Loading...
CC Minutes 2-14-05 , .1 /J ..~.·t'1.· "T '~~i~J City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 discussed with the property owners along this proposed corridor of installing the watermain prior to their development and they are willing to work with us on that issue. The property owners have currently signed an assessment waiver as well for the installation of that. Of this project. And that agreement was brought before you in January, the 24th of this year. The project cost, total project cost is $224,600 and of that we're looking at almost $60,000 being assessed back to the benefiting property owners, and that assessment again was for the portion that would be anticipated in the new development which would run, the new watermain would run between the property line and then on a new east/west public roadway when that development is finally built. The schedule for the project as it moves forward is to approve plans and specs on February 28th. And opening and awarding a contract in March and start construction in April and have the construction completed before the 212 project sometime in May so. At this time I stand for questions and I request that a public hearing be opened at the same. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No? Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing. Invite all interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Anybody interested in discussing it? If not, without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion? Seems pretty straight forward to everyone. Very good. Is there a motion? Isn't there an action required? Requested action. Paul Oehme: No. We're just opening. Todd Gerhardt: Taking comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you Paul. With that, unless there's any further action on that item, we'll move on with our agenda. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE F AMIL Y DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION (WITH VARIANCES); LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL; YOBERRY FARM, APPLICANT: YOBERRY FARMS, LLC, DAVID HURRELL & KAREN WEATHERS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43. Public Present: Name Address Penny Bursch-Johnson Candice & Mike McGraw Ray Allstadt J acqie Daugherty VIi Sacchet Michael Horn Jon Steele John Graham Bob Krueger 6951 Highover Drive 2446 Highover Trail 2423 Highover Trail 2423 Highover Trail 7053 Highover Court South 7024 Highover Court South 6941 Highover Court North 6935 Highover Drive 2350 Hunter Drive 3 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 Daryl McLinden Chuck Alcon Bill Coffman Steve Johnston Tom Stokes Jesse Larson Travis Sprague Timothy Block Joe Thull Susan Schneider Mary & Dave Haworth Todd Michels Rodd & Parks Wagner Greg & Linda Twedt Philip Haarstad David & Lauren Damman Adam Lurie Jeff Tritoh Mark Zaebst Leslie Witterschein Jennifer & Michael Rysso Thomas Hirsch Michael McGonagill Lisa Hokkanen Ping Chung Tim McCerio Angela Lurie Jo Mueller Larry Lovig Mark Brown Stacey Riecks Bill Borrell Jon Grubb Larry Synstelien Susan Lombardo Dan Hanson Kathy Koscak Lori Dinnis Scott & Greer Hussey Dale Mueller 7321 Hillsdale Court 6138 76th Lane, Greenfield 600 W. 78th Street 510 1st Avenue North, Minneapolis 55403 4052 Oakland Street, St. Bonifacius 3440 Hennepin, Minneapolis 6888 Highover Drive 6903 Highover Drive 6872 Highover Drive 6872 Highover Drive 6818 Highover Drive 2436 Highover Trail 6915 Highover Drive 6999 Highover Drive 7066 Harrison Hill Trail 6934 Highover Drive 6926 Highover Court North 2313 Hunter Drive 2325 Hunter Drive 7150 Harrison Hill Trail 7108 Harrison Hill Trail 2290 Longacres Dri ve 2451 Hunter Drive 2456 Hunter Drive 7000 Highover Drive 165 Ponderosa Drive 6926 Highover Court North 2579 Longacres Drive 2475 Gunflint Court 7210 Gunflint Trail 7256 Gunflint Trail 2300 Longacres Drive 6989 Highover Court North 6893 Highover Drive 7278 Fawn Hill Road 2390 Longacres Drive 2351 Hunter Drive 2362 Hunter Drive 2235 Longacres Drive 2529 Longacres Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I'd like to break this presentation into two components. One to kind of review the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and it's role that it plays in the development and then move specifically into the subdivision of the project before you tonight, Yoberry Farms. The comprehensive plan that was developed and, that was in place as the majority of the property developed between Galpin and Highways 41 and the northern boundary 4 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 to the city down Highway 5 was put in place in 1991. At that time the comprehensive plan recommended you know the guiding of this area and that was predominantly low density. So the land use, first component of the comprehensive plan speaks to the fact that there is guiding for the piece of property and then the tool to implement how that property is specifically laid out is the city's zoning ordinance. Not all property develops at the same time and I'll kind of go through that scenario in this area, depending on willingness of sellers and that sort of thing so unfortunately sequentially property doesn't fall into a certain pattern. It moves when the market brings it on. The city does have a management tool. I know one of the issues that was brought up at the Planning Commission was, you know this seems like it's sprawl. It's infill development but I just want to comment another section of the comprehensive plan, and that's our MUSA staging area. Again the area that we're talking about here was put in place in 1991. Most of the development that occurred in that. The next area that we brought in was the 2005 MUSA which has pretty much been developed, Westwood Church, Pulte Homes, that area at the intersection of 5 and 41. And the next area that we're working on is the 2005 and that relates to the development of the 212, so we do have an orderly staging plan and that ties back into the city's ability to provide sewer, water and infrastructure and our financial responsibilities for investment that we make. So this to us is land that's development ripe because the infrastructure is in place. Another element to the comprehensive plan is the housing element and the housing element speaks to the fact that there should be opportunities for all different types of residents. Housing for residents. This is reflected in housing choices in the city. We have townhouses. We have apartments. So whether it's rent or owner occupied, or even whether or not you want to live in an association where it has certain restrictions, you want that type of control on you so there's different housing types that we look at when we're reviewing projects. The natural resources is a lot of the reason that people move to the city of Chanhassen which we certainly regard the protection of trees, wetland preservation and certainly topography. Back in 1991 we only looked at areas down along the river bluff for bluff protection and we moved that to the entire city. Anything over 30 percent so we've actually moved further and been more restrictive of protection of some of those sloped areas. Parks and open space, the city's comprehensive plan directs the development of parks by size, type, location, population. Again the city cannot require a private park or extraction but we do look at, a typical subdivision the recommendation goes to the park commission and they make a recommendation, and I'll just take a minute to kind of go through the park plan for this area, or approximately in the same scale. Maybe we can zoom in in this area right here. This is Sugarbush Park, which is just south of the Woods. Hunter Dlive. That's the immediate park for that area. There's another park that was taken with the Pulte Homes. There will be a park. It's light now it's just vacant. It hasn't been designed for a park yet, but one of the requests was that a private, a public park or a plivate park be put in that area. The City cannot request on a typical subdivision a plivate park. This applicant has chosen not to pursue that. That's a choice that he's made, a housing choice that they've made. And looking at a park in the, in the area, we know there's another piece of property coming in immediately to the north and I'll speak to that again in a minute. But that's kind of where we'd be looking for an additional parkland property. So being consistent again with the comprehensi ve plan, it ties back into that we're following that. Then another component of the comprehensive plan is the transportation element. Again in 1991 the transportation element recommended three minor collectors between Galpin Boulevard and 41. That would be Lake Lucy. This one wasn't named. It was just shown which is now actually called Longacres Drive. That was shown as another collector in that approximate location, and then the third one is what 5 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 is now called West 78th. Street capacity on a local street is 1,000 vehicles. On a collector it's 1,000 to 15,000 so when we do the comprehensive plan and do traffic modeling and look at traffic zones, looking at what we need for service in that area, three minor collectors were detelmined to be adequate to serve. But the goal is to tie a local street into a minor collector so looking at the land use that was recommended, low density, it was determined that those three collectors would provide adequate access to the development of that site. Also I want to point out, typically on a minor collector that we place sidewalks or trails. On Lake Lucy there is a trail. That also is a reason to get up, looking at that, to get up to the school. There's a sidewalk on Longacres and then there's a trail on West 78th. So in looking at how this area kind of came together, the tool that implemented the comprehensive plan is the zoning ordinance so each of these developments as they occurred are dliven by factors such as wetlands, trees. The wetlands, there's the setback requirements plus there's the wetland conservation act that has to be permitted. Trees, if you, every subdivision cuts down trees but there's a requirement if it's excessive then you're penalized for that. Slopes as I mentioned earlier, there's a requirement on building on over 30 percent. Then the other clitical issue is access and location. So if I can just kind of talk a minute about again what happened in this area and how we ended up this hole or donut. Maybe I can start with the first subdivision to be built in this area was actually Longacres. Can you zoom in on that a little bit? And Longacres had 112 lots. Was built in 4 phases. That actually had a lot of topography in that area. Rolling topography and 24 acres of wetland. Longacres on this site. Then in 1993 also following that was the Woods at Longacres. Again 134 lots and that was built in 5 phases. That had a little bit more severe topography and also had significant amount of wetlands. So with that development, this road was built. With these two developments we had our first minor collector in that area. Following that we had Brenden Pond which built this segment of the collector road, Lake Lucy. That had 21 lots. That also had some steep slopes and some wetland. W oodlidge Heights, the Centex development attached to that had 46 lots. And that completed the connection of that minor collector road. Then we had Forest Meadows, which is 19 lots which is a separate subdivision that can only be accessed. A separate subdivision not part of the Longacres. That can only be accessed via the Longacres neighborhood. Then finally we had Highover. That couldn't have been built until that collector road was built because that's how they get their access via that collector road, and that had 54 lots. Well within that there was some other pieces that still left holes. Recently the council has approved 43 lots on the Pinehurst. Can you zoom in on that a little bit Nann? On the Pinehurst. And that we provided a stub street via the Woodlidge Heights so they got access. We also stubbed it into the Crestview subdivision. Also this, the Carlson property will be coming forward. We're working with that developer light now. If that gets executed. We did provide a stub street again through Woodlidge Heights and it will also tie into Highover. That is the only way you know to provide adequate access. Again it's the city's job to make sure we don't land lock a piece of property, whether through providing sewer, water and streets. A lot of that timing falls into place when you look at subdivisions, if we can look even at Ashling Meadows. These subdivisions came in pretty close together. Two separate developers. Lundgren Brothers and a plivate developer on this side. This developer couldn't go until the second phase of Ashling Meadows, until the sewer and water came over. While he had the street connections, they needed the utilities. Two separate developments but need access together. Both of these subdivisions also were provided access to the property to the south, which could be land locked because there's no access along Galpin Boulevard. So the metaphor that we like to use is kind of connecting all those little puzzle pieces and make sure they all fit. That's our job to make sure 6 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 somebody's not land locked and derived oftheir rights to develop. In addition there's other subdivisions immediate in the area that we've tied together. Windmill Run with Walnut Grove. This street also connected back up when those subdivisions came forward. So with that kind of context of, we ended up with a hole light here that was not ready for development. Three underlying property owners that weren't ready to move forward. When Longacres came in, we provided a stub street to here, based on the fact that you can get to this collector and based on the fact that you could get to this collector here. When Highover came in we oliginally tried to get the connection at this point here, but you can see there's an extensive wetland and it's very steep, so the road got moved over here. We knew based on the state requirements access control points on 41, we could end the slope. It's very steep light there. We could not get another connection down onto 41 so at that time we identified those and posted those streets as to be future connections. So with that they ended up with the framework to go through the subdivision. So now I'll move to, if there's any questions on that I'll move to the subdivision itself. Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this time? Kate Aanenson: So this went to the Planning Commission twice. The public hearing was re- opened at the second meeting so there's a significant amount of testimony. On your cover sheet it mentions that the motion at the Planning Commission was 4 to 2. It was 3 to 2 to deny the subdivision. Just want to clalify that. Again the subdivision includes 35.79 acres. It includes 57 single family homes and 8 outlots. The average lot size is 18,962. Again this subdivision in lot size, square footage, the proposed homes is very consistent to what's in the existing neighborhood. It does meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as lot width, depth, etc. The subdivision is proposed to be developed in 3 additions. Again there's 3 underlying properties. Again this required assembling. We talked about timing. It's difficult to get, truly to get a lot yield that works to get, the better lot yield is to work with the 3 underlying property owners instead of one going at a time and then it kind of constrains the layout. So working with the developer over the last 6 months, we've made a lot of changes. He's made some improvements. Dropped some lots. Worked through some tough tweaking issues but we believe again that it's a well conceived layout. There was a couple issues I wanted to point out. One, there's an area here in your staff report it talks about a 25 foot wide strip of land that upon the survey they found kind of a no man's land. So what the applicant did is split that 25 feet. 12 feet he gave to the 3 property owners to the north and kept the other 12 feet as a part of the plat and kind of split the difference. Again for the rezoning, this does need a rezoning. The 2020 land use plan designates this as low density. While it's currently guided differently, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Therefore the staff, and it does have utilities. Therefore the staff is recommending approval to be consistent with the land use plan. I did want to take a minute to talk about a trail issue. One of the things we've worked out in the last couple weeks, the Park and Rec Director has been working with Carver County who is petitioning for an underpass under Highway 41 and just last week we did meet with the developer so this didn't appear at the Planning Commission but we are recommending a trail that will go along 41 to get to the underpass to go underneath 41 to get you to the regional park. And that proposed trail is on the north end, just one lot in from the Highover Dlive and that would be platted in an outlot, and that would gi ve access up 41 to the trail and then the trail would continue on the other side of 41 to get you to the regional park. One of the other issues that came up was the cul-de-sac, but before I talk about that I just want to again maybe talk a little bit about how the subdivision got 7 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 laid out. Again we had the touch down point at Longacres and we had the touch down point at Highover. Those are the two connections that needed to be made. This is the highest point in the area. In order again, what we always try to do is minimize or maintain existing topography so the roads switch back around that high point and kind of made a circuitous turn back to get up to that street. Again providing two cul-de-sacs on the extension of that. That's the main layout. We looked at a lot of different iterations of this again as I mentioned over the last 6 months but we believe that this is the best layout for the site, so with that I'll discuss the cul-de-sac that is of concern in this area. These are in your staff report. There's three different options. Option A, which is what the applicant is proposing today and the plat you see underneath this is, he's moved the cul-de-sac over. Reduced or removed the retaining wall, and to save additional trees and there is a separate within the project. If we can zoom in on this a little bit. There's a cross section showing existing house, retaining wall, the tree. This is the project boundary, then there's 13 feet of buffer and additional 15 feet before you hit the street light-of-way so that would relate to, this would be that 13 feet in here. If that makes sense. Councilman Peterson: Kate, what's the distance between that back of the house and the front of the street, approximately there? Kate Aanenson: The back of the house? 28 plus 37 plus 75 plus 13. Plus 15. Todd Gerhardt: 130. Kate Aanenson: Approximately. 130 feet. So that was the option that we felt was best, and I'll go through the other ones. This was asked by the Planning Commission. Again this is variance free with the public street. The other option was to look at a plivate street which did require a valiance to do a plivate street. Four homes off of a plivate street. Because the bubble that's required for the end of the cul-de-sac, it forced this lot to be a little bit bigger to make the, so you really didn't pick up any additional separation here in order to make this lot big enough to meet the minimum requirements by making that a plivate street. And then the other option would have been to put the street next to the wetland. In doing that, that's the least desirable option in the staff's mind. It does require that the calculations are 10 foot, 10 foot, 8,9, 10. A huge retaining wall plus you'd have to put fill in to kind of balance that back out. Again one of the goals that we looked at, as I explained in all these projects which has a lot of rolling topography, is to work with the landform on that and we believe the supelior way to minimize that retaining wall along the wetland, extensive retaining wall is to put the road on the high side. And then it puts these houses will be sitting up looking this way, so you actually have greater separation. So those are the three options that. I believe I addressed the park issue, the 41 issue. The state is recommending the no connection there. Again that was addressed several times at the Planning Commission. All the lots again do meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance so with that, because it does meet all the requirements of the city's zoning ordinance, the staff did recommend approval so we have a motion structured for you on page 20 of the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. 8 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Councilman Lundquist: Kate on the entrance, the access from 41. We have the letter from MnDot, from Lisa Freese. What is the process if that access was to be pursued further? What action needs to be taken there and what are the chances that? Kate Aanenson: Sure. I think there's two points that we need to look at. One, it's very steep. So if, this is a valiance between the separation and that's one issue. The second issue is can you make it safe because there's a certain grade requirement, touch down when you're coming onto a road that you've got that stacking coming down at a certain angle, so I'm not sure it can be engineered to even meet that condition, whether you can get the access point or not. So we'd have to look at both of those. Councilman Lundquist: Well assuming, if we're going to do construction, or some of the grading traffic is going to come in and out of there anyway, if I remember light when I read through this, so let's assume that the engineeling piece can be overcome. What's the, in my mind the harder would be the MnDot piece. Kate Aanenson: I'd have to let the City Engineer answer that question. Matt Saam: I can take that one for Paul. On behalf of getting, or to your question of gaining access off Highway 41, the developer would be required to submit an application to MnDot requesting permanent street access off of Highway 41. MnDot has indicated in their review memo that with this plat they are looking to get access control along this property. Along this property's property line, along 41 and that basically means that they do not want any access along the highway. They want to control the access. So it's basically up to MnDot's review and the process would be started by an application to MnDot. Councilman Lundquist: And what's the general timeframe of that process? Matt Saam: I guess my experience has been 1 to 2 months. Something in that. I mean it's timely. They route it around everywhere, so it's not a quick turn around. Councilman Lundquist: And given that Ms. Freese has already given essentially her opinion memo, what's the chances that something like that is going to be successful or get to the next step in the process? Matt Saam: Yeah, we have three documents from MnDot plus my phone conversations to them. The whole time they've been against it so I guess if I was a betting man I'd say chances are pretty slim that they'd look favorably on allowing an access there. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I did have an opportunity to talk to Lisa Freese today and beg that question to her and her response is that in her previous letter and review of this property she went through the valiance process in determining if access should be granted or not. If somebody should make application they would do the review again in more detail but I believe the outcome would be the same. 9 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When we were up on Highway 7, as Highway 7 was re-built in the last year or so, how many access points did we lose off of Highway 7? Todd Gerhardt: I don't know that number off hand. I think we lost 2. Shorewood I believe lost 2 or 3 in making those safety improvements between Highway, from downtown Excelsior out to, well just outside of Victolia. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, back on options for the road by the Harrison Hill piece. Option C. To look at that, the drawbacks again are the retaining wall that has to go on the west side of the road or the east side of the wetland. Kate Aanenson: Well more tree loss and yeah, the maintenance of that retaining wall. Councilman Lundquist: More trees come out. Kate Aanenson: And grading. And that means you have to clear away this portion of the road because actually the grade's dropping down towards the wetland. So to get the grades for the road you're actually importing more. So you're kind of working against the natural, and then yeah, the height, the maintenance of the retaining wall. Councilman Lundquist: And how far does that push the road to the west? From that, say the apex of the corner there. From where it was before. Or from where it is on Option A. Kate Aanenson: It's got to be a minimum 125. Councilman Lundquist: So 120 feet or something? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That's all I have, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions? Councilman Peterson: Kate, keying on that same issue, if you look at your, one of the drawings you had. Kate Aanenson: The cross section? Councilman Peterson: The cross section. If you did Option C, and I can't tell the elevations. Would those houses that are now back abutting the other neighborhood, would they be up higher? 10 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Kate Aanenson: Yes, you'd be looking down into the other neighborhoods. Councilman Peterson: Substantially? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: So the other neighbors would be looking up at houses versus down at houses? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Peterson: Matt have you looked at, I think one of the things I read was, you did some traffic studies on speed and can you talk a little bit about that, just to help clarify some of the, between the two neighborhoods. Matt Saam: Sure. I don't know if I'd call it a traffic study yet. Just because we haven't been able to get the tubes, or our counting tubes out there in the winter with snowplows and that sort of thing. We usually hold off til May. What we did put out there, and I'm talking Hunter Dlive. That was the area that the residents in Longacres were concerned with, where the speeding came up. We did put out our newly bought speed trailer. Coordinated that with our sheriff, or Jim Olson through the County and that was out there for a couple of days. While it's not as scientific as the tubes, just because people see the sign, they can react by slowing down or what have you. We did get 2 days of counts in. 8 hours one day and 6 hours the next. Basically the results were that, what we saw is there wasn't a speeding problem. The 85th percentile speed out there, which MnDot uses to set the speed limits, and that's what we look at, that was about 25 miles per hour for Hunter Drive. So again it's not as scientific as our tubes. We will be putting out the, we will be putting the tubes out there in May. One of the first sites that we'll do. We'll take a better, harder look at it then. But that's what we've gotten to this point. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, was there ever an open house or a neighborhood meeting between the two developments and the developer? Kate Aanenson: I don't think so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So there really hasn't been a formal communication about anything. I didn't see the application from the builder for access to Highway 41. I take it he never intended to apply or even try to gain access on 41? Maybe that's another question. 11 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Kate Aanenson: We, yeah well we as the, as the jurisdiction that reviews it. Sends it to all other jurisdictions for their comments so we kind of are the.. . for that so we send it to the Watershed Distlict, MnDot and collect it so we collect all that data. So it was our role, yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I was dliving these roads today, on Highover and in Longacres and man, those roads are narrow . Yes, I saw the signs that said you know, a collector street or whatever was going to be you know, will be developed or whatever. And ifthose streets were meant to be collector streets for the new development coming in, why weren't they built wider then at least? Kate Aanenson: They're not collector streets. They're local streets and they are. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But they're connecting those to this new development. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but that's the same scenario throughout the city. These local streets, as I indicated, local streets can handle up to 1,000 tlips and that, so between these two, this street can handle that amount of traffic. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Boy I was parked on one of the streets with my husband's truck. I was talking to a neighbor and the UPS guy came by and it was like, it was a tight maneuver for him just to even get by, and so I'm thinking you know, this woman had a 2 year old out playing in the snow and the narrow streets and I just thought, as a parent you know, I would be sick thinking that all of a sudden I'm going to have 1,000 cars, is that what you said? 1,000 tlips? Kate Aanenson: No. That's what they're designed for. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, okay well then you could probably have 100,200 cars going by your house maybe. Kate Aanenson: Well if you add up how many houses are currently on the street and how many are coming in, it still would be under for that design. It's similar to Lake Susan, which has you know long local streets that handles that much traffic. Again, I'll go back to the comprehensive plan. When we put this in place in 1991, we did all the traffic. TAZ's, the traffic analysis zone and we said this could handle it. If this piece would have come in first and Highover was coming in, you know so it's hard for us to flip that around because we, you know we don't look at the sequence and we have no control over when it's ready to go, but if that, if this one was in first, and then this one needed to connect. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Kate Aanenson: That's how we looked at it. Councilman Peterson: Further answer to that Kate, if all of these neighborhoods would have came in at the same time, would the road have been the same width? 12 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yes. Exactly, right. And there wouldn't have been access to 41 because these are the two connection points. You know it just so happened that this piece got left out. As is Mr. Carlson's piece got left out which will tie into Highover too, so it's a sequencing issue. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, just one point. I think where Bethany might be getting a little confused, our collector streets are a wider width of roadway than our local streets which will connect, so this is not going to be a north/south collector. It will be a regular urban section. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But these streets are basically the entrance to this new development, is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So it's, I mean it's still a lot of cars no matter what the street is called, it's still a lot of cars coming in and out. That's how at least I gauged it to be when I was standing. Todd Gerhardt: Don't disagree. There will be additional cars that will go through Highover and Longacres, and from our engineeling standards those streets should be able to handle that traffic that would be generated from there is what Kate is saying. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Now what happens if you know there are accidents or there's speeding problems and they decide the road is too narrow, are we going to come and widen that road then? I mean I'm just thinking out loud I guess. What happens with that? Because I don't think. Kate Aanenson: I know it's a highly charged thing but we can go through and count up other subdivisions that are this long that have this, you know Settlers West. We have this many homes on this wide of a street all throughout the town. It's not the only situation where we've got this many tlips on a local street. As Todd indicated, when you do a minor collector they're typically 80 foot cross section. That's what this is, and these are typically the 60 foot, so. It's not the only street handling that much traffic, that's I guess my point. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Councilman Labatt: Well just to, if you look at, and I think we've got to just come out and say the name of the road, Hunter Drive. It's a nightmare to drive. It's winding. There's a hill from the power lines down with a steep curve, and I live in the neighborhood and everybody knows that and we know which neighbors have gotten their mailboxes knocked down. Which ones have lost trees at the top of the hill and the bottom of the hill this year. And if you're going to go and add up to 700 more vehicles a day, that are going to be, some of those vehicles will be using Hunter Dlive as a shortcut, we're all humans. We're going to take the point of least resistance. If we leave Yoberry Farms and dlive down Gunflint to Longacres Drive, and we're going to go west on 5, we're not going to go out to 41 and go through that nightmare of the stop light there. We're going to go up Longacres Dlive to Hunter Dlive. We're not going to go up to Longacres and Galpin. We're going to cut across Hunter and we're going to go down the hill. That's 13 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 where they're going to go. And Hunter Dlive is not a safe road right now. You go and add more vehicles to it, it's going to be more dangerous. So I think that. Mayor Furlong: Ladies and gentlemen, please. Councilman Labatt: I think that we're not addressing the overall impact of what this development is going to do for traffic to the south and to the north. I mean you're looking at the collector road but people aren't going to use the collector road to get from Yoberry to Galpin or to 41, they're going to use these other local streets and they're not capable of handling it yet, so I've got more comments but we'll keep going on. Mayor Furlong: Do you have any questions for staff? Councilman Labatt: I'm trying, Kate help me out here. Realizing that, I think one of the options that this developer missed is, you're looking at the overall impact and the question and concern from both associations and one thing we can look at and encourage them to come back with is the option of making cul-de-sacs that don't connect but come in from Longacres. Come in from Highover. There's no actual connection. That way you're not going to have a huge traffic impact. To go along with that we have developments that we've approved as a city, and I don't believe I was part of them but it was before, Summerfield and Kiowa Trail. There's no connection there between the Lundgren development in Summerfield to Kiowa. Kate Aanenson: There is a condition of approval of that once 212 is built that those streets will be connected. That is a condition of approval. Once 101 gets, which will be in the next couple years. Councilman Labatt: Okay, and then what about Timberwood to Stone Creek? Kate Aanenson: That's the only one I'm aware that didn't get connected. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so I'm just trying to figure out what the rationale is. Kate Aanenson: There's no other access. It's got to be connected to one side or the other. There's no other way to get access. Councilman Labatt: To where? Kate Aanenson: It has to go either to Highover or to Hunter. Councilman Labatt: Agreed. It has to go either one way or the other, or it could go cul-de-sac's and they both share. And there's no through, I'm just trying to think of the rationale when the council decided not to connect Stone Creek to Summerfield, or Stone Creek to Timberwood. And it just dead end's there and there's bamcades up there. What the rationale was for not making the connection there. It had to be traffic. 14 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Kate Aanenson: Well I think there was a couple of reasons but the one I'll state is that this large lot development, 2 Yz acres on a rural section of road, that's not an urban standard road with a current, a subdivision that met current standards. So you had two different land uses. Large lot, RR and you had an RSF. Large lot higher density so that was the main point that they decided not to connect those two. Two different types of neighborhoods. I guess that was my point here at the beginning, similar lot size configuration. Councilman Labatt: How's MnDot going to, if MnDot's saying to us light now we're not going to allow access onto 41, how are they going to apply the same standards to the west side of 41 when that gets developed, Ches Mar Farms. How are we going to, how are we going to treat everybody the same here? Kate Aanenson: There isn't a lot of development potential there. You just have the one piece, the Ches Mar Farms, and there's no sewer and water to there. Tanadoona also is exempt from sewer and water in our comprehensive plan. We really want to protect that as the Girl Scout there. Also is the access to Tanadoona to get possibly down to the other site, the church site. Coming back around, which is long term as that subdivision to the back side of that, which is the back side of Dogwood. Blinging that out to the light. That comes through Westwood Church, which is what we're working on now. So they would come back around as that street gets upgraded. Councilman Labatt: But this applicant has made no formal request, even for, to MnDot to look at even a right-in/light-out into Yoberry. Kate Aanenson: Well I don't want to say the applicant. The City took the lead on that part of it. Again, that's our job is to, in working with those julisdictions, whether it's the, whether it's wetlands or MnDot. Todd Gerhardt: We've got 3 letters from MnDot. My conversation with Lisa Freese today is that she reviewed the access point similarly as if it was an application for variance for access. Her response probably would have been in more detail if there was a formal valiance process, but she followed the same procedures as if a formal application was made. Councilman Labatt: Okay. You can go on. Mayor Furlong: Kate, I might bounce around a little bit here so forgive me for that. Back to the Options A, Band C. I had forwarded you an e-mail that I received where the resident raised the issue of street frontage and the street behind and I think referenced the comprehensive plan or ordinances, I'm not sure where it was but one of the statements you made earlier is that Option A I think meets our ordinance even though it's coming in behind. Typically we have a street going in front of two houses with the back yards connecting. But were you able to determine whether or not this plan Option A does indeed meet our ordinance or not? Kate Aanenson: Yes it does and I did review that with the City Attorney and I apologize. I meant to show some of these. We have other instances. I'll show similar situations and I'll show a true double fronted lot, and again in our opinion it's not a double fronted lot. There's 13 15 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 feet of buffer inbetween. But this is a similar situation. This is Point Lake Lucy where you have lots backing onto a street. This is Mulberry Circle. This is kind of at the corner of Powers and Lake Lucy. This is Knob Hill that went in recently went in existing, up against an existing neighborhood to the south. Again there's the narrow stlip. Again not double fronted lots. This, by our code and our interpretation is a double fronted lot and this is in the core of downtown. You can see this is Laredo Dlive. This is a cul-de-sac coming in. These lots butt on the cul-de- sac and directly onto Laredo. So that in our opinion is a double fronted lot, and we have double fronted lots throughout the community. Sometimes, again our ordinance says they're not desirable but sometimes again, I was trying to make the point in the beginning, you have to work with not every piece of property's square or flat. Every piece is different and try to work with them to meet the ordinance. Then you have to decide at what, what are your goals you're trying to accomplish. Sometimes you're trading wetlands for trees and trying to work through grading for slope preservation. So we worked through aU those issues but these are double fronted lots. This circumstance that you're looking at in this subdivision in our opinion is not a double fronted lot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. You had made the statement that you looked at a number of different layout options. One that Councilman Labatt mentioned where two cul-de-sacs coming north and south. I had my thoughts but from a planning standpoint, from your standpoint, knowing what you know about the comments received, can you comment on that? Kate Aanenson: Well you're double tlipping people. We don't know exactly what direction, you can assume, at the Planning Commission people said 75% are going to come our way. The other neighborhood, 75's going to come our way. Well, you know it reaUy depends on tlip generation. If you're going to the grocery store north, up to 7. If you're going down to Target and going the other direction, so reaUy what we find in most neighborhoods is there's a pretty good split differential, and by having the two cul-de-sacs you're forcing everybody to go back and forth the same way. Whether it's the mail or the bus, or that as opposed to giving the people the choice of looping back around and making that turn back out onto 41 or onto Lake Lucy. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. The road design, I guess I want to just clalify in my mind there. We talked about roads being designed when Highover was developed, those roads were stubbed there to that property and also to the property to the east. Same with Longacres, when that went in. And I think you said that there were some other neighborhoods that have been added in the Longacres neighborhood in particular off Fawn Hill, is that light? Kate Aanenson: Yes, the, I forgot the same of that. Forest Meadows access directly off of Longacres. That's not part of that. They come in, and that's this subdivision here. They access that. Then as I indicated, if you go up towards Ashling Meadows, which is another Lundgren's subdivision, and not showing up here on the map. This subdivision. Again, it's our job to provide access because this piece could be landlocked. We had to provide a stub to this piece of property. There's wetlands. Again, all those things impinge development potential. For example if you go back to the Longacres, all this property was owned by Mr. Dolejsi when the Lundgren's bought it. There's a large wetland complex that goes through the middle of it. In order, we did make a trail along it, and connected it via a trail but we couldn't get the road across based on that, so they actually, there's natural breaks. So every time a piece of property comes 16 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 in, we have to look at how does this relate to the piece next so you can't look at it in a vacuum. You have to look at the slopes. Does it make sense to put a street here? If it's too, if it's going to be too steep to the adjoining property, so each development as it comes in, they have to modify their plan based on the neighbor's property, whether or not they're going to develop today, tomorrow,S years down the road, so that's kind of the mystery part of it, but we worked really hard to, and like we say, we've got these ones that are coming in. The ones you just recently approved, Pinehurst, and now we're working on the Carlson piece again tying into those existing stub streets to provide access. Mayor Furlong: So by that statement are you saying that when Highover was developed and when Longacres were developed, they modified their plans to provide these... Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, to provide those, yeah. As I said, our oliginal goal was actually of this street right here on Highover. Can you zoom in on that please? To have this street on Highover, which is a cul-de-sac to come down, but we couldn't because of the grade change and the wetlands so we, the first few iterations that's what we looked at. Again we field check everything and it just, it wasn't going to work so we had to move it over to avoid the wetlands. And that same circumstance occurs on the Brenden, it's not Brenden Pond. It's the Woodside development where we actually have a piece that's on the neighboling property. Oops, I'm SOlTY· Mayor Furlong: You were off there. Kate Aanenson: This piece light here. You've got a large wetland complex below. Topographically it belongs to this piece, so we have to look at all of those features. We can't just look at property lines. That's, you have to look at how the topography, the wetlands and then the mystery of making it engineer. The roads can only be certain grades and tying all those things together so there are a lot of valiables, and that's what I'm saying. We worked with the developer over the last 6 months, working through all those issues. There's existing homes that want to stay on the site so you have to match certain grades and so working through all those issues to try to get a well conceived plan and it takes a lot of effort on both the city side and the developer's side, to get it to meet code and that's our goal. Not to maximize lot but to have it meet code. Mayor Furlong: Okay. You said it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. What would be a request by the developer that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan? Kate Aanenson: If they were to come in with a multi-family project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, much higher density or retail. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So because it's single family residential that's what makes it consistent? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. 17 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: With the comprehensive plan. Kate Aanenson: And the fact that that's what it's guided for. Mayor Furlong: It's guided for that. Kate Aanenson: It's guided for low density. Mayor Furlong: Allight. Hunter Dlive. Councilman Labatt mentioned it. Hunter Dlive is a windy, twisty road on a hill. I know the speed trailer, we got that out there last fall. Listening to some neighbors that were talking about it at that time. Are there some other things that we can do, Mr. Gerhardt or Mr. Saam, with regard to monitoling the safety of that road and traffic. Regardless of whether or not this development goes forward, there are issues on Hunter Dlive and we've heard about those. I think they're just, they're coming to the head here again because they've been there before so. Todd Gerhardt: As Matt indicated, we will be putting out the tubes once the snow stops and do a traffic study in that area and we can bling back several options to the City Council to consider in trying to make that road a little safer. I think we shared with the council some safety improvements that the City of Edina and Bloomington have been doing in communities where they've seen higher rates of speeds in residential areas. So right now I think our engineeling department's looking at those and that potentially could be something we could offer up. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, I think those are my questions. Now does anybody else have questions at this time? Councilman Lundquist: Just one more follow-up Kate. Any valiances with this project at all? Kate Aanenson: There are no valiances. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you'd like to address the council sir. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Honorable Mayor, members of the council. My name is Chuck Alcon. I reside at 6138 76th Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. Representing the Yoberry Farms development this evening. With me are other members of the development team, Mr. Tom Stokes and Bill Coffman. And Mr. Steve Johnston, the project engineer and the land surveyor. Also in attendance one of the property owners, Karen Weathers. Just a couple very blief comments supplementing the staff report. This development will have it's own homeowners association be responsible for stlict architectural control, maintenance of the entrance monuments and planted areas. We anticipate with the 57 lots, approximately 3 custom home builders with homes ranging from $750,000 to the $1,000,0000 range. All conditions of the staff 18 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 report as presented are acceptable and I think the most recent development with the outlot and the possible future connection to the regional park for all of the residents east of 41 is a very exciting possibility. As I understand that that park is not, is under utilized. I'll just say it that way. With that, as staff noted, the plat is fully compliant with valiances and we would request approval of the rezoning request and the platting action. Stand by to take your questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Chuck Alcon: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Questions for the applicant. Any? Councilman Labatt: Obviously you've, I think Bethany said it. There's been a lack of dialogue, communication between Yoberry and Highover and Longacres and it's disappointing. And I'm really disappointed by the fact that if you're going to put in 57 lots of homes of $750,000 to $1,000,000 you wouldn't consider a totlot. I think that your neighbors are going to be utilizing the private parks in the two neighboling homeowner associations is wrong, and by your group not taking advantage of putting in a totlot into your development is disappointing to me as an individual. And a resident of Chanhassen and a councilman. I'll say that to you now. Chuck Alcon: May I respond to that please? Councilman Labatt: Go ahead. Chuck Alcon: Our concept for marketing this, especially with the development of the access to the regional park, we didn't feel it required a totlot. We have had discussions with the Longacres Homeowners Association because there is some concern, it's a valid concern, that the people on the southern part of our development will migrate towards the western most totlot in the Longacres development. We are hoping to arrange with that homeowners association some type of an annual membership fee or an annual fee for anybody, any of our residents who would like to use that park. We didn't feel a combination of homeowners association would be the light thing to do at this time. I'd rather not commit our future residents. Let them make their decision as to what they want to do, but clearly if they're going to use somebody else's park, that's being maintained by somebody else's money, they should help pay for it. Councilman Labatt: Have you entered into conversations with Longacres on this? Chuck Alcon: Yes, we've had one breakfast meeting, several phone calls and a couple of e- mails. We haven't got to an agreement yet but we think we're close. Councilman Labatt: I'm just jotting a note. I'm fine now. I'll just save my comments. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor? If I could have my Park and Rec Director just update the residents here on the potential of a pedestlian underpass on 41. I think this is new information that wasn't 19 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 presented at our Planning Commission. This is some information that's occurred here in the last 2 to 3 weeks. If I could have Todd give a short presentation on that. Mayor Furlong: Please. Todd Hoffman: Thanks Todd. Members of the City Council and audience members. Minnewashta Regional Park is a park located just to the west of this site across State Highway 41. There's a development of neighbors, neighborhoods in Chanhassen sandwiched between State Highway 41 and Galpin Boulevard which will have very convenient access to the regional park by pedestlian or bikes at some point in the future. I met recently with Marty Walsh, our Carver County Parks Director and we talked specifically about that site for the underpass because they're making T21 grant application for that potential underpass and in a county wide perspective, they think this underpass at State Highway 41 for the regional park is the highest ranking application that they'll have in the County. The location of that is just opposite, can we zoom in on that? There's an existing culvert that takes water under State Highway 41 at this location. It's also a very low point on either side of State Highway 41, so this is the location that they're consideling for that underpass. Actually Todd Gerhardt came up with this suggestion that we get this outlot at this location to align with that underpass. There was another location farther north that was contemplated earlier so we have a stairway section proposed to come down so residents in this entire area can access regional park which is 340 acres. Has a beach. A large playground. Picnic areas. Trailways in that vicinity. So that's the proposal for an underpass for State Highway 41. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. You can only access that through stairs? Is that correct? Todd Hoffman: At this location. This would be via a stairway. There's really no other way to build that. . . Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, so if I have a stroller, how do I get to the park? Todd Hoffman: You would want to go, yeah you'd either have to walk down this, which would be difficult, or you'd want to go through Longacres Dlive. Back down here onto State Highway 41. Todd Gerhardt: If you've got a stroller, you're going to dlive there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You're going to dlive? Todd Gerhardt: You're going to dlive. I've got kids. I understand this so dlive. Todd Hoffman: There's two at grade, there will be two at grade connections at either Lake Lucy Road or Longacres Dlive or this would be at grade... 20 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Mayor Furlong: So Mr. Hoffman, what you're looking at is extending a trail all the way along the east side of 41 from Lake Lucy down to Longacres to connect, we just made that connection further south of Longacres this last year I know to connect the trail up there so. Todd Hoffman: Correct. The comprehensive plan identifies that trail from Longacres Dlive north to a terminus point probably at Chaska Road and then with the underpass. So the trail would be on the east side of the underpass with a trail system winding in. Again, that's a future planned improvement with this County application that mayor may not speed up that process, but it's certainly not booked in anybody's budget at this time. This is simply planned. Todd Gerhardt: Todd, the application deadline for this would be? For the grant. Todd Hoffman: This year. This year application so 2005 for a 2006 or 7 timeline. Councilman Labatt: Todd are we, maybe I'm missing the trail here on this one but are we taking any sort of park dedication land or anything or easement along 41? I know Longacres Dlive, there used to be a sign that says this trail will be extended in the future but we're not taking or platting or taking any sort of deeded access where that trail's going to go along 41 light now. Todd Hoffman: No we're not. The trail will, you can see the light-of-way in this area for State Highway 41 is very wide. And as a part of that outlot we're taking a little sliver but with the exception of that, we're taking a sliver here. With the exception of that this trail would be a long ways away from these properties out into the state highway ditch. Kate Aanenson: So it would be built in the existing right-of-way. You don't need additional dedication. Councilman Labatt: So how much light-of-way are we, you know as you look at a portion of this property where it has that old railroad bed or some sort of trail bed along 41. Is that where the trail's going to go is on that flat, old snowmobile trail? Todd Hoffman: I don't know where the trail will go. I know that it will be in the light-of-way, but where the exact location, I couldn't tell you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Hoffman, as long as you're here. We dealt with this issue as far as a potential totlot in the Pinehurst development that came through a few weeks ago. That issue's come up again here. I know Kate mentioned a little bit but could you take a look at your map there and show me again where, why do we not get into totlots? Why have we not got into totlots before? Todd Hoffman: City has a comprehensive park plan which identifies park service areas of about one-half mile so the concept is that every resident will have a park within one-half mile of their front door, or that's the goal of the comprehensive park plan. If you take a look at this area as it develops, we have one public park at Sugarbush Park, which is servicing a portion of this property that we're talking about being developed here at Yoberry. We have a second park that Kate mentioned at the Pulte development. It's actually at the head waters of Bluff Creek that 21 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 will be developed as a touch down point on this property. And then we're currently seeking a public park in the Carlson property light at this location which will also service portions of the Yoberry so you have 3, 2 existing parks. This one is acquired. It's not developed, and then a third proposed park which would provide public park services at a neighborhood park service level to Y obeny Neighborhood park is intended to serve upwards of 5,000 people. 2 to 5,000 people. This 57 homes will generate approximately 175 people. The City has shied away from developing individual totlots or what is called mini parks where you take 1 or 2 or 3 lots. We're simply not set up to go into that business. We would have literally potentially hundreds of those mini parks throughout the community if we were to take those on. Many developers have chosen to do that on their own, especially in homeowner associations or in associations for multi- family housing where they set up a totlot and they pay for it through their association dues, and that's a choice by the developers and the residents to maintain those. Outside ofthe neighborhood park service areas we also have community parks which provide service to this area. The Yoberry and that's the Middle School West, which is up the street and is certainly accessible once that trail is completed. It will be easily accessible. In the meantime it's accessible by Highover Drive and then up Brenden Court, to get to that site. You also have the Chan Recreation Center which is accessible via a trail system to this property, and then Lake Ann Park, which is currently accessible. Community park service areas broaden out. They go past half a mile to a mile and even greater than that. If you go one step farther you get regional facilities. We've talked about Minnewashta Regional Park. It's 340 acres of public parkland just across State Highway 41. You also have the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum which is close by and Camp Tanadoona. So again it's staff's position that additional public parkland is unwarranted as a part of this development. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? At this time. Or for the applicant. If not what I'd like to do is allow an opportunity for public comment on this. As we do this, I do it with a couple preferences. One, each of us have read the minutes to the Planning Commissions to both public healings and the Planning Commissioners comments as well as read numerous e-mails and talked on the phone so what I would ask, at the same time I want to make sure that people have an opportunity to be heard. There's been some new information that's been brought up tonight and that we've talked about this evening that wasn't at the last Planning Commission so I want to make sure the residents have an opportunity to respond to that and give us as much information as possible as we talk about this in a few minutes so, what I would ask, just for the sake of everybody's time, try to be blief. Certainly try not to be too redundant and try to cover issues that are germane to this development and the issues we'll be talking about so, with that I would certainly invite residents or interested parties to come forward at this time. If you could state your name and address and feel free to address the council on the matters of concern. Thomas Hirsch: Good evening Mayor, City Council members. Thank you for allowing me to address you. I'm Thomas Hirsch, President of Longacres Homeowners Association. Resident of Longacres at 2290 Longacres Dlive. Would like to submit to the record a signed position paper from the Board of Directors of Longacres at this time. Mayor Furlong: Sure. 22 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Thomas Hirsch: I certainly don't expect you to read that whole packet. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Before you start, is this new information? Thomas Hirsch: It's an executive summary and a board position that's signed by the board of Longacres. Councilman Peterson: We have not seen this before? Thomas Hirsch: You have not seen this particular document or set of documents. I present to you with a little olientation on the package. There are two pages at the beginning of the package stapled to a map and two pictures, that's all I'm going to discuss. The following stapled document is a detailed discussion of that executive summary, if you would like to validate our positions in the executive summary, there's detailed discussion that follows. And then I also attached a two letter correspondence with a solution that we proposed to the developer on shared infrastructure components between Yoberry Farms and Longacres and in that two page letter is a discussion of the history of our communication with the developer at that point. Page 1 of the executive summary summalizes the problem. Page 2 of the executive summary is our proposed solution. In consideration of time I draw your attention to paragraph 4 on page 1 of the executive summary, which lays out how the proposal is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan or city ordinances. I believe there will be a speaker to go into more detail on the traffic patterns and the car loads and the relative width of the streets and connectors and residential, local residential streets being 26 feet or 24 feet wide so I won't cover that. Personally I'd like to focus on 3 items. Parks. We've repeatedly tlied to meet with the Board and the developer unsuccessfully. We did have one breakfast meeting following the January 4th Planning Commission meeting to conceptually layout some options. Those are covered in the 2 page e-mail at the back of the package, and we did yesterday submit the proposal to the developer. I will now put up the map that we're already looking at with a couple of marked highlights and you have a copy of this in your package. I did mark the black area is the Yoberry development. Our west park of Longacres is the plivate marking on the left, and the yellow marking on the light is our east plivate park. As you can see the half mile neighborhood parks are not servicing this new development there. The lower one-third of the development would be serviced by the Sugarbush Park in the center of the lower light circle. We contend that the Yoberry residents will use our parks and infrastructure. It would be natural with strollers, there is I think we heard earlier that there is really no access for mothers with strollers to go anywhere but our parks. Our opinion is that the developer has taken a wait and see what your decision will be tonight attitude concerning this matter. And rather than working cooperatively with us and I think we've made reasonable effort and reasonable proposals to the developer to date. The second item I'd like to discuss or highlight is the need for a construction access off of Highway 41, which I've had discussions with senior people at MnDot also and they are not opposed to a construction access existing for the duration of the project. This is a 3 year project. Be 20 homes estimated built in the first year. 20 homes in the second year. 20 homes in the third year and that's a lot of concrete trucks and a lot of framing material and a lot of hauling of dirt and landscape matelials and I think we've all lived where there's construction going on and this is an 23 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 extended 3 year period that jeopardizes the safety of our children on Longacres Dlive. I do want to point out that 78% of our residents live south of Longacres Drive and must cross Longacres Drive to access our parks, so that's a real safety concern. With all of that construction traffic coming through Longacres Dlive. Highover has a similar situation with residents and I believe one of the other residents in Highover will address the number of children and that issue. The third thing I would like to highlight is traffic. There is precedence that was covered earlier with Kiowa and Summerfield and Stone Creek and Timberwood Dlives not connecting. I drove those over the weekend and it looked similar to me on a map too, if not identical to our situation here. Longacres Street, Longacres Drive is not a connector based on the definition of a connector in the city code. It is only 33 feet wide of pavement. A connector is defined as 36 feet wide in the code. There is no double yellow line on Longacres Dlive like there is on Lake Lucy Road. Gunflint has a maximum capacity of 800 car trips per day as defined as a local residential street. If you count up the number of homes and use the engineeling handbook of 10 tlips per day per home, there would be 1,200 car tlips per day going down that road. It exceeds the capacity of that local residential street. Highover is out of capacity also for the same reasons. There will be other detailed measurements and car counts by a speaker that follows me. The trail, that's new information. Appreciate that addendum to the proposal. For clalification, I'm glad we did clarify that it will run from Longacres Dlive all the way up to Lake Lucy Road along 41, because initially it didn't come across that way this evening. Is that true? That was a question. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Thomas Hirsch: Okay, thanks. And the timeframe is 2007. Todd Hoffman: Timeframe's unknown. That's for the application. Todd Gerhardt: And we haven't received the grant. We're making application. There is the opportunity that we may not be successful in receiving that. So I just want to make that clear. Thomas Hirsch: So at this point it's an unknown and if approved it would be the 06-07 timeframe I think I heard. Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Thomas Hirsch: Okay. With that, thank you for your consideration tonight. Request that you deny the proposal as it currently is proposed. I believe the two cul-de-sac solution is the best for traffic and park situation. It makes both of those go away. And with construction access, I think we could fully support this development going in here. We recognize the light to develop land, we just want to do it prudently and I hope I provided you some input to make a prudent decision. Thank you. Any questions at this time? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions? Thank you sir. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive and have for the last 6 years. I would like to share a letter with you that bears 43 of the 55 signatures of my neighbors. Some of the other signature pages were not able 24 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 to be united with the document this evening. Apologize that I could not pass it out earlier. We had an algebra crisis at the Wagner home on Thursday night that delayed the wliting of the document. This, I'll ask a little bit of leeway to go through each of these bliefly. I hope that will prove to be the most efficient use of the council's time but it represents the views of a number of different folks in the Highover development. You're aware of a number of our concerns through our individual letters. I'll let those speak for themselves. At the outset though I do want to emphasize that we are not against residential development of this parcel per se. Only against the many negati ve aspects that have been brought up this evening. In fact if we could, with the proper modification we'd be more than happy to welcome some new neighbors, extra places to Trick or Treat, what have you. Having reviewed the pertinent portions of the city code and the comprehensive plan we have some particular issues to raise and we'l1 try to keep them here. I'll try to keep them here on point to the proposed Findings of Fact and Decision that are before you this evening which I believe are drawn from municipal code, Section 18-38(f). Specifically 4(b) on the paperwork you have in front of you. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan. We would disagree that it fits that. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Mr. Wagner, where are you reading from? Rodd Wagner: Well from the very front of the, I'm not. Mayor Furlong: What you handed out? Rodd Wagner: Yes. The very front of that. I'm going through in faster fashion than the actual letter in the interest of the council's time, and on 4( c), that the physical charactelistics of the site, not including, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding and the storm drainage, storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development. As has been mentioned this evening, this situation creates some unique problems given the fact that it's sandwiched between two existing developments, and because there's kind of an expostfacto character to it that in many of the similar situations that have been shared, those streets were laid out in a way that people who were purchasing the homes knew what the street layout was before they made their purchases and this was in many ways a situation that was not anticipated by those who purchased the home. Let me go through our rationale as quickly and efficiently as I might. The proposed development exceeds the capacity of a local road on the proposed Highover Dlive, Gunflint Trail through street. The letter that I distributed goes through the city code is to what is designated as an artelial, a collector and a local street. I draw your attention to the definition of a local street as a street of limited continuity which is used plimarily for access to abutting properties. Highover Drive is designated a local street. It's roughly 261h feet wide. That's the measurements that my neighbors took. The city code requires rural residential local streets have no less than 24 feet of pavement. Urban residential streets must have 28 to 32 feet of pavement. Collectors, as has been mentioned need to be at least 36 feet wide. 26 Yz feet, it's either a residential local street or an out of code urban residential. Urban residential local street. Cannot be nor neither was it anticipated to be a collector. Most planning books suggest that local streets serve more than 80 homes and carry no more than 800 tlips per day. I heard staff's suggestion that in Chanhassen that number is higher, but this connection would be more than three-quarters of a mile long. A 25 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 length more consistent with a collector than a local street. I did some measurements with my GPS on Lake Lucy and Longacres that are shown on the document before you on page 2. The new through street would need to serve 120 homes. These are homes that have to go on that street to access either Lake Lucy or Longacres. Only 56, 58 of which, by my count, would abut the street. So the minority of homes it's serving abut the street, therefore it fails the definition of a street which is used plimarily for access to abutting properties. That's without taking into account any kind of through traffic. Being situated between the two collectors, Lake Lucy and Longacres, a disputed collector I grant you, it will also attract some degree of through traffic. We don't know how much. Even without the through traffic, as I said it could no longer be said to be used plimarily for access to abutting properties and we heard this evening that it is already under consideration that there will be a development in this area east of Highover Trail and so and particularly the folks who are on the north end of Highover Drive will be picking up traffic from the through street, a portion of it from Yoberry. They're also going to be picking up traffic from the new development to the east and therefore certainly out of compliance with being a local street. One of the unique facts of Highover is it is a crest at the highest point in the county, and I brought some photographs this evening. They appear as exhibits to your, at the back of the packet that you have. This is, these two photos were taken from essentially the same spot, fairly near to my house. The first one is looking north on Highover Drive. The other one looking south on Highover Dlive, and what I'd like to point out is the degree to which visibility is blocked by the slope of the hill. If a car's moving in any speed whatsoever, it will quite frankly I would challenge you to say is there a child over the crest of that hill. Is there a kid on a, with a wagon or a kid with a Hotwheel there, you really, you don't know. And nor does the dliver who's moving down the street. And therefore it's even, it has limited width. It has limited visibility and therefore safely can carry only limited traffic. We already have problems with high speed traffic and a letter from my neighbor, Mr. Lee Broadston lays out some of the problems we've had and had to ask the sheriff for some assistance. There are a large number of families with small children who purchased homes on the street with a reasonable expectation that it would remain a local street in character and in fact. These assumptions were fed by the design of Highover Dlive. It has a sidewalk only on one side, and also by some representations, oral though they may be, from the developer that yes, Highover Dlive was going to go through but it would only go through to a cul-de-sac of no more than 12 homes. My neighbor Jenny Johnson emailed me. I don't know if she supplied a letter to the council, saying she was one of the first to purchase. One of the last to build but yes in fact that's what the builder had represented and that became commonly known throughout the neighborhood as what folks anticipated when they purchased. I would draw the council's attention to the quote on page 3 from Planning Commissioner Steve Lillehaug who said in his vote against this that when I look at this there are high traffic levels on those local streets peliod, and truthfully I wouldn't want that in my neighborhood. I'll jump to the end here. As a resident and Planning Commissioner, I don't want to see those higher levels of traffic on those streets. Rationale to the direct connection of Highover and Longacres as proposed conflicts with the city code requirement of discouraging through traffic on a local street. There are a couple sections of code that I cite there that talk about how the alignment of local streets shall discourage through traffic and that location and design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets. I think that would apply to the extension of Highover Trail. Topographic conditions and safety. When you create a connection you create the possibility for through traffic, and there is no way to predict exactly what would happen if a traffic light were put on 41. How people would cut through to try to make the light 26 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 to get on. To make it a guaranteed left hand turn onto 41. We just don't know what would happen. We certainly know that our fliends on Hunter Dlive would pick up additional traffic, as the shortest distance to get to Highway 5 going towards the east. Jumping to the next page, I cite another piece of the comprehensive plan about yes, street linkages are preferred but that same section it said, while linkages are preferred, it said development should be planned to avoid running high traffic volumes and/or non-residential traffic through residential neighborhoods, and I don't think this current plan meets that test. In issue 3, in several respects the proposed development fails to adequately mitigate negative impact on surrounding properties as required by the city code. Speaking specifically about the Harrison Hill, those folks, city staff mentioned that it's not definitionally a double fronted lot. I would argue that that is a distinction without a difference that it is for practical matters a double fronted lot and you will see in the photo exhibit some pictures of the folks that are most affected by this. A photograph of the gentleman who lives on that street and of course we're just approximating, the young man who's standing in the picture, approximating where the street would be and where, and he's standing, the resident there is standing on his property. That is not, I think the definition of a good additional development is that would people purchase it again if they knew full well exactly what was going to be there and would they purchase it for the same plice, and I think it fails there as well. As has been mentioned, each neighborhood incorporates restlictive covenants to create a more enjoyable place to live. We maintain at our own expense entrance monuments, lighting, landscaping. In short, the Yoberry development takes advantages of improvement in Longacres and Highover while it's current design degrades the property values of those on Hamson Hill Trail and by vÎ1tue of too much traffic the property values and safety of those on Highover Dlive and Gunflint Trail. The other problem this poses is there's just simply no neighborly way to draw a distinction on Gunflint Trail and say this is where Longacres ends and this is where Yoberry begins. People interact and how do you say to a brand new development, do you put up a fence, signs? No trespassing. You can't come in here. That's just not the way I believe a city ought to be planned. And also, the developer now is introducing the oddity of monuments to a new neighborhood mid-street which I think is just poor design. Finally point 4. In seeking to crowd as many residential lots as possible into the parcels, the proposed development requires dramatic alteration of the topography and vegetation contrary to the municipal code. It stlikes me, I'll cut to the chase here. There's an awful lot, in staff's report they supplied to the Planning Commission, there's a lot of references to how much grading. I understand 44 feet of that hill, we don't have that many tall hills in Chanhassen, is going to be taken off. There's a lot of accommodations for trying to run streets up steep directions and it seems to me nearly any site can be made suitable if it's graded. If the trees are cut down. If you put up retaining walls light and left, but that doesn't seem to meet the intent of the code. Rather the code is to preserve the topography and vegetation to make the development lead to, yield to the landscape and not vice versa. Finally, as far as citing code and such, there is an important paragraph in city code Section 18-56 which there's been a lot of discussion about things meeting the requirements of the city code and comprehensive plan. City code Section 18-56 says, the proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and design handbook, but it gives the council wide latitude. It says the design features set forth in this article are minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more stlingent requirements concerning lot size, streets, and overall design as deemed appropliate consideling the property being subdivided and I would ask you to invoke that paragraph of the city code in looking for a proper solution. We do propose a solution. We are taking for granted, as does city staff that MnDot is most likely 27 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 to deny access so we're no longer pursuing that. Instead we strongly recommend the parcels in question, incorporate a cul-de-sac termination of Highover Dlive on the north and a cul-de-sac termination of Gunflint Trail on the south as homeowners anticipated when they purchased. It solves a lot of the problems, a lot of the conflicts with the city code and comprehensive plan. Most importantly the through traffic issue. It makes less distance to gain speed on Highover Dlive and less of a traffic load. It creates a natural boundary that fosters the two existing neighborhoods and while I can't speak entirely from our neighbors, based on our unanimity in approaching the council on this issue and how well we work together, I'm certain that we would work wel1 to incorporate those additional homes into our neighborhoods. We recommend the plans be altered to avoid sandwiching Hamson Hill Trail between the two roads, again for the reason that the topography, it's not the folks on Hamson Hill Trail's fault that the topography just doesn't allow what the developer is trying to do without a lot of accommodations. That is just the topography that's on the land. We as the developer be required to route all construction traffic off 41 has been mentioned, and we urge the plan be modified to require far less grading, removal of fewer trees and the accommodation of more open space to match the topography and vegetation of the land. Now I'll end as I began. We said we're not against the development per se. The modifications we proposed would make the difference between a development that is sandwiched between two really disgruntled neighborhoods and a development where we could really welcome our new neighbors and enjoy what the comprehensive plan and the city code anticipate in the way of development. I appreciate you allowing me extended remarks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? Mark Zaebst: Good evening. My name is Mark Zaebst. I live at 2325 Hunter Dlive in Longacres. Speaking in behalf for a large number of Hunter Dlive residents that are here tonight and would like to speak specifically to some of our concerns on that street. As I'm sure you're all aware, you've heard, we feel that we definitely have some significant problems on our street right now. Those of which are, we feel that the speed limit of 30 miles per hour light now is excessive for the design that that street has. If you dlive that short one-half mile street, you'll encounter 3 blind turns, significant grade changes and also a blind intersection which also serves as our school bus stop. So it's a dangerous situation. As Councilman Labatt mentioned earlier, he hit it light on the head. People will take the shortest route they can possibly find. Hunter Dlive was never designed to be a connector street and to be the major thoroughfare out of Longacres over to Galpin and therefore into Chanhassen. I've lived on that street for over 7 years and I know for a fact that a great number of people that don't live on that street do use that street to gain access through that area, so we have a large amount of traffic with too high of a speed limit for the type of street that we have there. We have 78 children that live on that one half mile stretch of road right now. We are all honestly fearful for our children to go out and play in the front yards. I know that staff mentioned that they put the, I don't know what you call that. I call it the speed wagon but they put the speed wagon out on the street for a few hours for a couple of days. Didn't monitor anyone in excess of 30 miles an hour but they placed that at the bottom of the excessi ve grade change which is also a blind curve. If you went over 30 miles an hour on that curve you would spin out, which a lot of people do, and end up in our yards. I would ask that next time that the speed monitor is brought out, that they put it on the straight away out in front of my house and I can pretty much guarantee you you're going to find some folks dliving in excess. So as I mentioned, we are concerned with the total number of folks 28 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 driving down the street. We are concerned with the Yoberry Farms development. Staff has mentioned that we could anticipate from that development in excess of 700 car tlips per day generated by that neighborhood. We feel on Hunter Drive that a large percentage ofthose are going to realize that Hunter Dlive is the fastest way out and we're just going to end up exacerbating a problem that we have right now. We also are not anti development. We would welcome this development but we would welcome it with some conditions put on the application. One first of all, the speed limit on our street has to be lowered. 30 miles per hour, if you have not driven our street, please come drive our street. Drive it at the speed limit. 30 miles per hour is ridiculous. Takes almost 200 feet to stop an automobile that's traveling at 30 miles per hour. There are many sections of that road where you cannot see 200 feet ahead. Please come drive it. You will realize that 30 miles per hour is excessive. We ask that that speed limit be lowered to 20 miles per hour and that it be enforced. I guarantee you if we could get a cop out there, wlite some tickets once a week, word's going to get out. People are going to slow down on that street. We ask that you post additional speed limit signs. There's only one speed limit sign on Hunter Drive and you cannot see it because as you negotiate the turn off of Galpin onto Hunter Dlive, it's posted light at the corner there. You are not looking for a speed limit sign. You're on Hunter Drive and people do not know what the speed limit is on that particular street. We must get some stop signs located at Fawn Hill and Hunter Dlive. Again as I mentioned that's a blind intersection. It's posted as a blind intersection but it's used as our school bus stop. It's almost impossible to see the children standing there on the corner, loading the buses. Again we are fearful that we're going to end up losing a child there. A stop sign will do two things. It will make that intersection safe for our children. It will also take Hunter Dlive away as a totally unimpeded section of road where people can come off of Longacres and go fast and get over to Galpin. If you put a stop sign there, it will slow people down and make that street safer for everyone that lives there. We also ask that the city place a speed bump somewhere along the other section of Hunter Dlive. We have to get people to slow down. So in conclusion we ask that the council again, if this development is approved, that it please place conditions upon the development that street improvements be made. Traffic calming measures be made to Hunter Drive. The concern should not be how fast can people drive down Hunter Dlive. How convenient can Hunter Dlive be for people to get out of there. The concern should be for the families that live on that street. Make it a safe environment. The fact is the street is there. People will continue to use it as a cut through street. Please help us to slow the traffic down. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Leslie Witterschein: Good evening. My name is Leslie Witterschein and I live at 7150 Hamson Hill Trail. In reviewing the documents prepared by both Highover residents, our residents and the document provided to you by city planner Sharmeen AI-Jaff, I looked at the city code, Section 18-57 which states specifically that the location design of streets shall consider existing and planned streets. Reasonable traffic circulation, topographic conditions, runoff of storm water, public convenience, and safety of the proposed land uses of property to be served. If you look on page 9 of the document provided to you by Ms. AI-Jaff, specifically under the streets it says while the minimum radius allowed on public streets is 180 feet, staff is willing to allow the tight curve on the end of Gunflint Trail, which is that street that will back up to our street, because the curve is at the end of the street. Staff is recommending a curve sign with a 20 miles 29 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 per hour speed limit be posted on both sides of the curve. Now it's been represented this evening that there are no variances being required but it specifically states in here that it is, that the radius is less than the required radius provided by the city and so I guess there must be some sort of valiance specifically related to this curve. If you look at... up against the edge of the property lines right here and you look at the pictures as provided to you in the earlier packet with the little boy standing by Mr. Rysso, you will see that there is not very many feet between the end of the property where the kids play all the time. There are 36 young children that live in that development, on our street specifically and they run up and down the backs of those houses all summer and winter long. And when you're looking at a tighter curve, particularly during the winter time and they've taken out the retaining wall so there is no barrier really between the back yards, with the exception of a couple little lilac trees as they proposed, to stop any type of traffic. If it's going too fast on a slippery curve and loses control, those homes and the safety of those children are in great jeopardy because of the tight curve. And I know they said that there's only 4 houses on the end but let me tell you our street does not have that many houses on it and there are a couple young teenagers that live up at the end of this street and they can whip up the end of our block at 30 to 35 miles an hour. In fact if you look at the end of our street you can see where coming down that block someone went fast enough that they jumped over Longacres Dlive, down the embankment and knocked out a tree. So you know that they can kind of get going pretty quickly along those roads, even if there are only a few homes. And so I think that when you look at the safety of that, you should be very concerned and I think it goes against what the city code specifically requires. And I want to refer back to the fact that city code section allows you to impose additional or more stlingent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropliate considering the property being subdivided. When the developer talked about the 3 different proposals, the one that had the houses between the street and the back of our lot, it was deemed desirable, less desirable because of the fact that you're going to have to do a little more change and you might have to have a retaining wall, and in essence I truly believe that the real problem is that, the homes then wouldn't be walkout lots as they desired and therefore worth less money and that's really the true reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they might have to put a retaining wall up and knock down a few trees. When you're looking at the difference I think between knocking down a couple trees and having you know a higher retaining wall, it might be a little more difficult and the safety of the 36 children along that street, I don't think that it's a very tough decision. You know I figured that each of those homes is, being very conservative, each of those homes might be worth, and this is very conservative, $200,000 less because they're not a walkout lot and I think that that's greatly exaggerated. If you multiply that times the 4 homes, that's about $800,000. You divide that out by the cost of our 36 children, you're talking, you're saying that the value of our children are only about $11,000 and Ijust don't think that that seems to be light, and is not in accordance with the city codes, and the overall comprehensive plan. So I would respectfully request that you look at this very carefully and give stlict consideration to the true safety of the children on that street, and any other children within our neighborhood or that we might have coming over to visit us, so it's not just our children but it is the greater interest of the other citizens of Chanhassen too. And finally with regard to the park system, and I'll just say this bliefly. While I respectfully am happy about the fact that they're adding that trail, although it seems to be up in the air. It seems to more appease us with regards to the totlot but in actuality be functional because in order for those residents to take their stroller and their 6 year old on a bike to 41, they would have to walk past, they'd have to come down and walk past our park, and I find it hard to 30 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 believe that in order to get over to 41, if you're trying to do it in the 2 Yz hours between the time your kindergartner leaves for school and your kindergartner gets home, that you're going to get a stroller, and all of the supplies that you need to go to the park, plus you know a 5 year old that's just learning how to lide their bike, down their road, all the way down Longacres and back up, that trail light at 41 to go under that overpass, and so I would respectfully request that you also look at the totlot issue because they will be using our parks. It's common sense to any mother that's ever been in that neighborhood. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeff Tlitoh: Good evening. Just a couple quick facts about Hunter Drive because that seems to be one of the big issues here. Mayor Furlong: If I could ask you to introduce yourself. Name and address please. Jeff Tritoh: I'm sorry. Jeff Tlitoh. I live at 2313 Hunter Dlive. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeff Tlitoh: The road is obviously quite curvy and the minimum radius, turning radius for that street, or that type of street is 180 feet, and there is one curve that is 166 feet so it is less than the minimum required by the city. The slope that everyone has been talking about, the maximum slope allowed is 7% and that slope is actually 10%, so it is much steeper than allowed. The driving, stopping your car at 30 miles per hour, which my neighbor just previously mentioned, it's 197 feet to stop your car safely and that's according to MnDot's design standards for safe stopping. Also the building covenants for 18 of the 26 homes on that road allows the front yard setback to be 20 feet versus 30 feet which is the minimum and that's an encroachment of 10 feet, so that is why that road feels, another reason why it feels so tight and narrow. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, that's, excuse me for interrupting. That's on Hunter you're referring to? Jeff Tritoh: Hunter Dlive. All these facts are on Hunter Dlive. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Travis Sprague: Hi. My name is Travis Sprague. I live at 6888 Highover Drive. Ijust had a couple brief comments regarding safety once again of Highover. When I measure it it's 26 feet 2 inches on the pavement and I guess I hear a lot of comments on, from the city staff of here's what it requires or here's, this follows the plan and there's certainly guidelines. We know there's reasons for guidelines and you have to be consistent when you layout developments but I guess there are also sometimes reasons for exception. I'm just urging the council to take a look at that and look at some alternatives and take some common sense approaches like Mrs. Tjornhom said when she parked on that street. If there's any cars on that street at all it's incredibly narrow and with the amount of extra traffic that's going to be coming down, and I truly think that when you, if you make it a through street, Highover through the development, that it's going to encourage 31 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 people to use that in the future as we get more development and more population as a cut across. Or an alternate route to Galpin, to 41, to Lake Lucy and it's going to be far more traffic than just the homes and from the numbers I'm hearing, I don't think the homes even support the width of Highover. I also heard comment about a precedence that was set at Stone Creek and Timberwood, and I heard, and I apologize for not knowing your name but I heard the comment made, if I'm quoting her correctly that one of the justifications for that was that it was not an urban standard road. And from the information that I have seen, it doesn't seem like Highover is an urban standard road for a local street being the width that it is and what the recommendations are within the code. And so I just want to urge the council to try to take a common sense approach and consider an exception to what the normal guidelines are and give hard thought to the two cul-de-sac approach that has been already proposed from both neighborhoods. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Phil Haarstad: Mr. Mayor and councilmen. My name is Phil Haarstad. I live at 7066 Harrison Hill Trail. It's the property that is at the northeast corner of the Yoberry Farms proposal. Near the cul-de-sac. The first thing I did the evening I went to look at this property to purchase it was look behind to see if there'd ever be houses built in my back yard, and as an engineer by profession I quickly made the judgment, although I'm not a land development engineer or have any training in that, with a little common sense it was clear to me that this land was highly unlikely going to be developed and have houses directly in my back yard. And seeing from the difficulties that the planning people have had in using different options, it's, I think that's true that this land is being squeezed for homes to be put in there. While I, so also I understand though that it's unfair for me to purchase a home and not expect anyone else ever to build around me. I just wanted to make it clear that I agree with my neighbors on Harrison Hill Trail for the safety concerns of that curve coming up the back of our lots. I would much, however I would much rather, if that land does have to be developed, have the homes further away from my house than right high up in my back yard. So please consider that as well. That I would also just say that I think the better solution would be not to place those 4 homes in that area and use it as a common area or a park or something of that nature. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else? Joe Thull: Hi. My name is Joe Thull. I live at 6872 Highover Dlive. Just a blief comment on, there's been a lot of talk about I believe it's Hunter Dlive and all the traffic issues. Living at the T of Highover Drive and Highover Trail, it's interesting, at one point the people who were building and developing their homes on Hunter Dlive you know looked around and said, you know what, it's going to be a nice neighborly local traffic. I can deal with that, etc, etc. To me that represents today kind of hind sight now. They're dealing with traffic. They're dealing with, and it's you know what, there isn't a simple solution now. The deal's been done. Now it's systemic and it isn't going to be a traffic cop. It's not going to be all these other things that are going to challenge that. I'm sitting on Highover Dlive thinking you know what, Hunter Dlive represents my future and that is pretty frustrating future that I don't want to deal with so I would expect that the council have some foresight and to protect the neighbors and the residents and clearly deal with local traffic and local neighborhoods like they should be dealt with, thank you. 32 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I do not live in this neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood just down the street but I've heard some things tonight and having read the report and been at the plior planning meetings, I do have a couple points that no one's brought up yet. I have to collect my thoughts, I'm sorry. I'm trying to keep this really short. I heard Kate said that all requirements of the zoning ordinances have been met but what about all requirements of the subdivision ordinance. All lots from the last report I read said all lots do not meet lot frontage requirements. They said lot lines could be adjusted. Well I think it's wrong to move forward and approve a subdivision with 57 lots if you do not know where those lot lines are. And I know it's preliminary but with so much at issue I think it's a very impOltant point. Also relative to your latitude at making decisions about the change in zoning. Yes we do have a comprehensive plan. However, is there latitude in the density of this development? In other words, there's 57 lots. Could you reduce that? I think you can. I think there's latitude in reducing the net density. And thirdly, there was an issue raised by a resident pertaining to double lot frontage. And I heard it justified by the fact that well here's a lot here in the city. Here's another lot. I've been down that road before. There are lakeshore lots that have 75 feet width that were not approved according to the code, and I submit that you cannot use an existing lot and make that the reason for allowing double frontage. I think double frontage in this instance would be a valiance. I hope I made that point. The fact that something exists in the city does not mean that it can be used as a reason to approve it within a new subdivision. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Larry Lovig: Good afternoon, or good evening Mr. Mayor and City Council members. My name is Larry Lovig. I live at 2475 Gunflint Court and this is my third time speaking on this matter and still am quite nervous about that. I did send in an e-mail with an attached letter so hopefully you had a chance to read that so I won't touch on those points or any other points that have been covered here tonight but there are a couple things I did want to bling to light. First to me it seems there's a conflict between the staff and the current homeowners, between the staff and the Planning Commission and now between the staff and the City Council. Doesn't appear to me that staff is trying to be helpful with the commission and the council within these matters but rather working very closely with the developer to jam as many lots as possible into this area. The staff admittedly went as far as working with the developer to suggest that there's no need to apply for access to 41 in this case, and there's still not been a formal request for access to 41. And I guess my question to you would be, is there no recourse from the city to work with the state to try and get an exception in this case. We're talking about something that's not even been officially declined yet. Also I noticed in the comprehensive plan, page 21, it discusses mechanisms to protect natural beauty while at the same time reserving certain areas for recreational use. I'd like your attention to the area that adjoins the plivate park to the west. It's a very, very steep, very vegetated area. So steep that the developer has planned a very long retaining wall so he can develop houses that back up to the park. Those houses will be closer to that park than any of the Longacres residences. I ascertain that that is a bluff. In reviewing these meetings previously it seems to me that the definition of a bluff is made by the current survey 33 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 and the survey is a matter of where the surveyor sets the stakes. I would request the City Council to make that minimum investment to get a second opinion by a neutral survey crew to understand better if that is truly a bluff or not. That is definitely a natural area that should be looked at to be protected. It makes a very nice back drop to the park. Also staff has talked at great length about Longacres Dlive and it's, whether it's a definition, meets the definition of a collector road or not. I don't think that matters. What matters is the definition of Hunter Dlive. These people are not going to be using Longacres if they're heading towards 5 to head east for any reason. So with that I'll close with, I request that you reject the proposal in it's current form. That you challenge staff to meet as many of the current homeowners requests as you see fit tonight and appreciate your guidance in that matter. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Karen Weathers: My name's Karen Weathers. I'm one of the landowners. I live at 7235 Hazeltine Boulevard and I empathize with you all. I went through this when Longacres came in. I bought a 5 acre hobby farm and it was supposed to be zoned rural residential forever. Of course Longacres came in. Very dense. Nobody listened to me so I know it's frustrating. I'm not going to talk about the technical issues. I think it's up to the city to know what's in and out of variance. I do have just a couple comments. The traffic, one question I have had since the beginning of these meetings, I don't understand why you don't make Hunter Dlive a dead end. It seems like everybody's got problems already and their problems are becoming our problems. So I don't know, it sounds like we, I don't know Mark you had a suggestions of making that. I don't need you to make you know Hunter Dlive restlictions part of our development but I don't see why that can't be dealt with separately. So it seems like that's the issue with Hunter Dlive and I empathize with that but I think it's kind of ironic that that kind of becomes our problem. It'd be nice to keep those separate. The only other thing is on the park issue, I empathize with that too. For 10 years I've had kids trespassing, I've got the part that's just north of the park so for 10 years I've had kids trespassing on my land, but I have not really cared. I had 4 boys yesterday, they said they were deer hunting with their eyes. So I said that's fine. Have a good time. So I think it would be great if we could team up with Longacres. I'm all for that but I don't see that that, view that as our issue. So I'd just like to comment on that. So I hope we can get everything resolved. We've seen all this development come around us much to our dismay but it's very hard to stop these things. It's also been good. It's been nice for my kids to have neighbors and all those good things too so I hope we can all meet on common ground. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sara Schneider: My name is Sara Schneider and I live at 6872 Highover Drive. As the developer was just saying, and I think I know especially for Highover, we have no issue with additional neighbors. With additional homes. It's just a matter of how it's going to be handled. We talk kind of about the traffic patterns and traffic studies can't be real conclusive because you don't know if they're going to Target on 5 or if they're going to Cub on 7 and what's going to be their easiest way out. And one of Kathy's comments was just that they don't really want to limit residents to have to go all the way down Highover because it isn't through. I think that would be better taken up with the current people in Longacres and the current people in Highover and a 34 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 good discussion with the developer about, I would prefer to see my own neighbors at the end of Highover cul-de-sac coming down and coming through my neighborhood, whether they're coming through to loop all the way back and going to Target. Whether they could have taken a shortcut if it had been through, I'd rather see it be a cul-de-sac where it would be, where it would limit the traffic. And we don't roll the traffic dice whether someone is going to Target or whether they're going to Cub. So I too would also respectfully request that you would reject the current plan as it is and as Highover has already stated, we would really welcome an open discussion with the developer and you've seem to have indicated that as far as some comments about have there really been any discussions, and the developer has kind of talked about some discussions with Longacres but it's already been kind of mentioned that those have been not as extensive as represented by the developer and I really think none of us have any objection to new neighbors, to new homes, to more kids. We welcome that, but just in a way that's going to make it a healthy, safe neighborhood for Longacres and for Highover and I think there's a way, and I think that we're coming up with some really pretty reasonable options with the two cul-de-sacs. So I would hope that you'd reject this and we could get on with the better plan. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We are coming up as best as I can tell, on about an hour and a half of public comments so I'd like to take one more if we could. If anybody's interested. Tim Block: You'd say a couple more or just one more? Mayor Furlong: One more please. You get to close. Tim Block: Mayor, City Councilmen and women. I've sat here today as a father of 4. Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address please sir. Tim Block: My name is Tim Block. I live at 6903 Highover Dlive. I live at the top of Highover Dlive. Right at the top. I have 4 children, all 5 and under. Each one of those children if they want to go visit their fliends has to cross that street, Highover Dlive to get to the sidewalk. Each one of those kids then has to dlive down the sidewalk and cross again if they want to visit someone at Highover North or Highover Court. I've heard today a lot of supposition about what that means to my 4 kids. I've heard in the planning report I see, this is all I see, overall the proposed street layout appears to work well. That kind of conclusion is what we've heard here today. We've heard ideas about possibly putting up pads or some sort of tubing to figure out what's going on. We've talked about potential neighborhoods going in at Highover Trail, along with Yoberry. Along with Longacres and along with Highover. But nobody has gone through the effort to find out how much houses that were. I haven't heard the city staff say how many are in Highover. How many are in Yoberry. How many are at Longacres and how many are going to be in the new Highover Trail. By our count that's 150 to 170 homes, all potentially. running by my house on Highover Dlive. All potentially going over that hill where you've seen pictures where people don't see anything. And now we're talking about, not only serving those homes but we're talking about connecting two collectors. One, a named collector. One, a collector that doesn't make sense. It doesn't have a yellow line between it. Longacres Drive has become a defacto collector. Highover Dlive is destined to be that. If we aren't here to stop it. City code, the comprehensive plan tells us don't do this. We've got neighbors and we've got 35 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 residents and we've got people who are selling their property saying, Hunter Drive isn't my issue. It's our issue today. The comprehensive plan tells us that, it says development, whether commercial, industlial or residential is long term, both economically and physical. Since development is permanent and usually irreversible, the effects of substandard or poorly located facilities will be evident for a long time. Therefore the developer and the city must be aware of natural, physical, social constraints and potential long term effects of the project. Only by paying attention to such detail at the early stages of development can facilities be constructed which are functional and aesthetic to both today and in the future. Today the city, the City Council is being presented with hard evidence by the residents of both of these communities. Not suppositions about the layout works well. Not suppositions about well we might put out something later. These are the people who are living in these areas light now and they've come to the city saying there's going to be a problem. We have a problem light now and there's going to be a bigger problem. We all know how we live. We all know how we might cut through this area and we all know how other people might cut through this area. People are coming down Highover Dlive over the hill already too quickly and the only way that we can stop them light now is to follow them to where they live and tell them to stop. And light now you make it a through traffic and we lose that ability. Now I said in my letter to the City Council, this city has told the residents of this community that if you want to stop traffic, if you want to stop speeding in your neighborhoods, it is your job. It is the residents job. I think in the Leadfoot program it says, the key to traffic safety is a voluntary compliance with traffic laws and safe dliving principles. The key to developing and maintaining safe driving in neighborhoods is residential support and involvement. That's what these people are here for today. That's why these people have showed up today to tell you that Yoberry light now as it's planned is not good for these communities. And if this people can't go on the web site and read what the city council has told them to do, and don't get the type of relief they get when they are the only ones presenting real facts, when they are not the people who are saying there might be 800 to 1,000 tlips by this neighborhood. Instead they know what they're living through and they know what their potential is going to be. When the city comprehensive plan, Chapter 2 Housing tells people what I just read, do it now. Don't do it later. Tubes are too late. Widening the street after it's already in, it's too late. I'd have to say Highover's 26 Yz feet long. I read the plan, the Yoberry property anticipates 31 foot wide streets. When they get to connecting those streets and find out there's 5 feet of difference, it's too late. When somebody gets hit by a car, it's too late. When someone decides to sit down and count up 54 Highover Dlive residents, 54 Yoberry Dlive residents, 54 Highover Trail residents, Longacres and the through traffic, count that up to over 100 by the city's standards. 80 by almost every other code in the nation, and that number becomes 150 and 170. That cOlTelates to 1,500 tlips on Highover Dlive. It's too late. You know people here have come to you with their concerns. I know that I've met with them. I've talked to the Longacres people. When this all came down people said we have to get here. You have to be here and I ask the council to listen. Listen to the people who are presenting the facts. Listen to the council member who had the foresight to go there and actually sit on the street and observe. Alright. I haven't heard anyone in the city staff say that they've done that. These people have come to you, we have come to you with an idea. We think that it's the best idea. We think it preserves our ability to monitor the traffic. We think it preserves our ability to stop unreasonable traffic and that is to create two cul-de-sacs so that both properties can do what they are told to do by the city, and that is be good residents. Be residents that are looking out for their neighborhoods, and be residents who will come to the City Council before the plat is preliminary approved and tell 36 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 them why it is that they think that when you put a piece of paper between two existing things, it's not just paper. It's real life and these people want some help in making sure that their kids are okay. And I have to tell you, from my little boy Michael who told me today, daddy why are you leaving for this. I said because I'm going to tell the City Council about you Michael. Because I don't want you liding your bike across a street to get to the sidewalk when someone coming up Highover on a hill has no less than 100-150 feet of sight line and that person has decided that they're going to go from Lake Lucy to Longacres because the light at 41 and 7.. .has turned red and now it's time off to the races. That's what's going to happen. Nobody's talking about that. Nobody's talking about what's going to happen at Highover Trail. The code, the comprehensive plan tells us have the foresight to think of it all and get it down and make sure that we stop things from happening that will be preventful. I thank you for your time. I ask that you deny the plan as it's set forth and accept the residents, I think it's a joint proposal by the residents to make it a two cul-de-sac development. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to end this peliod of public comment and I think before I bling it back to council if I could, Mr. Knutson we've heard a lot of references to code, the comprehensive plan. Your thoughts, comments on what you've heard this evening in your review of the proposal. Roger Knutson: Mayor I think Kate earlier in the evening went through a lot of more the ground work on how the land use process works. Essentially your job tonight is to determine whether the ordinance, or whether the application meets ordinance requirements. If they do you really don't have, if they do meet ordinance requirements you don't have much discretion but to approve them. If you don't, someone else will do it for you and then you lose control of the process. Going back through the two applications. One on the rezoning. The central thing that controls your zoning is your comprehensive plan so the question you have to ask is the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I believe the Planning Director has answered that question yes, but that's a decision that you will have to make. There's more than one zoning designation you could have under this particular guiding, as it's guided, but my review of it, this is the least dense zoning you could have that's consistent with the current guiding. So you might decide looking at the preliminary plat, again the question is does it meet ordinance requirements. Your staff has reviewed it and determined that it has but again that is up to you to make that independent determination. You make the ultimate facts, but if it does meet the ordinances, the fact that someone may like it or may not like it really is not dispositive because it is you know we live under a rule of law . You've established your policies in your ordinances and your comprehensive plan. That's where policies are made. Once those policies are made, we require the developer to live by those policies as adopted in your plan and your zoning ordinance, and likewise the city is required to live by that and you have to make that ultimate decision as to whether those ordinance requirements have been met. But again staff has reviewed it and determined that it has but it's ultimately your decision. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We've heard a lot of public comment this evening which has been appreciated. I guess I would ask at this time if there are any follow-up questions for staff on any of the issues that were brought up. Councilman Lundquist: I do have a few. 37 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the double frontage, if that could be classified as double frontage on Harrison Hill, is that, does that require a valiance to proceed? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Lundquist: Matt, talk a little bit about the roads, specifically Highover and Longacres. Their road width. The classification. Collector. Non-collector. Address some of those comments that were brought up. Matt Saam: Sure. The two collector roads in the area, the one to the north is Lake Lucy Road. Highover DIive connects to that. The one to the south is Longacres Dlive and Gunflint Trail connects to that. Each of those, which are local roads. Highover Dlive and Gunflint Trail as classified in our comp plan, each of those roads are proposed to be extended into this development to route traffic from this development both to the north and to the south to the collector roads which then connect to the artelial, in this case Highway 41. It's the way our street system works. A functional classification system. Going from the local roads, the lower volume to the collector roads, a little higher onto the artelials. As far, if the local roads can handle the traffic that's proposed, we did look at that. As Kate said, local roads classified in our comp plan can handle up to 1,000 trips per day. Assuming, or taking that each lot generates approximately 10 tlips per day, that means you have a maximum of about 100 til you hit that threshold. Cunently Highover Drive has some 50 plus or minus lots. I counted 50. Somebody said 54 so we're right around that 50 mark. This development has 57 I believe. Now if we can assume that not all of the traffic is going to go to the north. You know it's going to find some split. Some people will go north. Some will go south. That means that we're going to be under that 1,000 trip threshold at least for Highover Dlive going to the north. Gunflint Trail to the south cUlTently only has about 9 lots on it so that won't even be an issue. Councilman Lundquist: And the width of Highover, 26 Yz versus 28 versus 31. Matt Saam: Yeah, now I wasn't here when Highover was approved but I believe it's 28. What we classify is to the back of the curb. Our current standard is 31. Used to be from 28 to 32. There was latitude so I'm assuming based on comments here tonight that that one is the 28 feet, which would make sense if the actual pavement is the 26 Ih. So it does, it did meet the code at the time. While it may be 3 feet less in width than we currently go by, we still believe it can handle the traffic that will be generated from this development in addition to the existing traffic. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Talk about the speed limit issue that we heard. Do we have any latitude on speed limits? Less than 30 miles an hour. Matt Saam: Somewhat. Speed limits are set by MnDot. In order to get that lowered we would need to provide hard data, basically a traffic study using our tubes, traffic counts, measuling speed, on the existing road. Present that to MnDot and as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, what MnDot looks at is that 85th percentile. It's basically the speed that 85 percent of 38 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 the traffic is driving at. If that would come in at the 25 miles per hour, which I mentioned earlier from our trailer, our speed trailer, then we may have some data to show MnDot to say hey, we could lower this down to 25. Surely if there's some tight curves, I know there's some tight curves, we could look at posting curve signs out there. Again we want to have some data though to support that. That's why I'm saying we'll put the counters out in May and we will definitely follow up on any issues on Hunter. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Conditions as I read through somewhere I thought I remembered when I read through, maybe it was just the e-mails, about a construction access off of 41. But I didn't see that as I read through the conditions anywhere. Is that in there somewhere and I missed it or. Matt Saam: It may not be and that's simply because they are proposing to utilize the driveway off 41. They're currently showing it on their plans so when they're showing what they're going to do that we want them to, we don't place a condition on it. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that, is that then covered in something in the motion that says refer to plans and specs dated, whatever the date is. Matt Saam: It should be. Typically it is. Councilman Lundquist: Plans dated and received December 20, 2004. Matt Saam: It's shown on the grading plan. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Blian, just to point to that. That construction traffic would only access that area until the road was paved. The new road to Yoberry. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. What else do we got? Kate, options between preliminary and final on street layout. Between how much latitude do we have on say the Harrison Hill piece or whether or not it's a cul-de-sac or a through street or any, how much latitude do we have between preliminary and final. Kate Aanenson: We did notice this with variances because a plivate street was one of the options too, even though they weren't asking for valiances. We did notice it in case there was a request to go to the. If you wanted to give us some opportunity to work through with that with the applicant and the neighbors to kind of understand better the difference. It seems like there's a split with some of the neighbors to understand that, which would be better. We could do that between now and final plat. Councilman Lundquist: And then the cul-de-sac versus through street. Kate Aanenson: We would make that a condition of approval. 39 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 Roger Knutson: Right, if you wanted to leave something open like that, you would call that out as a condition and specifically say, unresolved, you fill in the blank. This particular street. We need additional information on whether it should be done this way, that way or the other way. You'd call that out as a condition. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. When do you expect final to come back? Kate Aanenson: I have no idea. 6 weeks. Councilman Lundquist: And last one. Mr. Lovig talked about whether or not that area next to that park is classified as a bluff or not. Response to that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. We looked at that ourselves with the existing topog and we asked them to field verify. If you would like us to have an independent field velify that again between now and final plat, we'd be happy to do that. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. That's all I had sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: One for Matt or Kate, as it relates to the curve going into Gunflint Trail that we're going to post I think at 20. Was there discussion about changing that curve and changing the road structure and lots. It just seems if we're here and discussing it, we know it's an issue. Why couldn't we re-design a road? I'm assuming that was discussed but kind of walk me through that. Matt Saam: Yes, correct it was discussed. What it would require is basically, let me go to the. The curve in question is this one. That's what we recommending be posted at a 20 miles per hour speed. To get this to be a more gentle curve, we'd have to push this bubble over farther up into this corner. Currently there's already a retaining wall I believe now too to protect the tree. If we push it over farther we start getting into the trail here. Basically we, it would make that retaining wall go up more. More severe grading so we compromised.. . and let me clarify the 180 feet. It's not technically a valiance. We use that as a design guideline here in the city as staff to say we really don't want them to get any tighter than 180 so that's why it's not a valiance. But we compromised with the developer that we would lower the speed limit here to 20 and what we did was looked at well how much traffic is going to be in here. We have 1,2,3,4 houses. It's not a through street. If we had a 90 degree curve say up in here, where initially I believe they were under 180 up in here but we got them to redesign it. We think there it would be more of an issue because you'd have more traffic here going through there than the 4 homes. Kate Aanenson: Let me just address the cul-de-sac too which drove that. There was a strong recommendation from the Planning Commission to save a couple of significant trees light there so that's why the cul-de-sac swung back. Councilman Peterson: Okay. One more and this may be a tougher question to answer. Let me first of all preface that I'm a strong proponent of connecting neighborhoods but obviously you 40 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 don't want to connect neighborhoods at a plice, whatever that price might be. Particularly when in this case potentially safety. That being said, if we would have presented to the developer that we wanted two cul-de-sacs, walk me through the implications of that from a planning standpoint, knowing that that would preclude the two neighborhoods being connected, which is not ideal. But does that really mitigate the safety issue that has been discussed by many of the residents or is it. Kate Aanenson: It's pretty rare where we've done a subdivision where you split somebody with two different access points. It's a little different. Again, obviously it's highly charged emotionally because everybody's talking about their kids on the street, which I understand. I have children. You know it's that empilical data, the factual, what we tried really hard to do is to make the street, as did Longacres, those streets were designed specifically by Lundgren Brothers to make them curvy so people wouldn't speed. Obviously when people do speed that's where the rub lies. When they don't, they veer off the road but that was really their goal. That's kind of what we took, not to that extreme as Matt indicated. We tlied to reduce some of the curves to make those, and the sight lines. That's why those sight lines are such that you have to slow down because you can't see further ahead and that's the goal of traffic calming to provide those so you can't see. Now do teenagers always follow that? Not always but that was really the intent of working the street design as such. Could it be done with two cul-de-sacs? I'm not sure we're going to make both parties happy because the way it lays, somebody's going to end up with more lots you know, just because of the way it would figure out. But kind of an interesting way to do a development when you're stuck in the middle. Again I go back to say if this would have come in first, the neighbors are saying maybe people would have made different decisions. It's the grading and everything is similar to everybody else that's come in around it. We're not treating this one any less. Actually the bluff ordinance is more restrictive here than the Longacres one so we're really a little bit more restlictive on this as far as the bluff. Councilman Peterson: Then one last question Matt. I forgot to ask it earlier. So that curve you pointed out earlier, that is the only 20 miles an hour. No other parts of this new development in Yoberry will have any marked curves on it? Matt Saam: Correct. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this time. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: So Matt, we're going to, the slope and grade and the radius of Hunter Dlive. Can you just go over that real quick and how we're applying the standards and what the current conditions are for that road to this extension of Gunflint. 41 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 Matt Saam: Yeah. I talked with Mr. Tritoh numerous times over the last couple weeks. He's the gentleman who mentioned the slope and the radius. He's correct there. Again I wasn't around when that was approved. I don't know all the particulars but Hunter Dlive, there is a curve in there. For sure one that is less than the 180 feet curve radius, so that may be a case where I said previously where we'll post that curve at possibly a lower speed. And then the street grade, he was correct there too. We have a street that's right at around 10% there. Currently we allow maximum of 7%. So again I don't know the situations there but that was approved and that's to those design guidelines. Again the fact that I tried to, or the point I tried to make at Planning Commission is Hunter Dlive, while there may be issues with it and we should address them and we will, we really think they're separate than this development and that's the point we were trying to make is that we'll address Hunter with anything we can do to make that safer but we didn't see where that was this development's or developer's issue to correct. Councilman Labatt: Well it may not be this developer's issue but it's the city's issue. I mean we've got a road that isn't conforming. We're going to have a development here that's going to be bleeding onto this problem already of Hunter Dlive so they do run very parallel tracks. There's a huge impact here. What is the potential impact for the Carlson property? We've heard about that coming down the chute. How many homes we looking at doing and bringing in there and what's the impact on Highover Dlive and Highover Trail? Nobody's ever talked about numbers yet on that, as far as how many more are going to be increased up there. I think we have an issue here where we're not dealing with our comp plan. We're not looking forward. Kate Aanenson: Again I'll just comment, when we did the traffic zones and we put those collectors in place, that was based on anticipated development within that. I do believe that when I went through all the different subdivisions I indicated how many lots. Right now the Carlson's are looking at 50. That one does have access via Galpin Boulevard. We're also working, it also has access via the subdivision Woodlidge Heights, which has access onto Lake Lucy, and also we are working to provide another direct access possibly onto a collector road to the north, if that can be resolved so trying to give some other access points. Unfortunately on this circumstance, based on topography, there are no other options. Besides the two cul-de-sacs. Councilman Labatt: So that's what I have for questions light now. Mayor Furlong: All of the questions, okay. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? If not, comments. Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: Comments. Obviously this is going to be one of the issues where there will be parties that walk away from the table unsatisfied. No way around that. Some of the things I found interesting in the comments tonight from the residents is, the conflict even among themselves. People along Hamson Hill, they don't want the road there. They'd like to see a park there but then the people that live down in other part of Longacres don't want the Yoberry people to use their park. What's going to prevent the people from Longacres on Harrison Hill to go up to the park that's right in their yard? I've heard people talk about minimizing the grading and don't take out as many trees and use the topography and do all of that stuff and yet when you try to put a road along, on Gunflint Trail, along the Hamson Hill, we hear well let' s not put it 42 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 there. Let's put it closer to the wetland where we're going to have to grade the heck out of it. Wipe out a bunch more trees and put a bunch more fill in there. So I think we've got some conflicts there. Hunter Dlive is an issue regardless of whether this development goes in or not and I believe that by putting a cul-de-sac there, you have a potential to increase the traffic that's going to go on there more than decrease it because now those people have only got one way out, and that's Hunter Dlive. You make that a through street, you've got two ways out. That's not what the people on Highover wanted to hear but again, you've got some conflicts there as well. I heard a lot of talk about safety and again as Kate stated as well, some of the comments I guess I took exception too, especially taking the, putting the cost of a child's life at $11,000. I think that the 5 of us up here as well all have children and you know to think that we would put something into motion that would put anybody's children safety at lisk isn't giving us enough credit so hopefully no matter what comes out of this, that people realize that obviously we want all the kids in the city to be safe and to be able to lide their bikes and walk down the street and play in their yards and all of those things without being in danger. So a couple of concerns I do have overall. I think that the park thing is an issue that somehow needs to be resolved. Not something that I really, as a representative ofthe city want to get involved in. More like something, I'd like to encourage Yoberry and Longacres to work together on some kind of agreement because I think we're kidding ourselves if we think that there wouldn't be residents from Yoberry that would go down to the Longacres homeowners parks because they're convenient, so I'd like to see something worked out there. The cul-de-sac versus the through street. I think having a development with two cul-de-sacs in it, that would be an interesting one to have a Yoberry development, two ways to get in and no way to get through the whole thing so as much as probably everybody in this room doesn't want to hear, I believe that a through street probably is the best alternati ve for continuity of neighborhoods. And I do believe that we have factors that we can mitigate, especially along Hunter Dlive that we've got to do something there and address that as well. Highover, Mr. Block, Mr. Wagner, your comments are taken very seliously and I think especially at the top of that hill there, at the intersection of I believe it's Highover Dlive and Highover Trail, that we need to look at some options there to control some of the speed on that as well. Along with Councilwoman Tjornhom, I also spent a lot of time dliving around out there this weekend so based on the amount of e-mails and contacts and phone calls that I received, this isn't one I take lightly so for those of you who think that we don't read the e-mails and we don't dlive around, I think that you're again underestimating how selious, at least myself, that I take this one so. A lot of conflicts going on and no easy way to resolve but based on what I've seen, I think especially on the zoning, I'm in favor of the rezoning to residential single family there. Again that's the least dense option so for the residents, especially in the surrounding neighborhoods, this property's going to be rezoned one way or another so it's going to be this or it's going to be a PUD you know where lots of crazy things can happen so definitely to protect the continuity of the neighborhoods and that, I'm in favor of that. I would like to see some more exploration on the access off of 41 to be used for a longer peliod of time than just the grading. Potentially through the majority of construction. Obviously. there's some conflicts there. Tying up a couple of lots and some of that so, but to have 60 homes worth or 40 homes worth or whatever the magic number is, dliving on Highover or Longacres and Gunflint, probably there's something we can do there with that access on 41 to keep that open for a little longer. And again the park thing, it's not something I guess that I'm necessalily in favor of putting a condition of approval on an agreement between two plivate parties but I would strongly encourage the applicant here to work with the Longacres Homeowners Association and also for 43 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 the Longacres to not hold them hostage so that a good faith agreement can be made there, because I'd hate to see Longacres have to spend money to put a fence up and some kind of keys to their residents so that only they can use the park too. That doesn't seem to make much sense. Neighborly. And as a note to our staff, Hunter Dlive is an issue that we need to deal with and take care of so, and rather than hold this development hostage for that, it's an issue that's got to be addressed regardless and if we start on that issue now, there's a lot of things that can be done before there's ever a house put on this site that's going to be affected so that's a problem that I expect will be addressed before any of this stuff happens anyway. So in summary, I'm in favor of where we're at now with the zoning and a preliminary plat. We've got some work to do on final and, but again I think that the staff has done. This is not an easy one to work with all of the different parties at stake here and it really is the staff's job to try to put the best plan together that they can and often that involves working with, directly with a developer obviously as the applicant so that may appear that they you know favor the developer but their job is to put that plan together. Meet all those ordinances as best they can and get that development through. So that's my summary. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I was thinking to go last. Mayor Furlong: That's mine. Councilman Labatt: .. . be the dissenting person here but, okay. I'll go last. Mayor Furlong: If I let you. Councilman Labatt: Yeah you will. Mayor Furlong: You think so. I think I'm taking last. I'm taking last. Councilman Labatt: Fourth. Mayor Furlong: Fourth is a better number. Councilman Tjornhom, thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Allight. I'm going to make this blief. I think this has been a farm for a long time and I think it will be a development for an ever longer time and so I think now is the time to take our time and work these issues out and make sure it's done light for everybody. If that's possible. It might not be possible to please everybody but there's so many issues here that I think we need to at least resolve some of them. You know we've got traffic problems, which I understand it totally. I wouldn't want to live there. We have construction traffic problems. You know I also wouldn't want to live there for 3 years having cement trucks going down my road. We have park issues and I think those can be resolved. I think between the development and the developer, you know if the development and, developer cannot get together, then the developer probably does need to put in a park. I just feel that that's the most responsible thing to be doing for his own development and for his community. And so I just, I 44 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 don't think anything has been solved. I don't think anything's been worked out and so that's where I stand. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson, Labatt. Either one. Councilman Peterson: Sure I'll go. Based upon Councilwoman Tjornhom's question or point, where are we at with the clock on this one? Kate Aanenson: The 120 days, which we've taken all of, would be March 5th. So you'd have one more meeting to review this application. Councilman Peterson: Okay. You know I've worked on these things for over a dozen years now for the city and taken a lot of plide of being able to find some creative solutions in blinging people together. This one is going to be more of a challenge than probably almost any of the other ones I've dealt with. Plimalily because you know as I said before I believe in connecting neighborhoods. We've done that histolically. I think it's the light thing to do for the community. It's the right thing for the neighborhoods in the long run. I'm concerned about safety, as everybody else is, but I think the staff has presented that we have other neighborhoods with the same or similar issues and it really hasn't come down to a significant safety issue. The park issue, I do think it needs to be addressed and I think that whether or not this is tabled to address some of these open issues like the park, like the Harrison Hill area, I think that my biggest concern is that, and as Councilperson Labatt said earlier, the developer didn't pull the neighborhoods together. I think that was a mistake. I think that, and it's not staff's fault. That's the developer taking the initiative to bling neighborhoods together, which I think is very important. As to what could come to fruition from that? I don't know but at least a good faith effort I think needed to have been made and I think still can be made and I'd like to give the opportunity to let the developer do that. So with that being said, you know I don't think the idea of two cul-de-sacs. I don't necessalily think it addresses the safety issue. I think you're going to have the same amount of traffic whether you put the cul-de-sac in the middle of the development. It's statistically probably not going to be significant. The traffic's going to go both ways in the same amount because people are going to go south or people are going to go north as often as though it would have been a through street anyway so, and again you compound that with our desire in the comp plan clearly states we want to connect neighborhoods. I think it's impOltant to think about that. I too agree that we need to put a majolity of the construction traffic on 41 for the absolute longest peliod of time that we can. Specifically the Harrison Hill issue, you know I think the way staff has recommended the current option is appropliate. I mean you're not going to get a consensus as to which is light and wrong there from all the neighbors. Lastly I think I just, the bottom line is I think that perhaps tabling is a good answer to give another 2 weeks to let the neighborhoods try to work through some more issues. Ultimately I will more than likely vote for the through street and I think thatis the best thing for the community. But I think it's good to get the neighborhoods working and talking together. And lastly, Hunter Dlive again we have to address that in some form or fashion at a different meeting and I think we need to aggressively pursue any alternatives we can to calm the traffic there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. 45 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Well I'll start by thanking Craig and Bethany for their comments. Brian nothing against your's. Take no offense. Councilman Lundquist: Wouldn't be the first time. Councilman Labatt: It wouldn't. Probably won't be the last but yet you have good points. I mean this is actually you know, I mean obviously everybody knows I live in the neighborhood and it's a very big concern. And I had written down on the top of my notes here whether to deny or table. I mean those were the two things, and I think Craig you know, a certain thing's been missed. Certain comments have been made. The developer hasn't done a good job, I've already expressed those points earlier. And as I look at where the two homeowner associations came up with their presentations tonight and where we're lacking and their interpretation of where we're not hitting the comp plan. And I hear staff's recommendation on where we are. There's, where there's a gap there. So maybe tabling it in order to fill that gap in the next 2 weeks here, get the good questions answered. My issues still are, is the overall layout, the safety and the road design. We heard that within Yoberry they have a known road that services 4 homes that's a problem so staff has recommended that we're going to post it 20 miles an hour zone. We've heard of the Hunter Dlive problem for a couple years. Carver County's been working with the issue. They've come in before to ask to get it lowered. We've done nothing. I'm disappointed in that lack of progress. I still think we're missing the target on the overall impact that this development is going to generate for traffic safety and joining neighborhoods. The impact with the Carlson property, the Highover, Mr. Block's presentation was pretty powerful. I mean there's some concerns there that at what point with the Carlson development and Yoberry and existing stuff and Highover is that going to push the local street designation out of Highover above 1,000 vehicles per day. It's stretching it now. Longacres and Hunter Dlive is stretching it. So I think we're all on the same conclusion with 41. Keep the construction access open as long as they can. Trust me, you know as these neighborhoods have gone through development and growing pains and construction vehicles, we've had a peliod of several years here now that we're happy to see those trucks not coming through there. Now we are. So if we can keep that, or the 41 construction access. There's two points that you know, if you look at the property that goes up to the north to the Hurrell property, that's a gradual grade there. If you look at the Weathers property, that's a gradual grade. The Youngquist property going up is a steep grade. That's going to be hard for construction but there's two accesses that have gradual grades that can be utilized for I would imagine quite a long time and possibly if the Weathers property is actually the third phase of this, you would think that for a good 2-2 Yz years they'd be able to use the Weathers property for access. Harrison Hill, and the street back there. You know, somebody mentioned earlier that this is you know, and I've said before, developers are trying to squeeze every possible lot out of a development and I think this is an example here where Gunflint's been extended up there where they're trying to squeeze the blood out of it so I'm really not happy with that location of the cul-de-sac up there and that configuration. So question is as Roger said, is the proposed rezoning consistent with the comp plan? Probably. Does the preliminary plat, does that meet the ordinance requirements? For approval. That's where I think some of us have disagreements or concerns or issues that we're not all comfortable saying yes light now, so the question would then be either we table it or we deny it. Because if we have these questions about whether or not it meets the ordinance requirement, if we can't sit here and say yes, it does, 46 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 and I can't, then we have to deny unless the developer's willing to approve it. Approve an extension. I believe that's all I have Tom. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I always enjoy this section of the meetings because as many of you know the 5 of us aren't able to talk amongst ourselves on these projects outside of the meetings. That's good. There are open meeting laws that make sure that decisions are made in public. The challenge to that is, while everybody else in this room has obviously been talking, none of us have so this is really the only opportunity for us to understand what we're thinking. There are a lot of issues here, as Councilman Lundquist said, and there's also a lot of disagreement even among the existing residents and that makes it more difficult. It'd be nice if there was consensus and I think you know in some areas there may be agreement. In other areas you know there's differences of opinion. Traffic is the biggest issue here. That's the biggest one that's been coming up time and time and time and time again on all the e-mails and public comments that we've seen. My challenge is, and I made this statement before on plior developments, you know traffic is an issue but in terms of this development shouldn't go through because it will add more traffic to my road, I don't think that's a valid and a justifiable fact or circumstance to keep the development from going forward. That statement could be true before any development goes through. The challenge is, is it safe? Does it meet our standards, design standards? You know the city attorney we live under a rule of law in this country and that's something that I appreciate very, very much because we set our laws and in the city that means our comprehensive plan and our ordinances up front and say these are the standards we expect people to adhere to. There are, the comprehensive plan deals with land use. How can the property be developed? The benefit there to existing property owners is, it says land use here for this property isn't going to be a convenience store. Or it's not going to be a high lise building. That's where there is some benefit and some protection to existing property owners in terms of that comprehensive plan for land use. The ordinance say how from a subdivision standpoint, how can the property be subdivided and developed? We set minimums. That was raised. I don't think necessarily this word minimum here is a negative because it always means relative to what? We could, as our ordinance say we want an average lot size of X, but if we do that rather than saying as we do that we need a minimum lot size of 15,000, if we put in an average, we could have 13,000 square foot parcels in here and 17,000 square foot parcels and the average would be 15 and we'd be fine. So we set a minimum, a hurdle that has to be overcome. As we do that, those hurdles are in place. Hopefully they find a balance between protecting existing property owners and providing another property owner to fairly develop their property. I believe that our ordinances in Chanhassen, when compared to other cities are either equal to or more stlingent than other cities, and I think that's fair because that's how as a city, as a population, as residents we want our city developed. But then when a developer meets those guidelines it's incumbent upon us to allow them to develop, so the question gets back to, are they meeting the guidelines or not, and I'll get to that in a second. Has this received, the other thing that I'm interested in as mayor and I know my fellow council members, and that is has proposal received a fair and open process. I think it'd be silly for anyone to say that this proposal hasn't been challenged from all sides by all people multiple times, so I think it has received a fair and open process. Are there some unanswered questions? Maybe there'd be some different answers to those questions depending on who you ask but at least the questions are there and we get the plivilege of determining those answers. So under that backdrop, looking at some of these things, I strongly concur from some specifics here that I'd like to see in regard to maintaining a construction entrance as long as 47 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 possible. I would encourage staff to work on that to figure out what that is and work with the developer to say how long can we do that. Having had a home go up next to me this summer, I have young children. Clearly it's more effort when you have children outside and there are construction vehicles around than after the 3 or 4 months and they're gone and then you're just dealing with normal traffic. So anything we can do to mitigate that on the existing neighborhoods, I think we need to do. The Gunflint Trail cul-de-sac, we've heard from Highover neighbors that Option A is preferred. We've heard from Longacres that Option A is not necessarily preferred but neither is Option C and so maybe nothing. I think there, I don't know that we're going to be able to find a consensus, resolution among different people. I can tell you living on a street where the back yards back up to it, it has been my expelience that it hasn't been an issue. Does that mean that there will never be an issue with children playing in the street? No. As long as children play in the street, any street, whether new development or old, there are lisks that cars will come along. Cars dlive on streets. So I, the jury's still out for me with regard to Option A or Option C on that, and you know I guess I'd be interested in other thoughts but you know if there's a way to take a look at that as well. Connecting the neighborhoods, I'm a proponent of that. I think that's one of the issues that came up was, do we plan for the long term and I think connecting neighborhoods does plan for the long term and is generally the way to go. I would concur with Councilman Peterson that the two cul-de-sac option, not only is a different route to take but in terms of the traffic I'd be interested if it made any matelial difference there or anything at all. I would be willing to table and I guess my suggestion here at this point would be that we just received from the residents again this evening more volumes of paper. I guess my suggestion to the council would be, and we also received comments where the residents were saying there are inconsistencies between the code and the plan. I think that's something that I'd like to have staff have a fair opportunity to evaluate and you know there may be some things here that again we may have differences of opinion between what a resident things the code says and what staff things the code says and differences of opinion are fine. Reasonable people can differ but at least we'll give staff the opportunity to listen to the public comment that was again received this evening to the extent that there was new information received as well as this information. And to the extent that they can work out some of these other issues again within the next two weeks, that'd be great. One thing I'll say, and this gets back to philosophical standpoint. In this country you know we have the freedom to associate and I get very concerned when a government body forces association. I think that by itself takes away the light to associate. Longacres and Highover both have homeowners association. That's great and that's fine. We have a lot of those in town. Y oberry's talking about having an association too. That's wonderful. I get very hesitancy if we have a governmental body here requiling the two associations to reach some sort of agreement. Clearly they can do that civilly. You know the issue's been brought up tonight with regard to parks and causing Yoberry to negotiate with, or excuse me, with the Longacres association but it certainly occurs to me that as Yoberry's developed, residents from the Highover may have easy access to Longacres parks too. And so you know it's a never ending, it's a snow balling effect so, and you know this is just, if something can be worked out there, I think it should. You know this shouldn't be here in this case. I think people could have worked better together to get this done and I'm not necessalily attlibuting blame on anyone person but I would hope if the council decides let's have a chance to review some of this. Give staff a chance to see and evaluate these, respond to this information. Respond to the comments we heard tonight and give us their thoughts with regard to code and comprehensive plan consistency, because ultimately that's our 48 City Council Meeting - February 14,2005 question. And I would be in favor of tabling for that reason. To the extent we can get that done in the next 2 weeks, that'd be fine. And if the associations choose on their own to meet during that period, certainly they're free to do that as well. So there may be some other issues but that's, and it would be my thought that when we brought it back we'd deal with the open questions that have come up tonight on the record from the council to staff. Councilman Labatt: Could we also in these two weeks have our engineeling staff come up with some preliminary ideas on Hunter Drive? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. I mean I guess my thought on Hunter Dlive is, just like when you hear that there's traffic problems on Highover, that's with the current residents. That's been something that we've talked about. Are we going to come up with solutions in 2 weeks? Councilman Labatt: No. Mayor Furlong: We can't. Councilman Labatt: But ideas though. Mayor Furlong: Well, if they can come back with ideas, that's fine. I think to Councilm'an Lundquist's point, there is some time between now and when this development is completed that we can come up with some ideas and possibly some solutions that are acceptable. Anything that can be done in the next 2 weeks, let's get it done I guess would be my direct answer to that. But let's not put a 2 week timeframe on something like this where we aren't necessalily working against the clock.. . development. Let's get some good solutions. Councilman Labatt: Did you watch Larry the Cable Guy? Get er done. Mayor Furlong: I did not. So I guess unless there's other thoughts, Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I'm comfortable with tabling. Mayor Furlong: For the reasons stated. Okay. Is there any other discussion tonight on this topic or is there a motion to table directing, I would guess we'd have to direct to bling it back next meeting unless there's an additional extension. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion that we table this until the 28th to let staff, give staff the opportunity to review some of the issues that have been brought up tonight, along with council being able to review some of the documentation that was presented new this evening for us to make a determination on the 28th. Councilman Lundquist: Second. 49 City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the rezoning and preliminary plat request for Yoberry Farms, Planning Case 04-43 until the February 28, 2005 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: Taking a look at the clock, we'll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let's make it about 5 minutes. REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION AND POTENTIAL LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY ~ LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 05-06. Public Present: Name Address Steve B uan Alild Rossavik Dana Muller 8740 Flamingo Dlive 8800 Powers Boulevard 8880 Sunset Trail Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, before she gets started I'm just going to recuse myself on the possibility of a conflict here so sit this one out. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Allight. This application is before you. You have seen it a couple times before. Under this circumstance the applicant, or one of the subject property owners went to the Planning Commission and asked them, based on some evidence that they believe had circumstantially changed in the area, to re-examine the land use in this area, specifically the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The subject site includes this property here and the two lots across the street. The Planning Commission back in September when this applicant approached the Planning Commission did ask for an application to get on the agenda, which they can do. Presented their case to the Planning Commission and at that time asked the Planning Commission to direct the staff to re-examine the Hillside Oaks development. Again that includes the two lots that are on the east side of Powers, which are guided low density and then the large lots. So with that the staff again, you had seen this previously with an application attached to it so this is just really to examine the validity of the existing land use. Had something circumstantial changed to re-examine those existing assumptions. So again the Planning Commission has the powers to, under the comprehensive plan examine that so directed the staff to review it. So on page 4 was kind of our analysis of the area. Again the area has been developed into large lots, 2.2 to 3.96 acres as shown in the area. The existing topography is very steep. Partially wooded along the western side and adjacent to the city park on the southwestern. I think that's really what led the staff's recommendation to leave that existing zoning in place, or 50