Loading...
CC Minutes 2-28-05 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske is here as well this evening from the fire department. Good evening Chief. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. As you see in my report there, don’t have a whole lot going on. We’re down in call numbers again so that’s a good thing. We’ve been up to a couple things I guess. Basically lately I attended a League of Minnesota Cities class with City Manager Gerhardt and Assistant City Manager Miller regarding fire department issues and didn’t find out a whole lot of issues that we have here that come to light so that was good. Probably be recruiting sometime in April here to add a couple new fire fighters with hiring sometime in July. We’ve got a couple fire fighters who will be leaving this year so we’ll be processing replacements on those. Other than that we don’t have a whole lot that went on. No fires to report or anything like that so pretty quick report for you this month. Quiet is good. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I’d just like to add the class we did attend, our fire department does a great job in organizing themselves, managing themselves compared to some other communities. There are townships that are having difficulties so hats off to Greg and his staff in making sure they’re well managed over there and I appreciate that. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 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 AND KAREN WEATHERS; PLANNING CASE NO. 04-43. Public Present: Name Address Uli Sacchet 7053 Highover Court South Greg & Linda Twedt 6999 Highover Drive Karen Weathers Applicant Jesse Larson 3440 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis st Steve Johnston 410 1 Avenue North, Minneapolis Tom Stokes 4052 Oakland, St. Bonifacius th Bill Coffman 600 West 78 Street th Chuck Alcon 6138 76 West, Loretto 4 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Tim Block 6903 Highover Drive Dan Johnson 6951 Highover Drive Travis Sprague 6888 Highover Drive Rodd Wagner 6915 Highover Drive Joe Thull 6872 Highover Drive Dave Damman 6934 Highover Drive Philip Haarstad 7066 Harrison Hill Trail Brent Kreofsky 2221 Hunter Drive Martin Zielinski 2211 Hunter Drive Scott Muschewske 2241 Hunter Drive Mark Erickson 2216 Hunter Drive Larry Lovig 2475 Gunflint Court Bill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive Todd Rech 2408 Hunter Drive Stuart Henderson 7240 Gunflint Trail Jennifer Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail Michael McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive Mark Zaebst 2325 Hunter Drive Larry Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Lois Degler 9111 Audubon Dan Hanson 2390 Longacres Drive Chris Rozwadowski 2443 Highover Trail Jacqie Dougherty 2423 Highover Trail Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail Kate Aanenson: As you indicated Mayor, this item was tabled two weeks ago to respond to the two petitions from the neighborhood so in our cover memo to the staff report we broke those down. There was similar issues. We didn’t want anybody to think we overlooked an issue we tried to take them, or combine them where it seemed appropriate so I’ll go through those briefly. The first one was that the proposed development exceed the capacity of a local road. We explained at the last meeting to kind of put it back in as per our comprehensive plan what the trip generation is. 1,000 trips per day on a local road. We broke the number of lots. Again it’s the staff’s opinion that the road capacity does work. The other issue was brought up was that there’s different lot widths and I think there’s some ambiguity of how to measure the streets. We measure the consistent back of curb to back of curb so if you go up the back of that. The 31 feet Highover and Gunflint Trail so they’re consistent. There’s also some issues regarding the connection of the two streets so on page 4 of the staff report we did go through and identified in both staff reports of Highover and Longacres describing the fact that those streets would provide access because we knew, as I indicated in the last staff report, it’s our job to make sure we don’t land lock any property owners so we did provide a means for those two streets to be connected, and they were identified in both staff reports and conditions of approval. The other issue was that the streets, again be discourage through traffic and I’d like to refer to the site plan if I can. In designing the site plan, obviously this was the one connection point and the connection point to the north at Highover. Looking at a circuitous T street again forcing a stop and a turning movement. In all the traffic calming manuals that’s the way to do it. Instead of it’s not a straight shot all the way through to, again looking at the design, working with the developer, our 5 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 engineering staff, the planning staff, looking at the best way to provide internal traffic calming and circulation, we believe that was the best way to manage that and again consistent with the comprehensive plan. And while I’m talking about the comprehensive plan, I just wanted to reiterate because there was a lot of the staff said this, the staff said that. Our job is to make sure that the comprehensive plan and the city’s ordinance is followed, so we go through a project. That’s our job to make sure it meets. It’s not Sharmeen Al-Jaff’s opinion. It’s not Kate Aanenson’s opinion. It’s does it meet the city ordinance based on that recommendation so again we believe this is consistent with what the city’s zoning ordinance says. The third issue was the development fails to mitigate the negative impact on surrounding properties. Again, I believe you spoke to this last meeting too Mayor. There are three zoning options for low density within the city. Just recently added another one for small, for a little bit smaller lots where we’ve got some unique circumstances, but those are twin homes, a PUD or the third option would be the traditional RSF single family minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Highover was developed with a 15,000 square foot lot minimum. Longacres and the Woods, at the PUD which allowed for lots as small as 11,000 square feet and since that subdivision was developed we’ve changed some of the ordinance regarding calculation of wetland. Cannot be included in the lot. They are in Longacres so those lots appear larger. These there is no wetland included. It’s all upland, so all the lots do meet the minimum and then also we’ve included bluff ordinance city wide when Longacres came in so this is being held to the current city zoning ordinance. So it is consistent with that as far as negative impacts. Again it’s single family. Adjacent to single family. Comparable in size and the homes. Number 4 was to verify the slope. We did do that and it’s identified in your staff report and that slope is in this area here. And we broke it down into segments just to make sure that nobody thought we were trying to avoid that but the average slope in that area is 23% so it does not meet the bluff requirement. Number 5 was the Hunter Drive issues. We did attach some studies that were done with the city’s speed trailers. It details th the number of vehicles, speed, average speed and then the 85 percentile which is used for engineers to determine appropriate posting and that was done the month of February. Again as we’ve indicated, there’s some other measures that we know we need to continue to monitor as this, even after this development’s done and continue as we do on all city streets, continue to monitor those situations as we do in other streets, whether it’s conflict or perceived conflict. So with that, again we believe that the street can handle that. And again I’ll let Paul, the City Engineer identify any specific issues that you may have regarding how to address those traffic issues. And then number 6 was the construction access from 41. The developer is proposing to use existing Hurrell driveway, which is on the north side which is approximately on Lot 3. In order to access that for the entire development the roads would have to be connected otherwise the only one, the way you could benefit from construction purposes would be if the road was, if this development was built in it’s entirety. One of the questions was, could it continue to be used for construction traffic throughout? The city staff sat down and looked at you know would it be nice to say all the traffic coming in should go this direction. But then you’re forcing the burden on one side or the other, whether it’s one direction on Longacres. One direction on Highover, and really splitting and distributing that traffic kind of works the best during that construction, certainly during the construction of the sewer, water, roads. All the improvements. Those improvements would come off of the Hurrell driveway which as I indicated is Lot 3. Again that supposes that the main drive, Highover Drive tying into Gunflint Trail is put in place as one continuous project. Again MnDot’s concerned about that, as is the city staff. Those people and the speed on 41, as Councilman Lundquist indicated last time we talked about trying to close 6 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 those accesses on Highway 7 where there’s high volume of speed. People know where those two access points are now, Lake Lucy and Highover Drive. We don’t want to introduce other conflicts and create an additional situation, a problem. Not only for people coming in or out or someone trying to go north, that would be a resident right here. The other issue was the retaining wall. We showed both directions. This would be this area here. Moving this, flip flopping it back and forth. Again we believe the location of that, the street as it is today is a better situation than trying to put the retaining wall adjacent to the wetland. Additional tree loss. So again that’s further identified in the staff report. Examples of local streets connecting more than one neighborhood. We gave you examples of several, four that, excuse me, four. Not several. That showed similar back to back 31 feet that are connecting neighborhoods of more than one type and mixed development. The last one you’re looking at Stone Creek Drive is probably the longest one we have. That one, just to clarify. I know Councilman Labatt had asked staff if that would be connected, the staff did recommend connecting that street. It wasn’t connected but it is one long, all the way through and it was the recommendation from the council at that time, but there are, there is townhouse projects on that street as well as single family homes so it has a total of 210 so we gave you those examples where we always recommend the connection of those two streets. And then lastly, the last, the change that was made from the application since you’ve seen it last was the introduction of the totlot located in this Outlot D and the developer had proposed to put in a totlot in that location. So with that, the staff still takes a position that it does meet the city’s zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and we are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, could you just refresh my memory as to the certain times construction trucks can come into a neighborhood and then they have to stop coming in. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And road restrictions also. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we put together a development contract and there are hours, construction hours regarding that. Typically, I don’t believe there’s any construction activity on Sundays and then there are hours of construction. I don’t have those memorized but. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry, I. Kate Aanenson: That’s alright. Paul may know. Paul Oehme: The typical construction hours would be from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 at night. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then road restrictions. Spring. When are those dates? Paul Oehme: They vary from year to year depending upon weather conditions but typically they would come off sometime the end of April. 7 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist, any? Councilman Lundquist: Well I can probably, not on the staff report, no. I’ll see what the discussion is and probably ask a few more. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, any questions? Councilman Labatt: I’ll wait with mine. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Kate could you just share a little bit about the background of the comp plan and how the comp plan tries to integrate neighborhoods and the rationale for that, just to kind of refresh our memory. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the comprehensive plan’s the guiding policy for the city and one of the things that it talks about is providing the internal linkages, that we use efficient use of the land. Again we’re working together with the developer as we indicated you know as we did on Longacres, and try to look at those. While we were accused that our street doesn’t work because it has some windy, those are the things that we like to do. That’s what the neighbors like so if it’s a straight shot, which we get critiqued on Lake Lucy, people do go faster so we look at making those streets to handle the traffic but also avoid running the high volumes which is in the land use policy that we try to avoid the speeds and the volumes. Which we believe that this project does. Also as part of the transportation policy is each development should provide and dedicate the public streets which this project does, and that they have provided sidewalks. You know we’ve changed our sidewalk policy as we moved through the last few years. We kind of realize that there’s some connections that need to be made, whether it seems at the time that they will be used but connecting, as we did on Highover, making the sidewalk connection. Getting people moving north up to those collector roads. So this does provide that. Also as we indicated before, as part of the comprehensive plan we want to provide access to all those property owners that also want to connect onto as we’ve worked with the regional park and that grant is, Todd Hoffman the Park and Rec Director talked about getting that linkage to go underneath 41 over to the regional park so all those people have an opportunity. And the comprehensive plan really talks about creating a community, not just a series of neighborhoods. We’re all part of the community as whether we go to school together. Pick each other up for church, whatever the situation may be but really creating a set of communities and this isn’t the only neighborhood that’s, as we showed on our plan that there’s different neighborhoods that are connected and we will have some additional in the future but again because the comprehensive plan says we have to provide access to adjoining properties and we can’t sequentially, it doesn’t always come in the right order. As long as there’s adequate access and we do our best to identify those connections in the future to the best of our ability, to do that. I think I answered your question. 8 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Peterson: Yeah, what about other issues? You know we talked about safety. Is there a safety issue in a cul-de-sac for public safety or not? Kate Aanenson: Well you know Paul can address some of the length of the cul-de-sac issues. Paul Oehme: You know for longer cul-de-sacs there’s issues with emergency vehicles only having one access point to get in and out of. There’s some sort of blockage at one end of the cul- de-sac, emergency vehicles would have a hard time reaching properties at the far end, that type of thing. For inefficiencies of cul-de-sacs there’s, you know it takes two trips basically for mail and delivery vehicles. City vehicles. One in and one out instead of the connection point through the neighborhood and then around so those type of things we look at. You know for cul-de-sacs in general, cul-de-sacs are really designed for small localized pieces of land that either have environmental issues, grade issues, access issues to be extended to. It’s not for the intent of cul- de-sacs to be extended for long distances to service just a few properties. That’s in general you know our, the trying to reduce the size and the length of cul-de-sacs. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, one of the questions that falls under item number 7 in the staff report. The e-mail that I received made some reference and maybe this is a question too for Mr. Knutson. Made some reference to, that the Option A here, which is being recommended, is the best one, did not meet our ordinance. Can you, does it meet the ordinance? Kate Aanenson: It’s staff’s opinion that it does meet the ordinance. We’ve been questioned on this regarding double frontage lots several times. We have responded to that and reviewed that with the City Attorney. There is a 10 foot buffer and it’s heavily landscaped so it’s our opinion that it does meet city ordinance. Roger Knutson: That’s also my opinion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. You show an access from Highway 41 for the construction period. Reading the staff report, the question is one of safety and as I understand the staff report, there’s a concern about the safety for having the construction traffic coming in and out on 41. Clearly the residents on Longacres and Highover are concerned about safety in terms of added vehicles to the roads. What’s the difference between those construction vehicles entering the site through say Longacres and then up Gunflint rather than coming off of Highway 41 directly on the property? What’s the difference from a safety issue and from a traffic flow issue? Paul Oehme: Well the intersections at Longacres, that’s dedicated access point currently. The temporary construction access point is, it’s not, right now it’s not signed. We definitely could recommend that it be signed properly but it’s another access point along 41 that could potentially cause problems, especially with large vehicles, cement trucks, delivery trucks, accessing at that particular location when vehicles aren’t aware of that particular access point being at that particular location. It’s not something that they’re used to. It’s something that could potentially cause problems. 9 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Can I just go a little further on that too? People that travel 41 know that Lake Lucy and Longacres Drive, for most people that drive it on a regular, or somewhat regular basis, know those two points are there and keeping those. And those were put in a position that have good visibility. Sight lines. This other access, under temporary conditions is not going to have the same sight lines so at a minimum, in working through MnDot and with the weight of the vehicles and that to the neighborhood, they felt that that would be a good point to kind of make the cut off during the construction of utilities and the streets. The heavier vehicles. But to have all those daily trips, on a point where the residential or the daily driver on 41 doesn’t know that that point is there, and the speed on 41. You know similar to what we talked about on Highway 7, it’s introducing a conflict that we believe is unsafe. Mayor Furlong: You mentioned turn lanes in your staff report. Are there bypass lanes at those intersections, do you know? Kate Aanenson: I don’t believe so. Mayor Furlong: On either side. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: I think there is one at Lake Lucy if I’m not, for southbound 41. Councilman Labatt: For southbound, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Is there one southbound at Longacres too? Councilman Labatt: No. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: We should look into that anyway. Okay. But there are turn lanes for deceleration for cars at Lake Lucy. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Which you wouldn’t have at the other, and that’s. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: Which you wouldn’t have at the temporary access which, that’s. Mayor Furlong: Well I guess I wanted to clarify. The advantage of that is, as you get decelerating cars off traffic. 10 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Kate Aanenson: But you’d expect someone to slow down and stop and someone’s looking for that. Makes a quick stop and you’re rear end. Those are the sort of things that we’re saying we’re introducing that conflict. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is the developer here this evening? Good evening. Chuck Alcon: Good evening Honorable Mayor, members of the council. My name is Chuck th Alcon. I reside at 6138 76 Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. We have very, just a couple of comments to add to the staff comments. We did try to respond to some of the issues raised 2 weeks ago in our letter of 23 February and I believe you have that. But secondly, as we go through the process for platting and our project engineer, Landforms is a very experienced company. What we tried to do is we try to look at the comprehensive plan, the city codes, the city ordinances, the land itself and when that process is finished we submit a plat. We believe, excuse me, we believe our submitted plat is the very best engineering recommendation that we can come up with, given the land, given the comprehensive plan and given the zoning codes and ordinances. As noted earlier, it is compliant without variance. With those just brief comments we’ll stand by for any questions you might have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the developer at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one. Just as I was leaving for the meeting I received an e-mail and I wasn’t able to read it and comprehend it totally. It was from a resident, yeah this one. It was from the Harrison Hill neighborhood and you had been in negotiations about different plantings I think and a fence, is that the e-mail you have right there Brian? Councilman Lundquist: I think the question is on the end of Gunflint, the steep curve or tight curve, whatever we’re calling it, and whether or not there’s 4 lots there or not. Is that the one you’re talking about? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah. Chuck Alcon: I believe Mayor the one we’re talking about is right here? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. Chuck Alcon: If you look…we made several changes in this particular area. Drawing this road away from this property line as far as we can go. We also have a sidewalk…on the back of curb. In some areas we’ve changed our plantings to see that those, the viburnum trees which are a little more dense so we believe that buffering is more than satisfactory. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, did you have any questions? Okay, thank you. At this time, as I said earlier, I’ll open it up for public comment. Again my preference would be similar to last time is if there are, similar to the visitor presentations. If we could have representatives of groups come forward rather than multiple people repeating the same issues and to the extent that we can deal with the issues that were presented in the staff report this evening, or new 11 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 information that you might have that we need to be aware of, that would be my preference but at this time I would certainly open it up for public comment. Invite people to come forward. State their name and address if they would. Rodd Wagner: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I’ll be relatively brief this evening. I wanted to speak to how. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, if you could. I know you spoke last time. Rodd Wagner: I’m sorry. I’m sorry, my name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive. There’s been some discussion about traffic counts and traffic loads and I just want to walk you through some of the math that we’ve done. How we get concerned that Highover Drive is going to be pushed out of compliance with a local road. This is the same map that we’ve seen many times at the Planning Commission and at the prior City Council meeting and I’ve just highlighted the various sections here. The blue section being the existing Highover Drive. I’ve segregated the lots by those that abut the street and those that do not. There are currently 30 homes, 30 lots along the, in the blue section right now. The Yoberry extension would add an additional 19 onto those that abut Highover Drive, and here I’m making a simplifying assumption, I’ll speak to variations here in a second. A simplifying assumption that the lots that are either abut or connect to Highover Drive will go north. Obviously there will be a trade of traffic back and forth but let’s start with that as just kind of a simplifying assumption to be able to make some reasonable counts. There is a Street A designated by the developer. That picks up an additional 5 homes. There are 17 homes in the green area. Highover Court North and South that spit out onto the top of Highover Drive. And there are currently 4 homes in the pink area, the Highover Trail area right now. There is also, as I’m sure the council is aware of the Carlson property to the east which is shortly going to come before the city for development as well. I understand that will be in the neighborhood of 50 plus homes that they’ll be seeking in that area. If you make the assumption that those on Highover Drive stay on Highover Drive and go north up to Lake Lucy to avoid the weaving traffic to the, or weaving road to the south as staff has made reference to, then you get to 75 homes that are currently on that road and if you add an additional 25 or so off of the Highover Trail extension, you’re up to 100 homes. You’re already at capacity for a local street and with the first UPS truck, FedEx truck, school bus that goes through there, you are now over the statutory limit of a local street. Now, it is possible of course that more traffic would go south. To the degree it is also possible that more traffic would go north. For example the folks that are on the extension of Gunflint Trail could drive north and I think that becomes more of an issue as development continues west and more things are developed out towards St. Bonifacius on Highway 7 out to the northwest of us. You could assume that more traffic will go south. If so, then you load more traffic onto Gunflint Trail. The statutory requirement for a local road is one of limited continuity that primarily serves the abutting properties and Gunflint Trail would no longer fit by that definition. It would not primarily be serving the abutting properties. We have no problem with the rezoning. We agree that it ought to be single family residential, and however we do have, and continue to have concerns about the traffic and the fact that it goes beyond a matter of art or discretion. That in fact it is as configured here and with the additional development, that it will further either, further exacerbate the problem on Hunter Drive. Take Gunflint Trail out of compliance as a local road, or take Highover Drive out of compliance as a local road and therefore that that through access ought not be allowed. We would urge that the 12 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 council rezone and approve the preliminary plat with a condition that there not be through access. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any comments from staff on the comments here? Kate Aanenson: Sure. The situation that we showed in your staff report, for example on the collector street on Stone Creek Drive, which starts on Galpin and loops back up to Coulter. It has 210. That is the recommendation for the managing of traffic, and we put these in to show you. We’ve got examples. I’m not sure what the use of statutory requirement means but those are the recommendations for what a traffic should hold. I’d let the city attorney maybe address what the statutory requirements would be but we certainly have streets that based on for example when staff recommended connecting those two that handle much more traffic than the city code recommends for a local street. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Tim Block: Mayor and council members. My name is Tim Block and I’m at 6903 Highover Drive. I’d like to start from the beginning saying that the residents here are here and they’re not afraid to show you a map of what this Yoberry development looks like with everybody else in it and I think you have not seen yet a map like that but I think that it’s important for us to start concentrating on this map and not on just Yoberry on it’s own. I’d like to start just to talk about the general area of Highway 41. In the comprehensive plan there is a section about Highway 41. There are many concerns about Highway 41 being a high traffic corridor. If I can read from the comprehensive plan it’s on page 1998 it talks about the metropolitan region expanding north/south routes in this area will become more important as destinations are less centered on the Twin Cities urban core. So we see right now in the comprehensive plan already the ideas, that Trunk Highway 41 is going to be important north/south corridor. It says currently there are a lack of good north/south routes that provide connections between major east/west principle arterial routes and major river crossings. And it concludes in that section and I’m sorry, I can put it up for you to see it and read it as well. It says even though it provides an important function for the region, there are no major improvements planned for the facility. As a result other parable routes, Audubon Road and Galpin Boulevard will become more important in distributing the traffic demand during peak traffic periods. So we see right now, we see the comprehensive plan already recognizing that north/south routes along Highway 41, as you see on this map, can become an important part of what we need to look at. What I wanted to point out at the outset is that you’ve seen a lot of discussion about what was going to happen, and we heard that as this plan went in effect, this was going to be the connection to Yoberry here. But that problems existed that may, that made the design go straight through and so we have already a change from the original plan. You see a lot of quotations about what the original plan was. The original plan has an idea of cutting Highover Drive off. Making people turn onto Highover Trail. I mean Highover Way, and then come north again, and so we have a change and I submit to you that there are at least 5 distinct reasons why this proposed development should be a two cul-de-sac non-through street. That is the first one. The change in the plan already had some traffic calming measures and had to be changed. You are being presented with the staff report. I just would like to talk about two things and they are those that are addressed in topic number one. I’ve been in Texas too many times and so I have taken on some of the things that they say, so as 13 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 to item number 7, I don’t have a dog in that fight but as a resident of Chanhassen I ask you not to do that to anybody. Not to do that to anybody who’s in this city. But I’m going to keep my comments to item number 1. There are two basic topics in item number 1 that I’d like to talk about. One as Rodd Wagner had talked about was the evaluation of the potential traffic analysis and the second is the width of the streets. You can see that item number 1 really is two paragraphs and so as I address these two questions I’m going to address them in order, in reverse order. The width of the streets has been a concern of the residents. Highover Drive has been measured by the residents at 26 ¼ feet of pavement, and so the question became after the first hearing, well what’s the ordinance. What is the measurement? What is the right way to measure a street? And so when I heard that we measure streets base to base curb I said to myself well, as an engineer I thought well I can’t ride on the curb. I can’t put my car on the curb as I’m driving. Why is it part of the measurement so I called the Chanhassen police department and asked them if I could get ticketed and the answer was yes. So I looked at the ordinance and I said well what does the ordinance say? And the ordinance says, roadway pavement. And I agree that that might be up to interpretation so I went further. I said what is the comprehensive plan say? So I went to the comprehensive plan on Chapter 5 and it talks about the road widths and it says urban roadways are required to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for local streets and 28 to 30 foot wide permanent, or pavement width. Again pavement, it didn’t give me a definition of what pavement meant. But then it says, rural roadways are also required to have a bituminous surfacing 24 feet wide and I thought what does that mean, also required to have a bituminous surface of 24 feet. I didn’t know what bituminous meant so I looked in the dictionary and it says coal. So from the comprehensive plan it indicates that, at least from my interpretation that you need 28 feet of coal based pavement. But it still didn’t make sense completely to me so I went to the road design manual that MnDot prepares and that talks about curbs. And it says curbs are used extensively at the outside of the shoulder of urban streets, and that’s what we’re talking about, urban streets. And curb serve several functions and they provide pavement delineation. So I thought well maybe if the curb is providing the delineation, that you can’t count the curb so I went one more page in MnDot and it said, the gutter section can be considered part of the shoulder width. However on low speed urban streets where shoulders are not practical, the curb and the gutter section should not be considered part of the travel lane width. The curb face should be offset a minimum of 2 feet from the edge of the travel lane. I submit to the council that 26 ½ feet, I don’t know if it’s code or not but it’s thin and I’d like to just show you one more thing from the packet that you were given. There was an attempt to give us similar situations and I looked at the first one and I said well, the first one’s kind of weird. You really have to go well out of your way to th go around there and the local street, West 86 Street, 31 feet base to base. Mission Hills Drive, 31 feet base to base. But then I went to the next one and the next one the local street Lake Susan Hills, 35 feet base to base. And I even went to the next two, the local street, Lake Susan Drive, 35 feet base to base. And Stone Creek Drive, 35 feet base to base, so the residents are concerned. The residents believe that Highover Drive is thin. The residents are worried that Chanhassen has said that local streets can hold 1,000 cars. Everywhere else I’ve looked in North Caroline, in Georgia, in Georgetown they say 800 cars and I thought maybe it was because the width was bigger that we can hold 1,000. But everything that I can find, just looking at this, I cannot find why it is that Highover is what it is. But it is. We have to deal with that and the fact of the matter is that we have to deal with it because we are now in a position where we’ve built those streets and we have to do something about it. So I would submit to you that the second reason why Highover Drive and the Yoberry connection should be two cul-de-sacs is because 14 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Highover Drive and Gunflint are thin. They’re thin on Chanhassen routes. We see 3 out of 4 examples where the streets are 4 feet more wide. So we go back to the first paragraph in that section 1 and we talk about the traffic analysis and late this afternoon I tried my best to produce to you what I believe to be a traffic analysis for that period, or for these two neighborhoods, and what I think that Rodd Wagner and I are both suggesting to you is that we need to consider 5 different traffic generators when we talk about traffic on Highover. We need to look at Highover Drive. We need to look at Yoberry. We have to look to some extent at Longacres. We have to look at the new development and we have to look at through traffic. And I submit that right now in the plan we’re only looking at 2 of those 5. In the appendix to the comprehensive plan there is a travel forecast flow chart and we talked about this last time that maybe the better way to do this would be to see what traffic flow really is instead of trying to estimate it. Ask the residents what they thought the traffic was like, and this traffic flow chart that’s part of the comprehensive plan indicates that after you’ve done what the city staff has done and after you’ve done what Rodd Wagner’s tried to do and after what I tried to do, you can go through these steps and they include doing existing traffic counts and making sure that everything’s calibrated and make sure that the traffic that you’re predicting is really what’s happening. And I understand we can’t do that, so we have to go back to what we have right now in front of us and that is, an attempt to look at traffic from the top and that is look at the trip generation model that’s accepted and see what we can get. So I gave you in an e-mail my attempt at it and I looked at what it would be like through through traffic and what it would look like with a cul-de-sac approach, and I can tell you right now I agree that you can probably sit here and tell me well, these numbers you probably can play with and these numbers that you can probably play with and maybe that many people from Highover Drive aren’t going to go north or south, but the reality is is that if you do it the way that Mr. Wagner did it and do it the way that I do it, you see that these numbers are bumping up on the top limits. And what I wanted to point out to you is that if you cul-de-sac the two areas, 3 of the 5 generators are gone. There’s no longer a real issue for most of Highover Drive as to the new extension of Highover Trail. We know that half of Yoberry is not going to be coming through our properties and we know that Longacres isn’t going to be coming through our property, but what I think the neighborhoods are worried the most about is that we live where we go onto Lake Lucy. We try to get on 41. There’s a bus. There’s a truck. Somebody’s turning left and it’s the through traffic that really is our concern because we know that in the past we’ve been able to stop residents, ask them to slow down and so what we’re worried about is very simply someone coming down Lake Lucy, seeing a bus or truck trying to turn left and saying, I’m going to make it to Longacres before them and I’m going to prove that this is a faster route. And so you can see in the traffic analysis that I put out to you and I think again as I’d say, it’s my best attempt at something that I heard at the last meeting, that with the through, with the cul-de- sacs we’re going to get rid of Highover Trail, Longacres and through traffic. We know what we can predict for everybody else and that way we don’t have an issue like we do at Hunter Drive or at other places where we’re looking in the past and saying what are we going to do. If we’re going to be limited to the traffic analysis as it is right now without following the rest of the flow chart, this is the safest route to keep us under the 1,000. I would like to conclude then with Figure A6 from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan includes management tools when you’re coming upon an area that there’s a lot of traffic. And if you look on the comprehensive plan, this is the Chanhassen comprehensive plan. It talks about local urban streets and one of the management tools is cul-de-sacs. So the comprehensive plan gives us the power to go forward and break this into two cul-de-sacs. Make it a non-through street. I told 15 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 you there was 5. I think I’ve addressed 3 or 4. The width of the street is a concern. The height of Highover Drive. The highest point in Chanhassen a concern. The high traffic that the residents have established for you through their own testimony is a concern. There was a change in the development that took away one of the most critical according to some comments. One of the critical ways to slow traffic down, make them turn on Highover Way and then come up north. That was changed. And so, and then I start where I began at the target area. The comprehensive plan says watch out for north/south corridors along 41. I’d ask that you approve the development for residential use but I’d ask that you set a condition that there is no through street and I’ll take any questions if you want. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Block? No? Thank you. Comments. Thoughts. Kate Aanenson: Well I just wanted, just to clarify the change in the plan. There was no change in the plan. There was different iterations of Highover, and what I was trying to demonstrate when we looked at Highover, we looked at based on topography, that’s how we have to lay out roads. Topography. Avoidance of wetlands. Those sort of things. You know our first choice would have been to have that street come down. That was never submitted. It was never changed. It was just an iteration. We’re meeting with the developer to say you know, so it was never changed. So I just want to clarify that point. And we looked at that. And then the comprehensive plan does state a length of cul-de-sac that’s recommended too, so just for the record. Councilman Lundquist: What is that length Kate? Paul Oehme: I think it doesn’t, to clarify for Kate. I don’t think it will state a specific length. It states that we need to look at the topography. We need to look at the area that, where the cul-de- sac is going in and the impacts to the surrounding community is or the surrounding area is. Kate Aanenson: We discourage the long ones. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. So one other comment regarding roadway widths. Highover Drive is 31 feet back to back, and that’s our typical standard. That’s what our practice is. Other communities are narrower streets even. Eden Prairie for example is 28 feet back to back with their curb so every community sets their standards and that’s what we typically design our streets and our local roadways to. Councilman Lundquist: So we sort of have autonomy over how wide the streets are. Paul Oehme: Eden Prairie has, you know every community has their own adopted standard street width that the council can change. Or approve. Have approved so, and this council, this city has chosen 31 feet for their standard local street width. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment. 16 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Uli Sacchet: Mr. Mayor, council. Good evening. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053 Highover Court South, which is you want to look where this is in relationship to the development is right here. Immediately adjacent to the north of the cul-de-sac of Gunflint Trail. I just want to make sure quick a comment and a half. Before I address my personal interest I do believe one thing is being really missing throughout these proceedings, looking at this proposal, and it’s to appreciate what the city staff does. I think city staff has been really between a rock and a hard place as you say in this country. On one hand trying to work with the developer. On the other hand trying to accommodate all the concerns of the residents, and particularly Sharmeen Al-Jaff I think has done a fantastic job, a very ungrateful job and I do want to go on record of expressing that. I also do want to thank all the residents for very eloquently expressing all their concerns, even though I don’t necessarily share quite the same extent of the concerns and fears, and we do have a term in city planning that we use, since I’m on the Planning Commission. I want to make it clear I’m addressing you as an individual resident, not as a Planning Commissioner, but we do have a term in city planning which is called NIMBY, which means not in my back yard, and I do believe that phenomena plays somewhat into it. Taking the danger of falling a little bit into the NIMBY pattern myself here, talking about what’s going on in my own back yard, I do want to point out that I believe the option with the road to the east versus the alternate option which I understand from the proceedings of your last meeting, you’re still trying to decide which way to go. If the road goes up here through the woods, would have a far greater impact on not just my lot but the whole Highover neighborhood to the north there, so I would like you to know. I would want to go on record that I definitely much prefer the road on the east side. I do believe there is a lot of buffer to the Harrison Trail between that utility easement. Between the efforts that the developer has made so I, since I’m directly affected I want to go on the record that that’s what I would like to recommend from, as a resident. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else who would like to make a public comment this evening. See some movement in chairs. Brent Kreofsky: Good evening Mr. Mayor, councilmen. My name is Brent Kreofsky. I live at 2221 Hunter Drive and I want to address a couple of things that were mentioned tonight. One is the temporary access for 41. I believe the proposal was to allow that temporary access only during the construction of the road and the sewer, that’s correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Brent Kreofsky: Okay. Paul Oehme: The, yeah the 2005 construction season but I think MnDot would just give us a one year window when that temporary construction access would be over. That’s their recommendation. That’s what they would give us access for. Brent Kreofsky: Okay. And in the assumption is that the construction for the housing, the cement trucks, that type of stuff would come in through the other, if I understood you correct, would come in the other way. You thought that would be fairly balanced, and I would just ask council to put yourself in our, those of us that live on Hunter Drive, in our position and it’s not a very enviable position. You guys have heard a lot of detail thrown at you tonight. You pour 17 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 over the pages and pages that we’ve got here and as I find myself trying to make this difficult decision, I believe Uli mentioned not in my back yard. Put yourself in a position that those of us that are living on that road would be in and will find ourselves in as you’re trying to make this tough decision. I would ask that we try to extend that, if at all possible. I don’t know if we can with MnDot to last the entire time, or at least as much of the construction as possible. Okay. The second item that I want to touch on is Hunter Drive of course. I’m representing several of us here from the end of Hunter Drive and I haven’t seen the results of what the sheriff’s department has reported to you for average speeds and things like that but one of the things I like about Chanhassen is it’s a small town and when the sheriff is sitting down at the end of the corner of the road, people know about it like that. So I’d be careful to use that fully and understand that that plays a role in this situation. I live at the end. I’ve had people skid up into my front yard. Had a couple other folks have had the same thing. Four times this winter we’ve had people coming up into our yard. We’re right there at the end of intersection of Galpin and Hunter Drive. So I would ask that the council looks at two things. One is a stop sign at Fawn Hill and Hunter and also further consider 20 miles per hour on Hunter Drive. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Quick question of clarification. Brent Kreofsky: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Your first item you were talking about Hunter Drive and also construction access off 41. Brent Kreofsky: No, no, I’m sorry. I live on Hunter but I was talking about the temporary access into Yoberry for construction. Mayor Furlong: And then I thought I heard, so I thought I heard you were connecting and dealing with the issue of construction traffic coming up Hunter… Brent Kreofsky: Yeah, the assumption that staff made, as I understood it was that construction traffic for cement trucks, the lumber trucks would come through Hunter, Longacres, or the other accesses. Highover. Kate Aanenson: Right. If you can zoom in on that a little bit. You know one of our concerns is looking at if we force the construction traffic to go a certain way, now you’re forcing the burden on a very small, so if you, could you say no construction past Gunflint and force everybody past this? I’m not sure how happy just those, I’m on Longacres Drive, coming down. Mayor Furlong: Your fingers are off the map. Off the camera, I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry. There we go. So if we’re, if we’re taking down Gunflint Trail, say no construction traffic. Everything has to go past this. I’m not sure how happy those people would be, so we looked at a lot of different scenarios. Saying no construction down this way. Which is one of the issues if you split the neighborhood, you know the access, as I pointed out, to get construction traffic, even in the first part if you were to split the neighborhood, is coming off of Lot 3. If you split that, not all the construction traffic is going to be able to, and I’m 18 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 talking sewer, water. The utilities and the road surfacing would not be able to service that entire neighborhood, so some of that utilities is going to have to come down then through this access because that utility construction access services the north portion. So what we’re working really hard to do, and it’s complex. Is try to move it so it’s equally distributed as much as possible, and that’s going to be a lot of management on our’s and complaint driven and managing that. Being up there and managing, and with the developer who we spoke to about that. Making sure that he’s on top of that with the contractors that he’s, and in the development contract. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to address the council on this matter. New item or topic related to the staff report. No one? Alright. Very good, thank you. I’ll close the public comment period now without objection and bring it back to council for discussion or there might be, based upon the public comment we’ve received, additional public comment, there may be some questions for staff so maybe we can start with that if there are any immediate questions for staff at this time. Anyone? Follow-up. No? Councilman Peterson: Kate, with regard to the 41 connection that we just talked about, what are the odds? Right now I’m kind of leaning towards pushing and using 41 throughout the whole project just, as I look at the common sense factor, you know is it more dangerous on 41 or is it more dangerous for construction traffic on a neighborhoods? I’m kind of leaning towards it’s less dangerous for 41 but what do we need to do to see if we can get MnDot to extend that. Paul Oehme: We just petition MnDot for extension of the temporary access permit to 41 and see if they will grant that to us. We can take it up the chain of command at MnDot and knock on every door to see what we can do to extend that. That permit length as long as we can. Councilman Peterson: Do we have any precedence at all or not? That you’re aware of. Paul Oehme: Not that I’m aware of. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks. Kate Aanenson: I think just to add to that, I think it’s, you can tell a lot as we begin construction. You know how it’s being managed. I mean we’ll figure that out real quick if there’s problems. If it’s not working so. Councilman Peterson: We can always change it. Kate Aanenson: Correct, right. Exactly, but I’m saying we’ll see how it’s being managed and that’s going to be prudent on everybody to be responsible out there if there’s…and that sort of thing so. But if it’s working… Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. I’m sorry, did you have a question? 19 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Yeah a couple please, if you don’t mind. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Kate let’s talk about two cul-de-sacs, at least on paper. You’ve got a proposed layout or one that was looked at before. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Before I put it up there I just want to make clear, it’s hard to split the baby so somebody’s going to share probably a little bit more of the burden, and that’s based on topography and how that all works out because the high point’s in the center. So, having said that, can you zoom in on that Nann. Councilman Lundquist: Is that a qualifier? For the record. Kate Aanenson: We did look at that. So this cul-de-sac, this is Mrs. Weathers property, would come back down into Gunflint Trail. Then this cul-de-sac, again this is the high point here, would go back up towards Highover. And then again based on grading, getting through there. The orange reflects sidewalk connections. Again the goal is to connect, we’re still trying to get up to that trail connection over to Minnewashta. Again the complexity comes in with this is the driveway, to use this. So how do we get that construction traffic down here because you wouldn’t cut across the lot. That adds the other layer of complexity. Councilman Lundquist: So, back on the temporary access for construction. Where is the proposed temporary access? Kate Aanenson: Lot 3, which is, let’s see if we can focus in on that a little bit better. It’d be coming off of this lot right here. So you wouldn’t have access to this portion, the southern portion so that would still have to come. Councilman Lundquist: Okay so Mrs. Weathers driveway isn’t, at one time I thought last meeting that were talking about using the existing driveway as the temporary access. Kate Aanenson: No, on the Hurrell property. Yeah, that’s on the Hurrell property. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, she’s continuing to live there and being platted into another lot so, and that driveway would be eliminated. Councilman Lundquist: Oh okay. I had seen one of the conditions that it’s elimination of the driveway. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was a MnDot condition so that’s the complexity is trying to make that all balance. We can look to that but that would be our one concern. Because once you have utilities in, you can’t have any driving across the lots just to be clear on that. 20 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Alright. And then on that, the impact of the end of I guess it would be Highover Drive now, against Harrison Hill instead of Gunflint, with the sharper corner there on the northeast corner. Does that essentially the same layout as either proposals? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, it’s pretty close to the same. Yeah, this curve might be a little bit tighter to make this connection. This group. So I’m not sure to what level of detail again, just to be clear for the record, this is just an iteration showing a drawing so. Yeah so. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Yep. Okay. Councilman Labatt: Kate what, Brian can I? Mayor Furlong: Yep, go ahead. Councilman Labatt: With that curve on Gunflint, would it have to be a curve or couldn’t you just make it a 90? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we could look at that, yeah. Like a, yeah. A T or L. Councilman Labatt: L. Kate Aanenson: It’s a construction traffic issue. I guess we haven’t solved that whole thing yet. Councilman Labatt: Well I think both plans obviously have construction traffic issues. So there’s, the point isn’t really, is that good for the south or the north, in either plan you’re going to get it both ways. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but this will have heavy construction traffic during this utility portion of it because you can’t get that, and if you did, if MnDot let us have the whole year, as you had asked us to do, which we’re hoping to continue that, if we could mange that appropriately, then this wouldn’t be an option for that. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, explain that again. Councilman Peterson: Would not be the option? Kate Aanenson: Would not be an option because. Councilman Lundquist: They wouldn’t get any. Kate Aanenson: They wouldn’t get any, yeah. There wouldn’t be any way to access that so you couldn’t provide that alternative, which we had hoped to do. Councilman Lundquist: You can’t have both. Kate Aanenson: Correct. 21 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Well I think you’re dealing with a construction season problem versus a lifetime problem. What’s the number of lots in this plan compared to what’s proposed right now? Kate Aanenson: They’re the same. Councilman Labatt: So the developer’s not losing any lots. Kate Aanenson: No. But again it’s the, well like I said you know, there’s going to be, based on this plan, more of them are going up to Highover based on that topographic break. Again, going back to what I said about how we work through the design, it has to do with sewer flow, water, wetlands, so that’s all driving the grades of the street’s driving that so. Councilman Peterson: How many again on the upper cul-de-sac? How many lots versus the lower? Kate Aanenson: Again, this is the original, king of first blush at it. The Gunflint access would have 21 and 36 would go towards Highover. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, could you repeat that. Kate Aanenson: 21 on the Gunflint and 36 towards Highover. Mayor Furlong: That schematic that you have or plan or I don’t know what title you want to give to it. Who put that together or how long have you had it? Kate Aanenson: Their engineers. Mayor Furlong: The applicant. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Put it together, okay. Have you had that long or how long has that been? Kate Aanenson: No, we just got this in the last meetings. Asked them to kind of look at putting one together. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So staff hasn’t looked at, from any detail standpoint. Kate Aanenson: No, but I believe. Mayor Furlong: Or what level of detail have you looked at it in terms of a normal site plan process. 22 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Kate Aanenson: This portion is going to be pretty similar. This cul-de-sac. Correct me if I’m wrong, that part is still, yeah… Steve Johnston: Good evening. My name is Steve Johnston. I’m with Landform. We, the plan you see in front of you from an engineering standpoint will work. The eastern most cul-de-sac is in the exact same place. The northwestern cul-de-sac is identical. And the cul-de-sac on the Weathers property on the southwestern corner are identical. There are a few things though that you should make note of. This results in a cul-de-sac that is 1,850 feet long. Results in a cul-de- sac with 86 plus homes on it. There will be 86 homes plus whatever comes in with the Carlson property. Now if I came to you with a new project that says I want to put 100 plus homes on a single cul-de-sac, I wouldn’t stand a chance. You would laugh me out of here. This is being done for political reasons, not for traffic safety. Not to meet a comp plan. Not to address the plan that meets all your ordinances. It’s being done politically. So I just want to make that part of it clear. Engineering wise this plan that’s in front of you I’m confident we can make work. But I would never have come to you with this plan in the first place expecting you to approve it because while your ordinance may not specify maximum cul-de-sac length, I doubt that you would approve 1,850 feet of cul-de-sac with 86 plus units on it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Steve Johnston: And that will guarantee that in the Highover neighborhood they will have over 1,000 trips per day. The analysis we looked at that we were presented with earlier, there’s a major piece of it that was missing in that analysis and that is not where the trips are generated from but what the destination is. If somebody is heading south and they happen to live on Highover Drive in our project, they are going to go south. Just because they live on that street does not mean that they are going to go north up through the Highover neighborhood and then come south again on 41. There’s going to be a split somewhere in the neighborhood that they’re going to view it’s easier to go, when they’re going north, it’s going to be easier to start out going north. And some portion that may view it’s easier to go south and then north. You have to look at the destinations in the traffic study, not just where the homes are and what street they happen to be on. I believe that the current plan will split the traffic pretty evenly. It is going to be destination driven, not where you are within the individual projects. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate can you address what he just stated about the next potential development being land locked or having trouble if it is a double cul-de-sac. Is that what I heard? Kate Aanenson: No. Are you talking about the Carlson piece? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. Kate Aanenson: This subdivision has access via Galpin. Extension into Highover and the developer is working to try to secure access to Lake Lucy. So it splits the traffic three different ways. 23 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Three ways. Kate Aanenson: Three ways, correct. Councilman Labatt: Kate, how long is the Settlers West? That cul-de-sac that we just made down in that, on the bluff. That was 1,400-1,500 feet. We’ve done long cul-de-sacs. Paul Oehme: We have in certain situations. This one, it’s not 1,800 feet. It’s more like 3,500 feet because you have to add in the existing Highover Drive, which would make this the longest cul-de-sac in our city. Councilman Labatt: Well there’s got to be one. We have done, Settlers West was, yeah. We looked at that topographically speaking. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Councilman Labatt: We decided a cul-de-sac and make it long. We could have come up from the bluff and. Paul Oehme: Well access was limited from the bluff area in that particular project we were looking at environmental issues again and access so I mean basically we were landlocked there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Follow-up questions. No? Why don’t we move to discussion then. Council discussion. See where this brings us. Who’d like to start? Councilman Labatt, you went last last time. Councilman Labatt: Ah sure. Sure. I guess my position really hasn’t changed from 2 weeks ago. I’ve done some more reading on other issues around metro areas and it wasn’t 3-4 weeks ago Bloomington had an article in the Star Tribune about their east/west roads. People are trying to avoid 494 traffic. And the problems they’re having down there and what they’re trying to do now and they’re closing some streets or they’re putting signs up, if you don’t live here don’t drive here. All this kind of stuff. They’re experiencing problems today from planning 20 years ago. And I think we need to try to avoid what Bloomington’s going through today and those residents are feeling. The two cul-de-sac plan, this is the first time I saw it was right now. It’s something that, so the developer’s not losing any lots. Still gets the same number of lots. We’re going to have a safer area here without the through traffic. The construction north and south vehicles. It’s 21 to 36. I really think we need to look strong and hard here at the two cul-de-sac option. What we’ve seen on paper here and hearing that it doesn’t affect the bottom dollar, the number of lots in a developer is an option that we should really look at. For the sake of the Highover people, Longacres people, they’ve never said not in my back yard. Nobody’s ever said we don’t want this development. They’ve liked the development. Let’s tweak it. Let’s make it a little bit safer. And my hats off to all the residents who have stood by and said you know, this is going to be a nice development but here’s our concerns. Unlike some of the other past developers we’ve had, or developments that come in where people have said not in my back yard. So, I’ll leave it at that. My comments are still the same as last time. I would you know 24 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 strongly ask that we give the two cul-de-sacs some very serious consideration and I did have a couple amendments to the conditions, but I’ll give you those after I hear everybody’s comments. Just kind of tweak a few of them if I need to. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I was hoping for a sore throat and my voice would and I don’t think that’s going to happen in the next 15 minutes. You know Steve, I hear what you’re saying on the side of the cul-de-sac and it’s interesting to see it. What is a little bit scary is that we’re talking about essentially doubling the size of our longest cul-de-sac. Not adding a few feet, and that’s somewhat alarming to hear that. If we put in that long of a cul-de-sac with 86 homes, that traffic count will even go higher than what some of the residents and what staff is predicting and that’s worrisome from a safety perspective so I think what we had hoped to accomplish with the two cul-de-sacs isn’t necessarily happening when you have to put that many homes on a cul-de-sac. It certainly addresses it for the Longacres side, but it doesn’t seem to be a clear cut decision on the Highover side. What we certainly don’t want to do is make a decision that puts even higher traffic counts on any road. And I think you also have to factor in the, you know the garage, garbage. The garbage trucks and delivery trucks and the mail and the school buses are going to make double the amount of trips on a very long street, and I think that’s just something that we just need to be conscience about. A lot of discussion tonight, and 2 weeks ago was about interpreting the comprehensive plan and the ordinances and I have a great deal of understanding of wanting to interpret that but I really think it’s, we can sit and interpret the ordinances and codes and talk about definition of words but I think it’s going to come down to, is it really going to be safer for a through street or is it going to be safer for two cul-de-sacs. And we’re tasked with interpreting the ordinances because the ordinances and the comprehensive plan are about interpretation. They’re not a black and white document that we are respectfully tasked with interpreting that. And tonight, and over the last multiple weeks, what I’ve read and I feel the passion of all the residents around there but I’m still tasked with making a decision what’s best for the residents in my interpretation of the code. I just don’t see a compelling reason right now that two cul-de-sacs is going to be safer. It’s an opinion, okay. You may agree or disagree with that opinion but I do my best to make an informed decision and listen and we’re obligated to adhere to a comprehensive plan and our interpretation of that. We all ran for office, and I think to a person we’ve agreed that the comprehensive plan is something that we want to use as our guiding principle and long cul-de-sacs aren’t part of that, for all the right reasons. 4 weeks ago we made a determination, unanimous determination that the Pinehurst development needed to be connected through a through street for all the same reasons we’ve talked about tonight. So I, you know, for me to make a decision that is against that decision was 4 weeks ago. It’s fresh in our respective minds. There really isn’t that much difference between these two developments. Actually there’s more common with Yoberry than there would be on the Pinehurst because it was really two different styles of developments that we agreed that it was right to connect those. It goes down to is proper planning the use of cul-de-sacs and I’m leaning towards agreeing with staff that it’s not proper planning and it’s not safe and it could be more unsafe if we potentially do it as the one option has been presented tonight. There may be other options, and maybe that’s something we’re going to talk about as a council is that, is that the only option for the two cul- de-sac version, but I don’t like hearing 86 homes and over 3,000 feet. That’s alarming. I do think that we should work with MnDot you know to get the 41 connection to the length of the 25 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 project and work effortlessly to make that happen. I like what the developer has done with the totlot. Adding that in. The Harrison Hill, you know we didn’t get consensus 2 weeks ago. We don’t have that tonight. I think what the developer and staff has agreed to is reasonable on there with, if oriented to the east. Hunter Drive, we have an issue. Again as we said last week, those are two different issues and I think we necessarily need to deal with the Hunter Drive but we need to as a council deal with that with dispatch and you know there were things in the staff report that I hadn’t seen before that we need to pursue aggressively, but whether that is a stop sign on the corner, I don’t know but I want to talk about it soon. So, that being said, it is my qualified opinion that there isn’t a compelling reason to change from the comp plan and that I am not convinced that two cul-de-sacs are even going to be safer for the community. Those are my humble thoughts. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are you ready for my humble thoughts? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Very humble thoughts. I’d have to say that I agree that this development meets the bare bones development requirements of the city. The project contains a maximum amount of lots and with the minimum requirements of our city, and I believe that also happened with Longacres and Highover and that’s why we’re having the problem right now. Is we’re trying to combine three maxed out developments and make them run smoothly together and I think that’s what we’re dealing with. I think the numbers could be played many different ways. You know one development has 57 homes. One development has, I’m sorry, 58. One has 59. It goes on and on and you can play those numbers which ever way, whatever side you’re on. If you want to say that you’re going to have too much traffic on Gunflint, you’re going to take those numbers and add them to your side of the pile. And if you think that you’re not going to, that the traffic will be no problem, you’re take those numbers, cut them in half and move them over to your side of the pile, so I think it’s all up for interpretation because I cannot guesstimate and no one else can predict how people will live..they’ll take and the places they’ll go. And so I feel, I don’t feel comfortable assuming anything when it comes to traffic patterns and how people are going to live. I’m very, very disappointed that there was never a formal application submitted to MnDot for access for these developments onto Highway 41. I don’t believe that we really strong armed them or used creativity and determination to make this happen, and I’m not sure why because I think we wouldn’t be sitting here right now if we had worked a little harder on that and maybe, I don’t know, strong armed MnDot. Maybe it still wouldn’t have worked but I think we all would have felt better leaving tonight knowing we had earnestly put up a fist fight for it. Figuratively speaking, I think these two neighborhoods have brought us to the dance in Chanhassen. I think they’re the ones that took a chance on us all. They pay high taxes. They’re good families and they’re a huge reason why this city is, the city as it is and I want to acknowledge that and I want to make sure that we’ve all heard and understood them. The concern that these people have for their children. Another issue I have is construction traffic. I find it unacceptable to have huge trucks and construction crews using these roads and sometimes racing through these roads to get home at night. I just think it’s imperative that all construction traffic enter and exit off of 41 for as long as it takes for the building process to get done. And on 26 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 a good note though, on a good note about this whole thing, I’ve been pleased about the parks. I’m pleased that Highover came together, Not, Longacres came together with the developer and discussed the park situation and the developer graciously gave this development a park. I’m not for making developers put parks in. I don’t believe in that but I think that was the best solution to this problem, and on that note I want to say that I’ve learned one thing is I want to make sure our city does not become a city of wrist bands where if my child has a blue wrist band he can play at the blue park. But he can’t go to the red park. I just, in the future I hope we all think about that and I understand who’s the best solution because that park access on 41 I don’t think was feasible for a young mother with a stroller to access so. And I think the developer did a nice job by, in welcoming the existing neighbors to the park and I trust that the invitation will be reciprocated with the other two developments. I think everyone worked hard on this development and I think, and I hope tonight that we all leave here knowing that our voices were heard, and it’s not always the ending that counts most but the process and how we got there and I think everybody worked hard and they should be proud. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Couple of things hit first. We haven’t talked a lot about that northeast cul-de-sac along Harrison Hill. My thoughts on that are, where we’ve got it now, be it a through street or some cul-de-sac option, that I’m in favor of leaving all 4 of those lots with, as presented. The totlot, I think is interesting. We heard from the applicant’s engineer on the political reasons for the cul-de-sac and on the record for that and I’d also go on the record that I think the totlot qualifies under that same political thing. That I find it ironic that the reason we’re talking about a totlot and the reason that the city doesn’t get into the totlot business and require those is precisely why we’re talking about it now. Because we have residents of Longacres that are upset, probably rightly so, that they have funded a park with their homeowners dues and that there’s a potential that someone from a new development who didn’t have the right colored wrist band would be playing in the park. Now if you look at it and say, if we don’t put totlots in altogether, we don’t have a problem like that so you know if the developer wants to put a playground into the Yoberry development, then I guess that would be their specific choice. But I guess it’s a be careful if you live in a glass house about throwing rocks so. The Highway 41 access into the neighborhood, as a permanent thing, my opinion for the record there is I wouldn’t have been in favor of that regardless of how hard we had pushed MnDot. I think it’s improper to go on a highway of that speed and that amount of traffic and access a neighborhood directly into that would not be a prudent thing so I think we’ve got, I feel like we got enough informal feedback from MnDot there and that that wouldn’t necessarily have been the right thing to do anyway. I’m in agreement with Councilman Peterson on the Hunter Drive thing. An issue that came up as part of this, but the way I see the Hunter Drive issue, it’s something that we need to address whether Yoberry exists or doesn’t exist or no matter how it exists, with cul-de-sac or through street. That’s an issue that we’ve got to address and sooner rather than later. On the through street versus the non-through street, cul-de-sac option, seems to be kind of the potentially the biggest sticking point here and I do find it again ironic that we’re talking about it now. 4 weeks ago or 5 weeks ago, whatever it was when we talked about Pinehurst, which coincidently the developers are here as well, we had the same process. Residents on Crestview that made their voice heard that they didn’t want a connection to a new neighborhood and concern about traffic and all of those things and that it was actually myself that made that motion 27 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 to connect those for the unpopular vote that night. And that I sit here tonight, I think right now in favor of not having a through street in the Yoberry, and that particularly evening with the Pinehurst and Crestview, I believe we probably, that that will actually add to the safety of the Crestview neighborhood, the Crestview street. If you’ve ever driven up and down that street, it can be treacherous on a good day. Whereas connection to the Pinehurst neighborhood provides another outlet to that so I think we can distinguish that one there. This one, the long cul-de-sac, the number of houses, I think where I’m at now is I’d like to talk about a non-through street option on Yoberry but not necessarily the preliminary plan that we’ve got laid out. 86 houses, 18 to 4,000 feet. However you measure it. Probably is a lot more than maybe the residents on Highover may have bargained for. There’s some potentials there that are a little bit scary as well. Now, as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, we can manipulate the traffic numbers any way we want to. It’s 1,000. It’s 1,050. It’s 810. Whatever. We can put experts on either side that will give you any number you want, but something that Councilman Labatt said is really the driving factor for me on the non-through street is the one thing that we can ensure without a doubt is if you don’t have a through street you’re not going to have cut through traffic. So cul- de-sacs are, don’t allow cut through traffic so that’s really the biggest thing for me here with th Highway 41. I’ve seen it before. I’m one of those offenders in Bloomington that gets off on 98 Street and goes across so I don’t have to get on 494 every day so you know, whether or not I drive the speed limit probably depends on if I’m talking on the phone or not, but so. Mayor Furlong: Too much information. Way too much information. Councilman Lundquist: So where I, summary I think on some of the other. On the through street versus non-through street, I’d like to see us approve the development with a non-through street option and then between now and final plat look at a couple of different scenarios where we can split. Try to make that a little bit more even split. I know that with the through street we come up off of Gunflint and service that northeast cul-de-sac so potentially there’s a way, at least to take a look at. I’m sensitive to the number of iterations that have gone through the developer already and don’t want to recreate the wheel there but I think we talked last time we’re probably looking at 4 to 6 weeks between now and then that we could at least take a look at something like that. To try to even out the traffic flow. I do believe that on the cul-de-sac option that there’s going to be, somebody’s going to have construction traffic going through their neighborhood because they’re only going to be able to service that one way and so that’s going to be the Longacres residents are going to have construction traffic going through their neighborhood because we’re going to have to work hard to keep the construction access open for 3 years to service one. There’s certainly no way we’re going to be able to keep two of them open so recognize also that doing that that we would be driving construction traffic through the Longacres neighborhood for that southerly cul-de-sac. So really not a winning total solution here. I think we’ve got to make compromises on either side. That this is one of those tough ones where there just isn’t going to be a cut and dried bonafide, wonderful solution so it’s going to be give and takes on all sides here but that’s where I stand right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Always interesting when we get to this point. I’m going to say a few things here. First of all I want to start out by recognizing and thanking the residents that have put so much time and effort into looking at this development. What I really appreciate, not just their efforts but the thoughtfulness with which they looked at the issues and how they 28 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 were respectful in their comments. Generally all the comments were one of trying to be constructive criticism. That’s fair. That’s part of the process and that’s what we need all the time. And understand too, can’t speak for my fellow councilors but with regard to responding to all the e-mails that they did, maybe they did a better job than I, but with the volume and other issues, know that if you didn’t get a response, it was read and it was considered. I make a very strong point of doing that and some people I try to get calls back to. Rodd, you for one and wasn’t able to connect but know that all that is considered throughout the process, as well as the public comments. It’s not only that we heard this evening and in our prior council meeting but also at the Planning Commission meetings. One of the advantages of having that and having the verbatim minutes gives us, the council, that, all that input as part of the process. I also want to recognize and thank our city staff for doing an excellent job in terms of trying to work through the details here. This is not an easy development. It’s their job as professionals to evaluate our ordinances and city plans. Work with the developers and develop collectively the best development that meets those. I talked last week about really what our issues were. What is the question before the council this evening and there are two. One is whether the request for rezoning meets our land use and our comprehensive plan. And the second, if it does, does the subdivision meet our ordinances and our comprehensive plan and those are the questions in front of us. The ordinances, the comprehensive plan establish the guidelines of how we want our city developed and the objective of the Planning Commission and the council through the process, working with staff is not only to establish those comprehensive plans and ordinances, and modify them when necessary, but also to ensure adherence to them. What we don’t want is arbitrary or capricious decisions being made along the process because as we protect the issue is property rights. As the ordinances and comprehensive plan protect property rights or provide property rights, limit them perhaps to a developer. It also protects those of us that are already residents and we need to make sure that we adhere to those ordinances because that protects all of us. Whenever one of us wants to come and do an addition to our house or add on a deck or put in a swimming pool, our neighbors have the right to make sure that we’re doing it to ordinance and to code. And if we are, we should be able to move forward with it. I think that’s the, you know one of the issues here as we look at what are we, what’s the decision before us. The biggest issue and the biggest objection by the residents that I hear is the through street versus the non-through street. Versus cul-de-sac. I mean that is the issue. We have heard from different people about different numbers and you know, we can, I think it’s already been addressed on the issue with numbers. We may disagree on the benefits or the cost associated with the through street versus a cul-de-sac. That, reasonable people can differ and that’s fine. I believe that our goal, and what the comprehensive plan tries to do is provide for a comprehensive development of the city. That word is used twice but that’s what it’s trying to do. Rather than just dealing with a patchwork of individual developments. You’ll end up with a different result. We’ll end up with a different result as our city in 15-20 years if we look at more of a patchwork and individual items so, as Councilman Peterson said, I know I heard from each of us during our campaigns and time and time again at council meetings, the comprehensive plan is important because it provides that guide, that blueprint for development to occur. My preference is, with regard to a through street or a cul-de-sac in general, speaking philosophically, is to have those through streets to connect the neighborhoods. To connect people so that we have the opportunity to, without getting on a major road, drop the babysitter off at night or pick them up before you go out and or have our children get together with friends in another neighborhood. That’s important. I think that builds a city rather than a patchwork of cul-de-sacs and private drives, as I said 29 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 before. The issue with whether we go forward with options, we can talk about options. I think there’s, I’m not convinced with what I’ve heard tonight that the benefit from a traffic standpoint, because that’s the issue with traffic, with through traffic and cul-de-sacs, is that there is going to be much of a benefit. I think it’s perhaps subject to our opinions. I’m not an expert in traffic engineering. I don’t want to become one while I’m sitting up here either. That’s what we rely on our staff for and when they need to work with outside consultants to make sure that they get good professional advice for the council, for the Planning Commission. My observations and history with the staff is that they are professional. They try to look at these objectively with regard to the comprehensive plan and ordinance, and that’s what we’re looking at. My issue here, a vote on my part for this proposal as it’s coming forward is not a vote against the residents and what we’ve heard in terms of concern about the traffic and whether we go with a different design. My issue is, is we have a developer that we have heard time and again, from our staff, from our city attorney, meets the comprehensive plan. Meets the ordinances and that’s our goal. As a legislative body to protect property rights and to follow those rules. I think it’s incumbent upon us to do that. Is it perfect? Is it what everybody would like? Perhaps not. There are differences of opinion. Do the options we were looking at on the cul-de-sac for Gunflint Trail. You’ve got differences of opinion. Which side you want that on, north or south. So ultimately what we have to do in that situation is look at what are the options. Look at the different issues and make the best decision possible. Not that we’re picking and choosing sides, but trying to take all the facts in and vote for a plan, a development that will help develop our city. That meets the plan and meets the ordinances. You know safety is an issue again with the through street or non through street. There’s nobody up here I think that’s going to approve any plan that we think is going to put any resident’s child or any children or anybody in danger. That’s not the issue. When we get, but the key is, are we really providing benefit with the two cul-de-sac option? My sense is no. We’re not. But again, we may differ on that so from my standpoint, I’m looking at it, the two questions before the council. Does it meet the comprehensive plan for the rezoning? Does it meet our ordinances for the subdivision? My sense is it does on both accounts and that’s the proposal that the developer’s putting forward and I think that’s, as a council, what we should be doing is looking at it from that side. Fully understand the comments made by my fellow councilors here and you look for ways to accommodate requests. I’m just not sure that the two cul-de-sac option, even though it’s been proposed and it’s kind of the thing that residents are pushing towards, is going to make a benefit. It’s going to cause potentially we’ve heard tonight, it’s going to cause some problems with construction traffic and the flow of construction traffic. I’d like to see us push for construction traffic coming off 41 as long as possible. I concur with that and however we need to do that. It’s, we can make it more safe from construction traffic coming off 41 through a through street than we can with the two cul-de- sacs. You know so, my sense is, and I empathize with the residents as well as for my fellow councilors, this is not, it’s not a slam dunk decision clearly but that’s why we’ve been spending so much time on it. But ultimately coming back to the questions, does it meet the comprehensive plan? Does it meet the ordinances? My sense is it does and that’s what I think we need to do. Could there be some minor tweaks to it within that with regard to construction access and other things we can do and talk with staff about managing the construction traffic based upon the roads? I think we can look at that. Do some tweaks but that’s where I am now philosophically as well as subjectively trying to look at the proposal in front of us. I’d be open to other thoughts, comments. 30 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: …tweaks over there Mr. Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well I’ll make a motion. Well I’ll make a stab at it. On the first try here, let’s see what we can do. I would move that we approve Planning Case 04-43 to rezone 35.7 acres of property zoned RR. Plans dated and received December 20, 2004 with asterisk and plans submitted, preliminary plans submitted on 2/28 on the two cul-de-sac option. Subject to the following conditions, 1 through 45 as noted by the staff. Amending number 33. Simply stating that and adding, street cleaning on soil tracked onto public streets Highover Drive, Lake Lucy, Gunflint, Longacres Drive, Hunter Drive and Highway 41. Specifically stating those roads. Should include daily street scraping and sweeping as needed during the construction period. So changing 33 to read that. A little more specific. Adding number 46. The construction access off of 41 shall be maintained for Phase I and II and into Phase III as long as possible. Councilman Lundquist: Steve, how do you define Phase I and II? Councilman Labatt: Well as they, I believe Phase I is going to be the Youngquist property. Is that right Kate? Kate Aanenson: …maybe we can address exact what phase. Chuck Alcon: Councilman Labatt, the entire project is one phase…three final plats. Councilman Labatt: Okay, construction access shall be maintained for the total length of the construction project, or as long as practical. Realizing that those lots up on the Hurrell’s there on the northern property. Councilman Peterson: It’s MnDot’s decision, not our’s. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, point of clarification. We don’t have jurisdiction over that. Councilman Labatt: Well we can force them. Can’t we? Carrying that as long as it can go. I realize government works slow at times and we can be slow too. And then adding number 47. That no connection of Highover Drive or Gunflint Trail to exist and make it a two cul-de-sac proposal. Roger Knutson: Council member, does that also include adoption of the Findings of Fact as presented? Councilman Labatt: Yes. Roger Knutson: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one other point of clarification? The map that was submitted nd was dated February 22. If you could just refer to that date. 31 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Labatt: I referred to today’s date as it was presented to us. Kate Aanenson: Just because it was on here. nd Councilman Labatt: February 22. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: So noted the change. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Actually I would like to propose an amendment as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay, it’s made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Would propose an amendment to Councilman Labatt’s condition that we set condition number 47 as no connection between Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be determined between now and final plat. Just for clarification of, I don’t know if it’s two cul-de-sacs or when you look at a plan like that, I guess you could say there’s like 4 cul- de-sacs on that too. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: I think the important point is we don’t want to connect Highover and Gunflint. Mayor Furlong: No, I heard and when I was writing it down, maybe somebody else heard it differently. That 47 was no connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail. Two cul-de-sac option. You just want a strike…option and add in specifics to be determined? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So you’re proposing an amendment that 47 would be, would read no connection to Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be determined? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Discussion on the motion. Councilman Peterson: A couple questions. Point of clarification mayor. To the first and second. So if it ended up being you know 4,000 foot long cul-de-sac with 86 or, a minimum of 86 homes, are you still a proponent of that if it ends up being that length is I guess one question. I mean is this motion going to cost… 32 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Before we get to that, just for follow through. Hold onto that. We should discuss his amendment and the merits of his amendment of changing the wording. Is there any discussion on changing the wording? Roger Knutson: Mayor, has there been a second to the amendment? Mayor Furlong: No there hasn’t, thank you. Is there a second to the amendment? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. So let’s discuss the amendment then. Thank you. Councilman Labatt: I think it gives us the flexibility and the length of that cul-de-sac, and maybe make that Gunflint one go up to the east a little bit. I think Brian’s motion, or clarification motion gives us flexibility and just exactly how long is Highover Drive cul-de-sac going to be? Is it going to be 36 to 21 or what’s the exact mix going to be? And those can be worked out at final plat. Councilman Peterson: So how would you feel if there was no plausible alternative to the 86 homes and the 4,000 feet long cul-de-sac? I mean I’m just trying to get a sense, would that make a difference? Councilman Lundquist: That’s a fair question. I think at this point, knowing, not knowing enough about that, that I’m comfortable saying yes. That if that’s the way it ends up being, then that’s the way it ends up being. I believe that there’s a better alternative out there but due to factors that we don’t know between now and then, it’s quite possible. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Steve, you feel the same way? Councilman Labatt: (Yes). Councilman Peterson: Second question. If we separate the, into 2 or 3 or a dozen cul-de-sacs, how do you deal with the totlot issue? Are we just kind of forgetting about that then? That brings it right back into the forefront that was a pretty big issue 2 weeks ago that we’re ignoring by doing this. Councilman Lundquist: By not, myself by not putting it in as a condition, I think I’d leave it up to the developer. I’m not going to require a totlot goes in. If they want to put it in, then that’s their choice. If the development were to go forward without it, then I’m comfortable approving it that way too. Leave that one for discretion of the applicant. Mayor Furlong: When you say specifics to be determined, who? Staff? Councilman Lundquist: Between the staff and the developer. At this point. I wouldn’t intend on there I guess being any more public comment. Obviously they’ll have to be, the submission 33 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 of the required notice before we would approve final, but unless we were required to open up for public hearing again, I guess I wouldn’t. Kate Aanenson: Just point of clarification. Typically at final plat it goes on consent so I’m back over where Councilman Peterson was. I’m back to, do I need to split the baby because if, I believe in the whole this will work. What we don’t have is the civil’s, which is where you’re going. We need to see all that. So I guess if this is the way you want to go, we would just work this iteration with the developer to get the civil’s and make sure that it meets the ordinance and do that. If you’re asking us to try to split the baby, then I would like to know that. Because that’s a different situation and now we’re back to what’s the expectation with the neighborhood. I just want to get clear direction so when we bring it back, we’re not. Councilman Peterson: Roger, this would not need to go back to Planning Commission if we have a whole different design? It would seem reasonable that it would need to go back to the Planning Commission. Roger Knutson: It wouldn’t have to go back because of the change in design but you take your final plats to the Planning Commission or don’t you? Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: There’s no statutory requirement that they go to the Planning Commission. It comes right back here for final approval. And this kind of change would not require another public hearing at the Planning Commission. Councilman Lundquist: I guess Kate for clarification I would like to see us, or like to see between your department, Paul’s department and the developer, see if there’s another way. I think the intent is to get a more of an even split. If that’s not possible for whatever reason, then you know, leave it up where it is now. That’s the way I look at it. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just describe, explain to me that he’s splitting the baby. Can you split it for me now or can’t you? Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, but what I’m saying is there an expectation that there’s going to be equal division. Half are going to go one way, half are not. And I can’t say that because we don’t have the civil’s in front of us to say the slopes, the grades of the streets are all going to work, and that’s part of what I’m saying so, we will look to see if there’s another way to get more equalized. If we can’t, well then we’ll bring that back and we’ll show those iterations at final plat where we’re going, and why we recommended what we did. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, Mayor, if I may. If I hear Councilmember Peterson saying is, if you’ve got to lose some lots in this subdivision, you know lose them to get the cul-de-sac shorter. Is that what I’m hearing you say? Councilman Peterson: I’m just clarifying where, you know, I want to figure out whether I want to vote for this or not and I won’t vote for it if it is 86 homes and a 3,500 foot long cul-de-sac. 34 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Todd Gerhardt: So you know if you can find a way to lay the subdivision out, the same number of lots but shorting the cul-de-sac and pushing more the lots in the southerly side. I know we have this contour issue. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that’s what I’m saying. Try to split it more equally, correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you put the map back up maybe so I can see? Kate Aanenson: This one? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, the two cul-de-sac map. Kate Aanenson: So this is the, we have to work through again the geometrics of this intersection. This is Gunflint coming up, and then this would be Highover. So we’ll look at the different iterations. Again, this is the highest point right here so we just need to look at those civil’s and the grades and see if we can equalize that more, but I just want to be clear and I think where Councilman Peterson’s going is, we need to understand if we can’t make it work, you would accept this but we’ll see if we can make it a different version. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I’m not asking for a 3 week long, exhaustive, you guys have done this enough times where relatively quickly I think you’ll be able to determine if it even makes sense to look at it any further or not. And there’s more of a you know, Nann can you put that other one. When you look at this right here again, you know it seems plausible that somewhere on Highover coming down there, that there’s a cul-de-sac. In the mix somewhere I guess is more what I’m thinking along the lines of. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to, for this minute, do you want to clarify that staff and the developer that our amendment… Councilman Lundquist: Yep, fair enough. For clarification that specifics to be determined by staff and the developer. Roger Knutson: Obviously it’s subject to your final approval at final plat. Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Roger Knutson: They will draft something up to bring to final for your consideration. Mayor Furlong: Determine the proposed, would that work? Roger Knutson: They propose something. You decide. Mayor Furlong: So if I could, you want to do, for your amendment to the amendment, you want to do proposed by staff and developers? 35 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Rather than determined. Councilman Lundquist: Specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second to that amendment? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. So now 47, the amendment that we’re voting on is, 47 will read, no connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. Councilman Lundquist: And that is the amendment. Not the full motion that we’re currently. Mayor Furlong: That’s not, that’s the now the amendment that we’re looking at. All we’re looking at is that amendment. Is that how we want that condition to read? And then we’ll deal with the amended motion. Is there any other discussion on this? Councilman Peterson: Yeah, just again. I’m just really concerned that the residents in Highover, if ultimately this goes through and everybody else agrees to that long of a cul-de-sac or that many homes, that they really realize what they’re getting, and I think that is a substantial issue that we’re ignoring here is, I think we should consider if you do this. But again, I won’t vote for it on the basis of that many homes because if they have traffic issues under the through street, I think this is, that long of a cul-de-sac is going to compound that issue. I just, I’m confused as to why we’re even considering that long of a cul-de-sac because traffic, we haven’t even asked city staff to look at, does that push us well over 1,000. And I’m just, I’m worried that we’re sticking our head in the ground and trying to appease the residents and now we’re giving them something they haven’t even looked at before. Or even considered so I’m worried about that gentlemen and ladies, so. Mayor Furlong: Other discussion on this? I would concur with Councilman Peterson on the issue of the two cul-de-sac option and how fast we’re going forward with the plan here. That you know this has been under development for months in terms of the overall development and the, there are a lot of questions that need to be addressed when you start changing this and you eliminate the through street. You’ve got utility issues. Water. Sanitary sewer lines. You’ve got storm water drainage. You start moving the roads around. The traffic. Again the extra long cul- de-sac there. On the specifics to, is this amendment to this condition better wording than what was originally proposed, no offense. I think it is better wording. It’s cleaner, but if I vote to clean up the language, in case if the overall motion passes, that’s no way am I saying that I agree with the implications of that. I just want to be clear on that. I think in terms of the language of this amendment, this is better language than what we’re starting with on the motion, so I will vote for this language but I have similar concerns with Councilman Peterson and it’s just, it is not an issue of whether or not, whether or not the two cul-de-sac option works or not. I think this design, as we’re seeing it here tonight is going to cause some problems. It’s just come too fast 36 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 here at the end and I think proper time needs to be looked at it to make sure that everything is there. Any other comments on the amendment to condition 47? Councilman Lundquist: I would call the question on 47 and then let’s discuss the larger motion. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Is there a second to call the question? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other? Roger Knutson: Yes there is. Mayor Furlong: Okay, can I just ask if there’s any other discussion? Is there any other discussion on the wording to the amendment? If not, then without objection we’ll proceed to the vote. Is that okay? Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. So with regard to re-working 47 such that it reads, no connection of Highover and Gunflint, specifics to be prepared by, proposed by staff and developer, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the amendment to condition number 47 to read as follows: No connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails on that amendment. Excuse me, the amendment. So now we’re working with the amended motion. With amended condition 47. Any other discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist: Roger what options do we have, since this was a tabled item from 2 weeks ago, what are our requirements to act on this? Roger Knutson: You’re out of time. Not quite. I mean you’re appropriate tonight. Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion then on or proposed amendments to this motion? Hearing none then, I think our comments were discussed earlier. We’ll proceed with the motion as amended. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve Planning Case #04-43 to rezone 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family for Yoberry Farm as shown on the plans dated received December 20, 2004, and to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #04-43 for Yoberry Farm for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown on the plans received December 20, 2004, 37 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 and the plan presented February 28, 2005 and dated February 22, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1.A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The applicant shall supply the city with a list of the number of trees required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 12/20/04. 2.The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. 3.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 4.Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 12/20/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. nd 5.Tree removal calculations must be shown for lot 3, block 1, Yoberry 2 Addition. Revised calculations for the entire development will be required before final plat approval. 6.Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a condition of approval. 7.The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100- year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 8.The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. 9.Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. 10.Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all areas with a steep slope of 3:1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater. 11.All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 12.On the utility plan: a.All watermain pipes must be PVC-C900. b.Maintain 10-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains. c.Sanitary manhole #4 must be with outside drop structure. 38 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 d.Show existing sanitary, storm, and watermain pipe type and size. e.Show all existing utilities in Longacres Drive. f.Reroute the proposed watermain in the southwest corner of the parcel to be between Lots 5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30-foot utility easement. g.Add the following notes: Any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. 13.On the grading plan: a.Show the 100-year HWL of wetlands 1 and 5. b.Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c.Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows. The elevation must be 1.5 feet lower than adjacent house elevations. nd d.Delete the proposed grading on the custom house pad of Lot 3, Block 1, Yoberry 2 Addition. e.Revise the retaining wall top and bottom elevations on the southwest corner of the parcel. f.Remove existing temporary cul-de-sac pavement and re-sod it at the north on Highover Drive. st g.Maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10% on Lot 21, Block 1, Yoberry 1 Addition. h.Remove the existing outlet control structure after installing the proposed outlet control structure on the existing north storm pond. i.Show the location of the existing power lines along the eastern property line of the site. 14.Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. Approved safety fence will be required on top of all retaining walls which are adjacent to sidewalk or trails. 15.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2005 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,270.00 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 16.All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 17.The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 18.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 39 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 19.All private driveway accesses for the demolished home sites off TH 41 must be removed. 20.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a Development Contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 21.All lots must have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad with a maximum slope of 10:1. 22.The applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the wastewater from the 11 additional homes. 23.A curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit at the eastern end of Gunflint Trail is required on both sides of the curve. 24.Existing drainage and utility easements within the site must be vacated prior to recording of the final plat. 25.The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. In addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized. 26.The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for the drainage from the south-central portion of the site. 27.The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of- way outside of the existing easement area. 28.A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2, 3, 4 and 5. A wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 29.All structures must maintain 40-foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges. 30.All bluff areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 40 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 31.Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 32.All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 33.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets Highover Drive, Lake Lucy Road, Gunflint Trail, Longacres Drive, Hunter Drive and Highway 41 should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 34.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $97,191. 35.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. 36.Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval. 37.Building Department conditions: a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. d.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. e.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. f.The developer must coordinate the address changes of the three existing homes with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. 38.Fire Marshal conditions: 41 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 a.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. b.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. e.An additional hydrant will be required at the southernmost tip of Lot 4. Relocate the fire hydrant from between Lots 18 and 19 to between Lots 16 and 17 and add an additional fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 8. 39.On Sheets C3.1, C4.1, C5.1 and L2.1 of the plans, a gap appears on the western edge of Lots 4, 19, 20 and 21 of Block 1 and Outlot A, Yoberry Farm. This gap must be eliminated. 40.A windmill appears within the front yard setback on Lot 4, Block 1, Yoberry Farm. The applicant shall remove or relocate this structure prior to final plat recording. 41.Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon vacation of existing drainage and utility nd easements located on Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Yoberry Farm 2 Addition. 42.The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail. 43.Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46, 81, 270 and #251. 44.The developer will be required to install a 10-inch raw water transmission main for future connection to the City’s second water treatment plant as a part of the utility construction and provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main. As this is a system-wide improvement, the construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the City from the water portion of the utility fund. 45.The applicant shall provide a permanent trail easement or Outlot dedicated to the City nd between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Yoberry Farm 2 Addition as depicted on the diagram:” 42 City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005 46. The construction access off of 41 shall be maintained for as long as possible. 47. No connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong and Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And again, thank you everybody for your involvement. It was a long process but we do appreciate your efforts. Thank the council too for working through the amendments and such like that. Chuck Alcon: Honorable Mayor, just one question. I understand our direction is to work with the staff to come up with a preliminary plat that does not have a connection between Highover and Gunflint Trail. Councilman Lundquist: Come up with a final plat. Mayor Furlong: Move onto the next agenda on our agenda. Councilman Peterson: Can we take a break? Mayor Furlong: Oh certainly. Yep, looking at the time. Without objection we’ll recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let’s make it about 5 minutes. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #75-2 FOR LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK, PLANNING CASE 4-37. st Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February 1 and, to review that conditional use amendment and they voted 4 to 2 and the 2 no votes were based on environmental reasons and I’ll go through the rationale for that in just a moment. The subject site is the regional park. Across the street from the subject site we were just talking about. The conditional use was put in place back in 1975 and at this point when the review went through for the beachlots, or excuse me, for the boat launches, there was a lot of concern from the associations that were on the lake as far as what effect that would have as far as the number 43