CC Minutes 3-14-05
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR CRESTVIEW, A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION
WITH VARIANCES (A REPLAT OF THE SHIVLEY ADDITION); LOCATED AT THE
END OF CRESTVIEW DRIVE, LECY BROS. HOMES, PLANNING CASE 05-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Moehrl 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Nathan Franzen 1851 Lake Drive West
Peter Knaeble Golden Valley
Andrew Johnsrud Minnetrista
Alan Nikolai 6282 Cartway Lane
Doris Nikolai 6570 Galpin Boulevard
Mike Byrd 935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the Planning Commission back in
th
January 4. This subdivision was directly tied to the final plat you just gave on the Pinehurst
subdivision immediately to the south, this subject here. Obviously the street extension that you
approved on the previous subdivision affects this subdivision, so while we’re working through
those issues, the subdivision, final plat, or preliminary plat was held up. There was some request
for variances specifically because Crestview doesn’t meet current city standards. Their right-of-
way was given a 50 foot, the street was given a 50 foot right-of-way. The pavement width will
match the standards that we have but just the right-of-way. With that they were asking for some
setbacks from the street. The staff did not support those with the redraw based on the fact there
was an additional street preservation. Kind of the two issues that the staff spent a lot of time was
on access between Pinehurst, the subdivision to the south and this one was access to the West
Junior High School. And as it turns out, both subdivisions are providing access. This
subdivision, let me just, this is the applicant’s design. We did want a sidewalk to walk to the
junior high so the Pinehurst has provided a sidewalk. That sidewalk did move to the east side as
opposed to the west side as you get up there, and you’ll have to cross. If you could follow along
maybe on page 8 where we go through the recommendations of approval. So number 1, the
sidewalk along the south side of Crestview and the trail, this is the sidewalk we’re talking about
right here. So you’d come up this side. Again, the Pinehurst subdivision has been designed to
accommodate that. The sidewalk will come up and then cross, so you have the south side here.
So our recommendation on that, number one is that with the radius of the curve, the sidewalk
doesn’t stay and so they need to provide additional easement for that radius. Then the other issue
was this trail through here. It needs to be 20 foot wide with a minimum, it does say 10 in there
but minimum of 8 foot, and that’s because we plow those trails. That’s a permanent access to get
to the school and those would be maintained. That trail portion would be maintained by the city,
whereas the sidewalk is maintained by the homeowners in front of, and so again clarification of
those. The responsibility for the development of all those would be the responsibility of the
3
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
developer, not the city. Included with the development proposal itself. So that’s kind of 1, 2,
and 3 clarification. If you have any questions on that.
Mayor Furlong: Questions right now on those? And I do Kate. Clarification. Does the
condition 2, that speaks to the trail easement between Lot 2 and 3. Am I understanding that
correctly?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s this one here, and it’s not shown right on the plan. It
needs to be wider. A 20 foot.
Mayor Furlong: So is staff recommending that we modify condition 2 to make it says 20 feet?
Kate Aanenson: That would be my recommendation. 20 foot, and then clarify.
Mayor Furlong: To indicate a 20 foot trail easement.
Kate Aanenson: They only wanted to put, they’re requesting a 5 foot and again, because we
have to plow it, minimum that we’d recommend would be 8. Typically we like to see between 8
and 10, but a minimum of 8 and that’s for us to maintain that.
Mayor Furlong: But is staff proposing that the developer install the trail as well?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is that somewhere else on here?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think that maybe should be clarified.
Mayor Furlong: To dedicate a trail easement and install a trail?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Dedicate and install.
Mayor Furlong: So the easement’s 20 feet and the trail is 8? Did you say. Or to standard. To
city standards.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. We had recommended 10. We were just talking, I did talk to
the Park and Rec Director and to the City Engineer just to clarify that we would allow it to go
down to 8. We’d like to see 10 but we’ll compromise on that. And I just wanted to also kind of
go through, we did agree to the 50 foot there. One of the issues they had with the trail
connection was how it would impact similar their concern with the sidewalk in front of the
houses, how it would impact these lots. So the sidewalk got moved across and we did agree to
let this 50 foot, whereas the subdivision lots is staying with 60. Same pavement width. In order
to get the additional width, because they have to push those lots around to get the trail easement,
so there was some give on the city’s part to make that happen. And since this time with the
additional storm water went through that site too, so there’s two easements running through there
that kind of pushes that a little bit so we did agree to that 50. So with that, 5 lots. We are
4
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any
other questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the variances that you’re recommending denial of.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Those were for front yard variances. We recommended they can fit
within. We didn’t believe there was any additional tree. We believe giving the 50 foot right-of-
way, where here it may not be good, there wasn’t any additional tree savings. There is the width
to do it. So we didn’t support those.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: But if there was that 5 foot variance on the setback, that would be against the 50
foot wide right-of-way rather than the normal setback?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, because we already gave them that. Correct, it’d be like a double.
Because you can go closer because the street’s narrower. So we accomplished it in a different
way. You know we felt we gave them that. And there wasn’t additional tree savings on the
back.
Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Don’t think so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’re comfortable, and maybe this is a question for Mr. Oehme with
regard to the narrower right-of-way. Any drawback from city standpoint from maintenance or
any issues there? It’s consistent with the rest of Crestview I understand but are there any
drawbacks with us doing that?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we try to maintain 60, at least at a minimum 60 foot right-of-way. In this
particular location we only have a few houses associated with this development. The impacts
that we see in terms of narrowing the right-of-way down by 10 feet are the underground utilities.
Getting access to them, and just boulevard preservation but there really aren’t that many utilities
out here. To service this area. We don’t have any trunk water mains. We don’t have any trunk
storm sewer systems out here so we’re comfortable with the 50 feet in this area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the
applicant here this evening? Is there anything you’d like to address to the council?
Peter Knaeble: Yes Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name’s Peter Knaeble. I’m
here representing the developer of the property, Lecy Brothers Homes. Also here tonight is
Andy Johnsrud from Lecy Brothers, in case you have any questions for him. Basically we’ve
been again, like Kate said, working on this project since last September with the staff and it’s
relative straight forward, especially now at this point, or this stage. The kind of the final items
5
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
that we’re concerned about and we concur with the staff report other than the issue on the 25 foot
front setback, it’s our position that granting that variance from that front setback would save an
additional 5 foot of trees in the rear of the house given an equal size house. Obviously we just
move it up that 5 feet and save that 5 foot of any trees or any grading limit that would be in the
rear of the property. So we’re still asking for that. We understand the staff’s position and we
have read the staff report and kind of understand where they’re coming from. So obviously from
our part it’s not a deal breaker if that doesn’t happen, but we’re still requesting that from the
council. The other issue is, again the location of the sidewalk. We understand the location on
the south side of the road. Just talking to Andy from Lecy Brothers, I think their position if
they’d prefer it on the north side to get away from the 3 new homes and keep it along that longer
frontage, but again if it’s the staff and council’s recommendation to put it per staff, I think Andy
would concur that that’s okay with them too. So our basic issue is just again to ask for that 25
foot front setback again with that 50 foot it allows a total of 10 foot of additional encroachment
from that house. Move it up that 10 feet so we would ask for that. Other than that we concur
with the other recommendations in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant as he sits down. That’s okay.
Kate, any thoughts or comments? Follow up.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. My only concern moving to the other side is, I’m not sure that Mr. Larkin
was aware of that change and certainly would give him the opportunity to comment on that.
That’s a pretty significant change, putting a sidewalk to the other side.
Mayor Furlong: And he’s the property owner, the existing homeowner?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So that would be our concern there. As far as the 25 foot, I mean this
has to come back for final plat. Our initial review is, it’s not going to save trees and if they can
demonstrate that, we’d go ahead and look at that at time of final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. This was addressed by the Planning Commission back in
January. There have been some changes given the development to the south and such like that so
if there is someone from the public that would like to make some comments to the council at this
time I’d certainly invite them to come forward and address any issues. Council did have an
opportunity to review the Planning Commission meeting minutes and so we don’t need a repeat
of what was said there but if there’s new issues or something that’s changed that you’d like to
make sure the council’s aware of, we certainly would be interested in listening to that so, if
anybody would like to come forward, please do so now. State your name and address for public
comment. Okay, seeing none, that’s fine. Why don’t we bring it back to council for discussion
or any follow up questions.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think it is pretty straight forward and I think if staff can
work with the developer to address the sidewalk issue and talk to Mr. Larkin, get his feedback on
it, I think he would be a driving force in me making a decision but I think we can allocate that
responsibility. Let staff deal with the position of the sidewalk. And the 25 foot setback, as Kate
mentioned, I think let them deal with it. If they find that there is a compelling reason to do it,
then I’m okay with that. If we have an opportunity to save trees without an aggressive
6
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
deterioration and a good plan, then we should seize that opportunity. Other than that I think it’s
a good plan.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other discussion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson. I could go either way with the 25
foot setback. If it saves trees, I think it’s a good thing. I guess I’m just happy with the
bituminous, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist?
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with Councilman Peterson on the sidewalk as well. To
talk to the existing property owner and come back for final. The setback, again put the burden
on that on the developer. If they can demonstrate that, especially given the wanting to have an
extra buffer between them and the middle school there, as all that activity in the park and things
that I can certainly understand why they would want as much buffer and that as possible, so
again I think those issues are out there but not that big of a deal to work through between now
and final plat, so I’m happy with what I see now and a couple of minor things to look at.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur on the sidewalk. We need to get Mr. Larkin’s
thoughts on that. He’s most directly affected by that. With regard to the setback I think, I’m
coming at it at a little bit different view and that is, of the 5 lots here, there’s an existing home on
one so we’re really dealing with 4 new. Of those 4, 3 of them are on the end of a cul-de-sac.
The end of a wide turn around. And so you’ve got triangle shaped pieces and as you get closer
to the street, the houses are going to purposely get very close to each other, and I think from a,
you know where the houses are and how crowded they look to the street versus how far set back
they are to…for safety but also just from a design standpoint, I think that’d be something in
addition and we want to save trees in the back, but by moving them forward 5 feet, if a future
property owner builds a deck or something like that in the back, those trees could be gone
anyway. And so I’m concerned about the crowding of the houses at the street at that turn around.
I’m not necessarily comfortable with that because we’re already dealing with a narrower right-
of-way. The cul-de-sac, the pavement area in the cul-de-sac bituminous area with the curbs,
that’s going to be a normal size cul-de-sac, correct? So we’re already.
Kate Aanenson: Radius, yeah but we did talk about snow storage. I mean you’re right, when
you push it forward on a cul-de-sac, the snow storage issue is…
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, snow storage and I’m just thinking you’re trying to get you’ve got wedge
shaped homes so the houses are coming up physically closer and the proximity of the houses,
even with the setbacks I think they might be a jammed a little bit there so that’s my concern there
on that setback. It’s not as bad on Lot 5. That might not be an issue being seen but I think I
would be concerned about just the location of the homes on 2, 3 and 4 so at this time I’d want to
gain some comfort there and so to me it’s more than just trying to save some trees on the back.
It’s how the development’s going to look when homes go in. Councilwoman Tjornhom, sure.
7
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are those homes then going to have enough room for decks and
patios? Is there enough space back there if they are pushed back?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. I mean there should be plenty of space. That’s a requirement of the box
that they showed reasonable building plan.
Mayor Furlong: And the lot sizes meet the ordinance in terms of dimensions and.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There’s only one lot that’s 15 but they’re probably closer to an average
of yeah, 24’s in here. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: You know and I guess as I’m talking about setbacks, and maybe this is a
question for Kate. In the frontage, in the staff report there were a couple, I think it’s Lots 2 and 3
that show less than the 90. What is the requirement at a cul-de-sac? It’s at the setback right?
Kate Aanenson: At the 30 foot setback, that’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: 30 foot setback. And so do these have that width available?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you know, everything else being said, I don’t need to repeat that. I
think it’s fairly straight forward. I think it’s a good development. I know I’ve got confidence in
the builder in terms of building a good quality product. I’m just concerned about crowding, that
25 foot setback might create.
Councilman Peterson: Are you comfortable empowering staff to make that decision based upon
our comments or not?
Mayor Furlong: Well I think you know as it comes back for final, let’s take a look what they
come back with. But I think to me it’s more than just the trees in the back yard. It’s the overall
development in terms of the location of the homes. So, any other thoughts or comments?
Councilman Lundquist: So as a clarification, I think what we’re talking about is to move with
staff’s recommendations on denial of variance and put the sidewalk on the south side and that
pending examination or whatever, and then at final we would approve the variance then? Is that
what we’re talking about, if we decided to.
Kate Aanenson: You have to leave it open ended.
Councilman Lundquist: Leave it open?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It is going forward with variances. The sidewalk isn’t a variance issue.
That’s just a design issue. The only variance that would be open ended would be whether or not
we’re going to save additional trees. So we can get the attorney’s opinion but my
8
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
recommendation with variances, if it can be demonstrated that’s additional trees and not a
negative impact.
Roger Knutson: As I understand it you’d be approving the variances subject to them proving at
time of final plat that they will save trees.
Kate Aanenson: And not have a negative impact on.
Roger Knutson: And not have a negative impact.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Roger Knutson: On crowding or whatever.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I mean I think the simplest thing would be not to provide the variance in
the preliminary plat. If there’s a strong desire to do that, then I think we have to put some
caveats on it. The simplest thing would just be to deny that 5 foot setback variance on the
preliminary and then it’s clean. Because the sidewalk, like I said, is a design. If there’s a desire
to go forward, then I think we have to put some caveats on there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But Mr. Larkin would certainly be notified.
Kate Aanenson: That’s what my concern was. He hasn’t been notified.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I’m sure he wasn’t here because he thought it was on the other
side of the street and so he didn’t think there was, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: …that would be my concern.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. Maybe a clean way to handle the variance, if you so choose, would be
not to make a decision on the variance tonight. Have the applicant provide you in writing before
he leaves here tonight a letter granting you extension to consider the variance until the time of
final plat approval, and then bring back the variance with the final plat approval. Then you don’t
have to worry about all the caveats and conditions. But we have to do something because of our
time restrictions on acting on these.
Mayor Furlong: That would be okay?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so you’d just actually, if they give you the extra time, when it comes
back for final plat, I’m assuming that’s, that gives a 60 day extension on the variances.
Roger Knutson: Or until the final plat comes back.
9
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there other discussion? If not, is there a motion? Does somebody
want to.
Councilman Peterson: I would move that.
Mayor Furlong: You would move that. There are a couple of clarifications I think in our report
in terms of some of the conditions so I would suggest we try to struggle through what’s.
Councilman Lundquist: I’ll take a stab.
Mayor Furlong: And let’s listen if you would Mr. Knutson and make sure we get it right.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council approve Planning Case 05-02 for a
5 lot subdivision, 5 lot subdivision subject to conditions 1 through, how many was there? I
forget exactly. 27 with the deletion of 25. Amended condition number 2. That the developer
shall dedicate a 20 foot trail easement and construct an 8 foot wide trail. And that the applicant
grant an extension for decision on the variance until final plat returns for approval. Based on the
findings of fact attached to this report.
Mayor Furlong: Can we require the applicant to grant an extension in our motion?
Roger Knutson: No you can’t but he just indicated he would. And the findings of fact.
Councilman Lundquist: Go along with the variance?
Roger Knutson: Yeah. You don’t want to act on the findings of fact until.
Councilman Lundquist: Such time as the variance.
Roger Knutson: Right, because they are for approval of the variance and you don’t know
whether you are going to…
Councilman Lundquist: …so rescind the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: And you didn’t include in your motion, just for clarification here before a
second, did you want to include the statement that the 5 lot subdivision, plans prepared by Terra
Engineering with those dates?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes, as stated in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion of the proposed amendments on it?
10
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Planning Case 05-02 for a five lot subdivision, plans prepared by Terra
Engineering, Inc., dated 11/22/04, revised 12/7/04, 2/21/05, and 2/28/05, and subject to the
following conditions:
1.The developer shall include a sidewalk along the south side of the extension of Crestview Drive
and a trail from the end of the cul-de-sac between Lots 2 and 3to the school property located
west of the site. The developer shall provide an easement for the sidewalk within Lots 3 and 4.
2.The developer shall dedicate a 20 foot trail easement and construct an 8 foot wide trail from
,
Crestview Drive to the west property line between Lots 2 and 3Block 1 to accommodate the
pedestrian access to the Middle School site.
3.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
4.Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot.
5.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
6.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.
7.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 the new roadway allows
passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
8.A minimum of two overstory deciduous trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
9.The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and
side yard areas.
10.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
11.All trees shown as preserved and outside of the grading limits as shown on plans dated 11/22/04
shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
11
City Council Meeting – March 14, 2005
12.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed
soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to
the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
Type of Slope
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
13.Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed anytime construction site soil,
mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked
materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system.
14.Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance
and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction.
15.Based on the proposed developed area of 3.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable
to the City at the time of final plat recording is $12,761.
16.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), and Minnesota Department of Health) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
17.The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer
sizing calcs and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat.
18.On the grading plan:
a.Add a note to remove the existing driveway access of Lot 1.
b.Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c.Add a legend.
19.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
20.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
12