z-O~E~!ê TI~ ~mc "U~£ ° -c..~E-o.SQ)ro .;g_ "0£0 c~_ ~~(f)~1.-.20£~~ e~ -om muo ·-._OOOCO~(f) 0_ ~-~ ëij Q) - d> ë ã5 - ,~ E Q) = :;: Q).ê 0 (/ c t: ã c-~cQ)Q).Q"O.~Eco-o~- co. ~O= .Q£1-+:;.5 E:a"O~~Ë ~.æ£ Q)(ij 8 g..ß! €§ 55 g ~ ã5 c ð. æ ~ Q) ~ ~ r;"§ ~ ~ >. ~ en cE~E~iQ)oIE~oE~ e~ B.cg 8~~!~Æ£~~:~~>~ ~~ <D~~ ~~i;m~~m~~Ev~ti B~ £;~ ~ « >. 53 -g 0:;; ~ ~~ g ~ ~~ ~ -5 g~ ö: ··5Q)t~-OQ)~COC(f)-E~ rnrn ~~Q) Q)"UQ)~ga~~EcoEmo.c ~c roo.c (( rc¿ g- 0 .- .5 a. c..:= IV ID § (,) Cf) :1 :a Q) .f: ::: c~--~coQ)g(f)E:.;:::~Cf) 8- .cQ)O E~~~£æ~£5~~~~~ciffi~ g~~ ~coro~c~-Q)ücQ)=-g.5w~ §~o .& £1 ~.S ..8 Q) ~ ~ >..!!! E 8:£ a.ID .;"8 a. c ~ ~i~·~.~~E~Bg:~~!~~B !2= Cf)EQ)~~«2:=Q)cC/)m"O_:=m- -mO) E'U-¡a. ·-~.c·E~Ww£UEB ~~~ Q)~~~~~~§~2~.~~g§æ£ "~~t [Egig~~'~~ø~~~e8~~~£~8 ~~~u~g¿.~gæ~@g£~~c~.~~~ >m~~~-oE:1¿rom~E~~ØoØ- m-~~W~~EOo œÜ Ue5~.~~ro o~O-IDDmOo.-ø .~20)o ØEc£ _ Q) ~.s £ Q) -g U >. ~ g>~ (]).- .c ~ É a.. E U c ·E'~~~c~O)Q)~~~~Ei~Q)~u ~.- ,_ :J ê u ~ 0:m E ~ ~ 0) 22& ;:.E ß-1D"* 8 g>-g ~~~g .E~~ .£E@2 .g~J¿Q)~~1....-g ªc~.~gümo~o~-S~£=RE2·E~~ m~üoo~~w!O)""'oiOO~o~ooBCccE g~E·~·~~~mg§~~2c~Q)uu·~~~Q) ~ 0E øCf)"01....~wQ)mrnc£OQ)c~cD ä~Oo.5ID~C~rn~_m~·_~~rn~Q)OO a: 5 ~ 0 c ~ 8.. ~ g -g .Q.g m.~ ~ TI 0 ~:ê :5 g. Q ~~.~gg~@o·~~.~g~£;:~~8~m~~ >.~c·-ß~Q)QQ)EEOQ)Øc(f)rnco:1o- ~TI02=-(f)@.coE C~~~·ffi(])Q)roQQ) ~~Æ&E!0)Q)(,)o~"5·@~~c~~~~E ~w~~mø~££~üü~~~~<m~Wrn~ u.. ... r.ñ -0 rn ~ § ~ .Ot .~~ 00 ~ TI~ ~ 5~rn c- ~ 0) Co ~ 0 ~.~ a. n1õ ë ~O> a.! ~_ wQ)'U roè:rn CL rn«c.2_ c.c¿ ~:50) TImC/) 2.2·- _m~ mooo «Q)~ ffi>m ~o ëi·"E ã;Q) ~"~~ TI .-. õ Eo Cij - > 0.. 2 ctJ "0 'S;: !9:1 ~ cEe ~C/)rn~~ rnÆO> w O)O~ m Q) E.a 0 Q) ~.;:: . (]) a. ~ &5 - 1- >.~ 1i5 D ~ 8 ~ c..7J m .Q.."ª :E E ë ;::: .9 co ~ 0 ~g.8 ~~~E~~~~8~ °3 2--=~ cñ'~2 mIDQ)-g~O)-5~.9t ~~ ê'g£ Q)m·~ "O>.cm--cc rn .-= '-:1C C/).£::_ _C"8>::: 0 c..ES:1~ a. U cu ~ 0 0 ~o(,) m_~E.£:: rooo-W m> 0-0 E =- Q) C = 0 Q) s: 'ü) 13 >- c 0 .c cu ..... Q) .;::~~ g:~~~cu~~~~ ~£ g~E jBa.C/) m(lj~.c:aQ)Eo-·- -Cã (f)O~ EmQ) §~æ-O~E~~§ ~.~ ~mc "O~£ 0 ~o.._~E-o.SQ)~ 2 -0=0 C's- E~ø~-2°.c~~ c~ -OC/) ~g~ "~~g.~~~Bi~O) 8m ~~~ -ê 1.... :E g> 0) Q) .2 'U.: E:æ "0 ~ :5 ctS ....: ~ 0 :s:: .2£1-¡.5E~~~~~~S:5 ~m 8g.s ~ ~ 8 Q) ãi c ~ co - Q) ~ ~ r;'3: "S: 0 >. ~ en cE~E~iQ)oIE~oE~ e~ B£º 8~~~~.~=~~:~K~~ o..~ Q)c~ cñ~j~~~~m~~E$~£ s.~ £~~ ~ < >.--~ "0 0:; ~ ;;.. 0 g .D -ð.32 ~ £ c)~ ã: ·5Q)t~~üQ)=rn~ø£E~ rn~ .~~ø Q)'UQ)~grn~~Emëooo.£:: ~c mo.c a: 0 g. 0 .- Ca. a. = Q) <1> C 0 C/) :1 :aQ) .£ ;; cÜ1....-~·EowgC/)Eg~w 8- .cwu ~~~,jS~2£~~~~~~ó~~ g~~ ~cum·sc~_Q)oc<1>=-g.5ø~ ~~o 2 ~ ~.s :8 cD ~ ~ >.~ E 8:..9 a. * '$ -go. c ~ ~i·~·~~~E~B~:~~IDE~~ ~g~ øEO)~Q~$:=ID~øCUu£~m- -roQ) E'U-~a. ·-~£·e~ø~.c(,)EE ~~~ Q)i~a.~~~§~2~Æ.Q~§æ.c "~~~ ~Eg~~~~'~~Q)~~~e8~~~~~2 £<m*EU¿~goc'U~g£~a.c~§Q)~ Q)c.5ID~! E~·C a. -~Q)o'-£- ~.!!!"E~ø~gEo5œ~a.~ÕC:5~.~~ID o~-o-m.D~OÜ~a .rn~Q)o.£::øEe£ ~~~'~€~~O~~E~~C£~j~E~.~ §·æüc§~E~ü~§~0;~a._S8~u ~ ~ ·~t=E~Q)EN-eno-mQ)oo Q)~ ~~£§ "o~O ·:5E~.a "=g>~EQ)~g>-~ ~cO).-~a.œuøo _rnEo._o Q)._~~ -g æ -a. t3 ª ~ Q) ~ ~ - 8 g.U5 ~ ~:g ~ BE ê c"!: gã:~·~irnmrng5@~2c~Q)'UTI·~~~Q) ~ _ E C/)ooU-'~Cf)ID~Sc.cOQ)C~cD ~ØOo£!tcc..~~_oow~~EgØQ)og ~ § 000 C <U 8. co g> c.2·õ (1j.~.~"U <5 :;:S £ g. g ~ ëñ g> ~~ g- ~ Õ·;:: ~ ~ § õ £ 3: æ :ê o"§ Q) ! .£ ~~~~~~ID~mE·~8~~§w~gu~oi œE2i~~æ~~8EÞê~~2~:%~~E ~~æ~gffi~££!8ð~~&~<~_~Æ~i õ.. ... , ' ~~<-F ro lisclaimer his map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. his map is a compilation of records, infonnation and data located in various city, county, state and ,deral offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference urposes only, The City does not warrant thaI the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used ) prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used " navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or irection or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found lease contact 952-227-1107, The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota tatutes §466.03, Subd, 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not e liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and old harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third 8rties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. )isclaimer his map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one, his map is a compilation of records, infonnation and data located rn various city, county, state and ~deral offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference urposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Infonnation System (GIS) Data used ) prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used >r navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or irection or precision in the depiction of geographic features, If errors or discrepancies are found lease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota tatutes §466,03, Subd, 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not e liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indermify, and old harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, ifs employees or agents, or third arues which arise out of the use~s access or use 01 data provided, Public Hearing Notification Area Y oberry Farm City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-43 ~'<V(~ l.lltDjI "\~f--HlH /f~MT;~ J \ pï '\- ¡:fr Tl ~11 J¡Y I 11 VN § &~ 1/ ~:" ~ f &-' ~ ~ ç;; .. '"'r~ _! .'.;MS':.~ f},-~~ ,.. ..1 Ë , ' " , f- >';f",' " :' - ":':'.,',::, ,,' , ,,' ,4-_ ' ' . , > ¡¡ <.'l ~f-- , '" I' F '~, .'. . . ..... /">,,,. 1:-¡1 l·;·. ì . ~f ;:"" . . ' / I ""1""./"",,.. "/ J ' j/i'" J /~:\9 ' " ..,I ,¡il,." /":''''''''''''''".''/ 0;' '.,."f7?!r~' . ' .",.'. .. '. ,,I, ,".' " I ',:r' ''"'. . ,":f::,,; , :"r.-.~', '-:--:-'-: ,../ -- ,...,"""""./ - ',' - r/' ~,J -\ ~\TTl"~ , , ' j/ ..,0-, ~;/\. \Ì" _-......¡ -. ! U[ --.., ..._, --! '-... ,_._, ",' ,.,.j;;, .MR2~)~/,:::i '- .. ;(I¡~ f\ ];;YÆ-:,*- JiJ-.- I--Ji' Subject ' . d~\:i~¡¡-:'::I}~=- J(~ 'r~~~ ~ l! , . 1'-",0(" ,..,1_, I, 1<..0::::::- / I fI~~ ~- IrJirr 7/ v r - /f A~" Ïf::ltqv-! I~ w § ~~ 1J' ~ , 'l f= ~ ..~~\~ 1\, I 'J ~~ v f9J , -h_'c--/ R ~ I ~~t)...\ J ,)( ~ R r- = L ß"';: ./:): :'.' '.'.'...:.: '..,} '.',' ,:.' ,.......,.. .'." ~ IÎ."<~:.L ,.J I I"::' '.".' \ s:J';,,<> h.-;: >,C.""?: ". >",',: :',; ;' ': , /',::, ".: ......:.... , -"- ,..-- ..' --..-- ~ ~. ~ I- THOMAS J DOLL & MARY C DODDS PO BOX 148 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK J & COLLEEN M FELLNER 2323 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY 0 & KAREN L SANDEFUR 2340 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY E & MARY ANN O'NEIL 2370 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN F & RHONDA S DOLAN 2383 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DARIN M & ANDREA J TYSDAL 2399 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PATRICK M & LISA L BRUNNER 2443 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN J & PAMELA S COCCARO 2450 HIGHOVER WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY G & CINDY A LOVIG 2475 GUNFLINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R BUTH & KELLY M JANDT 2487 GUNFLINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAINTING PERFECTION L TD 13875 FENWAY BLVD N SUITE 300 HUGO MN 55038 JOHN P & MARGARET G WIEHOFF 2330 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK R & SHEILA B HAGEN 2343 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JON C & DEBORAH S WADDELL 2375 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL J & KIMBERLY K HANSON 2390 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & BRENDA L WELLNER 2424 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON & ROSALIE NAST TRUSTEES OF TRUST 2448 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL L & CANDI S MCGONAGILL 2451 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & MARY E VALENTINE 2476 GUNFLINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN H & SARAH E ORITZ 2493 GUNFLINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS L & SUSAN M YEZZI 2320 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN F & NICOLE J COYLE 2333 HARRISON HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES T & LORI L DINNIS 2362 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG A & LOIS S SCHULST AD 2378 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL B & KRISTI L NYBERG 2391 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILIP E & PAMELA A BROWN 2438 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY A CALLAWAY 2448 LONACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & LISA M HOKKANEN 2456 HUNTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H & ANN MARIE MOORE 2484 GUNFLINT CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD J & SARAH R PINAMONTI 2519 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE F & JO ELLEN MUELLER 2529 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENDA F KNIGHT 2555 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES B & CAROLYN BAKERS 2613 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RIAZ & SHIREEN HUSEIN 2655 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEONARD V & MARY ELLEN KUHI 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR-ADMIN 600 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 TOBY & KARlE M TIM ION 6959 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KATHLEEN E MACK 6984 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PING CHUNG & ANH TRAN 7000 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL P CAUTIN 7013 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN W NORDBY & LESLIE HANNA-NORDBY 2537 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH & KIMBERLY SWITALSKI 2563 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANTHONY J & KATHY A LARSON 2631 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS H STILLINGS & DENISE C STILLINGS 2670 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY C & BRENDA L WILLIAMS 2710 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317, JEFFREY MARK ANDERSON 6840 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LAWRENCE M & ABIGAIL DUMOULIN 6966 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JON D GRUBB 6989 HIGHOVER CT N CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL P ENBLOM & PAMELA M GRIFFITH-ENBLOM 7010 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL J HORN, TRUSTEE & PAMELA A KLINGER-HORN, TRUSTEE 7024 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 R SCOTT & CARA CELESTE ECKERT 2547 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J & JENNIFER A LORGE 2589 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JONATHAN D ANDERSON SR & CATHERINE L ANDERSON 2645 LONGACRES DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY L & NANCY L SCHMIDT 2700 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BARRY G & JENNIFER J FRIENDS 2735 CHES MAR FARM RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 E JEROME & LINDA C CARLSON 6950 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD C & LAURA A BRAY 6983 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY A & LINDA R TWEDT 6999 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK J OLSON 7011 HIGHOVER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG J & NANCY G LERVICK 7027 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIFER S JOHNSON 7036 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & LISA G WING 7049 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUTH E ROLFS 7056 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN E & TERRYL A MUELLER 7077 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL W & SUSAN L GILBERT 7100 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ANDREW I & TINA M WHITE 7122 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH J WITTERSCHEIN & LESLIE M WITTERSCHEIN 7150 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN A & JACQUELINE P SIMPSON 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MARK A & BETH A BROWN 7210 GUNFLINT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT T & SUSANNA A SHARP 7232 LODGEPOLE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 REZA & BEVERLY M AGHELNEJAD 7041 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN S & TERESA A FINGER 7052 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM D & BARBARA L JOHNSON 7060 CHES MAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL W & JACKIE M K OTTOSON 7080 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL R & ROXANNE J YOUNGQUIST 7105 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH R & JUDITH M EULBERG 7136 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID W & PENNY J DONELSON 7164 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES G WAYNE JR 7200 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NEAL W BRIEST, TRUSTEE & LYNNE HOFFELT-BRIEST, TRUSTEE 7216 GUNFLINT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID R WEATHERS & KAREN EDELMANN 7235 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES S & CANDACE L WISELY 7048 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ULI SACCHET 7053 HIGHOVER CT S CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILIP J & LAURA K HAARSTAD 7066 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC J & JULIENNE G LOHSE 7094 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & JENNIFER H RYSSO 7108 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAY M & KELLE L STAATS 7147 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID C & GAIL J LACY 7167 HARRISON HILL TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J & STEPHANIE L SEWARD 7205 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEPHEN J & HEATHER OSTERMANN 7224 LODGEPOLE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STUART C & MELANIE S HENDERSON 7240 GUNFLINT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WALTER A & MELBA 0 WHITEHILL 7250 HAZELTINE BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRIAN P & MELISSA R THOMPSON 7260 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J OLENCZUK & SANDRA G OLENCZUK 7269 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARTER W & CARRIE A MUENCH 7284 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 L RILE CHERREY MARY P MCGINTY CHERREY 7300 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID M & AMY K LYONS 7320 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & CONNIE S MOORE 7330 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID G & STACEY R HURRELL 7460 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL P & LORI B ZUMWINKLE 7250 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STANFORD L & WYNETTE MILLER 7264 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAN S &WENDY L SPILLUM 7270 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEROME P & TERESA L FREDERICK 7297 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN W & SHARON K CERJANCE 7301 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DARYL S & KRISTEN D MCLINDEN 7321 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK S & PAMELA J GOLENZER 7334 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LONGACRES HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC C/O LUNDGREN BROS CONST INC 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 MARK W & STACEY A RIECKS 7256 GUNFLINT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADAM E & LEAH S OLSON 7265 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERIC K& KELLY J DETTMER 7275 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK W & JOAN R LARSON 7298 HILLSDALE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J LEWIS & JENNIFER L LEWIS 7320 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT W & MICHELLE K ODDSEN 7325 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN P & JEAN ANN THAYER 7351 MOCCASIN TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ûLf=tf3 BRENSHELL .1..'...I.iII\'J..~.. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEC 3 2004 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT December 3, 2004 Ms. Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Sixty Day Extension Dear Sharmeen: As we discussed by phone, On behalf of Yoberry Farms, LLC, Dave and Karen Weathers and Dave Hurrell, we do hereby agree to extend the Sixty Day Approval Period. We understand that the holiday season limits the number of Council meetings in December and that we now expect to go to Council in January, 2005. Sincerely, BRENSHEll DEVElOPMENT CORPORATION - 4052 OAKLAND STREET - ST. BONIFACIUS, MN 55375 - OFFlCE:952.446.1284 - FAX:952.446.1568 8CAHHED ~E~~NEISOI;.¡1-g. l ~ \ l 1-,. OF TI'-Þ-"I'" ( Minnesota ~epartment of Transportation } i I !ðJJ 7\1;!/.,J ¡ //v\t" fl1- { f ~ /... . RECEIVED DEC 1 '7 2004 CiTY OF CHANHASSEN Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 December 15, 2004 Sharmeen Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Yoberry Farm, LLC Mn/DOT Review P04-122 West of TH 41 and South of Highover Drive Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1008 Dear Ms AI-Jaff: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following issues: · Indicate a few offset dimènsions frQm the centerline of trunkhighway (TfI) 41 to the edge of plat. Also, label the "ExistingMn/DOTrightdfway" line. If you have any questions about these requests, please contact Johnlsackson"MnIDOTs Metro Right of Way section, at (651) 582-1273. · For the right of way parallel to the spiral, it would be acceptable to use the direction from the CS to the ST for the boundary closure, and indicate that the actual boundary is parallel to the centerline spiral, or compute a curve that approximates the spiral and dedicate the difference. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact Bruce Wetherbee, Senior Land Surveyor, at 763-797-3110 or bruce.wetherbee@dot.state.mn.us · Please send a copy of the final plat for MnlDOT review to the following address: David Torfin Mn/DOT - Metro West Surveys 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: (763) 797-3113 · Please dedicate the access control along TH 41 to Mn/DOT. Contact Lars Impola, Traffic Studies Engineer, MnlDOT, at 651-634-2379 orlars.impola(cV,dot.state.mn.us for more information. . Pleaseclarifyifthe private entrance behind STREET A, Block 1, Lot 3 will bèremovèd or if it is not an entrance. Please conta.ct LymtClarkowski, Area Engineer, 'at (651) 634:..2103 or lynn.c1arkowski(cU,dot.state.mll;l.ls jf you have any questions aboutthis infonnation request. . MnlDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complairits about traffic noise. Traffic noise fÌ'om this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the u.s. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taklng all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOTs noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582-1293. . As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for develöpmentactiviry such as plats and site plans to: Development Reviews Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us fÌ'om having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. . As our request, please send an electronic .pdf file copy of your plan submittal for our record keeping purposes to mary.iackson@dot.state.mn.us. Please refer to MnlDOT Review # P04- 122 when emailing the .pdffile. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact me at (651) 582-1724 or Tod Shennan at (651) 582-1548. Sincerely, .M/jl>~£ v ~ Ma;;~. ~¿kson futennediate Platmer Copy: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer Bill Coffman, Yoberry Fanns, LLC David Hurrell Karen Weathers Re Yoberry Farms access to TH 41 1-6-0S.txt From: Lynn clarkowski [Lynn.clarkowski@dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:35 AM TO: Saam, Matt Cc: Lars Impola; Lisa Freese subject: Re: Yoberry Farms access to TH 41 Hi Matt- AS this development already has a convenient access to Long Acres Dr and a second access via Lake LUCY Rd, we would not be in support of addlng another public street access in this area. If you have circumstances that I am not aware of that would show the need for a different access situation, please let me know. Lynn clarkowski, P.E. Mn/OOT Metro south Area Engineer 651.634.2103 »> "saam, Matt" <Msaam@ci .chanhassen.mn.us> 01/05/05 09:16AM »> Lynn, Recently the city of chanhassen sent a plat to Mn/ooT named Yoberry Farms for review. The plat is on the east side of TH 41, north of Long Acres Dr. and south of Lake LUCy Road in chanhassen. Your office put together a review memo and returned it to us. The city had a public hearing on the preliminary plat for the property last night. One of the questions that came up is whether or not Mn/DOT would allow a new public street access onto TH 41 for this development. currently, the plat is not proposing any new connection to TH 41. could you please give me a response to this question? Thanks, Matt Saam, P.E. Asst. City Engineer - chanhassen, MN page 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.2271100 Fax: 952.2271110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952,227.1160 Fax: 952,227.1170 Finance Phone: 952,227,1140 Fax: 952,227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227.1120 Fax: 952,227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227.1400 Fax: 952,2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952,227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227.1300 Fax: 952,227,1310 Senior Center Phone 952,227.1125 Fax 952,227.1110 Web Site ','NNI,ci ,chanhassen, mn ,us MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Hoffman, Park and Rccreation Director 11{ January 11,2005 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Park and Trail Conditions of Approval- Yoberry Farm This memo is in response to a request from the Planning Commission for additional information regarding park and trail services associated with the proposed Yoberry subdivision. The City plans for the acquisition of public lands for neighborhood parks based on a park service area of 1/z mile for each site. The comprehensive plan calls for neighborhood parks to contain 10 - 25 acres of land and service up to 5,000 residents per site. Community Parks serve a larger geographical region of the community, typically provide a broader set of amenities and serve up to 20,000 residents per site. The proposed Y obeny subdivision contains 57 homes generating a new population of approximately 175 people. The concept of public pocket parks or tot lots has not been utilized as a part of City Park planning to avoid the proliferation of small public land holdings and the associated expense in managing and maintaining these sites. However, numerous developers have chosen to embrace the "tot lot" model and construct private or association tot lots or parks as a component of their housing developments. The close proximity of two such association facilities prompted staff to encourage the developers of the Y obeny subdivision to consider incorporating an association tot lot in their plans. Whether or not this actually occurs is at the applicant's discretion. A park service area map is attached to this report. The map identifies that the Yoberry site as existing within the park service area of the Minnetonka Middle School West Campus. The property is also located on the fringe of the park service area for Sugarbush Park. In addition, the City cunently owns public park property at the northern terminus of Century Boulevard that will be developed into a neighborhood park site at a future date. Again, the future park service area for this property reaches the Y obelTY site. Finally, a proposed neighborhood park adjacent to Lake Hanison is being explored as a possible component of a future development in that area. If acquired, this future site would also provide recreation access to the Y obeny plat. The proximity of park/school facilities is one of the variables each of us take into consideration when purchasing our homes. One of the realities in working with a comprehensive park plan is that a good number of our residents will not live directly adjacent to or even down the street from a public park. A large portion of the City's homeowners reside a number of blocks away from a park. This community is blessed with a truly impressive anay of public recreation facilities. In addition to City facilities, Minnewashta Regional Park, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and Camp Tanadoona are all located within 1/z mile of the Yoberry site. It is Staff's position that the Y obeny site is well served by existing and future public recreation services and the additional development of public recreation amenities on this site is unwalTanted. Attachment: Park Service Area Map c: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner g:\park\th\yobelTyamended,doc The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks, A great place to live, work, and play, Ulf Jlf ,UU~ !!1UI~ l~: qJ r¡u b~l ~ð, Hbb JILl~ VUT lD1HKU If!:UUUUU2 .fii) ~Ok'IR"# Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January 31, 2005 Paul Oehme City Engineer of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: YoberryFarm, LLC MnlDOT Review P04-122 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1008 Dear Paul: As per the request from your office, MnlDOT has reviewed the request for an additional city street access to TH 41 for the above referenced proposed development. As we understand, the proposed access would be between Long Acres Drive and Lake Lucy Road. TH 41 in Carver County is classified as an A minor arterial on the regional transportation system. This, in conjunction with lack of other north south arterial roadways in this part of the metro area, necessitate that MnlDOT manage access:to thisfacility in a very conser....ative manner. Currently this two-lane rural design highway faciliry cares nearly 15,000 trips per day. In order to ensure safe access points for local collector roadways and balanée the operation needs of the highway, it is important to keep spacing at Vz mile or greater for local road connections on these types of facilities. With that said, we have reviewed the desire to have an additional access and found that this vicinity of Chanhsssen is already served by, two collector level streets at a distance of approximately 0.7 miles <lpart. Additional1y, the two collectors that already exist at Long Acres Drive and Lake Lucy Road have turn lanes on TH 41 to assist traffic in making safer turns. A new street between Long Acres Drive and Lake Lucy Road would be required to have a minimum spacing of 0.5 mile to the next adjacent access to TH 41. The location of the Yoberry Fanns development ,is already served by two collector level streets with access to TH 41 in a very short distance, thus a new access in this vicinity is not warranted. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (651) 582- 1409. Sincerely, ?fvic, Î~ Lisa J. Freese Metro Disttict South Area Manager cc: Maft Saa~t ChanhLl,5sen Asst. City Engineer An equa opportl,lntty employer ' 01/31/2005 13:42 9524423630 LSB BCS INCORPORATED PAGE 01/01 Lee S. Broadston President & CEO BCS, Incorporated-West Healthcare Practice Management and Consulting Services 233 West First street Waconia, MN 55381-1302 LSD Direct Voice 888-278-4124 I Fax 952-442-3630 /866-808-3630 1:23 PM '01/31/2005 Lee S. Broadston Subject: council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us RoddWagner@aol.com; Timothy M. Block; Tmiohsnow@aol.com: DAJOGRAHAM@aol.com: adumoulin@bsafemail.com;Marinatim@aol.com Yoberry Farm Development To; Cc: Dear Chaohassen City Council Members; 1 have been closely monitoring the,îssues surrounding the Planning Commissions hearings on this proposed subdivìslon in Chanhassen. As a resident of Highover Drive -6918 Highover Drive- and as the current President of the Highover Homeowners Association- I have often been conoerned over the speed of the current traffic levels on Highover Drive. This past summer and fall ~2004- I spoke to City of Chanhassen staff members in the department of Engineering - Matt Saam. and in the department of Planning Sharmeen AI-Jaff about these concerns and the impact the Yoberry Farm sUbdivision would have on these concerns. In the past I have found it necessary to speak directly to First Student Bus Services because the buses on Highover Drive travel far too fast. I have also spoken to the Carver County Sheriff and ask that they closely patrol Highover Drive In an attempt to slow down the speed of the traffic flow. I am also aware and may suggest implementation this spring of Chanhassen's traffic speed program -Operation Lead-foot. All seem to work for a short while but require constant attention. I am in full support of the continued development of land areas throughout Chanhassen; however, if one of the only two access routes to Yoberry Farm is via Highover Drive. I believe our ability to control the traffic will be far beyond our abilities and responsibilities as ordinary citizens of Chanhassen. Therefore, I ask that you cautiously review and subsequently reject the proposed Yoberry Farm subdivision as it Îs currently designed and see what I see and apparently what the majority of the Chanhassen Planning Commission sees, as a serious traffic flow issue. Additionally. I did speak in the past with Matt Saam about the installation of a 3-way stop at the intersectIon of Highover Way and Highover Drive as the approach up the hili -Highover Drive- and the approach down the hill -Hlghover Drive- is a blind approach at that intersectÎon. With Highover Drive contInuing on into this new subdivision the speed of the traffic will make Highover Drive quite hazardous. I wastold that stop signs are not generally used to "control traffic." Clearly the City of Chanhassen can do more to control the speed of the current traffic on Hìghover Drive before we have to experience a situation that may involve serious injuries. Furthermore, the City of Chanhassen can also do its part by requiring the Yoberry Farm subdivision to have its own access to State Highway 41. As this sUbdivision Îs currently proposed the City will need to closely monitor the speed of the traffic on Highover Drive and the residents of Highover DrÌYe will be exposed to far more traffic levels than are reasonable and necessary. As a property owner on Hlghover DrÎve, I urge the Council to reject the proposed Yoberry Development and to return the proposal to the Planning Commission for further study, and/or require the developer to take the necessary steps to meet the City of Chanhassen's Planning Commission's concerns regarding the proposed subdivision. I have also sent via certified US maU, a copy of this email to the City of Chanhassen and request that this written correspondence be made part of the upcoming City of Chal1hassen City Council Meeting scheduled for February 14,2005 to hêar this matter. President & CEO SCS, Incorporated· West 233 We.5t First Street Waconia, MN 55387-1302 Lee DIrectly 952-442·3614 or 888-278-4124 Fax 952-442-3630 866-808-3630 Lee@BCSConsult.com VIsIt scs On the Web at WWW.BCSCQnsullcom page 1 ot 1 AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Mike Rysso - Awesome Angels [M_RYSSO@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:14 AM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen .. Subject: Yoberry Farms Sharmeen: I am writing in regards to my concerns about the Yoberry Farms development. I would greatly appreciate if you would pass this correspondence along to the commission before Tuesday nights meeting. Ladies and Gentlemen: My family and I reside at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail in the Longacres neighborhood, developed by Lundgren Brothers. Being the first to build on this street in 2001, we knew that the land behind would eventually be developed for single family housing. Over the last month we have come across the plans for Yoberry Farms. The main concern that my family and adjacent neighbors have is the planned road and sharp curve on the eastern edge where its apex borders the utility easement and middle of my property. Fifteen children under the age of ten in seven homes run up the western half of Harrison Hill Trail that play in those backyards. The utility easement created short brush on each property, up to the tree preservation easement, where owners created play areas and fire pits. This area behind five of these homes is now directly impacted by a curve that is roughly twenty-five feet where these kids play, creating a safety issue. Does a street affecting many, support having to squeeze in four homes?? With some research and the help of Sharmeen AI-Jaff, senior planner for the city of Chanhassen, I find no such situation within planned and existing developments in Chanhassen with a unique problem as ours. Similiar homes have backyards that border other backyards, wetlands, parks and tree preservation areas. Similar homes are not backed by a road. The Yoberry project is a challenge with extreme grading and excavating issues due to its very hilly terrain. Squeezing a street with a sharp curve so that only four homes could have walkout lots that affect many more is purely to maximize profits with no regard for the surrounding area. Thank you for your time and look for to discussing this with you further at the planning meeting January 4, 2005. Sincerely, Michael R. Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 470-2134 m rysso@msn.com 1/412005 January 3, 2005 Chanhassen Planning Commission Yoberry Farms Development Dear Planning Commission Members, As adjoining property owners to the proposed Yoberry Farms development, we would like to express our concerns regarding the developer's proposal. It appears that the developer has created a plan that may meet the city of Chanhassen's minimum standards, but which also fits the dreaded urban sprawl definition. This plan calls for destruction of an existing, well used wildlife corridor, destruction of a beautifully wooded landscape, extreme grading which will destroy the natural, rolling topography of this land (with apparent disregard of the significant drainage issues from the Highover development to the north), We are hoping that you will give serious consideration to our concerns: 1. Wildlife Corridor · The area directly south of the Highover development and the northern portion of the proposed development has long been a wildlife corridor. On any given day it is currently used by deer, wild turkeys, raccoons foxes, and other assorted wild life that use these woods as a passage way. · Maximum development as proposed by the Yoberry Farms developer means the permanent destruction of this wildlife corridor. 2. Tree cutting · The plan calls for the destruction of a very large number of significant trees. Surely this isn't consistent with the intent of the city's tree conservation program. · It will take many, many years to even approach replacement of so many large specimen trees. · Surely there must be a way to layout this development in a manner consistent with the city's tree conservation program to conserve these trees while respecting the right of the property owner to develop this property on a profitable basis. 3. Grading · The grading plan for this development seems excessive. · Reducing the natural elevation by 44 feet in the center of the development in order to backfill and raise the adjacent natural lower elevation by 22 feet destroys the natural rolling topography of this landscape. · Other areas which call for changes in elevation of 15 feet or more is certainly not consistent with the preservation of the natural beauty of this property. 4. Drainage> Block 1, Lot 4 · As currently laid out, drainage to Lot 1,Block 4 is likely to be a significant drainage problem. · The Highover properties directly to the north of the proposed development are very steep and slope directly toward Lot 1, Block 4. During heavy rains and during the spring snowmelt, the water rushes down this slope and flows directly toward this lot. · The configuration of this lot appears to have been "shoe horned" into the plan to get one extra lot for the developer without considering the interests of either the current adjacent homeowners or the interests of the prospective future homeowner "downstream". · It appears that the developer has been extremely creative to force this lot into the plan and maybe conform to the city's minimum standards. · While this lot may meet the often-quoted "meeting minimum standard requirements", is it good planning to always stretch to meet only the minimum? · It is questionable that, considering the potential drainage issues, the very irregular shape and positioning of this lot, is consistent with good development planning. We recognize that the owner of the property has every right to develop this property and take advantage of the financial rewards. However, it is apparent that the developer has carefully laid out the development with the maximum number of building lots while possibly meeting the city's minimum standards. This is a beautiful property that can support a much less environmentally damaging plan. Naturally, our interests as adjacent homeowners are that the property is not developed in a typical urban sprawl manner, but developed responsibly in a manner consistent with maintaining the character of the area. We believe and hope you will agree that this plan should be modified to better fit into the existing landscape. We believe that the extreme destruction of wooded areas and extreme grading required to change the elevations is not responsible development. Sincerely, Ruth E. Rolfs Thomas C. Rolfs 7056 Highover Court South Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gentlemen of the Planning Commission: January 18,2005 I am writing in regards to the Yoberry Farm proposed development, specifically addressing the issue of the Northeast side against Harrison Hill Trail in LongAcres Development. I did attend the last commissioners meeting and did understand that the matter would be tabled until the developer redesigned the Northeast cuI de sac to address the issue of the public road directly against the backyard property of those on Harrison Hill Trail. I have had an opportunity to review the new design and must comment that the design is not "reworked" at all. The developer continues to work within the confines of what is financially beneficial rather than what is beneficial for the community. The changes made in the northeast corner of the proposed development include only the removal of the retaining wall and the placement of lilac bushes - bushes that are bare seven months out of the year and will not provide barrier during those months and which when in full bloom will still not present a barrier to children playing in my backyard. I must address again the safety concerns regarding a public road directly against the back of my property and against the property of my neighbors. The planner/developer attempts to illustrate in their new memo that my property alone provides enough barrier against their public road. They show a retaining wall and present a satellite photo of what they represent as a heavily wooded area directly adjacent to the road. Th,is photo w~s taken at the height of summer and does not accurately reflect the foliage on my property. . At least seven months of the year the trees (not evergreens) are bare and one can see directly through to the Yoberry farm property with great clarity. They also attempt to convey that my house and those of my neighbors are far enough away from the road that the remainder of my property constitutes a barrier to the public road. This should be a moot point. I will argue the point however as it is an item of debate in the planner's memo. The retaining wall mentioned by the planner lies only 10 -15 feet from the back of my house and similarly from my neighbor's houses. As mentioned at the last meeting, the children of the Harrison Hill neighborhood play not in this 10-15 feet, but instead play ABOVE the retaining wall on the property that the planner suggests is unused and constitutes barrier. They are wrong. The children play on playgrounds on the property ABOVE the retaining wall against the proposed public road, They easily rim through the trees playing tag within the property against the proposed public road - the property the planner suggests is so heavily wooded that it constitutes a barrier. They are wrong. The argument that the public road presents a SAFETY hazard to every child on Harrison Hill Trail remains valid - perhaps even more so now that the retaining wall has been removed. The road remains a blind road with a sharp curve before lying next to my' property. The children will being playing hide and seek and tag directly up against that road. The statement that this road represents an alley way to the houses on my block remains valid. Lilac bushes will NOT stop the fact that once that road is built, I will need to sit at the edge of my property to ensure the safety of my children and the safety of every other child on the block. I will need to tell the 38 children on the block that they can no longer freely play in my backyard because of liability issues because I am worried that they will be hit by a car. Should I worry that my children will be hit by ~ car in my backyard in Chanhassen? The answer of course is no. The developer and planner answer the request of the commissioners to consider moving the road to the west of the proposed homes by suggesting that it is too difficult. They voice concerns about the grading issues and tree removal and variances. They mention the need for an eleven foot retaining wall. I maintain that these arguments are weak. The entire property of Yoberry farm is a difficult property to navigate for' building - this fact was cited numerous times at the last public hearing by both the developer and the city planner- why is the area to the west of the proposed homes any different? There are wetlands throughout this area - why is the area west of the proposed homes any different? There are retaining walls throughout this area including Longacres - my property alone has a 7-8 foot retaining wall- why should the area to the west of the proposed homes be any different? Finally, they voice concerns in answer to the commissioners request to rework the northeast corner of sacrificing their plan for rear walk-outs. This is a blatant financial argument for the developer which does not all comply with the commissioners' request to foster a "win- win" situation. I am offended that as a resident of Chanhassen that I must fight against an alleyway/public road against my backyard property. The safety issues are obvious, The aesthetic issues are obvious - and do note that the adults use the property against the road as well with frrepits and other social areas set up in the area, against the road that the planner suggest is unused. The fact that the decision to put a road against the backyard property of eight existing homes to access the property of ONLY FOUR proposed homes is obviously a financial decision and NOT one that has taken into account the needs of the community. The reason for the road's existence is to access ONLY FOUR homes. If the planner and developer can not propose a plan as per commissioners' request to remove the road from the back of the Harrison Hill Trail properties, than I suggest that the road be removed and that the four houses it serves be eliminated from the plan. Again, as mentioned at the last meeting, the property in question could serve as a park for the owners ofthe future Yoberry Farms homes - owners of high end homes that I believe would ultimately prefer their own park rather than access the parks off their development despite the arguments of the planners. I still believe however, that the answer for the win-win situation is not to eliminate the homes which would be financial hardship for the builder and developer, but to change the public road's location' away from the existing backyards. I do not believe that it is too much to expect that the right decision be made to protect eight existing homes and the residents and children of all of the homes on Harrison Hill Trail rather than the wrong decision be made to protect the proposal of ONLY FOUR homes/properties. Please look at the big picture and support the decision that is right for the community. Thank you. Sincerely, Dr. Jennifer Rysso, 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Chanhassen, MN [r!,_ Page 1 of2 AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: LESLIE M, WITTERSCHEIN [lesliemwitterscheino1 @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:05 AM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Julie Lohse; Jen Rysso; Tina White Subject: Yoberry Farms Dear Sharmeen AI-Jaff: My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Harrison Hill Trail. Please forward this e-mail to the Planning Commission prior to the City Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 2005: My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Harrison Hill Trail. I am a city attorney for the Village of St. Anthony. I am writing this letter because I am unable to be at the meeting this evening due to a committment at church. I have reviewed the City Planning Commission meeting minutes from thè last meeting and the memorandum from Sharmeen regarding the Yoberry Farm development plan. First, quite frankly, I am appalled at both the proposals from the developers and the recommendation of Ms. AI-Jaff in light of the direction and suggestions given by planning commissioners Papke, Slagle, Lillehaugh and Keefe. In pages 33 and 34 of the minutes Papke, Slagle and Lillehaugh stated that without significant changes to the proposed road that runs adjacent to our properties they would not approve this project. However, in reviewing the "revised" plan it appears that Ms. AI-Jaff is recommending Option A, an even more dangerous proposal, to remove the retaining wall and put up a few deciduous trees. Please note that the ariel view of our street that Ms. AI-Jaff put in her memorandum was taken in July or August. The trees that are shown are in bloom. With the exception of very few, these trees are deciduous. Thus, for eight months out of the year, there is essentially no barrier between these houses and the proposed road. The reason I believe this proposal is even more dangerous is that the curve as platted is very sharp and blind. During the winter the roads can become very slick. If a car was going too fast for conditions, it could easily slide off the road into the side road without any barrier to protect it from hitting people or animals. So not only now are any children that may accidently wander into the road in danger, but any child that may be playing in hisor her,own back yard in danger. Moreover, the suggestion of placing lilacs, also deciduous, not a solution to the problem. At minimum, in addition to moving the road as directed by the commissioners at the last meeting, the developer should be required to put evergreens as a barrier between the properties. "The Right Tree" is a publication that I received from the power company that lists a least 6 evergreen varieties that may be placed below power lines. I agree with Ms. AI-Jaff's rejection of Option B, for the reasons stated. The last thing that any of us would want is a road that comes even closer to the property lines. It appears that Ms. AI-Jaff rejects Option C because it would lower the value of the 4-5 proposed homes on the cul-de-sacs and would require retaining walls. However, she and the developer appear to ignore that our homes already have such retaining walls in the front and the backyard and that the value of our homes would be reduced dramatically if this road would be placed as they recommend. Why should existing citizens be forced to bear the burden for enhancing the profit for developers and homeowners who don't even live here yet? Those future homeowners would choose and know the value of their homes moving in, while we are forced to accept to accept a dramatic reduction in ours without any choice. That seems patently unfair. Furthermore, I find it offensive that a city employee would completely disregard the safety of children of city residents in favor of a plan that increases the profit of the developer. 1/18/2005 Page 'L ot 'L Ironically, I did not see an Option D, which appears to follow the direction of the city planners. That is, the elimination of the homes all together with a tot park dedication. As Commissioner Lillehaugh suggested on page 11 of the minutes from the last meeting, maybe the solution is to eliminate these homes all together. On page 3D, he also noted that we may be doing a disservice to the entire city by allowing the developer to cram so many homes onto this land. Commissioner Slagle also noted on pages 33-34 that everyone must make some adjustments to make this workable for everyone. I would suggest that based on the options provided, the only adjustment that can be made is that these homes either be platted as suggested in Option C or eliminated as my proposed Option D suggests. The lot can then be used as a tot park as was suggested by the Parks and Recreation Director in his memo to this board. Not only would this solve the problem for us and the Highover residents at this end of the proposed development, but would help relieve some of the traffic issues that have been discussed As several ofthe commissioners noted at the last meeting, the question before this committee is whether this project tries to cram too much into too little space. The problem with this road indicates that, yes, it is. Finally, although this was not brought up at the last meeting, as the home directly behind the Outlot at the bottom of this proposed street, I am concerned about drainage. Our home is already the collection point for drainage for our entire street. At great cost, substantial drain tile has been added to our property. Any additional drainage simply cannot be supported. I would appreciate confirmation that the Outlot as proposed not be graded to drain into our lot. Further, if the Outlot is going to be drainage for only Yoberry farms that some sort of system be in place to guarantee there will not be standing water that will serve as a breeding ground for mosquitos. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am confident that after much thoughtful deliberation, that you will do what is best for the entire city, not just the developers. I sincerely appreciate the thoughtfulness that you as comissioners have already put into this matter and the compassion that you have shown us as residents of both Longacres and Highover. Sincerely, Leslie M. Witterschein 7150 Harrison Hill Trail Chanhassen, MN (952) 401-1096 1/18/2005 To whom it may concern Re: Yoberry Farms Development My name is Andrew White. My wife Tina and I, along with our two daughters Lucy and Amelia reside at 7122 Harrison Hill Trail in the Longacres Development in Chanhassen. Lucy is almost 4 and Amelia is almost 2. I am an Executive with a Construction Management company. Much of our business is the provision of our services to developers much like those embarking upon the Yoberry Farms Development. I bring this to your attention to illustrate my acceptance and understanding of the commercial drivers of real estate development and the necessity for it. I do not think any of the people criticizing this scheme believe that there shouldn't be a development. In reality the issues are safety an.d sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood. I attended the original planning meeting at which the Yoberry Farms development was to be discussed. If you recall, nothing was discussed as we ran out of time. I was unable to attend the meeting at which Y oberry Farms was subsequently discussed but I was reassured that the scrutiny which I saw applied by the commissioners to developments generally would ensure that the developers of Yoberry farms saw the flaws in their scheme as it stood. Especially when coupled with our neighborhoods representations. In all my years, which are in excessof20, of being active in Real Estate I have never seen a scheme with such a convoluted grading program in such close proximity to existing, established neighborhoods. I am led to believe that Longacres Drive is considered by certain parties to be a thoroughfare much like Lake Lucy Drive? Longacres HOA has some jurisdiction over this road; even if it is purely as trustees, to a degree that spep-d limits are recommend to be 25 mph. I am not aware of such consideratIon for Lake Lucy Drive. Surèly this demonstrates the difference. In purely commercial terms, when the grading, civil engineering, road construction and neighborhood impact are taken into account the margins derived from the homes specifically in the location of the NE comer are less easy to justify. Further to this aspect, if that part of the development was designated to be 1 luxury custom home the profits gained would be the same as the several homes currently being suggested. Such an approach may serve to placate the Harrison Hill Trail homeowners. Taken to its natural conclusion much of what is being challenged here today could be mitigated if higher quality, higher margin homes were built. Ultimately the site offers a finite degree of profit for the developers. If that is 50 homes generating $150,000 of " profit each or 25 homes generating $300,000 of profit each. Clearly the management of site topography and the majority of issues that the neighborhood has would be diluted. For those that believe that the back yards of Harrison Hill Trail are a "no-mans land" they are mistaken. While there is a tree conservation area and a Utility easement numerous homeowners mow the area between the tree conservation area and the property line. Certainly in my situation I spend a lot of time back there with family and friends. The natural beauty of that space is quite frankly the most compelling aspect of my property. I concede that the owner of the property has every right to develop but I see Í10 reason why, other than the developers unwillingness to spend capital, that there shouldn't be landscaping incorporating large caliper coniferous trees at the place where the properties meet. This would eliminate several issues that the Harrison Hill Trail homeowners have with respect to sightlines and light pollution from vehicles approaching the homes planned for the NE comer. In fact it would add value to those homes being sold there. Additionally, why cant a fence be constructed that would assist in the separation of the spaces? This would also improve the safety component. Most of the neighborhood kids play in the backyards of every home. Literally there are a dozen kids or more of similar ages who hang out back there. I dread to think what might happen if some of them should stray toward the new cul-de-sac which will be out of sight of adults. Do we really think that Gunflint Trail and Highover can handle the increased traffic that this development will bring? As any of the homeowners in Longacres will tell you we are at our limit now. With the nature of the neighborhood and its multi-car families there might be 1000 vehicles going into and coming from Longacres on any given day. Most of which occurs when kids are being picked up and dropped off from school. Do we want to add another potential 100 per day? I may be mistaken but I believe that there are Eagles nesting in the various woods in this parcel of land. It may be of no relevance but I thought it worth mentioning. I was most impressed with the degree of scrutiny applied by most of the commissioners at the planning meeting I attended. I am encouraged by this and trust that common sense, whatever form that takes, will prevail. L··C> ~"·G-"·-A."'C::'''R''·E S C ~-----~ To: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council From: Board of Directors, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc. Subj: Request for Yoberry Farms Conditions: The over 1000 residents of Longacres have numerous concerns/objections to the current Yoberry Farms proposal. A full discussion and evidence is attached. The summary of issues and requested conditions for the approval of the Plan are as follows: 1) Access via Route 41. (Inconsistent w/Comprehensive Plan -Transportation section) Condition - The applicant will work with City staff to make application for an entrance off State Highway 41 and obtain a definitive decision (Yes or No) from the Minnesota Dept of transportation. la) State decision = yes, applicant will build a direct access off Highway 41. 1 b) State decision = no, send copies of state decision letter to the Longacres Board. 2) Increased traffic on the Longacres streets. Condition - Applicant to conduct traffic studies on the current and projected traffic on Longacres, Hunter, and Highover Drives. Applicants to study, recommend, design and implement all necessary "traffic calming" measures for the families of Longacres. 3) Gunflint Trail sidewalks. Condition - Construction of sidewalks on Gunflint Trail to connect to existing sidewalks on Longacres Drive dependent on park and traffic issue resolution. 4) CuI de sac too close to 1I'¥riš.on. !Iill resIdents. Condition - Move the roaa to not encroach upon existmg homeowners and to be a reasonable distance from the developments borders. (Note - the Planning Commission has already directed the applicant to address). 5) Use of Longacres private parks by Yoberry Farms residents. Condition - Applicant to develop their own playground or mini-park area within the development. Construct a fence or natural barrier along the south border ofthe 3rd Addition, between the existing Longacres Park and Yoberry, to restrict access to existing private park of Longacres HOA. Reimburse Longacres for No Trespassing signs OR pay usage fee for park access. 6) Maintenance of 3 Longacres sub-division entrances. Condition - The applicant will reimburse the Longacres Home Owners Association for the maintenance and repair expenses for the 2 common area entrances off Galpin Road and the one common area access off State Highway 41. Payment shall be in the form of an annual assessment based upon the Yoberry farms pro-rated portion of these expenses based upon number of homes (i.e., 57/264% of the repairs and maintenance of these 3 entrances). 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Summary Page 1 of2 L .' c::> J:'.J ". c;- ", .A.. "' C '~ R ". E S C ~-------~ 7) Construction Vehicle Traffic. Condition - Construction site access points shall be minimized to a construction site entrance established directly off State Highway 41 with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. 8) Environmental impacts. Condition - Applicant to conduct an environmental assessment including chemical pesticide risk assessment, drainage, well water hazards, and wildlife corridor Impacts. Respectfully Submitted, The Board of Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc. Tom Hirsch President ( Bill Borrell Secretary Dan Hanson L rfi)/~ Vice- President Matt Messenburg Treasurer 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Summary Page 2 of2 ~' .,"~""":~:~ ,.....-p.... ,},; ""~-'~ '.~ ;~,_. ~,. ,,' }it . ~~1~ I ;¡. 'Jr -'. ...111 " ' ,;;,>;";""" ";';'~. ,';:,.1",,,: ~ '",--'-:-0__ ....'~ ,(~ i/i H . , " " :~)_.; ":.11 ;'!!, .' ,. " , " ; ! " ~ I ~. .. , ,'''", , , "=- , I': '.,': , , " . ,". t. ., ':'. :,:.-. ':", ~ " .~ ., ' :', ,;:.>: I,:' ". ! :. \ ' '·,··:4 ...,:.~, " ·,,~~¡~\f ~·;,·:.1:~h~·;: II' .,.~...,';,~~.. . ":,. ·~.~....,':;l.7'''· ~~§f~: ~~: , n___""cl . : , . . ~ ' ~ .. ... ... r ë: I" ! "\.:': :, ","1' ;', ::: " ., . t·.',··':'..:". !..-.:.. . ii:¡;t, . c J,~....".,..¡.",~,.,~ f;1~;:~~\i. :,:{j.~~~::..,~;~.'.'/!" I."....,.~,\ .~ I.. 1 I~;t~~(.:· ¡ , " . -L~;~.;. ':-:~':I..... . .';~':"'~'" II w ,~, .4 '1 'a ~. . . .:.~ ,...... " .; " ~ ,'''.:;' .",;, .~. ~~. ~"", I·...~~·'i· '.. ~'..' :'~t& ~ .. .. .t;t:r. ff;.",.:e.', 11;-, f· -:-..~"i:.:- . ~ ':t'" , ,'~-' fl ".,' '- '!. t:: . .' , ..~ ~',,: ,': .¡¡~. .:",.~ " ,', . c , if '~~O¡:';- -~ , ,. ..::r- ;jÌf ~:..-. n'¿/::' , · ~'I .¡ · ..;: · ~. ~ :,'~':: I'p.;. -~ ~.~ ·~·7;-{¡ ~~'"¡.r, ~r' , '~~~J ." ~ .:..: I J; ~~-~ ¡f i- ;{" :;¡ :!1 't ,¡ J -\. .... ~ ", ~. .;. , ' -~ ", ¡'r, .- '''~~ ~'~ 1.'1, .'0." . , . ii: ....~.., is.' ~" ,~.. -,', -; ..;\ , '.." :; ~ ¡' í .~ 'V\ .t~ .."\~ ,;!.l¡¡fi .' ~ .:;~", ~~. II .'~ '. n' ¡L : -5 ... ~, ~. ,.¡.:, ~,-\-,', .~~~ .~"- \": .f' L þþ j)~!~" r ì ~ì~ ~i .' :~:-: { .-' ''''-~ -~ ....--..,-,.- .. . ", ',' . .. .,' .' '. ..":.:':"". :~,~.:.~; ". .... '. '. , ....,. ;,' , . , 't,'~'v)('t"~,.,,, ,,~", "1.11,' c~~, " ..., A., "".a._ _ ..,"", .-....1.ú.....",\i: ' "u,......··,;*.-.c,ti...c.j¡i,lli,.,,'~ ~...''''' _ _M____'.._.___"'-~¡¡;<i.~ ""l___""'4~" .r I . ~ .~-. -'~', I ~ I~·"""'!! ' '¡ l'...::r; ;, , ;'. ",'~ 'i'i~;".;~ ~'i ¡jll " " ¡";.liT,: ,~ ;".; ,-,., ~f ~ I '''!~4. ·1 1i;Þ .....- .':j".'~,(, ." '; ;1',1.. ~'. .'.. II~" ., " . . ,.- ,_. ~ ~. ,.:...~ .¡,. .._ " ...... : .: .. 11'..... . ", ';\'~'ii ,,' '.~ r.:...~.:~··-~~~ ::::--.....' '.'.,,* ,nt' i':J~- r......,.,·~..,-...- ..:,:.~,-"~~,~.,~~",,,, · ~'. ~ ,~~~~;i _ :.-.. . _, . ~9·f~~- __.J " :::f}JJ' ~~~. ;~.~.i&' '" . ,.':t'.. .'\<0' v '/Æ" , :~ftk~fTfR:1I:!:'r¿"" ..~.".~~f~~,,:;~,-i~f~~j~~{;;:;i:i· ..: ~;.;' ~~"'. ..'. '" .:,~ , , ..>~.. ',:":':":~~~:~~~:-;". ~ . ."'.1. '".,.,: -,', ,,", - .. .....:, , '. ,''¡'' : ''-' ,~ ~......! 'I"~ ~.,. ....., ,. '" :·tf . . ,"...."" ., . .' ..~.': '"',:. --~~-~>='<=-~ :(:~~i~#.t~!~~1;~jr~;~\%~'tiX:0fi( , .", " " , , . "" . ,',' '-. iii' '.' ......--..''"'-([-·~,:~ø:~::· ^~:,;;-,~:::-! ',~ ... " :....~.;.......... v ,~~i',',,~', ' ..;~.,.. .:t.~,!".:' " ' -~~>_1"" , ,'. .. ~..:;:c:';< "'} ,~ ' ,..,".,'~.,_,', ?" \-ell ~_ (Cf - ':.~;'¡ ~. { .:,b, I ~' ~}: .. f, ',' .¡.. .7- " ",:.:,~- , 'lit,. 1,', ' ...,.' , .'II¡ ..~¡-.. , I _n'.:_, '.. >...... , "......~:I f '_, ~<: t ,'~ ,,"<:"" [' ,~:j~#ri:.;"-"·" : .,',1,' _, Þ~~~A~ .' . ' . ' .:....::\ '. I :.n -....1'"1': ,:.. 41':' ,~ f,. .,.a' I '. ~, . /I ~, ¡ -.--'~ f .; ; '-" ".-,- -,-',-.,.- - - ~ ¡..-.-,.-,- i\. -'.::'1:-. . ~, !__' .~__jÆ , :l -~~·:;t::.~ [ -r-'~,-,. '" ~.;:' ~.:" -"0-" ~r ~"~ L f~'" vni 'I:t,' f"!I',,\,;;"W ~"1f'A, ~"/ " 5.. '" ~ ie,' ,ì 1f.. :.' ,I ' :jiI: ' ~n:i Il' ,.. . ,... ~ ! ..,., " ~ ;" ;;.::-. ';~~: ~ì;: ~:. "-;~1Ü~:; :~ ~t:a~). ",¡,_-',1" -7; (':Ìc ,,' l: - /~- r /:' ':"'~ r"'·-' ~- -~-,~~~~-~-:::-- !. ': . {, j i. ¡ f i., ' r '.' r" .: '" ï !, [:,:<::,:,:,, ,1.:,',( . '.,.. , .' I'~~,;~; I~~J:,; :. ".', ¡¡~F?j;/ :,~ -,,, 1 "'" j j .,¡ ~. "-... . \, ~.. . ",. . ..,,': .' , if J,lt- 0 ¡ t !l' l~· .' ~.a. . .. ~.'I ,- .. :;.~ 4ft' ;v- t. I[ \. .-.iiíJj;.: .- " ...~ ~..,." ": :ot .. . ....-- ..!- f-:.. .1.... i,~\ t1W'" ,. , t \-.1' ;, ..; ~' ,0 1 ¡ ,''' ~~,I ~ .' . " ~~,~~. ~I¡."",. " 'r\! I" I' I. 'ï '" ' ~,·i·\ i " ~, i 'II ,: '.-."- ";-,V- ,'~, ,~ ..,...." ':\f ~ .- ~, ~" ." i. ..J~,,:;;,,:;ij; ::~~.:.' - ",':~ .', "~\;;~;" ~~. , ' î t , , (, , \ , t f. '. . f ., It I. ...f /¡ f (\ . <, '" Jì ~' .~~Iù '~, ~'~~1\ . L , 'II'';:'~ .¡.:'..... i ¡,.~ ¡ ì ~{,... _~I)o"U; , ();;.,Ji."'t~~" ,~--~,."-_..._. L" C>." ~ ... G- ,...A...., c: '" R.'" E S C ~----~ To: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council From: Board of Directors, Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc. Subj: Request for Yoberry Farms Conditions: As was no doubt evident to the members of the Planning Commission at the January 4 hearing, the 222 Residents and families of LongAcres HOA, to say nothing of the residents of Highover, are extremely concerned about the implications ofthis 57 home development that is being sandwiched between our existing developments on an admittedly "difficult" (slope and terrain) parcel of land. Our residents do not dispute the landowners right to use their land, and we do trust that our City representatives, including you, will monitor the development and its many aspects in such a way as to protect all of the affected families. Nonetheless, we do wish to take this opportunity to address and comment upon our concerns, with the hope that the Plmming Commission will make appropriate conditions to protect neighboring Chanhassen residents and provide for the development of a safe community for all. Preliminarily, we note the Staff Report admonition that, for the City to approve a rezoning request, the proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Where appropriate, reference to that plan will be included in the discussion of the various issues. Issue One - L~ck of any reasonable attempt to gain access to Yoberry through Rontf': 41, versus the residential streets of Longacres and Híghover. It ís about 1 mile trom the existmg Longacres Drive access to the Lake Lucy Road access (not .5 mile as previously reported). Chapter 5 of the Comprehensive Plan, entitled "Transportation", states as one of its "Goals and Objectives" the creation of a system of roads that IS sate, efficient and effective in the movement of people and goods. It references the need to plan facilities to be compatIble with surrounding environments. Most relevant here is the section on Roadways (where the Plan indicates that residential streets should be designed to discourage through traffic) and the section labeled "Other" (where the city is committed to the promotion of street and pedestrian connections to maximize safety and ease of access). All access for Y oben'y Farms is currently planned through one or the other of the LongAcres or Highover developments, despite the fact that there are currently 3 entrances into the property from Route 41 into this parcel, any of which would allow access without requiring traffic to go through a residential street. The only contact was the usual forwarding ofthe plans to the State for review - their response was not placed into the record, nor was it addressed in the Staff Report. When asked, the City Engineer opined that he did not think the State would allow access to Route 41, as they had indicated a desire to limit access to 41. He admitted that no one had officially asked, and that if one present entrance was made available, 2 others would still be closed, thereby limiting access as desired by the State. We would respectfully request that the Planning Commission require that the developer make an actual, good faith application to the State to explore access of Rt. 41 before giving up on it and taking the easier and less expensive (at least to the developer) alternative of routing traffic 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 1 of? L ,> c:> J:'.J ,., G- ". -A. ,,' c:: ," R,H E S C ~---~ through a high density family area. It would also seem that this step would be in the best interest of the City, and the developer, as a due diligence step to protect themselves from liability in the event of a pedestrian accident occurring in one ofthe 290,000 plus trips that will go through our development. In the event that such approval is granted, we would request that the City require that this entrance be created and used as the main entrance. Issue Two - Lack of any studies of the affects of increased traffic from Yoberry on Longacres streets and families. The issue of the effects of traffic on the neighboring parcels was admittedly not addressed. The Staff Report was silent on the subject. Upon the question of a Board member, the City engineer stated that he only traffic studies apparently in existence are those required every 2 years on some roads - Longacres Drive being one of them. He did not recall when it was last done, or the results. Obviously, and even if they were done and he recalled them, they were aimed at tracking current traffic, and not that to be created by routing Yoberry through the streets of Longacres. According to comments of the Planning Commission members themselves, we should expect 10-14 trips per day per household out of that development (570 to 79JLtriDs/day), and we should presume that at least half would run through Longacres. We suggest that it is more likely that the greater share will go through Longacres, as the shopping areas and the Twin Cities are southerly on Route 5. It should also be noted, as stated by several residents, that the traffic will not, as presumed and planned by the engineers, go over Longacres Drive. Rather, everyone heading to Rt. 5 takes the right onto off of Longacres Drive and onto Hunter Drive (a narrow, windy residential street with no sidewalks or shoulder for walking, biking or parking) to get to Galpin and so south to Route 5. It would appear that there were no studies of traffic impact on Hunter Drive, either (or, at least, nothing was contained in the Staff report). Hunter Drive and Highover Drive are classified as residential streets. We would request that the applicant be required to complete a traffic study on Longacres and Hunter Drives to determine current conditions, and the effects of the increased trips on existing families bordering those streets, before this application is acted upon. It seems that this due diligence would also be advisable for all parties from both a safety and a liability perspective. Fmiher, we would request that the Planning Commission require the applicant to explore ways to control traffic, and in particular speed of traffic, on Gunflint Trail, Longacres Drive and Hunter Drive, and to design, implement required controls. This would include pedestrian crosswalks, appropriately placed Stop signs, speed bumps, etc. In the event that the cost of this study, or the implementation, is chargeable to the Longacres HOA, we request that the City require that the applicant reimburse the Longacres Home Owners Association for those expenses. 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 2 of? L .< ~ ~ ". c;- '" r\.. ," C« R." E S C ~----~ Issue Three - Lack of a condition for sidewalks to be constructed on the east side of the existing Gunflint Trail and connecting the planned Y oberr-y GU1ltlJ.ut Trail ~ídewa 11<<: VZItll the existing Longacres Drive sidewalks. While the Staff Report did mention this subject in its report, and some mention of this was also made at the January 4 hearing, the Staff Report is silent on the subject in the Conditions section. Reference was made at the hearing to a possible desire by the Parks and Recreation Department to place the sidewalks on the west side of the existing Gunflint Trail stub. We point out that this would affect the front yards of 4 residents, whereas placing them on the east side will affect the side yards of only 2 residents. We request a clear recommendation to the City Council for east side placement affecting fewer homeowners. Issue Four - The Northeast end of the planed extension of Gunflint Trail into Yoberry, to an ending cuI de sac, is too close to the NOliheast edge of the development, and to the back yards of Harrison Hill residents. This was discussed at the January 4 hearing, and the Planning Commission did direct the applicant to address this issue. We believe that the suggestion to move the road to the west, adjacent to the wetlands, and to shorten the road so that the cuI de sac ends a reasonable distance from the development's borders, is reasonable to preserve green space and improve safety. It is included here for the record only. If the proposed solution creates any other issues, we reserve the right to comment at that time. Issue Five - Lack of any discussion, consideration or remedy for the use by Yoberry Farms residents of the private parks of Longacres, allowing park fees only for the 57 home Yoberry development. The Comprehensive Plan, in Chapter 4, entitled "Parks and Open Space", places a strong emphasis on parks and open spaces, recognizing that "land is not infinite." Developers are to be encouraged to dedicate land for parks, playgrounds, public open spaces and trails. For a development serving an area of about one quarter mile, the "mini-park" is recommended. This is particularly appropriate when no other public parks are readily, and safely, available by foot or bike. It appears that the plan of Yoberry does not include any such recreational facility within its borders - no parks, playgrounds, trails, etc. However, two private parks do exist within the Longacres neighborhood - both off of Longacres Drive and both owned and maintained by dues of residents paid to the Longacres HOA. Both parks have expensive child play apparatus; one of the private parks contains a pair of tennis courts and one has a basketball court. Both are within easy walking distance of Yoberry and, in fact, the 3rd Addition of Yoberry will be closer to the West park than any of the existing Longacres homes! The Staff Report indicates a park on Outlot D, but it appears from the hearing that now it is acceptable for the applicant to pay park fees instead of creating its own park. Those fees are good for City coffers, but we believe they are inappropriate here. This method is best reserved 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 3 00 L ,', C=> T"I ,. c;- ,.. -A.. ", c:: ~." E S C ~----~ for situations where it is likely that the residents on whose behalf the applicant pays would be reasonable anticipated to use City facilities. Where such City facilities are not readily available, and particularly where it is reasonable to assume more convenient private facilities will be used, it is more appropriate to require a park be included in a development. Longacres does contain 3 private parks for Longacres residents only, paid for exclusively by our residents. They are not fenced, monitored, or otherwise secured. It is very obvious that Yoberry residents will utilize these areas, since they have no other or better alternative. We note that the Staff Report recognizes the inadvisability of crossing Rt. 41 to Minnewashta Park, the next closest City alternative. We do not wish to appear inhospitable, but these parks were built with Longacres resident monies (added to the home prices), and increased use does translate into increased maintenance cost to us, and increased liability, for many years to come. As discussed at the January 4 hearing, we would consider the alternative of the applicant requiring his buyers to join Longacres HOA, thereby paying for future maintenance. Since this contribution alone fails to recognize the added contribution residents of Longacres made to the initial construction of the parks, further discussions are ongoing. A meeting with the applicant to explore the possibility of Yoberry residents joining the Longacres HOA was held, and they are considering the possibilities, and the added value this private park system will bring to his properties. While this is good progress to a possible solution, the next available date to discuss the issue according to the applicant's schedule was in 2 weeks, well past the date we are informed is the next scheduled Planning Commission hearing on this plan (January 18). We remain committed to working with the applicant to the betterment of both our constituencies, but we fear that their interest in such an approach may wane if the plans are approved without a resolution. With all due respect to the integrity of the applicant, which we do not question, we do not wish to still have this problem after January 18, but be without the Planning Commission's authority to drive an appropriate solution. Therefore, we request that the Planning Commission require that the applicant, absent agreeing to a mutually acceptable solutiQn regarding joining the Longacres HOA, íncorporate a "míni-park" or "tot lot" or sImilar playground within the Y oberry development of sufficient size to ensure residents have access to their own playground, so as to abate usage of, and trespassing upon, the Longacres private parks. This Commission is no doubt well aware of its own history, but we note that a similar construction site condition was attached to the Pinehurst development (a 43 lot development at the northwest corner of Galpin and Lake Lucy Roads), In that application, the Planning Commission at the 12/7 meeting did require a tot lot condition. This admirable and established precedent should be applied in this case as well. 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 4 of7 L c:> ~ G- ". .A.. .., C.. R... E C ~-----:: s Further, we request that the applicant be required to build a barrier between the entire portion of the project labeled "3rd Addition", Lots 1-8, that restricts access to the existing Longacres park, such barrier to serve the purpose of preventing access to that park. Issue Six - Yoberry plan to use Longacres owned and maintained entrances for access to Galpin Road and Route 41, without sharing the cost burden with Longacres HOA. Longacres is accessed from Galpin Road on the East (from either Longacres Drive or Hunter Drive) and Route 41 on the West. We own and maintain those entrances with signage, lighting, landscaping, etc., at the sole expense of Longacres residents. The Yoberry plan presumptuously shows these entrances also to be their entrances, apparently without regard to their maintenance expense. We request that the applicant reimburse the Longacres HOA for the maintenance and repair expenses for the 2 common area entrances off Galpin Road and the one common area access off State Route 41. Payment would be required to be in the form of an annual assessment based upon the Yoberry farms pro-rated portion of these expenses based upon number of homes (i.e. ultimately 57/264 % of the repairs and maintenance ofthese 3 entrances), or by a lump sum that will be retained by the HOA and applied to these expenses. Issue Seven - Lack of any condition requiring access for construction vehicles from existing driveways off Route 41, indicating an intent to burden the infrastructure of Longacres residential streets, and the safety of its residents, with increased traffic hazards. In the event that application for access to Rt. 41 is made and approved, it is presumed that such access would be used for construction in Yoberry, versus the residential streets of Longacres and Highover. Even if such access were not made a condition of the rezoning by the Planning Commission, it would seem wise to require the applicant to use one of the 3 existing access roads off of Rt. 41 for all construction of the planned development. However, the issue is not discussed in the Staff Report. As the Commission knows, the construction of roads and homes involve rather large vehicles, with frequent trips. These trips are often made in mornings when residents are going to work, and children are at bus stops. The same safety concerns exist in the afternoon when school children arrive home and then disperse in the neighborhood to play - or all day long in the summer months. This creates an obvious safety hazard in Longacres residential streets. This was mentioned briefly at the last hearing, and in private discussions with the City Engineer, as something contemplated by the applicant, but it was not contained as a condition in the Staff Report. We would request that the Commission require the applicant to create an access road from Route 41 for all construction vehicles access, during the construction period, and avoid the residential streets of Longacres. 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 5 of? L .' C> J:'J '" c;- ... .A. "' C ," J:Z .,. E ~ S C ~----~ Issue Eight - Lack of any environmental impact study in an area of abundant wildlife, and where farming was once actively practiced (involving pesticide applications). The Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 3 regarding "Natural Resources" recognizes the importance of our environment. Water quality is specifically referenced, as is non-point source pollution concerns in agricultural areas. Yoberry is being developed on open land with mature trees and abundant wildlife. It contains 5 wetlands - amazingly enough, the wetlands square footage exactly equals that necessary for a de minimus exemption from the MN Wetlands Conservation Act. Several existing ponds are to be retained, and some new ponds created. We believe that this is former farmland, where pesticides and other potentially dangerous chemicals may have been applied for many years. Finally, we note that the land is very hilly, with several bluffs and generally meandering topography (" a challenging one to develop and grade" per Staff Report) with a multitude of varied slopes. In the words of the applicant at the hearing, a very difficult plot. Much ofthe vegetation will be disturbed, and it will be significantly re-graded (80% ofthe site, per Staff Report). The combination of these facts would seem to indicate that a discussion of environmental conditions would be appropriate. In particular, the question would be how this development may affect the local environment, and whether or not drainage from the disturbed soil would create any danger to surrounding residents. The Staff Report is not entirely silent on the subject. It appears that an environmental firm was on site to investigate the wetlands, drainage has been considered, ponding requirements set, etc. However, as noted by Uli Sacchet in his testimony (as a citizen and resident of Highover, and not in any official capacity as Planning Commission Chair), the conclusory Staff Report finding that "the proposed subdivision will no cause environmental damage" is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the detail in their own report. The better part of discretion would seem to indicate a more complete study before such conclusion is reached. We would ask the Commission to require the applicant to conduct a full environmental impact study to explore the effects of this development on the area in which it is proposed, and on the neighboring residents. Conclusion The Board of Directors and the Officers of the Longacres HOA have the same obligation to the families of this development - the safety and liability of our constituents. We sincerely hope that our concerns are recognized not only for their magnitude and importance, but also for the spirit in which they are expressed. We, too, are not serving in this capacity for the money or glory; we just feel our involvement can make a difference to the Longacres neighborhood. Thank you for your public service. 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 6 of7 L"e> ~"'G-"-^-"'C:'''IZ'''E S C ~-------~ We take this opportunity to recognize the work of staff on this project, as we also appreciate the assistance of Staff in answering questions and providing documents to date. Hopefully, none of our comments here will be taken by them as intended to denigrate them in any way. Our residents wish to remain very involved in this development, and are open to any suggestions or discussions as may be appropriate. Please feel free to contact me directly on any issue here, or others that this correspondence might raise. Respectfully Submitted, The Board of Longacres Homeowners Association, Inc. Tom Hirsch President Bill Borrell Secretary Dan Hanson Vice- President Matt Messenburg Treasurer 1/18/2005 Requested Yoberry Farms Conditions - Expanded Page 7 of7 February 7, 2005 ~'~---" ; ~_~t v,j (~.;¡\/ ;,-', v, ¡ j 1,,--_,:...;. ,;-.;,,; ;I_~,--, Members of the Chanhassen City Council, I write this letter to express my concerns regarding the construction of the Yoberry Farms development in Chanhassen. My family and I live at 2476 Gunflint Court in the Longacres development, which is due south of the contemplated Yoberry Farms development. In fact, my house is the first house, on the left, a traveler from Yoberry Farms development would pass upon exiting Yoberry Farms. We have lived in our home since June 2001. At the time we decided to build at this location in Longacres, we were told that eventually a development would be built north of us. We were not aware that any future development would use our development as a means of entering and exiting the new development. I assume the Chanhassen Planning Commission that auth0l1zed construction of the Highover and Longacres developments would have been aware of the need for access roads to and from any future development built between Highover and Longacres developments. To have assumed that the residents of Longacres or Highover would have no issue with providing access to a new development built between them seems ludicrous. Furthermore, I'm shocked that the developers of Yoberry Fmms see no need to include a park for the residents of a development containing >50 homes with estimated values in the $600-1,000K range! They apparently believe that a deal might be struck with Longacres to enable Yoberry Farms residents to use our parks. There is absolutely no way I will endorse such an agreement, regardless of how much money Yoberry Farms contributes to maintaining the parks in Longacres. The parks become very crowded during the summer months and, being the father of four children under the! age of eight, I would like my children to have access to the parks without the added competition from an additional 100+ children from Y oben-y farms. I sincerely hope you will give further consideration to providing separate access roads to Rt41and Galpin Blvd for residents of Yoberry Farms. Added cost to the builder should not drive the decision not to build access roads to Rt41 or Galpin Blvd. Think of the increased traffic flows in Longacres and Highover, and the attendant safety issues associated with this increased traffic, that would result from the current Yoberry Farms development layout. I encourage each of you to drive south from my house and take the shortest route to access Galpin Blvd, which leads to Rt5. The shortest route will take you down Hunter Road, which is probably the, poorest designed road I have ever seen for a development the size of Longacres. Try to convince the parents of young children who li ve on this road that the safety of their children will not be impacted by the Yoberry Farms development. Then ask yourself if you would be comfortable with the addition of a new development that makes an already bad traffic situation worse. .. The decision you make on February 14th will affect the lives of many families in Chanhassen. I implore you to critically evaluate the merits of the arguments expressed by homeowners in Longacres and Highover. We all realize a development will eventually be built between our developments. Let's ensure that the safety of all young children in these developments will be preserved once a final decision has been made with regard to layout of Y obeny Farms development. '''"1-~U~ James . Valentine 2476 Gunflint Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)470-2004 City Council City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 [::'::8 ~ ZOO~J Ci'l\' ()F C~.,--1Þ\;\~~~: RE: Yo berry Development Dear Council Members: We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed new development between Highover and Longacres called "Yoberry". As a resident of the Highover subdivision and being located on Highover Drive, we are very concerned about the amount of traffic that will now be added to our already busy street. We have 3 children between the ages of 8 and 14 who all cross Highover Drive in the morning and afternoon to get on and off the school bus. It is our understanding that no traffic studies have been completed on Highover Drive to determine if the road can handle the additional traffic. It is clear to us that Highover was designed as a local road to service the Highover subdivision and not as a "feeder" road to serve neighboring subdivisions. The development as proposed goes beyond anything anticipated by Highover residents, and contradicts representations made to us when we purchased our home that Highover would only be extended to a cul-de-sac. Everything about Highover suggests that Highover Drive would remain a local street, not a high-traffic through street. Our real investment and fixed property in Highover should take precedence over the inconvenience of modifying plans that exist only on paper. Although we understand the city has a general preference for through streets, this is a situation in which an exception is warranted. The ideal solution would be a separate entrance off of Highway 41. However, we understand that access to 41 may not be granted by the State. The result is that Highover/Gunflint would become an inordinately long "local" road with an inordinately large number of houses. For these reasons, the vast majority of Highover residents, Longacres residents and the majority of the City Planning Commission are against the plan as currently submitted and feel that the plan needs to be modified. We therefore urge you to reject that plan as currently submitted and to require Yoberry to have cul-de-sacs from both north and south, thus solving the through- traffic issue and a host of other issues presented by the residents of Highover and Longacres subdivisions. r// / ¡] '1 ' /" ,") , J-j1V)¥jtfjt¿i¡Ai~ Z9--,!i/{/J ¿yJ niel and Penny John~on ( j 6951 Highover Drive "---/ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Examples of Rear Lot Lines in close proximity to Streets in Chanhassen í ¡ ! TET N N ! . , í '~---- - "--~~-~-~---{ í II ! Charles & Lori Dinnis 2362 Hunter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 February 2,2005 City of Chan~sen 7700, MarketBJl¡d PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN- 55317 Subject: Yoberry Far-ms-Dev.e.lopment with Additional Traffic Concerns Dear Sirs: My concern is all of tAe.-additional traffic that will be,-added to Gunflint & Hunter Drive due to the requested 55 lots in the Yoberry Farms Development. It was shown for ye2fs by the Highover deveJopef-tAaUhe.a-.ea would have a cui de sac with 8-10 houses in the area - not 55. The developer:.~s concentrating the houses so much that he doesn't even give-~reas for parks for his home$.,,_ One of planning commissioners said that street traffic is,8-"City Issue". I agree in part however, I believe that~-ÍS-the City & the Plann~mmission's responsibility to determine if mistakes have been made in the past and not make them worse by adding additional trafftc..--(.i.e., Hunter Drive was not- meant. to be a through street (many 90 degree turns, hills,~narrower street & no sidewalks) by viewing the map - it is clear that Huntef: is the shortest distar:1G6 to-Ga~in from-the-Gur:1flint Trail side and that human nature will choose this route to Chan or Highway 5)- 1 ) Ther~AO-traffic impedance devices on ~, nter a. Hunter has many 90 degree bends n..J b. Hunter has a big hiU --Garl't-·~ren c. Hunter has many blind corners - can't..see the children. k--- CoI:ner--of F aWI+-HiU &-Hunter {bünd--corner sign already in place) ih--n~n.towards Fawn Hill (ent~~rce) iii. 2428 Hunter Driven d. S~tics: n_-J-~cmg-Acres Drive -wider street w¡thside walk 1. 52 total homes 2---35 with dr:iveways 3. 17 withlanè-.J ü.-Hunter---tO-Galpi~90 degree...tums, hills, narrower street & no sidewalk 1. 35 Total Homes 2. 32 with Driveways 3..-- 3--with lanq 4.- 78-total-kidswith mor.e--on -the -way Charles & Lori Dinnis 2362 Hunter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55ßJ7 2) Options: ' a. DeCf=ease--J.ot density in Yoberry-FafmS.by creating two cui de sacs lowering traffic to Gunflint. b.-Have ¥oberf)LF-arms have·their--oWA-eAtr.ance and not join Highover Drive, Gun Flint & Longacres/Hunter. Gc----41--Ëntrance off Yoberry Farms·foç.a--mor:e-direct route than gOiQg through neighborhoods to get to ChanhassenQf the 5. This will ]not h~directly but-R will give-tAe..residenœ-a faster way to highway 5 if traffic calming measures are input on Highover & ...---- Hunter. __J h-- SettI9rs-Ridge-that-nas two entrances within approx 400 fßet. MN DOT granted an exception on this development in C~n. d. Stop Sign addedat.F.awn-~U--&-Hl.Inter e. Speed Bumps " n..-J ~-At approximately 2428 Hunter Dffite (blind curve before hi,II). ii. At approximately 2325 Hunter Drive-bottom of hill and before bus st~ 1. Change Speed L1ìì1ittG 20 i. How can a residential street have the same speed as Lake Lucy,and the 78th-Street Frontag_eRoad? g..--Sidewalk down Huntef:-~,City pays for based on bad design and the cost will not be passed on to the residence.--- 3) Parks -11~ve in Longacres and was on the boarofor 3 years and know that it will be a difficult task to get the votes to add- Yoberry Farms to the C0venar:11s-.---1 really think that the developer should·be required to adjust population density by having parks & wetland areas and specifically put them at the back of the East Part-of Yoberry to. eliminate the Longacres lots with a street on the front & back of their lot. ,---- 4) Is there a gllarantee from- Yoberry Farms that the pricing will remain firm at $600K to $1 ,OOOM? What happens at the end-.of one year if the lots don't sell? Will they compromise qualit~ Thank you for your time & consideration, it is a tough job that you have to keep the city progressive yet- not compromise, the ·tand-OWAef.S.-tf:1at--have already made Chanhassen their home. Sincerely, /"",\ ~ ..r~·-;'::::':-"'''',-""",.y--""",.__ 1 ' J1\ t1 _, /,' (, ~\ -~.~~'" \Ý \4:7 '--- ' .. \ ----.-,-~---:;// Charles & Lori Di~is·n /1 !J /f~ ! i í I;' " OV¿~' (f(,~~~ ~~) CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. and gave an introduction on the role and procedures for the Planning Commission meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Deb Lloyd Deborah Zorn Curt Kobilarcsik Melissa Gilman 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7574 Ridgeview Point 9149 Springfield Drive Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41. SOUTH OF HIGHWAY OVER DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL. YOBERRY FARMS. LLC. DA VID HURREL. AND KAREN WEATHERS. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43. Public Present: Name Address Bill Borrell Rodd Wagner Karen Weathers Tom Stokes Steve Johnston Chuck Alcon Bill Coffman Dean & Jackie Simpson Stuart Henderson Larry Lovik Rick Pinamonti Stacey Riecks Mark Brown 2300 Longacres Drive 6915 Highover Drive 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard 2200 Shadywood Road 510 1st Avenue No, Minneapolis 55403 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield, MN 600 West 78th Street 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard 7240 Gunflint Trail 2475 Gunflint Court 2527 Longacres Drive 7256 Gunflint Trail 7210 Gunflint Trail Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Tom Kirsch Scott W osje Jennifer & Michael Rysso Rachel Wexler Lisa Hokkanen Kim Keyes Abby DuMoulin 2290 Longacres Drive 7125 Northwood Court 7108 Harrison Hill Trail 7200 Madison Avenue W, Golden Valley 2456 Hunter Drive 2448 Longacres Drive 6966 Highover Drive Sacchet: Now before I ask staff to give their staff reports, I want to recluse myself from leading this discussion since I do have a personal interest in this development. I'm one of the immediately adjacent neighbors and so therefore I will participate as a resident from the audience side. So I will join you in the audience for this one item and then I will resume leading the meeting after that and pass leading the meeting to our Vice Chair Rich Slagle. Slagle: Alright, staff report please. Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Okay, any questions for staff? Steve, you want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a couple and this would be probably more towards Sharmeen. Looking at this e-mail that was sitting in front of us here, it really just raised the pretty important question to me and that is, regarding the proposed roadway on the very east side. How it impacts the 4,5, 6 parcels so they have a road on basically each side of them, the way this is laid out. And the way these plans were showing it, I guess I really didn't see that until reading this e-mail here. What is your thoughts and opinions on that I guess? AI-Jaff: We do have situations such as this one in the city. In this case it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Lillehaug: What exactly would meet the requirements? AI-J aff: The fact that you have a city street with homes off of that city street. There is a separation between the street and the neighboring property. The back yards of the neighboring propelty. Maybe what we should point out to the uniqueness about the situation is the fact that you have an electric easement and that's really what this e-mail is focusing on. The fact that. Lillehaug: Do you have a layout that actually shows this? Shows the, I mean it's good on the rest of the layout. I mean it shows the adjacent parcels and the roadway systems, yet on the very east side, even the layout that you have on the desk there really doesn't show the adjacent road. The next one over to the east and I don't have that name off the top of my head. Slagle: Harrison Hill. Lillehaug: Harrison Hill Trail. Is there a layout there that really shows that? But then this one doesn't show the proposed roadway. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 AI-Jaff: No, well. If you look at the e-mail came from the occupant of parcel number 5. And this is where the right-of-way sits in relationship to their parcel. The house sits further back on the property or more towards the front of the property. There is definitely a separation. There is a conservation easement first and then after the conservation easement there is the electric easement. And of course no vegetation can grow within an electric easement, and I think that's the uniqueness of this situation. That's what the applicant is trying to get across. Lillehaug: Okay. What are the, what would your comments be on, you know this whole meeting the minimum or maximum standards once again in reference to, you know they're impacting a wetland exactly equal to 2,000 square feet which is the absolute minimum before they have to mitigate for wetland impacts. Also on basically laying out the lots on many of these parcels they're meeting the absolute minimum to get a house on these pads. I mean just in general what would your comment be on, I mean are they trying to fit too much into this spot? Looking at the contour and grading issues. Changing the grading drastically. AI-Jaff: Sure. Bear in mind that this application has gone through numerous revisions. We've been working with the applicant for several months and the number, the total number overall lots on the site has changed. Over the course of time. Lillehaug: Increased? AI-Jaff: Decreased. Another thing is the grading. The size of retaining walls. The number of retaining walls on this site. There has been numerous changes that have taken place before this appeared before you, and I think Matt touched upon some of these issues. He also mentioned the limitations as far as there are touch points on this site that include Gunflint Trail, we've got Highover. There are existing homes that need to have access so there are certain challenges and limitations within the site and the applicant has done their best to work within these limitations. As far as average lot size, for instance it is over 19,000 and the minimum is 15,000. Lillehaug: So it's fairly larger then. AI-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: It's not meeting the minimum like I'm alluding to. AI-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: So it's above that. One other question would be the specific question and maybe engineering can help out a little bit would be the, looking at the pads where the houses go on some of these lots, it doesn't look like there's going to be even a minimal back yard with even a manageable like a 10 percent slope. I mean on some of these pads it looks like right out the walkout it's going to be a 1 to 3 slope. Is that fair to say or am I not quite seeing it on some of these pads? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Saam: Yeah, the hand full of pads that I mentioned, there may need to be some smaller type retaining walls shown in order to accomplish the quote useable, or the 10 percent gentler slope area. And that's what I was getting at. That I'll have to take a look at that indeed if retaining walls are needed, those should be shown on here so we know about them. Lillehaug: So we need, they need to revise these with retaining walls even to get a manageable or a legitimate back yard. Saam: Well, that's one option. You know the other one would be to lower, if it's possible, lower the street. And by that you'd lower the whole house pad so you wouldn't need then a retaining wall. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Slagle: Dan, you go next. Keefe: Can you speak to the, one of the questions that we had which I didn't hear any resolution to is the radius of the northeast cul-de-sac and whether that required a variance or not and kind of, apparently it doesn't or does or? Saam: I guess technically we could say yeah, it would require a variance. I know, no? It doesn't? AI-Jaff: No. Saam: Okay. Keefe: So it's not less than. AI-Jaff: No, because it's not an ordinance that requires that, and I did go through the ordinance and checked because that was an issue that was raised by actually Commissioner Sacchet. Do they requires a variance or not and I went through the ordinance again. Their requirement, the radius is not spelled out so it's more of a policy. Keefe: Alright. Can you speak to the removal of trees. You know there's a grading, you know there's a lot of grading which is done on this site. Some of them are custom graded lots which I'm assuming they'll be able to save some of the trees but I think the canopy is down to what, 11 percent or something like that. I think final analysis is in, and we're proposing that they would come in and plant more but there's still a lot of trees to be removed. Can you just speak to kind of how they balance the grading with the. AI-Jaff: Sure. We worked very hard with the applicant. There were some significant trees that both the applicant as well as staff wanted to see saved. Some of the trees that were questionable, whether they would be removed or not, they chose to show them as removed. The majority of the trees that the applicant had chosen to save are significant trees. There are some trees that again that are significant but stand no chance of remaining even with retaining walls. One of 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 them is a substantially large oak on the site, and we looked at every possible solution. And we didn't see any that would allow it to stay. Keefe: Is it your opinion that they've done a pretty good job in trying to save the ones that they can given the limitations of the site? AI-Jaff: Yes. We believe they have done a very good job. Keefe: Okay. One last question in regards to, in regards to gaining access off of 41. In terms of just construction traffic. One of the questions that came up previously that I saw was you know construction traffic either coming up Gunflint Trail or down from Highover. I mean is there a way to route construction traffic off 41 for this project or not? Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. The applicant is proposing, it's shown on the grading plan a rock entrance off of 41. They're going to utilize one ofthe existing driveways to one of the homes that I believe is being demolished. As the construction access point for the site grading, utilities, that sort of thing. Until the streets are in and paved. Keefe: And then at that point to build the homes they might use interior roads from Gunflint Trail? Saam: Yes. Yep, to build the homes I would foresee them using the existing roads. One of the MnDot requirements is to, actually city requirement also before we finalize the project, these existing driveways off of 41 have to be closed off, except for the houses that are outside of this plat but. Keefe: Okay. Slagle: Kurt. Papke. Did any of the existing or previous permutations or plans for this examine the possibility of eliminating the 3 existing homes that are on the site? You mentioned that we have a couple touch points here. One of them are the two existing roads coming down from Highover and then up from Longacres. Those are there. That's incontrovertible. But is there any possibility that we could minimize or decrease the impact here if those 3 homes were scrubbed out of the plan? Saam: Well I think your first question was whether the previous plans showed them being gone? No. They've always been proposed to remain. Papke: So that was never considered? Saam: Well that's a question for the developer I think, but to answer your second question, if they weren't touch down points, yeah I think it could help him. You know it's a restriction basically having those lots there. They have to match into those grades. But that doesn't take, I mean saying that if those houses were gone it might limit the amount of grading, or change the 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 amount of grading doesn't take into account that there's people living there that wish to remain there and want to keep their houses so. Papke: Okay. Second question. My second and third questions both relate to the large hill in the center of Block 1 there that's going to be shaved down. Do we know how close this comes to a bluff? I mean I went out and climbed the hill yesterday and I was out of breath by the time I got to the top. We're saving a couple bluffs there. Do we know how close that hill is to the definition of a bluff? AI-Jaff: We know it doesn't meet the definition of a bluff. Papke: But we don't know. AI-Jaff: But I don't know how close, no. I haven't run those calculations. Papke: Okay. Is there anything in the city code, the comprehensive plan or any other guidance that the Planning Commission should be looking at that would give us any indication about the extent of the grading here? We're eliminating about 44 feet, if my memory serves me correctly off the top of that hill. Is there anything that would give us any indication that this is outside of what the city desires to do, either in letter or in spirit. Aanenson: Maybe I'll just address that. We have had similar circumstances where we've had extensive amount of grading. Again we've indicated we're trying to match a couple of points, for one. And actually as the city has done more development we've evolved and been stricter on grading. For example in Longacres, and the Woods and the Meadows, there wasn't a grading ordinance. There were substantial cuts that probably wouldn't have been made if, you know we changed our bluff regulations to date. But we have done significant, for example Ashling Meadows. Significant amount of grading. Again when you're trying to blend some topography with certain touch down points, you get grades to meet collector roads. That's what drive some of those. There's certain parameters that drive the design so I think in this circumstance we've worked our best to try to blend those. And the high point that we went around actually makes an interesting project because instead of going through the middle of the road to connect, it actually takes a bend in the road which reduces some of the speed and coming down the hill which makes it a more interesting project in our mind. Papke: That's all. Slagle: I've got a couple. Let me go back to the point that was mentioned Sharmeen earlier that the number of homes have decreased as this has gone on. What have they decreased from, just cunous. AI-Jaff: I believe they've reduced the number by 3 or 4 homes. Slagle: 3 or 4. Okay. A Matt question. I'm assuming Matt condition 21 is the one you're referring to about lowering the street. I think on page 17. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Saam: Yes, that's correct. Slagle: How much are you thinking? You would be happy with. Saam: I'd like to get rid of that wall along the east side so that would be about 3 to 5 feet. Slagle: Okay. And if I can ask, was there a response from the applicant on that discussion? Saam: Not since this report's gone out but as I alluded to earlier, in the previous permutations of the plan, I mentioned that and they have reduced that wall significantly. Before it was in the 11 foot range. Now they have it down to 4. I'm just asking them to go a little more. Slagle: Okay. With respect to traffic, I know this is three stages. Will both the north and the south connecting roads open up at the same time? Basically. Saam: I think the developer can add something but it's my understanding, while it is three additions.. . Slagle: Okay. I don't know who this is for but I noticed on condition 44. The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. Can you tell me a little bit about that. Saam: It's been done. I believe, Sharmeen. It's on the east side now. AI-Jaff: Correct. If you look at, Nann can you zoom in please? The sidewalk is shown on both sides of the street and staff is recommending that the extension takes place on one side only rather than both sides. Slagle: Okay. AI-Jaff: So it's just this portion right here that is a piece of Lot 3. Slagle: Gotch ya. And so we will continue down Gunflint on the east side of Gunflint only affecting 2 lots versus 3 or 4 which would be on the west side. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Aanenson: There is no sidewalk there currently. Slagle: Correct, I understand. But there will be. Aanenson: Someone will have to pursue that, correct. Slagle: Okay. Well I'm only thinking though that in the last discussions from, I thought I saw it in writing from the Park and Rec Director that it would continue on the west side. Aanenson: That would be his desire to pursue that, correct. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: Okay. Alright. And then one last question. Sharmeen, not to put you on the spot but the calculations of the bluff or not a bluff, getting back to Kurt's question of the hill in the center. We know it's not a bluff but we don't know the, I mean how close is it? And maybe that's a Matt question. Saam: Yeah, I'mjust looking at quick, if! can add something. The bluff requires a 3 to 1, I think 30 percent. I just threw my scale on here. Many of the contours are in the 5 to 1 or greater range so that shoots it right there. Slagle: Okay. Alright, anything else for staff folks? Okay, I'm going to ask the applicant to come up. State your name and address and we'd love to hear what you have. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 76th Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. With me this evening, I'd like to introduce Bill Coffman and Tom Stokes, also of the development team and from Landform who's doing the surveying and engineering, the President Steve Johnston and his assistant Jesse Larson. Also in attendance this evening are Dean and Jackie Simpson, property owners and Karen Weathers, property owner involved in the plat. Slagle: Welcome. Chuck Alcon: I think what we'd like to do first is respond to a couple of the comments, if you'd allow us, and then we'll stand by for questions. Just a clarification of the staff report. Item 22 which deals with lift station 27. In talking with staff beforehand we believe the intent of that comment is to pro-rate that upgrade for the 11 lots that are being added, and I just want to make sure we understood that as clarification. I'm going to ask Steve Johnston to address 3 items under item 11 (b), (c) and (h) but prior to that, there's a comment made on the back yards. As was mentioned, this is as difficult site and there will be some custom homes for these lots. A couple things that can be done and will be done in order to make these back yards usable, we took a couple of shots over at Ashling Meadows, if I can just put these up here. Not quite as difficult as our site but clearly in order to have a useable back yard, the use of boulder walls less than 4 feet high can be extensively employed and that can help that problem out. And we intend to do that. We talked about the pre-existing homes. The homeowners do plan to stay and the touch down points we touched on also. I want to ask Steve to, as I said, comment on items l1(b), (c) and (h) and also on item 21. Steve will have the technical details but I should point out that in that area our sewer is already 30 feet deep so the more that we lower the road to get rid of the retaining walls, the deeper the sewer goes and Steve will have some specifics on that. So with that I'd like to ask Steve Johnston to step forward. Steve Johnston: I'll just put that up there for reference as well. Good evening. My name is Steve Johnston, Landform Engineering Company in Minneapolis. First of all to address the issue of the street grades in this general area. What's driving that is our sanitary sewer connects at this location. We brought back the sanitary sewer at basically minimum grade up into this point. We lowered the street down until we were about 9 feet deep at this location. We can go another foot and a half or so and still have cover on that sanitary sewer, but beyond that it's going to be very 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 difficult to lower it. Be happy to look at it again when we get into final design and look at the street grades and try to minimize it as much as possible in here, but I really am being pushed by that sewer depth issue. What Chuck was mentioning, the sewer as it comes through, this comes up in a hill in this area. The sewer at this point is 30 feet deep, so we're that much higher here than here, and to get, keep, maintain the cover on the pipe is the main driving fact and not pushing that road down, but I'd be happy to try to minimize that as much as we can and work with your staff to do that. The items in the staff report that I just wanted to clarify from our standpoint. This is items l1(b) talks about maintaining 10 foot horizontal separation between all sanitary, water and storm sewer mains. We have one location on the project and that is on the Weathers property in this location. Where the sanitary sewer and water will come down this lot line through these back yards and through an easement that's in this location to connect into the existing system. It was too, much, much too deep to try to run the sewer around it, the street. As we're coming down these lot lines we're proposing to keep those two mains 5 feet apart as opposed to 10 feet apart to minimize the easement area in there. We're also proposing then to use watermain quality pipe for the sanitary sewer which ten state standards allows us then to move those closer than 10 feet so hopefully the city can accept that. That condition. If they will, we'd be happy to work with them on it. Item (c), revise the storm sewer pipe size to maintain a minimum 15 inch. We have a storm sewer that's stubbed into our site at this location. It's only a 12 inch pipe. I can't connect a 15 into a 12 inch pipe without having potential problems so I should, anything that goes upstream of that should be the 12 inch pipe and not a 15 inch pipe. But again I'd look to your city engineer to help make that decision. And finally, item (h). Re- route the proposed watermain in the southwest comer of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30 foot utility easement. I already talked about that. We did relocate it as requested but we're requesting to keep those pipes 5 feet apart and use watermain quality on the sanitary sewer. Other than that we did not have any issues with what was being requested in the staff report. Slagle: Okay. Chuck Alcon: That would complete our comments. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Slagle: Okay. Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, can you talk about your landscaping. I mean since you're doing, you know this is kind of an infilllocation with a lot of lots adjacent to these properties. You know, if I lived in one of the homes on, adjoining this, I'd be interested in having as much buffering as I possibly could. Can you just speak to how you went about your landscaping plan? Chuck Alcon: Well we have a landscaping plan and that was done by Steve's group and the developer will be responsible for that landscaping plan throughout the development and it was intended to match existing neighborhoods around it, exempt those areas as mentioned where the utility easements are in place. So that was the fundamentals behind it. Slagle: Steve. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 LiIlehaug: Yeah, I have a few questions and it'd be on some of the comments here. You're indicating that the sanitary is one of the driving forces of the grading, which is legitimate. Could you tell me, what is the depth of the sanitary sewer where you're proposing to tie into on Gunflint? I mean I want to understand, since it's a driving force, I really want to understand how and why it's a driving force. Steve Johnston: Okay, the depth of the sewer where we're connecting to at this location is of an adequate depth to serve the property. The issue is keeping enough coverage over the pipe. When we first came in with the plan prior to the December meeting, we had immediately came out of that main and came up about 5 or 6 feet. Because it was deeper actually than what we needed. We received the staff comments then that they wanted us to try to lower the grade on this end of the project and as we did that, in the last month, we tried to respond to all the staff comments, we lowered that to the point where the sanitary sewer now on Gunflint Trail is at minimum grade to the low point in the road which is here adjacent to the wetland. That is essentially all the further we can push that point down and maintain adequate coverage in this location. By pushing that down though we ended up with a grade in this location. The street grade in this location stayed the same and then now that's gone from 24 feet of coverage to about 30 feet of cover on that sanitary sewer line. And that was all done in an attempt to minimize the height of this wall which we have done. Originally that wall was about 8 to 10 feet tall and now it's in the area generally of 4 feet tall. There's one spot that's 6 feet tall. Lillehaug: I guess I'm not seeing the whole picture but you're saying where you tie into Gunflint Trail, you're stepping up 5 feet. A 5 foot drop and then. Chuck Alcon: Originally we were. Lillehaug: Originally. Chuck Alcon: But now we're keeping the sewer as deep as we possibly can to have the minimum impact in this general location. Lillehaug: Okay, so from where you're tying in back to that other, back to the cul-de-sac, you're at a minimum grade the entire length. Chuck Alcon: Correct. Lillehaug: And does staff concur with that then? Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Another question would be, storm sewer. You're indicating you're not, you point out one of the conditions where the city would like to maintain a minimum of 15 inch diameter storm sewer. Is that, are you talking just for that one small segment where you're tying in or are you alluding further upstream. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Steve Johnston: We have no problem with the rest of the project being all 15 inch pipe, if that's your preference. My point only is that right now we're showing, we're showing this intersection draining into an existing pipe that was stubbed at this part of the project. That stub is only a 12 inch pipe. So if you connect a 15 inch into a 12 inch, it isn't a very good condition. Lillehaug: Okay. And then the 10 foot grade separation that you indicated down on Street B. Is there, what are the grade differences between, is it the watermain and sanitary? Steve Johnston: They're both within a foot or two of the same elevation. The desire there was just not spreading them out. 10 feet apart. Trying to keep them at 5 was only to keep the buildable width of those lots intact. If we were to add, separate the pipe, we need more easement. That reduces the size of those lots. The effective size of those lots. Lillehaug: Does staff, is there another option that you were looking at that they could easily get 10 foot separation to work? Or is that a condition that I guess that we would, that you would like to maintain there? Saam: When we had previously talked with the applicant, we were under the assumption that the pipes would stay at 10 feet and then their concern was the amount of easement area. We told them we wanted a 30 foot, basically 10 feet between all the pipes. Their concern was how that would restlict the house pad size, as I understand it. So we said we could go down to a 25 foot easement. But still keeping the 10 foot separation in the pipes, so at this point that's something we'd still like to do. I think we can work with them on that but, yeah. Steve Johnston: I think we're getting real technical here and we can work this out. Lillehaug: So let's not get technical and let's go the other direction. Your cul-de-sac and road that goes up to Outlot D, what have you done for the residents to the east of your development to help this development work in with their development and make this you know more, really fit in with their back yards rather than putting a road right up against their lot line? Steve Johnston: With the, and I think Chuck mentioned this as well. We, our original landscape plan showed re-vegetating this area that you can see where there are no trees planted now, and then we became aware of that Xcel was not going to let us do any of those plantings underneath the power line. So those have now been pulled out of there. It's very limited as far as what we can do. We can't have anything that's going to grow up and interfere with those lines. Lillehaug: As far as possibly pulling that road away and losing a lot or two, is that an option? And creating a bigger buffer between their back lot line and the actual right-of-way for the roadway. I mean I can, I'm sure you understand my concerns here. You're living there. Can you anticipate a roadway being on your back property line? I certainly would not anticipate that. Steve Johnston: There basically is enough room to put lots on one side of that street. We put the road, we kept it 10 feet off the property line with the right-of-way so the road itself was going to be about 25 feet off the property line. To put the road on the other side, on the west side of those lots would mean that all of those lots were above the, above the street. Instead of walking out 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 they would become tuckunders which is not a very desirable house type. When we first came in we looked at that area with a private drive and for a lot size we were directed by staff that this was a preferable option to placing a cul-de-sac in this location and doing this with a private drive, so we have looked at other alternatives and this one was the best alternative to gain access to that part of the property owner/developer's property. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have for now. Slagle: Kurt. Papke: I'd like to get to resident questions as quickly as possible so I'll limit my questions at this time. Slagle: We might call you back if you wouldn't mind. Steve Johnston: Thank you. Slagle: I am going to open it up now to the public and what I would ask is that you limit your questions and discussion to let's say 5 minutes or less. Obviously some will carryover if they need to. If some of you are from a neighborhood where there's many folks, all we would ask as courtesy is not to repeat the same comments or concerns. We'll certainly get the feel for that as we go forward so what I'd like to do is just invite you up one at a time. State your name, your address and we'd love to hear from you. So whoever wants to go first, you're welcome. Tom Hirsch: Hi. My name's Tom Hirsch. I live at 2290 Longacres Drive in the Longacres subdivision. I was recently elected President of the Board of the Longacres Homeowners Associations and I represent the 222 lots and homes that make up the Longacres subdivision. If we could scan on a picture of the Longacres, I'd like to give just a brief overview of our subdivision. The connection into the proposed property is here on the picture. The road that connects across from here is Longacres Drive. We have monuments and landscaping on a cul- de-sac type arrangement or a center median arrangement that already comes off of Highway 41. And off of Galpin, and we have a connector down through our subdivision that also has a monument and landscaped entrance into our subdivision off of Galpin Road to the south. We maintain two parks, both of which are on the north side of Longacres Drive. Here on the picture and here on the picture. Both of these parks have kiddie playgrounds. A tennis court is in the west one that's adjacent to the proposed development. We spend approximately $71,000 a year maintaining our entrances and our parks for the 222 lots that are contained within our subdivision. 76 percent of our residents must cross Longacres Drive to gain access to these parks. The new subdivision is in the Chaska School District, as I understand. Chaska School DistIict to get to the middle schools and the high school is a straight shot down Highway 41 and Bluff Creek Elementary would be at the comer of Galpin and Highway 5. I would estimate approximately 90 percent of the traffic coming out of this proposed subdivision would be cutting through the Longacres subdivision to gain access to the schools, Highway 41. To go south, or across to Galpin to get to the middle school for school activities. And it's a retail corridor as you're well aware throughout Highway 5. That's the main growth area of retail in your master plan. I have two issues I'd like to bring to the table. Number one is, I didn't see in the staff 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 report any traffic studies, environmental impact studies or any application or a rule as to the feasibility from the State on access into Highway 41 that could potentially disperse traffic out away from Longacres to provide that access to go southbound to the middle schools and the high schools. And into Chaska. I think we must conduct due diligence of assessing the risk to our children associated with the increased traffic into our neighborhood. We owe it to the children to conduct these studies and implement any mitigations to this risk. A couple traffic solutions that came to my mind again would be open, direct access to Highway 41 to disperse some of that traffic for the southbound traffic to the middle schools and the high schools. There's, I don't think the State is going to say absolutely no. We are shutting down with this development some of the access that's currently coming off of Highway 41, and there are other accesses that have been granted with the proper left turns and the right turns coming in and out of that access. It would provide a safe access in and out of these 57 lots. A couple other ideas that I had that would, that might come up through an assessment and mitigation techniques would be installing stop signs on Longacres Drive. There are no stop signs on Longacres Drive currently. And perhaps reduce speed on Longacres Drive. My second issue I'll move to now is, I'll reference page 9 in the staff report. In there it's documented that there are no parks planned in the development. There are no trails in the development and the only nearest public park is Lake Minnewashta Regional Park and it's recommended by staff that the neighborhood not gain access to that by walking to it. Therefore the nearest park is our kiddie park, which is right down their street. Park access, it's a private park. We, as I stated earlier, maintain it. It's a beautiful park and has very expensive equipment in it. We do have capital reserve studies that we've done and we maintain a capital reserve to provide maintenance to that equipment based upon it's useful life. I estimate, our first point is park access is easy and direct for these new residents and it's really an unenforceable thing for us to enforce no trespassing into our park. These residents have nowhere to walk to take their children to play. They will come to our's. It creates a maintenance and a cost and a risk and a liability risk to all of the homeowners of Longacres. I estimate about 22, 26 percent increase usage based upon the 57 lots and some calculations of average children per household that would reduce the useful life of our equipment by 26 percent, which would cause us to increase our reserves to maintain that. This really is not an expense or a liability that I think we should be expected to absorb. Possibly mitigations would be to require a kiddie park in the new subdivision. Provide Longacres homeowners with a barrier fence and no trespassing signs to limit our liability and reimburse us for our increased insurance rates. Or possibly join the Longacres Homeowners Association. In conclusion, as a board member I'm obligated to bring these risks to the table. I request your time, cooperation, assistance and guidance to resolve them. If we ever are asked at any point in the future whether we did due diligence on this traffic due to some sort of accident and have we implemented mitigations, I think we all must be able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that we did. The safety of our children is the highest priority. Development's a great addition to our city. I'm happy to see this type of development showing in this rural area. We must be responsible, prudent in our decisions and to protect the safety of our children. I thank you for your time and your consideration. Slagle: You're welcome. Any questions? Of this gentleman. Okay, thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Papke: I have a quick one. Have there been any conversations with the developer about having this development join your homeowners association? That sounds to me like a very proactive, positive way of going after this problem. Tom Hirsch: I have gotten engaged in this process rather late. I saw the sign that went up on December 22nd at the stub within our neighborhood. I do not live within 500 feet of the neighborhood so I was, I live up Longacres towards the Galpin side and did not see any activity going on so we had about 2 weeks. There were some phone calls made today with my management company and the developer and we've started those conversations. Slagle: Thank you. I want to ask a question of staff if I may. How do we address, and I know you're not the park director Kate or Sharmeen but how do we address this, what I think is a pretty common question and I think a sensible one that here you're putting 57 homes into an area that really there are no parks, at least that we're aware of. Are there others that you're aware that are potentially planned? Aanenson: Well this isn't the first situation where this has occurred. We recently had the same issue come up on Settlers. Settlers West where you had a long cul-de-sac adjacent to an existing subdivision that had a swimming pool and a totlot and there was the same concern of the new people are going to feel like they can come over and use it. We have the same situation on Lake Lucy Ridge adjacent to Ashling Meadows, which also has a private. You know, I guess from our perspective is, if it's tots more than likely they're going to be with parents so it's an education issue of where you can and can't go. If it's children are within that, going to that. Slagle: Let me ask it a different way. I'll use the two examples you brought up. Settlers Ridge, we got the applicant to create their own totlot inside the development, if we're talking about Pemtom. Aanenson: No, they just put a trail to connect back and forth. Slagle: But the last I remember is they were going to add their own totlot on the west side. Aanenson: Their own totlot? Okay. Slagle: So they created their own and as far as the one off Ashling Meadows, if I'm not mistaken, if you go up Lake Lucy a quarter of a mile you're at Pheasant Hill Park. And all I'm trying to say is, is I look where this is geographically situated and unless there's plans to go up the trail, or the power line and connect to potentially the Jerome Carlson land, if there's a park planned for that, I could see that. But if something didn't happen there and it really is Minnewashta or nothing. Aanenson: Right, or walking towards the junior. Slagle: Or going to Longacres. Aanenson: Or to the junior high to the north. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: To the junior high to the north. Aanenson: Up to West. Slagle: That's a pretty far walk though. And I'm not trying to put you in a difficult spot but I'm just trying to say these are fair questions. Aanenson: Well first of all the Park Commission went one, you cannot do an extraction to say you have to put in a pri vate park. You can't ask for that. That's something that this development chose not to do as a part of... That would be an independent decision. The Park Commission looks and makes a decision whether or not they want to take an extraction or take park and trail fees, and they chose to do the park and trail fees. Slagle: And what is that because on page 9 it says the City is not seeking parkland dedication as a condition of this platting. Paying of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. Typically we see what they're going to pay. Aanenson: The City Council at it's last meeting in December just increased those rates based on cost of living so I'm sorry, I don't have those in front of me but they will be. Slagle: Fully. Aanenson: Yep, in force, yes. Slagle: Okay. It's a touch one. Aanenson: It's their decision, right so. Can we usurp that? Um. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Lillehaug: Rich, can I ask a question before we leave the traffic here since questions were raised. Slagle: Sure. Lillehaug: Gunflint Trail stub, I mean to me it looks like there was a proposed road. I mean it looks like it was going to continue on, as well as coming out of Highover. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: How did Longacres, going through that process and Highover plan review process, how did they anticipate, I mean did city staff and those developments anticipate connecting into this property to serve that? Aanenson: Yes. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Saam: Yeah, I'll take that. Both of the development contracts for both Longacres, I'm not sure which addition it was and then Highover. I researched them both. They both have conditions where it said that the street, these streets will be extended in the future so it was all laid out. It's always been planned. Lillehaug: Thanks. Aanenson: And actually let me just add to that. When Longacres came in, there was a request from the developer at that time to actually narrow the road because that was always shown as a minor collector which typically you make a little bit wider. At that time the developer wanted a request so it had a more neighborhood appearance so actually the city gave relief to that to actually kind of narrow that cross section as opposed to a typical cross section for a minor collector. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Whoever's next. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. I took the liberty of superimposing two documents from the city. This from the back of the pink copy showing these, I believe it's just grade in on the inside front cover of the report that you have. And then I took a copy of the development plan and reduced it down. My concern is primarily around traffic, particularly the number of homes that are being picked up by Highover Drive specifically. As was referenced earlier, there are various levels of road. Arterial, collector, and local but I think as a practical matter sometimes there are short cuts and maybe something that's kind of between a collector and a local road and my concern, a number of my neighbors concern is that Highover Drive in this delineation, based on it's relative straightness compared to the other roads and it's length will be picking up a tremendous amount of traffic in a neighborhood that now, you know 7 years in has an awful lot of kids on it where we already see quite high speeds. We've had to call the sheriff a couple times to bring the sign up there to show people their speeds and try to get them to slow down. And I don't see provision in here for slowing down the traffic or quite frankly just the pure traffic counts. I don't know which way the traffic would split. How much of it would go south, how much of it would go north but I suspect we might have as much as 37 additional homes that might be served by Highover Drive as they go north to get onto Lake Lucy and to get onto Highway 41 and go from there. While there was a sign, has been a sign as long as I've lived there. I've lived there 6 years or so, that said the road would go through, I think it was a reasonable assumption by the residents that it would either be a cul-de-sac. That there would be access to 41 or if it did go through that we'd be picking up a smaller number of homes consistent with our neighborhood. Our neighborhood like Longacres is, has a homeowners association. We pay dues to the homeowners association to maintain the properties and the common areas and I do have the same concern as my distant neighbor from Longacres that this development will be taking advantage of the fact that they have people both on the north and the south that are paying dues into a neighborhood association to maintain those properties and this is a property that's kind of jumping in, taking advantage of, or enjoying the benefit if you will of those properties north and south and the way they're maintained without being a party to either one of those homeowner associations. My overall impression is that this plan tries to squeeze too much 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 into too small of a space. The applicant himself said this is a difficult site. I think it's a difficult site only if you try to put too much in too small of a space. That creates a difficulty. If you spread it out, put fewer home sites in it, make accommodations either for cul-de-sacs that come into each other or access to 41 or somehow limit the number of homes, then it doesn't have the difficulty. Nature imposes the difficulty. Maybe they're just trying to put too much into one place. And as may be evidenced by the concern that was mentioned earlier about these homes to the east where you do have a road running right up against someone's back yard, it doesn't affect me but I feel for the people that are in that situation. I think that covers my concerns. Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Your homeowner's association dues, do you know what that goes toward in the Highover neighborhood? Rodd Wagner: Sure. It goes for insurance on the common properties. It goes for maintaining the mailboxes. The mailboxes all have a consistent look to them. That kind of, there's a rock wall I believe, I'm not exactly sure what the situation is there. I believe the city technically owns it but we have to maintain the liability insurance there. There's some pools and things, you know standing water and such that we have to take care of. Keefe: Okay. And then you guys don't have a totlot? Rodd Wagner: No, we don't have any kind of common properties or things like that but that's not to say we wouldn't like to build some at some point and this could have an adverse affect on something like that. But my main concern is just the traffic. I don't think Longacres was ever, I think this creates a situation where the road is taking on traffic that it wasn't anticipated to do so when it was designated a local road. That it's becoming too close to a collector and there's going to be people learn short cuts and they'll be going through to move from one collector to another. From Lake Lucy to get to Longacres, or excuse me. Yeah, Longacres to Lake Lucy and I don't think that was ever anticipated. Certainly wasn't by the residents in that neighborhood. I appreciate your time. Slagle: Thank you. Larry Lovik: Good evening. My name's Larry Lovik and I live at 2475 Gunflint Court. It'd be this right here. Slagle: Can we do that again Nann? Zoom up just a. Okay. Larry Lovik: This comer lot. Slagle: You have the fence behind your house. Larry Lovik: Yes. And the two big dogs. I wanted to raise three points if I may. Elaborate really on two, so I'll try not to repeat what's been stated before. But Matt, the engineer spoke earlier about the three types of roads and the two we're concerned with would be I believe the feeder and then local roads. As you see the map here, there's a problem with the way Longacres was originally built. It trends northerly as it heads east. And see where I live and for any 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 individuals coming out of the new development, if they need to go to 5 to head east for any direction, 494, what have you, they'll come down past my house but they'll end up coming across the Hunter, and Hunter is a local road. It's a very, very narrow, windy road and our association already has many complaints about traffic going too fast. Too much traffic. There's often times parked cars with kids playing in the road there. I would anticipate that if you look at the total map here that all these homes, including possibly homes from here would travel south and end up going through Hunter to get on Galpin to hit 5. If you look at the map the connection of Longacres to Galpin is so far away it's not even on the map. Now some of the problems with the connection to 41, in discussing this with the staff and engineers is there's a bluff on the west side along 41. And I guess my comments about the bluff is, does the origin of the bluff come into play when you're trying to protect the bluff. If you look at how 41 was cut in, that was it seems to me the creation of the bluff in the first place, and if you walk along 41 there, you'll see where there's already a cut in for a bike trail. It was just never developed so it became overgrown with trees and things. Along the westerly side of the development there's three spots, and correct me if I'm wrong, that are not designated as a bluff. Two of them are the already existing driveways that I think should be explored to expand access into the development. The third one is the dead center middle. Other recent driveways along 41 would include the W ooddale Church which is about half a mile to the south. It seems to me they cut through a very similar looking area as what we'd be requesting occur here. Similar situation where I believe it was a driveway that was expanded to become a regular street, West 78th. If that's not feasible then I'd strongly urge the council to find ways of lowering the density, installing stop signs, possibly even at my comer and especially along Longacres and Hunter. Two other points. The park. I think that's very important. If you look at the map again, this is the park here. It actually is adjoining to the development. So it's a very hard case to make that we are not going to allow a resident who's back yards back up to a park, not to use the park. If it was just a few incidental extra kids playing in the park I don't think our association members would have too much of a problem if the rest of the association had their, or the rest of the development had their park to go to too. And finally I noticed in the recommendations about street cleaning. Street cleaning daily as needed. I'd like to suggest that you drop the as needed and just include it as street cleaning daily. If that's not dropped, who gets to decide what as needed means? I'm sure that the existing owners would probably have a little bit different opinion about as needed as a developer. And that concludes my remarks. Any questions? Slagle: Thank you very much. Stuart Henderson: I don't have a map. I feel bad. So maybe I'll just use one of these. Stuart Henderson. I live at 7240 Gunflint Trail. I back up on what I now know is a bluff. I live right out here, which actually raised another question because I had, I do have a question at some point on what happens with the whole bluff thing. Slagle: Show me where you live again sir? Stuart Henderson: Here. Yeah, similarly I saw the sign, I've been there 3 years. Sign at the end of the road. Figured it was going to extend at some point. I don't have a problem with development, etc. My issues do so I'm not going to beat on a, other than a couple different points. Whether it's the traffic. I figure if something went in it would probably hook to 41. I 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 also didn't necessarily figure we'd be talking you know 57 homes. I don't know about collectors and things of that nature. All I, I just drive and I can tell you that I go down Hunter, which is like this wide. If anyone doesn't park in their driveway, you can't get by. It's only 2 cars wide. No sidewalks, etc. So I'd say perhaps well, and by the way, thanks Matt. Spent some time on the phone with me today. It may have been when the thing's designed that people said oh yeah, this is going to be the road. We always anticipated it. But of course there was no one living there when it was designed. On either end so it's fairly easy to design something when nobody's there. I was a little surprised to hear in terms of the hook-up at 41, that no one has asked. That I guess I thought that maybe it's been checked and you can't so I would suggest that that's a good way to route traffic, maybe somebody should ask. Last thing is on that one little comer, in that circle you see there, there's like 20 kids. With the exception of mine, all under 12 which is good because they're babysitting material for my kids but, and I think there's been a couple more born recently. Yeah okay, 22. So it is, you know it may well have changed in character from what the engineers envisioned when designing this in terms of the whole traffic flow so I'm quite concerned about the traffic piece and appreciate whatever you can do to address it. Slagle: Thank you very much. Dr. Jennifer Rysso: Thank you first for your time and attention in this matter. My name is Dr. Jennifer Rysso. I am a full time internal medicine physician at Park Nicollet Clinic. I live at 7108 Harrison Hill Trail in Longacres which has been talked a lot about tonight. Which is at the bend of this road. This property right adjacent where everybody is saying they are sorry if they were me. That's me. I am also the mother of a 4 year old and an 8 year old daughter and I'm going to talk to you as a mother actually. I enjoy neighbors to the north and south of me also adjacent to the proposed development with children numbering 13 on that side alone, including those of ages less than a year to 9 years of age. My concerns regarding the current plan are multiple. The first and foremost involves safety. I lived in South Minneapolis prior to building in Longacres in Chanhassen. My property bordered an alley way along the back of my house. A very common feature of homes in South Minneapolis but not in Chanhassen. One of my neighbors watched as her young son was hit by a car coming down that alley way. I used to sit at the edge of the alley way while my children were younger, while they were playing in the back yard to keep them safe so they didn't go into that alley way. I moved to Chanhassen in part to allow my children and vision of being allowed to play freely outside without being monitored continuously by a fearful parent waiting for the next flying car to come down the alley way or around the curve. I built on our property understanding up front that a development would follow to border our back yard. My husband and I understood that ultimately another back yard would join our back yard and we were quite content with that thought with a sense of community and neighbors in mind. With the current plan in front of you I am being robbed of my vision. I am not alone. My neighbors had the same vision and built in Longacres for the same reason. The current plan involves a street that provides access to driveways of approximately 5 homes. That street directly borders my back yard and in essence becomes my new alley way. Not only is it an alley way, but it is a street that can be accessed by young children by jumping off a retaining wall an act the children in my neighborhood do over and over every single day I'm watching them play in my back yard. This cannot be prevented, believe me as parents we have tried. The higher the wall along the street, the more challenging it is for the children to jump from. This street makes a curve that appears to be blind to those that might be standing on a wall 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 waItmg to jump. I don't see the children seeing the car or the driver seeing the children in this current plan. I see the danger of children jumping and stumbling in front of a moving car and then being hit, perhaps mortally to be too much of a risk. Fences and trees, which of course in this area won't be allowed with the electric easement anyway, will not prevent the challenge of the jump but will make it all the more challenging. The only answer in my view to the safety is that the road not be there. If the current plan is developed it will place the safety of the 15 children on the west side of Harrison Hill Trail and the safety of the 23 children on the east side of Harrison Hill Trail who tend to focus most of their play on our side because there's really not a lot of back yards on their side, will put them at risk. 38 children. That doesn't include the unborn children due in a few months on our road, or the friends and relatives of the children on the street. We are a young community. That number of children is only going to get larger. I am not a builder, nor can I claim to be experienced in looking at plans. However it does appear that this street that will access 5 houses at most, will compromise the safety of over 38 children and drivers using the road. Perhaps one could re-route the road to the west side of the house adjacent to the wetlands which I've heard developers talk about. If not, perhaps the road shouldn't exist and perhaps as mentioned several times tonight a proper use for that area would be a park for the people in that area. Understandably the goal of the developers was to allow these new properties to have their back yards against the wetlands. Perhaps even the property will be able to be sold for more if they are marketed as back yards adjacent to wetland, but at what cost to the community. Compromising the safety of every house hold, at least 19 homes along Longacres/Harrison Hill to place a road to access only 5 homes does not reasonably a constitute a community decision. Others will discuss with you the financial impact that this road has on my property value and on those of my neighbors. Others will discuss with you the destroyed aesthetic appearance of my property and that of my neighbors should this road be built. Others will discuss with you the fact that this new planned neighborhood offers no access to major thoroughfares, I think which has been mentioned quite a lot. I however will emphasize to you the issues of safety and community. Is it a community decision to allow the current road to be built as on your blueprint when it serves only to allow an appealing location of a back yard adjacent to a wetland when they could have an appealing location to my back yard. Is it a community action to approve a road that serves only to access 5 houses when it compromises the 19 homes along the Harrison Hill neighborhood and the over 38 children that live in those homes. My answer to you is that approval of that road will be solely a financial decision and not one that city commissioners should make when their ultimate goal is to serve the community. Thank you. Sorry, it was a prepared statement. Slagle: Thank you. Anybody else? Uli Sacchet: Well good evening from this side of the crowd. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South, which is the property right here. I also represent my neighbor which is the property right here. As a matter of fact I want to address first a point or two from my neighbors that hasn't been raised yet. Before I do that I want to make it clear that I address you as a resident, local resident and not as a member of the Planning Commission. The neighbor over here on Lot 22 of Highover, that's Ruth and Tom Rolfs. They've written a letter I think that was handed out to you this evening, and I wanted to summarize some of their points and focus on two points that have not been brought up yet that they bring up here. Their letter is basically an outcry against urban sprawl. Against the destruction of the existing wildlife corridor. The 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 beautiful wooded area on the rolling topography against the extreme grading and the effort to pack in as many lots, as many buildings as possible. In addition their's is a concern about drainage that they're bringing up. But first of all I'd like to point out that there is a major wildlife conidor on, between basically the two developments. On the south edge of Highover, that northern edge of this development in that comer of it is a major wildlife corridor and there is really no reason to believe that that corridor will totally go away. Even with all this development because there will be still significant woodland left, even when the Carlson property will be developed and as we saw at our last meeting also the property north, the Mancino property, there is a significant piece of woods preserved on the west side which will still attract wildlife, so this will remain to some extent a wildlife corridor, which deserves to be noted. Which by squeezing as many houses as close into that, it's going to have an impact. Obviously this neighbor shares the concerns I have about that wildlife corridor. He's concerned about the extent of the tree cutting. The extent of the grading, and then another specific concern that is raised that I share very much is that Lot 1, Block 4 of the Yoberry development is not just a wildlife corridor. It's also drainage path. Basically the whole area of Highover, this southeastern part of Highover drains into that lot and it's not a minimal drain. I mean when there is a heavy rain or snow melt, it's enough to have a little creek. I mean it's enough to wash away a little twigs and little leafs and all that, so what Ruth and Tom Rolfs want to bring to your attention is that, is that good planning? To put in a questionable lot. They point out that it's an irregular shape, which I don't know whether that is necessarily something that can be held against it, if it fulfills the requirements. But is that consistent with good development planning? And just to quote their closing, their interest. They say our interest as adjacent homeowners that are, that the property is not developed in a typical urban sprawl manner but developed responsibly in a manner consistent with maintaining the character of the area. We believe and hope you will agree that this plan should be modified to better fit into the existing landscape. We believe that extreme destruction of wooded areas and extreme grading require it to change the elevations is not responsible development. So that's my word of my neighbors since there were unable to be here tonight. Now speaking for myself, we've heard of several neighbors that are being impacted. Now personally I'm ending up with a cul-de-sac next to my back yard. I'm ending up with a side yard next to my back yard so I get a double hit here. Not necessarily what I was hoping for. I do believe the developer's within their rights. What can be done to mitigate that? It's, there's some things. I've had some discussions with the developer and they actually are open, actually it's scary I start trusting them after a while even. One aspect also that is mentioned, it has not come up so far that's mentioned in the report is that with this development being considered a strip of no man's land was discovered between Highover to the north and the owners to the south. It's still kind of fuzzy a little bit how big that no man's land is, and when I go out there with my measurement, it seems to be like 28 feet or something like that, but the agreement the way I understand it is that it's going to be split evenly between the two sides, so that is not something that the city gets involved with but I do want to mention this here for the record. In terms of the points that I have personally with this as a resident. You know after looking at this proposal, I have to admit that except for the impact it has on this comer, this development is actually pretty solid. It has a lot of qualities. I think it's pretty well cooked. I actually have to commend the developer for their efforts. As you know, those of you that are here that know me, I usually look in some detail at the large trees because I love trees, and I do want to share that with you. Because I think this developer does better in terms of preserving large trees than just about any other development this size that I've seen come before this Planning Commission in quite a 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 while. To give you the specifics, I looked at the trees on the tree inventory are 24 inches or bigger. Initially with initial grading they save 29 of them. They cut 13. And 3 are questionable, so even if you include the ones that are questionable, and the ones they cut, they're saving 2/3 of them. They are a couple of custom graded lots, which is going to be roughly about 6 more of those significant trees that are going to be cut. Even with that they're still saving half of the really large trees, which is really commendable. Which is really quite remarkable because I don't remember another development that scored that well with that, and I reluctantly make this admission because I'd rather have this held up a little bit and improved a little bit in my comer. But in all fairness I have to point this out to you. My favorite tree, 216 apparently, unfortunately cannot be saved. Which is probably the most spectacular specimen of an oak that I've seen anywhere. I mean this thing is just a beauty so, I'm still waiting for a miracle. Find out how you can save 213. Ah, 216 it is. However, to be specific to my comer of the concern here, there is one tree, 192 which is about right here. Just directly north of the cul-de-sac. At this point, according to the plan it appears about 10-15 feet away from the nearest grading line. I'm not sure it's exactly placed accurately on the plat. I think it's actually slightly further to the south by probably about 2-3 feet. It's not in that Outlot G strip by my estimation that will be transferred to the north neighbors. It's probably about a foot or two beyond that. And it's a really nice tree. I think considering that this whole strip to the north is a tree preservation zone, considering that we get stuck with a cul-de-sac in our back yard, and side yard rammed in next to our back yard, it still hurts that my... You know we get spoiled. You're out there. I may even have to get curtains in my bathroom but. But that aside, I really want to put a plea in for this tree 192. I mentioned that to you before. I do believe it can be saved but according to the staff report it's put into the category of questionable trees. There's a bunch of other trees that I have interest in, in the other parts of the development and I'm not going to go into this in the interest of time. I did mention it to staff so you're aware of it. I also would like to ask for whatever possible to minimize the grading and tree cutting in the area adjacent to this back yard. And also potentially, right now the landscaping plan foresees a number of evergreens on top of the retaining wall, but then birches on the side. Maybe at least one of these birches could be exchanged to an evergreen or two to increase the maximum buffer, because frankly what I'm concerned about is cars coming up this hill. This is steep. They're going to shine right into my bedroom. They're going to shine right into the back of the house so whatever can be done through buffering with evergreens. I mean there's some buffering in place through the retaining wall, which is really good, and to make every possible effort to preserve as much of the trees that are savable there. Now I do have another concern, I used to be a member of the Board of the Highover neighborhood association. I'm not part of that now so I'm not speaking in any official capacity for the Highover neighborhood. However there are three aspects in this that touch on the Highover neighborhood as a whole. The first one is a very good one. Is that pond here actually stays and I don't even want to express the gratitude for the Highover that that stays because it was considered a temporary pond that would be moving south at some point. It's not doing that, that's great. The other thing is the lift station that is currently up here. That is being eliminated. It's important to, and I believe that's being settled that that is not, that that's going to be moved and there is not going to be another lift station. Is that accurate? Saam: COlTect. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Uli Sacchet: Okay. And then the other aspect I also want to point out is that we actually do get a trail connection to the neighborhood. The Highover neighborhood trail there which is very commendable. I want to make sure that stays there. So in closing, one key point. The findings in the staff report say that this development will not cause environmental damage. That just simply is not true. That will have to be modified to state something like, will not cause excessive environmental damage or efforts are being made to minimize it. Since that will ultimately effect me when I'm sitting back up there again, I want to point that out too. And I believe that's all that I want to share with you. Thank you for the attention and again, I address to you as a resident. . . Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. John Graham: My name is John Graham. I'm from 6935 Highover and I'll use Rodd's map here again. Currently, and it's just with traffic. On Highover there's currently a bus stop there. There is no stop sign. That's pretty much at the top of the hill. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Highover Drive but it's a very steep grade from there on down. With the amount of traffic going down there I think there's got to be at least 80 percent of the kids under 10 years old and I'd like at least a stop sign along that way. The next one down, Highover Trail might be tough because that grade coming up in the winter time might be tough to get going again but again, to reiterate a lot of concerns with the traffic coming through there. The amount of kids for both the north and the south of these. Just want to reiterate that, if there's any way to outlet that traffic to 41 would be preferable. Slagle: Thank you. Stacy Riecks: Thank you again for taking the time. I'm Stacy Riecks and I live at 7256 Gunflint Trail which is right here on the comer of Gunflint Trail and Longacres. We would be adjacent to what is called Lot 5 on the current plat. Like the folks that spoke before me, I am concerned about the traffic that would be traveling, and like my brother and I also travel down Hunter to get out to work and to Highway 5. One of the concerns that has not been brought up, which the gentleman before me just did was the bus stop and currently there are 4 bus stops for various ages of children that do stop right there on Gunflint Trail and Longacres so obviously during our high traffic times of the morning, that's when the bus stops are being used. They start at 6:30, 7:00, continue to 8:00 and 8:30. So that's right there during the prime traffic time. Another concern that was not brought up, which I did learn more about today was the drainage issue that is potentially taking place back there. Currently during any type of rain storm my back yard is already flooded as it already is. Currently the water flows like a river, through the back yard. Goes over the sidewalk and out into the street so considering all the movement that is going to be taking place, I have more concerns about what the drainage issues would be with some of the rigging that appears to be going on back there as well. And then also obviously I would not necessarily be in favor of having a sidewalk in my front yard but I am concerned about the safety on our street so would love to obviously understand how we're going to reorganize those roads to make them safe for our children, which we did mention are 22 just in our little 9 home area so,nthat's really all I have to say. Slagle: Thank you. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Paul Addiston: Paul Addiston, 7080 Harrison Hill Trail. I'll be very brief. I live here. And I know this issue's been brought up and skirted briefly a couple times but I can't tell you the personal investment and what we've gone through as a family to try to get to a place like we are now, and I have literally looked at over 100 houses before buying this one and I have never seen another house that has a road on the back side of my property and the front side of my property. I've got two kids, 9 and 7. There's got to be something else they can do besides that. Thank you. Rich Bray: My name's Rich Bray. I live at 6983 Highover Drive. To show you where I'm at. I'm right on the comer of Highover Drive and Highover Way and I want to just give a real brief history if I could of the acquisition of my lot and the building of the home and what I was told by Jerome Carlson and our realtors, which may not have any legal precedence any longer but just want to give you some history. We knew the road was going through. We were told there was a cul-de-sac that was going to be developed on the end of that, which I think is becoming a common known twist on where it was. Worst case scenario we certainly thought there'd be access from 41, other than through Lake Lucy coming down our road. If you look at this part of the development that runs along the western side, it's important to keep in mind that those people deal with an extremely busy highway, which is 41 right now. That's very noisy and unfortunately traffic on Highover Drive runs close to 30 miles per hour up that hill, and that's why we've got a lot of issues with regard to the traffic and speed and trying to control it in a dead end community. So we can only understand or guess at this point what the traffic's going to be like to try and feed another 150 to 100 automobiles developing or trying to find a shortcut, not to get onto the traffic. Not to try and go down Hunter but to exit out through Lake Lucy, and that's our concern. A majority of the children in that area are under 10 years of age. Multiple families. Now the history on my lot, the city actually made me move my trees after I planted them on the comer back 2 feet. I planted 3 evergreen trees on the comer and they made me remove the trees, move them 3 feet back for the purpose that at some point there's going to be a stop sign at that intersection and they didn't want a blind intersection. Slagle: If I could ask, would that be on the northwest comer of your property? Rich Bray: That would be, yes. The northwest comer. And so I guess I have a question, is there any intention of putting a 3 way stop at that comer? Slagle: Mr. Saam. Saam: Not that I'm aware of. Rich Bray: Yeah, and that would make a blind hill that they would over the top with traffic and that would be a real concern I think for our community and our neighborhood about 25-30 miles per hour speeds going over the top of a blind hill with kids playing out. Right now a number of the neighbors put the little Child Playing out in the driveway. We're a pretty close community and we're concerned that the speed and the development on that road is going to split up the community from that and make people just stay to their back yards solely. So I wanted to bring up the fact that I personally spent a considerable amount of money because the trees died after 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 we moved them and I had to put them in again. And I can't remember who's the lady's name was but the developer's called her the tree lady. Slagle: Jill Sinclair. Rich Bray: Could have been. I don't know. I don't know but I was told that one, don't cut one of my 30 foot evergreens down, which we didn't do, and the other one was, move those trees back 2 feet. But at any rate that's, I'm very disappointed I guess to find out that we haven't considered some type of traffic control on that road, and that we haven't looked at Highway 41 another potential entrance. With 50 something homes going in there, to only have 2 routes in and out to me is also a fire hazard in a community issue but you guys know technically whether that meets the exact number of footage or feet between one home to the next and what it requires but would like you to reconsider and possibly at a minimum put a stop sign in on that comer. Slagle: Thank you. I'm going to ask Matt a question if I may before we have the next person come up. Matt, would it be safe in saying that if you use Settlers West as an example where we actually put in two entrances on Pioneer, all within what would you say, a fifth of a mile. Saam: Yes. Slagle: And I mean I remember the discussion of trying to connect it to one because of the desire to not have two entrance/exits into that community. Is it a fair request by folks and I'll say myself to ask that we at least explore that with MnDot? And maybe they say no but maybe they'll come back and surprise us and say, yeah that will work. I mean I'm just throwing that out. Saam: Yeah, sure it is. Slagle: Hold on. Sir, if you could just have a seat for a sec, if you wouldn't mind. Saam: Yeah MnDot has, we received written comments back from MnDot and those comments do say they want access control along 41. What that basically means is they want to have rights to limit no access along 41. With that said and what I said earlier with the existing street system being in place, I don't foresee MnDot saying that a public street can go through there. But I could be wrong. Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Saam: But we can definitely yes, check into that. Slagle: Sure Steve. Lillehaug: Further on this. Do you know the spacing because what MnDot will judge us on is the spacing between Lake Lucy and Longacres. Do you know the actual distance between those streets? And then also comment on actual city policy with spacing of collectors and arterials. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Saam: I don't know the spacing off the top of my head. It must be something, a half mile. I'm not sure Commissioner Lillehaug. As far as our spacing requirements, yeah. We have certain requirements. In this case 41' s an arterial, like I said, so that spacing is a much greater distance than local street spacing is. Slagle: It's got to be at least half a mile I would think. Saam: Yeah, something in that. Slagle: Okay. Anything else Steve? Did you want to say? Rich Bray: Yeah, I actually forgot to mention one item and that's that I was also informed that there were negotiations at the time, this is about 4 years ago in putting some type of a connection between the east side of 41 to the west side of 41 for access to Minnewashta, and that the City turned that down. That MnDot was in support of some type of a, what do you want to call it? It went underneath the road. Yeah, an underpass type concept. Secondly I know I've worked on a process in another community and understand that MnDot really doesn't control that. They give recommendation. If the City wants to put an intersection there with a stop light on 41, they can do that. I don't know what the repercussions from the State are in doing that but ideally at some point it would be nice from a community standpoint to have a stop sign on 41 that allows access to Minnewashta, and from this community which quite frankly once this new development is in, the two developments from last week also will end up being a substantial revenue base for this county and for the city, which it already is I'm sure from a tax base perspective. Slagle: Thank you. Mark Brown: My name is Mark Brown. I live at 7210 Gunflint Trail. It is the lot right next that goes up to 2 on this side and back. And besides the same concerns I have as my neighbors, I also have young children. In addition to those same concerns about the traffic and the lack of access to 41, from just by house alone, maybe it shows up better on this picture right here. It appears I'm going to have, right as people come out of the new subdivision, there's no driveways right here so I'm a little concerned about line of sight. Since my driveway is right at, right where that street cuts over. That's one of the concerns that I have. The other concern that I have that I deal with right now is because of this large hill, there's a drainage situation. A lot of water runs up that pa11icular during the spring thaw when the ground's still frozen. So I'm a little concerned about what that's going to be like after it's developed so, and that all flows down to all the neighbors and everything so, we're all part of that but those are two major concerns that I have along with all the other ones. On a real positive standpoint, the barn's going right? Karen Weathers: Hey. Yeah. Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I just had some questions about the report itself. The format's a little bit different and in the compliance table, in the RSF district, there are 15 lots that don't meet the 90 foot requirement for width, and I'm wondering, there was no plat in here that showed where the setback line is. In looking at the beautiful drawing, you know the development, I think it might be a little deceptive because it looks like all the homes 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 are set back pretty evenly. I'm wondering if the building setback line could be delineated for these 15 lots and shown, so people realize how far back some of those houses may be. I didn't have a chance to look at the plat beforehand but I think that's a real important point because it looks like it's 30 feet back and I think some of them are going to be quite substantially back. An issue related to that, for those of you that have measurements, I'd like to just out of curiosity to know if any of those run short of meeting a 60 by 60. Curiosity and you know why the question's raised. And then the other issue on that same compliance table is, there are 4 lots that show a rear lot setback as NA rather than not having the 30 feet. I'd like to understand why those 4 lots have NA. And their Lot 7, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2; Lot 4, Block 4; Lot 1, Block 5. I just didn't understand that. That seems unusual. Aanenson: They're all comer lots so they have two fronts. Deb Lloyd: Okay. Without again the plat being in here, it's hard to recognize what's going on. So I would like to know though where the lot setback line is for all the lots that do not meet the 90 foot requirement. So how far back is that building setback line. Thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Matt, do you want to just touch upon that a little bit, just take a couple as an example. Or Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: All the lots meet the 90 foot requirement. They are all on a curve and. Lillehaug: Is it 30 feet or 25 feet? AI-Jaff: It's 30 feet. So basically you take the setback parallel to the radius and they all meet, all 15 parcels meet the 90 foot. If they don't exceed it. Lillehaug: Can you comment on the 60 by 60 pad then also? AI-Jaff: They all have a buildable area that exceeds 60 by 60. Slagle: I'm going to think about that one but anybody else like to speak? Scott Wosje: Just a quick note. Scott Wosje. I live in the Longacres neighborhood so I can speak to that neighborhood only. Lived there 6 years. A board member up until the 31 st of December and did not get reappointed. Tom fortunately stepped up to the table with some new energy. We already have an existing traffic problem on Longacres that I've been trying to work with Beth Hoiseth, community representative. Safety and also the Sergeant as well to try and figure out what we can do to slow down traffic. There's so many kids in the neighborhood. What we can do to slow down traffic on that road so it should be noted to the commission that we already know we have an existing traffic issue that's on record with the City. We're only going to add to it with this potential development. The other thing that should be noted for clarification purposes is that the Longacres Association does pay dues that maintain the sidewalks along Longacres as well and we pay to have those sidewalks cleared. Again, is it fair? Is it right? You know no, but life isn't fair but it should be noted that we're paying to maintain 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 those sidewalks in addition to the parks. That is going to come into play so, thank you. Any questions? Lillehaug: I have a question of Matt quickly. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: Is there a problem on Longacres? Has it been measured? Has there been traffic surveys done? I mean do we have a speeding problem, because it's a collector road and I, if it's a collector road I would anticipate higher levels of traffic but what about speed? Saam: Yeah, I think that's what Mr. Wosje's referring to is the speed issue. That's what both Jim, the Sergeant and Beth Hoiseth work with, with Project Leadfoot and that. The new speed indicator that we purchased. I forget the name of it but I believe that's the issue and yes, we do take counts since it's not only a collector road. It's a state aid road. Longacres Drive is so we're required every other year to get counts out there which we do. Lillehaug: Do you know of the speeds on that road? Saam: Um no. Not off the top of my head. We would have that info though. Slagle: You know if I can add something. When it comes to that development, Hunter would probably fall into a different category and a sense of speed, the narrowness of the road and the fact that there's no sidewalks. And I certainly think that people who have presented here tonight are correct that people will cut through as they work their way to Galpin because it is a shorter drive down Hunter than it is to go Longacres to Galpin, so I don't know if there's a solution but it's certainly a valid concern. There you go. Bill Borrell: Hi. My name's Bill Borrell and I live at 2300 Longacres Drive. Been there about 7 years and was surprised to hear that I live on a collector road on Longacres. I guess how much narrower is Longacres than Lake Lucy or Galpin? You allowed the developer to make it more. Aanenson: Would have been 80. Saam: Oh in tellliS of right-of-way, yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, correct. Bill Borrell: So is narrower. I guess if we look at the map you see it's very windy between the two roads and I would not even compare it to, I walk along Lake Lucy, which is a very straight, wide open road and I guess if you guys are talking about Longacres as being a collector road in the same sense that Lake Lucy or Galpin, I don't know how you can. Aanenson: My point is Lundgren, when they developed that specifically for marketing purposes asked to have it narrow to give the appearance that it didn't function as a collector. Bill Bon-ell: But the problem is that now it does have the appearance and because of the density of the homes, it is different than a standard collector road I'm saying and that, like everybody 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 speaking about these kids playing out on the street. It's a little bit different than Lake Lucy or, especially Galpin, the way it is right now so Ijust want to. Aanenson: Right, and 1 would agree and there is, actually the City is considering changing the profile on Lake Lucy and actually narrowing that and putting the sidewalk, raising the sidewalk. That issue is going to the City Council next, raising the sidewalk so right now when you're on Lake Lucy. Slagle: You walk on the road. Aanenson: You walk on grade so narrowing that and raising the sidewalk for that specific reason. Give a different cross section. Different feel for safety reasons. Slagle: Any other comments? One more. Stuart Henderson: ...1 forgot. Does this mean this is a bluff? Aanenson: No. Stuart Henderson: The green, no it doesn't? Aanenson: No it does not. Stuart Henderson: Okay. Then my question is simply, Stuart Henderson. 1 live right over here. This is a very steep hill. Very steep. I'm not sure what a bluff is, but I'm kind of concerned about the drainage here and our ground stuff comes up and runs through my back yard, which 1 think.. .Stacy's yard. It's not a big deal for me but it is quite a drainage problem. I know, when I called Matt said there is a drainage map somewhere so maybe there's some provision made for it. 1 didn't get a chance to look at that but Ijust raise the concern. Slagle: Any other comments? Okay, I'm going to. Oh, Deb you got one more? Deb Lloyd: Yeah I'm not just sure if 1 made my point so. My point being is lots where frontage is measured at the setback, it's not the street frontage. You've got to measure it at the setback line. Correct? And I just want the residents to see, would you mind pointing out how far back some of these houses could be. You know I just think you owe it to them to know that they're not at the street. Slagle: Sharmeen, just take a couple. And 1 guess Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: I'll use this as an example. If you look at the frontage, this is Lot 5, Block 1. Yoberry Farm Third Addition. The frontage along this cul-de-sac is 55 feet. At the setback line it is 95 feet. And that's permitted by ordinance. AT the setback line you need to maintain a minimum of 90 feet. This exceeds it. The buildable area on this site is basically, so the home can maintain a 30 foot setback. Does that answer the question? Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: Okay. I am going to close the public hearing now. At this point I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Anyone want to start? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a few questions before we go to discussion. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Lillehaug: Wow. The, what are my questions now? Parks. Does staff have any further comment on parks? I mean are we doing a dis-service to Longacres because we're not adding a park in this area? Are we, I mean Longacres and Highover, they're not gated communities but I think we need to respect the homeowners association so does planning have any comments or suggestions regarding specifically parks. Aanenson: Not at this time. Lillehaug: No? Okay. Slagle: If I may, I do have to ask Kate... with the Park and Rec Department, with respect to parks in this area. Any? Aanenson: Well yeah. Slagle: What I'm going to call the general area. Aanenson: Yeah. They've got a map of the areas where the parks are and it was the Park and Rec Director and the commission that made a recommendation not to take that so, if you want to add additional comments, just of your, for the council to consider. Slagle: Well I guess what I'm asking is, is there any, has there been discussion about a park in another location that's adjacent or in the near vicinity of these developments that we've looked at the last 2 meetings? Aanenson: Not an active park, no. I think there may be, when the Carlson property comes in adjacent to the large Lake Harrison, maybe some open space. Some scenic overlooks but probably not another active park. Slagle: Okay. I'm sorry Steve. Lillehaug: No, that's fine. We heard a couple residents from Highover concerned with the blind hill at the very top, so that kind of alludes me, does engineering get actual profiles? This happened in our 2 weeks ago when we reviewed the other larger development. I had problems with the profiles of the road because they were meeting the absolute minimums for the profile grades. Does the developer give engineering profiles of these roads so we don't have these problem high spots with very limited sight lines, because this is what I saw in that other development, exactly what our residents are complaining about. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Saam: Yes, at the time of final plat, final construction plans. Lillehaug: They give you profiles. Saam: Yep. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all the questions. Well one more question. At the very south end of Street B, the very south end of the D development, Lots 3, 4 and 5. It appears that those contours are a lot closer together. Has that been evaluated to ensure that that's not a bluff on that very south end? You know at the very high point you're saying they're about 5 foot apart so that'd be a 1 to 5, but looking at this, they look about 3 feet plus or minus. I mean are we looking at a bluff for that whole entire south end of that section? Is that something staff can verify and, or has it been. Maybe the applicant knows. What the steepness of the grades are. 30 percent, plus or minus. If it's a bluff, it's a bluff. If it's not, it's not. Steve Johnston: At the very beginning of this process the first thing we did was identify where the bluffs were. The only bluffs that are there are along Highway 41. Those bluffs are about 30 feet high and just while I'm up here, to add to it, besides the access control that MnDot would be looking for, a 30 foot grade change in approximately 50 feet there is going to make it very difficult to try to get a roadway off of 41 anywhere along the west property. Just from an engineering standpoint would be very, very difficult. That bluff being 30 feet, we'd have to come into the site about 400 feet before that grade at maximum street grades would match existing grades so it would be very, very difficult to do. Lillehaug: So you're saying that is not a bluff on Lots 3, 4 and 5? Steve Johnston: No it is not. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all for the questions I have I guess. Slagle: Okay. Dan. Keefe: With comments? Is it comments or are we. Lillehaug: I'm not done with comments. Somebody else want to go first? Another question I guess is that, that cul-de-sac, we saw that in our previous plan. What do you call it, an eyebrow cul-de-sac. Is that our new trend here? We're going to have one in every development now? Saam: They were at the last meeting and they heard you all recommend approval to it. Lillehaug: Okay. Who wants to comment first then? Keefe: I'll start on comments. Slagle: Dan, you want to talk into your mic more. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Keefe: Yeah, sure. Wow, there's a lot of stuff here. Let me start on the northeast corner. I don't know if I'm real comfortable with the layout, and I know they've just been, you guys have hammered this out probably 10 different ways but the way that that street backs up to the neighbors on the right, Ijust, I'm having a hard time getting comfortable with that. And I don't know, I almost want to see a plan where the street goes on the west side of that, of those lots and see how, because I heard that that was a possibility, or had been looked at. And anyway I'll just leave it, I'm just uncomfortable with that northeast corner. In terms of like the Longacres development and the Highover development, they both have association dues. Do we have, in terms of like neighborhoods stacking up next to each other. One pays. One doesn't pay. One has a park. One doesn't have a park. You know utilization from one neighborhood to the next. Is there any sort of policy or can you comment at all in regards to, it's really just individual developments and how they occur? Okay. Huh. I'd really like to see, you know definitely we need to look at Highway 41 and access to 41. I guess I made the assumption of looking at it but that really wasn't an option. I know that was discussed at length in this but I mean, I think it should definitely be considered and maybe pushed out a little bit more to the State in regards, or the State. What else? In regards to internal traffic Matt, I mean you know, you guys have done studies. Or maybe you haven't done a study on this but in terms of the sort of traffic count coming out of here. If we find that there's more traffic, I mean how do you typically go forward. I mean after it's been built, you do traffic counts at that point and then establish whether you need to put stop signs in in the other neighborhoods or how does that work? Saam: Yeah, if you're talking about stop signs, there's certain warrants that need to be met. Amount of traffic approaching the different legs of the intersection is one of the main issues. So yeah, we'd have to do traffic counts and see if it would warrant a stop sign. Keefe: But your study of this says that you think right now the road as laid out would accommodate it and without putting undue pressure on the extra, or on the roads into Highover and/or Longacres. Saam: We do think Lake Lucy and Longacres Drive can accommodate the traffic coming from this development. Yes. Keefe: Okay. Papke: Okay, there's been a lot of discussion about the parks tonight and the homeowners situation. I think the best solution here and the one I would support would be to only move forward if the developer was willing to work with Longacres to the south, and make this development part of that homeowners association. I think there's plenty of parks here, as was amply pointed out. One of the parks backs right up to this development and it seems kind of silly to force another park in here or, where you have one sitting right there. I think that would be the real win/win scenario here is to have this developer perhaps work with Longacres to see if we can't solve the problem in that fashion. Would you like to comment? Chuck Alcon: Yes. We very much intend to pursue that offer from Longacres. We think it makes a lot of sense. I would comment though that there's going to have to be two organizational entities. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Papke: Sure. Chuck Alcon: The existing Longacres HOA has it's covenants. We plan to have our's. Papke: You bet. Chuck Alcon: Not to say that an agreement between the associations can't be reached. We think it makes a lot of sense for the park and I understand there's a plan for a pool on the eastern side I believe and we fully support that and would move forward and try to make that happen. Papke: And that would give the Longacres development 57 new homes, revenue opportunities. Chuck Alcon: And obviously we'll have to work out a dues arrangement and capitalization and all those things but. . . Papke: How you work it organizationally is up to you. Chuck Alcon: And we would commit to do that. Papke: Great. Super. I think there's been ample evidence tonight that moving the northeast cul- de-sac to the west over by the wetland I think is the best scenario for all involved. I think the way it lays out right now, the developer can charge a little bit more for the homes along the wetland but I think it really negatively impacts the people to the east to have an alley in their back yard, or however you want to put it. And I think that's too much negative impact to the people who are already there so, unless there's some structural reason or civil engineering reason why that cul-de-sac and road can't be moved so that the wetland would be on the other side of the street, that would be necessary for me to approve this. As to the 41, there's been a lot of issues around traffic tonight. The 41 access. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that that's a long pull to try to get access out to 41 here. So I think if we look at ways of mitigating some of the traffic concerns. Now we've heard from interestingly enough we've heard from both communities, both the Longacres to the south and Highover to the north are both concerned that they're going to get the bulk of the traffic, and you know obviously they're both not going to get 75 percent of the traffic from this subdivision. There's going to be some kind of natural split here so, you know I don't think there's, we really know which way the traffic's going to flow. But I don't see an easy way to solve the access to 41 problem, looking at the drawings and the elevation changes. So that's all the comments. Slagle: I just have a couple. On the 41 connection, as far as an entrance/exit. With that grade I just don't think that's going to be workable but it might be Matt worth at least the actual discussion or actual request, depending on how you see it, just so we have a record that they say either no or not such a good idea. I like the park idea with Longacres. My only concern with all respect is that if something doesn't get worked out, and we all know contracts and those things sometimes can be difficult to have happen, we are now looking at a major development with literally no parks anywhere within walking distance. And if it's quote unquote bike distance, it's across some fairly significant roads. And, if I can add, without even a commitment yet that a 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 sidewalk will be extended either on the east side or the west side of Gunflint Trail. I certainly hope that is going to happen and I would love to put a condition in there. I just don't know if we can put a condition on this case applying to another development. But it certainly would make sense to have a sidewalk going down the side the road and then stopping along an area that has an easement already. The grading area to the north, I think that is a real issue. We've seen too many developments come in that are squeezing parcels and you just wonder how it works with the grade. Lastly, I along with my other commissions have a real issue with that east side and that road. And as a citizen more than a commissioner I think that what's the give and take? Is the gi ve that you move the road to the west and you now have 2 or 3 parcels with back yards facing an electrical easement. Is it the most appealing? Probably not. But certainly is a win/win in the overall what I'm going to call community sense. So I would tend to say that that's something that needs to happen, at least from my'perspective. So with that, that's my comments. I will open it up for a motion. Lillehaug: I've got a couple, I have some comments. Slagle: Oh, did I forget you? Alright, go ahead. Lillehaug: I reiterate basically what everyone said. Also on the northeast side there, I think in my opinion that the cul-de-sac is too close to Uli's property on the north then~, so likewise on the east and on the north I think it needs to be pulled away and a reasonable buffer or back yards in that whole area needs to be in place before I would recommend this to the council for approval. Parks, just to reiterate on that. Am I under the understanding that Longacres does want this development to be part of maintaining the parks? Is it, you live in Longacres. Slagle: Well, not really. I'm the one lot next to Longacres, but the point of it I think is that we have to be careful in this in that we've had a representative of the Board speak, but I don't know if that person can speak for the whole Board. There's legal issues and so that's where I'm just saying to all of us, I'm concerned that if we say hey, we'll hopefully the applicant and Longacres can reach an agreement. Not to mention what will happen to Highover. You know, I mean so it's sort of a wishful thinking and hopeful and again, with all integrity assumed that something works out. So I don't know if we can really bank on it at this point. Lillehaug: Okay. I guess I'm okay with most of the development except for the northeast. I think it's too much crammed in there. Too restrictive. But are you guys willing to make a recommendation I guess just to get a feel for it, without seeing an alternate plan of what we're doing up here? I'm not ready to make a recommendation I guess without seeing that. My OpInIOn. Slagle: I would, as guidance just suggest to the 4 of us that someone make a motion, whatever way they feel is appropriate and then we let the vote decide that. Lillehaug: Sure. Okay. One other, two other questions I guess before we make a motion and it's regarding the conditions. Condition number 20 and it's regarding all lots must have a minimal, minimum useable area off the back of the house pad. But it's not defined what that minimum useable area is. Does staff have a recommendation for a minimum useable area such 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 as a square footage or a depth as in like 20 feet from the back of the house? Is that something staff wants to make a recommendation on? Because it says minimum. Aanenson: Yeah, I guess a lot of it has to do with the life style choice. Some people like that and we looked at, they showed examples of Ashling Meadows, which coincidentally was the one I was saying because they have different, some people like the choice of not having a back yard. What we want to make sure is that it's done in a way that's not creating drainage problems or long term maintenance problems for those down below but no, so you at least have a patio or deck area. Some flat area that you can walk right out on, so maybe it's 10 feet or.. . like that. Lillehaug: Okay, no further comments I guess. Slagle: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion we table this until we see a revision in the northeast corner per our comments that we've discussed. Papke: Second. Slagle: Okay. I have a motion and a second. To table this. Do we need to be more specific Kate? Aanenson: I think we have clear direction that the issue we're trying to resolve is the cul-de-sac on the northwest side. Slagle: And can I also add to that, some, well friendly amendment to your motion. IT I may. Can that motion address what I will call the lack of a clear direction of a park. And I use park in a parenthesis. And Kate you know, it's not. Aanenson: You're asking me to usurp the power of the park commission which I'm very reluctant to do. I think at this point, you know if you want to put something in as part of your, what you typically do kind of a summary point, I think if you want to add that you're concerned under summary point, that you want the council to consider that. Because they take your input plus the park commission's going forward. Slagle: How about this? How about if we table this and we ask either the Park Director or someone from the park to come and present to us as to what the thoughts are. Aanenson: You can ask, sure. Slagle: Okay. To me that, because sometimes we're trying to find an answer and the person who has the answer isn't here so. Is that a friendly amendment accepted? Lillehaug: Certainly. Keefe: I was going to add. Just as. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Slagle: Okay, friendly amendment to the table. Keefe: Friendly amendment to, at least have a discussion with the State in regards to access to Highway 41. Lillehaug: Well, I guess stating my opinion. I'm looking at the grade difference and I agree with the developer. It's a very limited factor. And my history with MnDot is, is they're not going to grant that. They'll look at it but I think staff would concur that they will not grant another access point. Especially if it's only a half mile between Lake Lucy and... Aanenson: Just to be clear what their letter said to us, is they want to restrict the access. You know just to be clear, we did look at that. You know this actually has a lot of revisions so obviously it's something that we considered but it was eliminated based on, as the engineer said, the length going back and the steepness. To get the grades to work. The touch down points so you're not coming at a steep angle down to. Slagle: But I think just to be clear to the audience though, it was in essence you're saying dismissed or rejected by the. Aanenson: Right, and a letter from MnDot said that they want to control the access. Slagle: Fair enough. I don't think that was clear. Keefe: It wasn't clear to me. Aanenson: I was waiting for the Assistant to say something so. Slagle: Okay. Keefe: Okay, so in a sense they've already said no. Saam: Yeah, I previously said we have a memo where MnDot wants to gain access control along 41 which means they're not going to allow any access along that stretch of 41. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Saam: They don't want access on 41. Keefe: I withdraw my amendment. Slagle: Okay. And then I just one last one, and that would be Commissioner Lillehaug, if you wouldn't mind, something to the effect of where we can get some traffic numbers, Matt, if I can ask you. You mentioned that Longacres is some type of a classification where you have to get numbers. Traffic numbers every so often. Would be interested to see what that is. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Lillehaug: We know what this is going to generate. I mean there's 54 residences there. It's going to generate between 10-14 trips per day so we're looking at 600 to 700 trips a day from this development, either going north or south so split down the middle. You're looking at 350 going north and 350 south. I mean it's a reasonable number on a local street in my opinion. And so I don't think, in my opinion, I don't want to give staff direction to do that because in my opinion it's reasonable on the local street. On Gunflint Trail to the south as well as Highover to the north. I think the traffic levels that would be distributed on those streets are still going to be within the local 750 to 1,000 maximum. I know that's high but that's city, what's in the city comprehensive plan. Slagle: Well you're within your rights to reject the friendly amendment. Lillehaug: And I reject it. Slagle: Fair enough. So we have a motion on the floor to table this with direction to staff to re- work, if at all possible, the northeast quadrant. Invite the Park and Rec Director to speak to us at our next meeting. Anything else I'm missing? Okay. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission table the rezoning and subdivision request for Yoberry Farms with direction to staff to re-work the northeast quadrant and to invite the Park and Rec Director to speak or provide written comment regarding the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Slagle: We're going to take a 5 minute break. Chuck Alcon: Question. Tabled until? Slagle: Well. Aanenson: We can turn it around. Slagle; Sounds good. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL. OFFICE AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BLVD AND THE FUTURE REALIGNED HIGHWAY 101. SAND COMPANIES. INC.. PLANNING CASE No. 05-01. Public Present: Name Address Jamie Thelen 366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN 37 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 AI-J aff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive OA TH 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 HIGH OVER 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 Dan Lun Lauren Damman Laura Bray Michael Horn Karen Weathers Dean Simpson Candice McGraw Kathy Mack Ray Alstadt Larry DuMoulin Bill Coffman Steve Johnston 2216 Hunter Drive 2373 Hunter Drive 6934 Highover Drive 6983 Highover Drive 7024 Highover Court 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard 7185 Hazeltine Boulevard 2446 Highover Trail 6984 Highover Drive 2423 Highover Trail 6966 Highover Drive 600 West 78th Street 510 1st Avenue North, Minneapolis Planning Commission Meeting - January 18,2005 Chuck Alcon David Hurrell Scott Bittner Bob Krueger David & Kathleen Fulkerson Larry Lovig Philip Haarstad Patrick Brunner Matt Mesenburg J 0 Mueller Mark Zaebst Carrie Sprosty Lori Dinnis Kathy Koscak Kristin Bunkenburg John Graham Jeff Tritoh Dave Bordeau Todd Rech Keith Abrahamson Rosalie J. Nast Scott Smith Dan Hanson Julie Lohse Bill Borrell Jennifer R ysso Andrew & Tina White Paul Ottoson Mike & Candi McGonagill Ping Chung 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield 7420 Bent Bow Trail 2398 Hunter Drive 2350 Hunter Drive 6900 Highover Drive 2475 Gunflint Court 7066 Harrison Hill Trail 2443 Hunter Drive 2428 Hunter Drive 2529 Longacres Drive 2325 Hunter Drive 7163 Fawn Hill Road 2362 Hunter Drive 2351 Hunter Drive 2300 Hunter Drive 6935 Highover Drive 2313 Hunter Drive 2418 Hunter Drive 2408 Hunter Drive 2403 Hunter Drive 2448 Hunter Drive 2395 Hunter Drive 2390 Longacres Drive 7094 Harrison Hill Trail 2300 Longacres Drive 7108 Harrison Hill Trail 7122 Harrison Hill Trail 7080 Harrison Hill Trail 2451 Hunter Drive 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 AI-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? 2 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. Let me back up. West 78th 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 3 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 Chuck Alcon, representing Yoberry Farms. I reside at 6138 76th 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 comer 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 4 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? 5 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. 6 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 1've got more copies of this if you'd like to have. Slagle: Yeah, actually 1'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 7 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 December 1 ih 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 8 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 9 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 border of the 3rd Addition between the existing Longacres Park and Yoberry to restrict access to the existing private park of Longacres BOA 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 jùst 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? 10 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 11 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 comer, 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 comers. 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 12 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 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18,2005 just wanted to thank you for that. .. .1'11 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. Ijust 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? 14 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 15 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 Yz 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 16 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 Dri ve 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. 17 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'djust 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, Ijust 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 18 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 emailedMnDot.Wegotthesameresponseeachtime.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. AI-Jaff: None. Papke: None. Okay. Ijust wanted to make sure I'm clear. Are we going right to comments or are we still in questions? 19 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? AI-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. AI-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? AI-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. 20 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 comer. 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 21 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 comer 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 comer 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 comer 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 22 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 ofthe 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? AI-Jaff: Off of Highover Trail? Lillehaug: That's the one. The big empty box there. AI-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. AI-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. 23 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 Dri ve 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 comer. 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 24 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, 25 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, % to a mile and the 26 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 % 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 % of a mile, well the standards are, the Met Council likes to see spacing of collectors every % 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. H'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? 27 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? AI-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? AI-Jaff: March 5th is the deadline to process this application. Papke: Through the council? 28 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 eitherin support ofthis 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. 29 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 carryon. Sharmeen, you were going to say? AI-Jaff: It will go to the City Council. Slagle: City Council. And what day will that be on? At least as planned now? AI-J aff: February. Lillehaug: Don't we still have to have a motion that's approved? AI-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: As in a negative motion. Or not? Slagle: No. AI-Jaff: Yes you do. February 4th. 14th. Slagle: So February 14th will be the City Council? AI-Jaff: City Council. Slagle: Okay. Point of clarification. Addressing Commissioner Lillehaug's point. By denying it, it just automatically goes to council, correct? AI-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? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 18,2005 AI-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 1... 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. 31