The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Staff Report 3-14-05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site VNII'I. ci .chan hassen. mn. us ð5'~C2<"' :J- MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: March 14, 2005 SUBJ: Crestview Addition - Planning Case #05-02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to subdivide one lot and one outlot into five single-family lots with variances for reduced street right-of-way width of 50 feet and 25-foot front yard setbacks. The applicant has further revised the plan to show a 50-foot right-of-way for Hemlock Lane, added a 5-foot wide bituminous trail between Lots 2 and 3, shifted the lot lines for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 to provide additional width to Lots 2 and 3 to accommodate a trail to the school site and corrected the utility plan. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 4,2005 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed project including the street right-of-way variance with modifications to conditions 1 and 2 to locate the trail between Lots 2 and 3 and the addition of conditions 25 and 26 below, but they denied the front setback variance request. 25. Delete the road connection to the Pinehurst development but keep the trail connection to the end of Street B. 26. The applicant will work with staff to shift the cul-de-sac to the east. The Planning Commission minutes of January 4,2005 are attached. Staff opposes the deletion of the connection to Street B in the property to the south and recommends that this condition (25) be deleted from the motion on pages 7 through 10 of the staff report. This road furthers the comprehensive plan goal of connecting neighborhoods to foster a sense of community, to improve safety, and to provide convenient access for residents. Staff believes that this connection is a benefit to the property owners on Crestview Drive. In order to accommodate the trail connection between Lots 2 and 3 and gain additional area for homes on these lots, the developer has revised the plans to show a The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chanming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live \'Iork, and play. Crestview Planning Case No. 05-02 March 14, 2005 Page 2 50-foot right-of-way connection to the property to the south. However, they have not included the sidewalk connection from Hemlock Lane to the trail and they show a 5-foot bituminous trail, rather then the required lO-foot bituminous trail. These pedestrian improvements must be provided as part of the development. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified in the staff report dated January 4,2005, as modified, with the deletion of condition 25. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 4, 2005. 2. Planning Commission Minutes of January 4,2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-02 crestview\executive summary.doc ...... PC DATE: Jan. 4, 2005 ..-tIll CC DATE: Jan. 24, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: Feb. 1,2005 CASE #: 05-02 BY: RG, LH, ML, MS, JS, ST ,...... STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat review for a five-lot subdivision with variances ~ Z -< LOCA TION: Crestview Drive west of Galpin Boulevard U ~ APPLICANT: Lecy Bros. Homes ~ 15012 Highway 7 ~ Minnetonka, MN 55345 ~ (952) 944-9499 -< ~ -< Q ~ ~ ~ rJJ. PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential District, RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (net density range 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 3.36 acres DENSITY: Gross - 1.49 units per acre; Net - 1.81 units per acre SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting preliminary plat approval to create five lots with variances from the front setback and a variance from the subdivision ordinance to use a 50-foot right-of-way. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances for variances. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Location Map Crestview Subdivision (Shively Addition Replat) Planning Case No. 05-02 Subject Property I I ¡ i J ¡ ¡ i L--------1~ I I~ I II I I~~ i I I I ¡ . -I ' t I I . I I I la SCANNED Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSAL~UMMARY The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to subdivide one Lot and one Outlot in to five single- family lots. The existing home on the site will remain. However, the lot on which it is located is being replatted. The applicant is requesting a five-foot setback variance in conjunction with the plat to facilitate tree preservation. Additionally, they are requesting a variance to permit a 50-foot right-of-way rather than the standard 60-foot right-of-way. The existing Crestview Drive east of the proposed development is within a 40-foot right-of-way. The existing right-of-way for the Crestview Drive extension will need to be vacated in conjunction with the subdivision. The properties to the north and east are zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF, and developed with single-family homes. The property to the south is in for rezoning to RSF and subdivision approval for 43 single-family lots. The property to the west is zoned Office & Institution District, 01, and contains Minnetonka West Middle School and its athletic fields. Water and sewer service is available to the site. The property is 3.36 acres in area with and existing canopy coverage of 71 percent. The site slopes down from a high elevation of 1070 feet on the east side of the property to a low of 1052 feet in the southwest corner of the property. Approximately 9 feet of fill is proposed on the western end of the development to create the walkout lots. Staff recommended that the developer show a street connection to the property to the south, which is in for a separate development proposal. This proposed connection was originally contemplated as part of the Shively Addition subdivision in 1990. However, at that time, the right-of-way dedication was not required until the Outlot was developed. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with variances. We are also recommending that a sidewalk be included in the extension of Crestview Drive and from the end of the cul-de-sac to the school propelty located west of the site. BACKGROUND On February 22, 1990, the Chanhassen City Council approved the preliminary and final plat for Shively Addition (Subdivision #89-16) creating one Lot and one Outlot. At that time, the 50-foot wide right-of-way for an extension of Crestview Dtive was platted, but the road was not constructed. As part of the development review, the City discussed the provision of a roadway extension to the south property line, but decided to wait until future development to determine the optimum location for the roadway. In 1997, the property owner sold to the neighboring properties a portion of Lot 1 and Outlot A, Shively Addition, to the propelty owners to the north. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Alticle XII, RSF Single-Family Residential District Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 3 STREETS/ACCESS The Minnetonka School District (ISD #276) has requested that a trail connection be provided from Crestview Drive to the Middle School West site. This trail will connect to a sidewalk that will link to the Pinehurst development located to the south and through the W oodridge Heights development along Manchester D11 ve to Lake Lucy Road. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan has several policies regarding the provision of connections between neighborhoods: Land Use Policy: "Development should be planned to provide adequate internal street linkages. The land use should also seek to direct growth in a manner that makes the most efficient use of the areas highway system. Development should be planned to avoid running high traffic volumes and/or non-residential traffic through residential neighborhoods." P. 12 Transp0l1ation Policy: "As pat1 of platting, each development should provide dedication and improvement of public streets consistent with the standards found in city ordinances. The city will promote the provision of street and pedestrian connections to maximum safety and ease of access." P.55 "It is the city's policy to require interconnections between neighborhoods to foster a sense of community, to improve safety, and to provide convenient access for residents." P.76 PARKS AND RECREATION Comprehensive Park Plan The proposed Crestview development is located within the municipal park service boundaries of Pheasant Hill Park and Herman Field Park. In addition, the property is directly adjacent to the Minnetonka Middle School West campus and a short drive or walk from Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. These three facilities will provide future residents significant access to park and open space resources. No additional parkland dedication is recommended as a condition of this plat. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. For the four additional single-family lots, a total park fee of $16,000.00 will be required based on 2005 park fees. Comprehensive Trail Plan The site does not contain or directly access any portion of the City's trail plan. A sidewalk or trail connection to the Middle School Campus should be included as a condition of approval. In addition, appropriate sidewalks connecting to the east and south should be included. Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 4 LANDSCAPINGrrREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy calculations have been submitted for the Crestview development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 3.36 ac. 71 % or 2.39 ac. 46% or 1.55 ac. JS 29% or t.l(t .96ac. Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 16,988 25,700SF or ...J9 .59ac. 1.2 2G,386 30,840 SF .w 28 trees Applicant has proposed ±9 29 trees in their landscape plan. The applicant has requested a 5 foot variance for the front yard setback on lots 2 through 5. City ordinance assumes 105 feet of tree removal on a lot. Staff measured that the applicant is clearing to about a depth of 100 feet on each lot so there is five additional feet of tree preservation in the rear yards because of the reduced front yard setback. \Vhile that may not seem a significant savings now, in the future when the homeowners are adding porches, patios, decks, or additions the extra distance from the trees may be enough room so that the trees aren't removed for tho new construction. This may be especially true on Lot 3, Staff supports tho variance. According to city ordinance, the city assumes that at least the first 105' of a lot will be cleared for a building. If the clearing is less than that, then the applicant is going above and beyond the minimum expectations. In the case of this subdivision, the lots requesting the 5' front yard setback variance are, on average, clearing the first 110' to 120'. This does not preserve any additional trees. No bufferyard plantings are required. GRADINGIDRAINAGE The existing site has tree cover over approximately 2+ acres of area. The plans propose to grade about 60% of the site for the new house pads and a proposed public street with a cul-de-sac. The proposed grading will prepare the site for walk-out house pads. While most of the disturbed area will be filled, the applicant is doing a nice job of matching the existing grades in the rear housepads. Drainage swales have been proposed along the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The existing site drainage is encompassed within one drainage area. The site drains off site to the southwesterly comer of the parcel and through the proposed Pinehurst development. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture the street drainage, all of the front yard drainage, and a Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 5 large portion of the rear yard drainage from the lots. This stormwater will be conveyed via storm sewer through the Pinehurst development and to a NURP pond within the Pinehurst development. The Pinehurst pond has been sized for this site. As such, no further ponding is required. The proposed storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted at the time of final plat application. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all off-street storm sewer and drainage swales. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Silt fence has been shown around the grading limits of the site. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. 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. EROSION CONTROL AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Erosion Control Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated 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. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets should 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 matelial to enter the storm water conveyance system. Construction site access points should be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction. Surface Water Management The storm water from this project will be conveyed through storm sewer pipes to the Pinehurst subdivision to the south. The pond on Pinehurst has been oversized to treat the storm water from the proposed project. Water Quality Fees Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 6 Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 3.36 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated to be $3,672. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $9,089 for the proposed development. Because the storm water from the site will be treated off-site (within the Pinehurst subdivision), the proposed project is not eligible for surface water management credits. 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. UTILITIES The plans propose on extending sewer and water from Street B (Hemlock Lane) on the southeast comer of the parcel. Watermain will be stubbed east of the site in Crestview Drive for future looping purposes. Overall, the utility layout looks fino works well. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City of Chanhassen for maintenance and ownership. According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying property has been previously assessed and those assessments have been paid. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still 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 building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at the time of final plat for review. 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, and Watershed District. STREETS Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4,2005 Page 7 The plans propose on accessing the lots via a public street from the southeast comer of the parcel off Street B (Hemlock Lane) and from the east off Crestview Drive. The original plat had a street right-of- way of 50 feet for the extension of Crestview Drive. The applicant is proposing to keep the 50-foot wide right-of-way for Crestview but is meeting current standards for and the new north/south street witfl. a 60 foot right of way. Staff is fine with the right-of-way variance. Both streets meet required pavement width sizes of 31 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Cunently, Crestview Drive ends just east of the site with a nonstandard, 80' x 100' square cul-de-sac. With the development of this site, Crestview will be extended and the cul-de-sac location will be moved to the western end of the street. As such, the existing square turnaround area will be removed and downsized to match the proposed street width. The disturbed area will be restored with sod and the excess right-of-way will be vacated. Based on recent discussions with the Minnetonka Middle School just west of the property, the applicant has proposed a bituminous trail between lots 2 and 3. This trail will run from the cul-de-sac to the western property line of the development. This trail must be to-feet wide in accordance with current city standards.will be required to extend a sidowalk to the ',','estern property line of the parcel bet\veen Lots 1 and 2. The plans will have to be revised to accommodate the sidewalk. The existing light-of-way for Crestview Drive must be vacated in conjunction with the final plat of Crestview Addition. OTHER AGENCIES The applicant must 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)) and comply with their conditions of approval. COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (square feet) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setbacks: Front, side and rear (feet) Code 15,000 90 125 30,10,30 Lot 1 19,10050,258 279 178 25*, 10, 30 Lot 2 17,68018,606 W 63.5@ 132 25*, 10,30 Lot 3 21,13522,311 5457.3@ 132 25*,10,30 Lot 4 15,969 15,403 -W1106 146 25*,10,30 Lot 5 16,18616,406 -l-l-9122.8 125 25*,1O,na ROW 25,99223,378 Total 146,362 A verage Lot Size 21,07124,234 @ Meets 90-foot lot width at the front setback * Requesting a front setback variance to pennit 25 foot front setbacks na Not Applicable Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PlaIŒiflg C€Hllfl1l88i€Jfl City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen Plaflfliflg CBmml88i€Jfl f€60IDm€fl€!.8 afJPI0':al €Jf City Council approves Planning Case #05-02 for a five-lot subdivision with variances for a reduced right-of-way (50 feet) and denial of the variance for reduced front yard setbacks (25 feet), plans prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., dated 11/22/04, revised 12/7/04,2/21105 and 2/28/05, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall include a sidewalk along the south side of .ffi-the extension of Crestview Drive and and a trail from the end of the cul-de-sac between Lots =Þ 2 and ~ 3 aIl€!. Hum al€JIlg tk@ Il€Jflk l€Jt lifl@ €Jf ~ to the school property located west of the site. The developer shall provide easement for the sidewalk within Lots 3 and 4. 2. The developer shall dedicate a trail easement from Crestview Drive to the west property line of Lots 2 and 3, Block 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 buming permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 6. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 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 altemate 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 trees, 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. Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 9 II. All trees shown as preserved and outside of the grading limits as shown on plans dated 11122/04 shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. 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: I 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 stOlm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing cales 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. Shmv a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. d. Add a legend. 19. On the utility plan: Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 10 a. ,'\ny connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. Å^Jl sanitary ser.'Íces must be 6"PVC SDR26 and viater se-rvices l"copper. c. Shov/ watermain pipe class as C 900. d. ShO'.'/ sanitary sewer pipe type and class. e. Show storm se'.ver pipe type and size (minimum 15 in.) f. /.dd a hydrant on tho eastcm property line of Lot 1. 20. 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. 21. 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 building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 22. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. 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. 23. In conjunction with the final plat approval, the developer shall vacate the existing Crestview Drive right-of-way dedicated as part of the Shively Addition. 24. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. 25. Delete the road cORRection to the Pinehurst development but keep the trail conncctioR to the end of Street B.= 26. The applicant will work with staff to shift the cul-de-sac to the east. 27. Add the following City Detail Plates: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006,2001,2002,2101,2109,2110,2201, 3101,3102,5200,5203,5214,5215,5300,5301 and 5302A." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Reduced Copy Existing Conditions Plan 4. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat 5. Reduced Copy Preliminary Utility Plan 6. Reduced Copy Preliminary GradingÆrosion Control Planffree Preservation Plan 7. Reduced Copy Preliminary Landscape Plan 8. Schematic CrestviewIPinehurst 9. Preliminary Plat Shively Addition Exhibit B 10. Preliminary Plat Shively Addition Exhibit A Potential Street Connection 11. Memo from Tom Berg to Todd Gerhardt Crestview Subdivision with Variances Planning Case No. 05-02 January 4, 2005 Page 11 12. Park Service Area 13. Trail Map 14. Public Hearing Affidavit, Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-02 crestview\staff report crestview prelim.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTlliS, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Lecy Bros. Homes for Subdivision approval to create five lots with a five foot front setback variance to permit 25 foot front setbacks and a variance to the street standards to provide 50 foot right-of-way. On January 4,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Lecy Bros. Homes for preliminary plat approval of property with variances. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot A, Shively Addition. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance with a setback variance to improve tree preservation; b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but shall provide all required easements; and 1 g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 5. VARIANCE FINDINGS SUBDIVISION a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience, but is used to enhance tree preservation. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of the land. c. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. The right-of-way width for the extension of Crestview Dlive is consistent with the existing roadway width. d. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 6. VARIANCE FINDINGS - SETBACK a. The literal enforcement of the ordinance creates a hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majodty of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The proposed setback variance enhances tree preservation. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but to facilitate tree preservation. d. The hardship is not self-created by the developer, but due to the fact that the applicant is attempting to preserve contiguous areas of trees at the perimeter of the development. 2 e. The variance if approved will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. 7. The planning report #05-02, dated January 4,2005, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat with variances. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th of January, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman 3 ô~-():) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD . CHANHASSEN,MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Uc.. y ~Cf?- ~,c ~ . ADDRESS: 1501 z.. tt-~ { yVl·i ~Y"UL-1-oV):ka.. 5534-S TELEPHONE (Day Time) C>¡5ê;-D¡44- O-¡4Pl~ OWNER: !-£c,y ~$~ t1b,.-,~ ADDRESS: \5ô/Z- ~ ( VV7 ¡ V1Y'-<---toY?}:;~ 55>4-.s- TELEPHONE: t?¡~2 -&744- ...PJ4D;C¡ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit ~ Variance JI. 20D.DO Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits , Sign Plan Review x' Notification Sign 41 J 7 S- - _ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** Site Plan Review* - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes & Bounds - $400 Minor SUB ,) -Ä- Subdivision* (POD-Þ 1>/l.DT ~ ~ (¿, í5" TOTAL FEE $ ~tt5D. DO Mailing labels of all property owners within at least 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application -OR- the City can provide this list (Carver County properties only) for an additional fee to be invoiced to the applicant. If you would like the City to provide mailing labels, check this bO~ Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ,CANNeD· . ÞROt1'~;:':<rERRA"ÊNGINEERlf.lG I Nt; ',... :iFAZ'02f;10. ~":',;763:':"s12·::::2rt17:· ,::''i'i;' ;'Nh::'h . '19":·2004,·03: 49PM:'~P3';·",':·::'''';'';: PROJECT NAME: Cîrt.l)..J- V;(J."""'; LEGAL DESCRIPTION: lAY. (!.....p{ ("'7 CS.r;> ¡k ~ +t &oe-l- 0{ ~ C(...c¡.~ v;~ Vr. LOCATION: TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: 31 'J <: Âe-. YES x NO . . . {2SF CêsF REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNA110N: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATiON: ~ , f' '{ -= ~ ....c:. ~ C"-;, -. '! ..... -::;~...~ ~ . ~I).~ .1., REASON FOR REQUEST: 5"" ~ oIìVì~tø."",- This application must be completed in furr and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by atl information a.nd p~s réQuired by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fmng this application, you showd confer with the Planning Departmènt to detel'mine the. specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. . A determination of completenes~ of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A wrítten notice of application defICiencies shaft be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to ~rtify that 1 am making application for the descnbed action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with aU City requirements with regard to 1his request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Trtle, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authoñz9d person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this applica.tion_ I will keep myself Inforrnéd of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further· understand that additionaf foos may be charged for consulting fêe$, feasibility studies, etc_ with an estimate pñor to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and infonnalion I have submitted are true and correct to 1he best of m owl e. Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on '·2 /3 I t>~ . Jl 6<:> Fee Paid \) () SO .- Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which wilt be available on Thursday prior to the meeting. If riot contacted, a copy of the report will be maillX! to the applicant's address. G:\p1an\forrns\Ikvclopm~t Review Application.DOC t\.(\.cLj :S û hv\'Ç. 'ý lA d ~~ I-1G2-- 1<1+- q tj99 SCANNÊD· (Si?i:6-F:6S C90 22>Ç~ NH ~s!lodQauu!H 'òlltf pool/juð9 1009 '8NI 'ÐNI~33NIÐN3 'ttH~31 ~o -...... ::s..~~~ :':""~-~ VlDS3NNIH 'N3SSVHNVH:I J"l3IALS3~::I N'fid SNDIlIŒND::I ~NIl.SIX3 ð ~ i; ¡:! ¡~ .-I t i Q LLJ % ~ Co) cJJ H"~t.C3 - Old ¡=Ol - ""'" tt'i'l'f"Oo*¥ ~ ......T_ hi ~ ~ u w a t- a... w o C) z Z z « -' a... z w en en « ::¡: z « ::r: ü I ¡ ¡ I AÞ 'XJI I f ~ i I M "- z « -' !L -' o æ I- z o u êj ~ - -' ~ ~~zo.. -..J .......)œ:<rw 0.. CL~crCl. '" >-\.3 <1 z r-~ 81-- _A I- _<[J-Z .....JI-O:::<[<[ "'!L=>l3>-' 6>->->-~>- U~~~V1~ l.:JZZZ~Z 2S~~~CLg ~ddd~d xæa::::œ:a::::æ XWo..CLCLt-CL I!f ~_ru(")~ U1 2 þ ~ z w (j) (f) «0 Ill! z> .«- :r:ll! 00 LLUI ocr: >- f- Õ ...:l- t::) t::) '" ~-.¿$~ N ~ õ :> (\ ~ n HflS1.ØJ - VId puvl - 3 "'" {~~6-U~-£9L> 22þÇÇ NH "s!lodoaUU1H 'aAV POOJAUCJI9 1009 '8NI 'ÐN'~33N'ÐN3 W:J~3.1 ~ I il f _a 2~ ~~ b~ 1 r-,' !§~~. M ~ Irik~~C'dH:~ñ Þ n< ~ ! eSStj:Úð' I~Ht~dBli ~··~î-:'~I ~~~~ihãh ~ --.¡¿ $ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ Õ :> n tt'Qt'"OM'~ ~ -...- VJlJS3NNIH 'N3SSVHNVH3 ^3IA1S3~3 lVldÅ~VNIWI13~d ... ~ ~ RI i'i' ;:¡ .... 1- I'" o ij % % « () II) 'H hi (\J i ¡ _D-'~~ :: ~,.X2'': = ~~... II ,.. 4~!Š~ ~n_~~ ~- :. ¡~j~=: '3't-g.5!g U~dti M (\ \D If1SVOJ - Old puol - (Si'C6-C6~-C.9L> èZÞS;S; NH 's!JodoauufH ',a"'V pooMuaJ9 1009 '8NI 'ÐNI'tJ33NIÐN3 'tm~31 ~-.o$~ j í l ¡; ~ ~ ~ x ~ C ð ~ ð ~ ¡¡; iI::>U_JI'MI....<"-P.9 "><3 I 1 I "I ~I ;;1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I ~ ::i "'"13 s ~ ~ ~ c o '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ti -ð o ¡¡¡ ~ .3 8 -::Y.ÞJ POoa S; '><J ------ .1>9'26 <.00'£010> ~~"M-6oo;:¡ ,~ -..,-.. ~H hI -...... ...~~-:'_~ ::~~== VIDS3NNJH 'N3SSVHNVHJ ^3I^lS3~J N'nd ilnun A~NJHn3&I o II! Z ð . I ~~ 2f f -" C' I:: ~ .., ~ t·.· U""- K ~ t~~~C~h'" " && : II ei¡~U~~: I~tt'¡~dðlr ~"·î· :I~: ~~;~ij!~]å UVIJ"i-~>"'3> I! - OJ I I ~! , ~ "' I 0 ~i 1 í ~i I . , > . ~ I ~ .0. 31 ~ j; _ i J ~ ¡; i ~ I . I~ . I r ~ri I' .f. r:.! ' .., ) I ¡; n 'I J II ~ ¡,t '/ t I w í · ~~~1""" W'#s "X] ~ ~ ... Õ :> 1 .8-.et1 ').aof)S .$ " / .. I ~i ð --, a ;; , '- \ ~ / /'-- --'--, "¢ ~ ~~ -;:::./ 'j__.,!.__ ,. _"_., W '\:':;.... ........... ~/~.o£ ~......... '" ðo " .......~~ .l)~ ~'....... ~~_/ .........~.t~' ci~~,....... I '- \ " (Y) C\..I ,,>..1'.1 'MI....DOØ.' ""3 9&-10'£ 'O()-fJS 31ŒaIH IS31'1. V>!NOBMl]H n x CD ... <> III ,1" :¡ .~ ~ I (Y) , i M I I 1 ·1 tl ~ : ¡ 1 .1 ~I ¡II I j (\ ::/. ..... ~ ¡:¡¡ ~! ß (\ j 0 i ¢ ~ . ~ ~ ti ~ \I) ::/. -~ ~ ~F j$ t·a tà8 ...... 0) .... .... TlSUOJ - PJd PUPl - , Jo"IJ H"it~ -q,¡-~ :.IIICQ -..T_ ~-t6S-£9¿) 22Þ&Ç NH 'SJlOd"ðUU!H 'ð/l,t-' pooM.uaJ9 1009 'QNr 'ÐNI~33NIÐN3 VtI~3J. H~ hI -~- :a'1-.~~ _A_""~_~ 'lDS3NNIH. 'N3SS'lHNIIHJ ... ~:~~~3~ ~ '! /INH! "'InI.lN[J:) tÐmRI3I9NIŒW!! AWNDfJ13&I ~::¡ i .q- ø w Z z « u ø s ª H~ f _a ~~ b~ i t·" l§""· H !! tk!!~QRk~~~ . U ' go,~ ' e5S~~i~~· I~Hi¡d§li ~;S;î·II.!::1i ~íiii!id~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , :1 , f f ~ o- il ¡ ¡ ~ S i ~ 'ò~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ª ~. ð t ~ j§ ~ ~t - !! ~. C') (\J n 1f1S0..0J - rlJd PUrll - (Q£6-[6~~£9f) 2èþÇ{; NH 'sJodoaUU!H 'aAV POOMUiJJ9 1009 '8NI 'ÐNI~33NIÐN3 \fH~31 ~~ $ ~ } ï ~ ~ " ~ ¥ ~ ¡¡; "';!<J.tj"I'1I"00.p.9 "><] I 1 I "I ~I ;1 1 1 I I J 1 1 1 1 1 I I , I I I ~ <j , 1"'" t-Wt1'C-~ :I\ÞQ -...- V1DS3NNIH 'N3SSVHNVtr.) ^3M1S3~:¡ N\I1d 3dv::JSŒNY1 J.~\fNIH~d If) i i ø UoI :z: ~ en . ~ ; IS i I ~ .. i-I '" ~o hI "'a~-~ ::....-"~=::::: z ª I ~~ ~f f ." ~; I·~~ 1 t";' U l§~~ ~ ~ I';~~~~R&~~~ r.. u ' . u<!~ : ti so ~J~~. I ¡tti ~ ~ill:i 1;SS1iï =Æ..';: & iiiii~Æ!h ~.o¡-œ..:lm""'~) ~! -.. ., I i ~! ' ¡ "' I ~ ~i d ~i I . , > I ~ J~N""X)I~ i . . :" i 5 i ~ . . I m f:'! '~I ) N :t. U ... 0 iiií N :::. hM,/Q NðJ-.i!D t ~ 3 ~"I"U,). .Þ9'26 ~ ~ ~~¡¡,¡¡ ! ~ { ~ : ~ õ ;. ~ 1; ¡ ~ . ~ t; ~ ¡¡¡ ü N 8 .5 . ~ . on ¥ '" U ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ¥ o -' ð ------ o ;;; ~ ~ . . > t; « ¥ o ~ ..0 ð :t. .!! ~ ~j€ iiií t'~ t8~ ,... (Y) ~j .. Is C\J (I) 1o:a...S ""'1.....-.p.~ ""'3 OJO'lOÞ) 9C'tlf; I 1 1 ·1 ~ I ~: i' .1 ~ I ,:¡, I - - ~s 3lŒaIH IS3'" V>lNOl~IH n J ---h t·>-1 ,,'I. e' s: ~ -š-. Ù \fl ~r~~~ .~Nt$N3WH3J. '-'-1 ......" ~. ~ .-+; ../'I qJ \~. ........--:.. ;. J i . d ~-<- ;. ::: + ........ ~ " ~. ._5: ------ oþ4 f...'..,"...... o7'-"-''I''V'" X¡- - - ~.!. ~. g~ .!~ fLEJ·· 1 I I J <;. I ~ i <t)~ ~. ¡ . I I I l_ ..:.J ') ~ ...) ,[E]' : I, ' : . ~..-~- I I ~ F : . : ~l L___ _ J ~) I~= \ ---- .- L '/ J II ~~ ~~ :! ¡ i::~!~ ~!!ii ,h !I (!~it~ :fh!IJ!' ;::~.J;jj: '. (4 : L....... <) ",) \ '==! ~- ~-; ,;' <:--.":-i~·~_, W . <J ....) I \ '<1' tj~ ~ª '\. :.....( / \ 1\'OI.:-:C{]~~~.-.~/!~~, \. \ .--.... ~ --.... i ,; ,! ......--"' --r" ( . j i! ï i .. r ~ \ \ /- ./ .-/ ~ ):':" 'h /7"//1 . utYUC ),"~':3/:!E! LI ,leI ~ I \ :III "'JU4 -"!;' -tit ¡ !:l I IoU, n¡c t......, 3~¡,~ . ( I S _.1 ~ I ';C~- / ..... l ~Š ~- C) I '- C) "~ I I ¡ I I I I I I I I ..(<- lit / .,.q ~) ....... .> {'~ (;) ~i: ~2 :~ LIJ .~ () r;: ö () ~~ . :i~~ :li ¡¡..i i~~ i'" .~,,~.~ i~¡ ¡~~ lii ~l? ~ 0 f}~ '" ~~¡îs :< . ;: q i t ~ !. -~ i ;¡ , j¡ b " s .z ·0 ~ z 8 f:j J¡, ~ ~ í _ ~ij~! i i ~,~ In ~~;;, ..Q ~Q ,~."'J! ~~"ill=~~;; ~1~==~i r;;! . ~~!~"'tj~.:_A n Çt:(/) ~~ ~.. :I"::> rc;:~!t.., t <Q1- e:;;d;t~'~ ~ðÊt~èã "R0.!o<.e.~.. d~I:.~¡¡ ~iª!~~l ~ ~ .~ " c: :~ ~ .§ :! {~ .~ ·1 H ~! ~o ~: (I ~! ~~ ~õ 4! .... !::~ ...u "''< ¡:: ~~ Ii ~! ~! 01· ¡,¡S. 2 ~¡ ·~H ~. ~ -:$!1 ~õJj¡ ~'><' t~ Ii~! 8~~ ]~~ l~o ,,~~ 1 ~ .. Ql ~H ........~ -;;¡. ';~~. ",,-!; !'.. . Ii't :n 3ih ~ ! ~l: I ~ QI. , "5 I ~. ;§. 1 'id\ ~f E-< I I i i ! E .i. ~i !I i z ~ g.~. ~. ~ ~ { .. !~ !! J! ~ ~ ~ ^ J" I 1 ì I ~ i I " { g ~g~ 1 ~~Þ;t~~...~ t ~ I; Q;:......,.. .. -' õ . I 1 ~ ij i l l ·1 I I I \ .\ i j I ~ ~ ... ,!;! ...:::. ~ ~ ï ~ ¡i!~¡ i~:¡ ~':.~!~..!5i ~ !ih'lh' =..! ~~lt¡;;¡d~~ .. ¡ . i i t à I: ! ~ ~ "" ~ ~ " H' I .õ 11'. !' ~ ~ .. " .. )j ¡ ~" ~ !::; ... ~ ï {. "- ª ~~ ~~' ;;ih~~;~~~~i \ .:s E P- o ~ QI Q N AID 1eltf.. L- '------ ~~ ~ I~ 'Q\ : 1\1\ ~ . ~ ~\ \ I .1 - ---- /...... \ / \ ::s:/ \ " IJ' .... \'\¡ ..... ..... ~ " ...... " "- '~ tI)'...... .... .... ...... /Ø~· '- "- " ." ..... ..... -Q U T L 0 " ...... 0 " Û'6' " '\ /0 Û' C ';7 '- .... .... '\ i., ..... "l " - 1032 -........ -...... " ...... ·~S·,..¡ LeY ð / .564- <JIII/v..'!¡. Sc-(C-.3, T 116, t2. 23 leF' of Se.e-Fori 3 T/I(".I? 23 -oqnly /77o/1t/,/;enl "' ...... \ \ /2-22- 89 7ö,ù0c;,e/lphy' .' L-V 1\ f- <S I <:::;1 \ of:r \; \\\1 ~I ,- 'V 0 I.! 6' :0... <ò \ y \) \ .... "Ò ~ \ "- /1 6'~ '" S .... \ ò ..... I .... ......... C .... \ ...... f'.- 0 ...... ~ ~~: ;, ~ ~ /f'J ~ ~ '" "', r'\ --...:.. \J\ '-t,·......... ----- "T\ 'U ~ '\t" .1:::. ~ -..:::: 'U ~ .\:: "\..::: ..J ........ :¡ ~ eR~~V(iEt..J ·rtAN~ . -..,!' ~ . .- \ \ \ \Ä \ r _ ~3AIÓ3<O...:.:.... LDnv, 6<i5( \ \ \. \ \ n· 37.:< -.. \ \ \ \ % () \ \ "-~ \ \ \ ~, , \ \ \ \ I ~ \ \ \ 5~ .... \ \ \ \ \ \ i \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \ AreJ,: /P~ 6//\5j'-Yr/ \ 2..~Z A'L~S"~ '\ '\ \ '.... .~. \ '.... \ \ I I '&"'/17 //"ae.. 0í ..56 ~ ,5 e.í· 3/ T // t:./ i? z.:3 4- i, \ 0/ Æ/0.-'4 \ \ '- \ \ Ja/77e.> 8/..>,' ~ \ \ .... ...... i , \ \ \ \ 83° Of '05"£ ' 4-/0. '30 ..n I \ EX'~I,BIT_B W77 PRELIMINARY PLAT :L INC. I hereby certify that (hIS i~ ~ ;:rue and correct repre~~nt(!tion of a survey of the bounJiries of the above described land and 01 the location of all bUIldings. it any, thereon, and all visIble encr.?achments. .f any, Irom or on saId land. 1///7 Ot!"E¡.t!"mlr;·- B;J AIIUI,"V'ÓbVq. __~.YOf _ , ,19_. L- 01; .. . -------_.- ~. - Q¿1C, (_ File No. Book - Page -zsf,-/ SHIVEL Y ADDITIO^ Scale /11_ .4........ N No ~~¡fI.£ '\ ',LOT, ~ of:.: - -~ ~~ ! I~ '1\ : 1\1\ ~ . ~ \f)\ \ I I «> /' \ / ~/ \ \ IV \ "''0 ~ ,.... o 6' y \ , \ "' :J \J' ~ (\¡ .;. , ~ " 'I;) tJ)...." "' " " " :J i' " " '- , \ \ , "' " "- /m"'~ . ..... " " '- .\ " " -QUTLO, " 0 " 0'6' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \J \ ,,~ \ \ ~ÿ '\ \ '\ \ I " \ \ I \ i \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , - ~ "\ , /0 '- 0'';7 \ i-, , "- ,r , "\ "' "\ /03;:: "- .......... " \ \ "' " ·__S.W C,y ð/ .564 01 Á'K,I¡ SC.¡<:-.3, T//6, 12.23 'e,'" () I Sec.-lior! 3 T 1/(" J? 2 3 'oqn:lr /77o/?t/';e/f ¡. 4-/{,.'30···· ...... ~ \> , 3 "- " ,\ ò c "- o ~r <;:J <::11 \1\1 ~I I: /1 I . " '~v· ~~ ~ , t::> Iù 'J\I.::~ /('J t\) \; ~ <::::" f"\ -....:. \J\ 't.""" ......... '\-.., 'U '0 \j-" .1::. ~....:::: 'U ~ . \( "t-,: uJ .J "- ::t ~ ~TVtE:JN ·rh~·E r - ...:.:...:.... 3Aro3.<O~ l Do.. EA5 -- ... 37:''' \ \ \ Ja/77es 8/..\' \.) 5~ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 06_1 4- i? z. 3 " --\ /" / / LY Ä' W.;. "- \ EXHIBIT_·A /2-22- 89 7õ,Oo~.eRPhy L "IC. I hereby certify that this i" a Hue and correct representation of a survey of the bounùaries of the above deKribed land and of the location of all buildings, If any. theleon, and all visible encr.oachments, it any. trom or 011 said land. 1///;~e/l1lr" 8Y A. ,u'Yoy.d by q _ /;odOYOI .,. .19_. ----.--- 7 .. _. -9¿?{,.G,.. 1,,- ....._ File No. W7? PRELIMINARY Book - Page z!.[;.-¡ Scale SHIVEI Y Ll nnl TInA/ PLAT I Minnetonka ISD #276 Finance and Operations Memo To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 REceiVED DEe 15 2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN From: Tom Berge, Executive Director of Finance and Operation Date: 12/14/2004 Re: Trail Access to Middle School West Site p. / Weare writing to request extension of a trail from the proposed Crestview Drive to the Middle School West Site. The request is submitted to facilitate student pedestrian access to the site via the trail as an alternative to bus transportation for the neighborhood. The trail will also provide adult residents access to the school site for recreational purposes during non-school hours. Your consideration of this plan modification is sincerely appreciated. o PA~K ~t:I.\lIt£. PfE-éA i\:' " " ~ J" ~ ,. /~I ~-..'(j ¡ " [: ~:,:,-LJjj~~/~, ,,<>:,'>-~~-¡ L ~ ~ ;s;-~~, , r)',~ l' I , ' - I" " '0;, ., .Z~ ~ ",1' . -' ;¡ I, 1-. ¡<::j' .O~/!; --....... l,.,. : / .~, ~ LG(,n!Iiñ"t, \ ih~/<" 8;0: L-...š I ~.j LL. ~ "~S; ! ~ , ,- C it· ¿Yr. '-, (o-'-::Ji ~]'7 ~ ! ~ / ----' !--E r-_, ou, '-'. '-"i: .. ',,- !II I____~ ....='Jc\ø, _ ¡ ....' /: i '" I I Un ...&~ ' '. /, Jj'-/ ''9 -,!.! \ ,..... ..., , ! .. " ¡ I '-", .-L..-l ~..,... " ' y ·"':9' ~,\!! ¡it::: : '" , :>,.. ~ \~ ,/ 000/, I -:..' \ " , ..... I A. /'--i " "/-\TI W \ µ /, , \ ~;--'-t ,. ~ : ; '~¿ /\ ~ '...,', ~' r----~ y ~ '!', ¡ r---j' "I; : -Š---, Ì\,~"': / /.' ~Lj ""~ I-----f.-/-\ ~ / / ' ~ r--¡ I tit r /"", "',~' / I I~ t--~:'. , J '- , .'1- ~, I I ~, \~~/~0-7.~-"tnt~lli/ r\~<\~Ÿ!..,-./ I C!i i .,../ \'. \ L-L----,. kf-1 /'~Jf'/-'" , I , " ¡ ~ , ' "I ~ (~---.J -.. ... i '".... , .............r I ) è(e~ i i td,.J ~~/I \. \! r-¡--:) \ ~:~ ! ! ¡! " 'V/; \\~. \ )r,~ /I'>~~: : oU "·0", ,~ >---¡. /v'-....... I / /~ i---r--r---, , ~ ¡ I t\\/'~é1~J'~ ~...;: ~{~ I! ! W ¡ \ "·.i\ \/~ ;B~\ \ .\ ;i-J I .., 111'li . ' '.{ / 1//' / / ~rai~1 \ ~ í---J ~ í ~s.tlci~ /1 '../.." if / / ~ u'k ß f;fIh;;'.Î;\"-,/Jæ ~ ~ . ., , o o "- N o o <0 N o o 10 N o o """ N ------...-... ~\\~\~!I \ . !~ \ \ \ " \, \' \ A1 ~~L~ '--\l~r-.:g! .~. ¡;r\ \ I ¡'-oj å\~~&\ \! J :9.\ ~.,.,~, I~.;~ ¡'3F£í~jO iIY. løJ:i'\'r1 \ ! 11 'å\/ ¡ /~/...--- "':" . ,~~.' ,r, . .;~~¡ij~~?: .,~ \ ¡'.11\~~~ .¡¡¡. ..."~"~' ,~, ~ 4..; . . ð O("c'lltn~ "'~11 O""=r .. 1s:'J- r:I :::¡: .,., . '.::;! ~;~.":~::. c3 '.. . ....... Illtlhovt'r cia s ~ ... .. . \'" ~ :r: 1I1I"17¡YI" COlli I C' o o (\') N o o ..- N o o 10 T- o o o N '0 o CJ) ..- o o N N o o CO T- o o "- ..- o o CD T- Crc!; ¡ow Dr. Whilc Do Cir' ":' ':,,, " .... Pn~~~ah.f :',' :,,',:.,:, ,",,\' ,'~, . .:< ,!W!,."'. ..' .: '·.):~ål,It·· .::.¡.; Ylilnc .. c .. ..J ~ o n ... .<= CI) -. , o I.ako lIt,. i: Yoi'o C '10' ~ ~ :<f ~ ... :¡; . "ìþ' . "'... . . ,;: ~...,. . \..ucy·Road e· ~ ~ l:' ':I' ."""Y Q ..., '" ",,0 :- ~ .. .... .. ..J . .... .. ..J II ~ "õ I' 8~IIO,. COt,,, If/!lh!l~'fr 1:1 o o j!"" !lU ãi q. C".. ~\ 1>... ~ :¡;. ~ \! ~ r- c n ... ;II ã: '" .. r. :; r",,,;;,' I.IInll' ..,G - I.,kr. Lllq Coml 'II.. II' ... 945.2 ..' ~ /. '" ~ '1oll)rivo ~ o.:;,C:- ,Jcf r: o ~ ~~. ',,':." .... " "'I'='~' .. ~ ". ,~ .'. to r" é;FT RA 'L. H\AP . , 't!~~ Ó} ,f{ .I C":;". . " ~i\e\a¿~rt ~\\w~ CrestviewCir lake luc Road , , I I , , I , '. '-'~~'~-----_..-.~. ¡ I i )r} i M;"".~. r."'.... .""~. I Q ! ~ I 'iI J ~?~:"'''':;;-^''':;::-:.:=ë;~l:!· I : , I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---------....... . ~~~~~ i ìaf}~...J. -OO"it ~ _______ / Dr~e r. {~~}k.<:~·~~/ l·.·..·.·.·..·.·..·.'. U0, :-'·'.Y-¡F -," '.·W·· / '.:. / I'· , ,-, , V , , '" s· ~ "' , , , , \ , , ¡,/ ~.~.t:ì , if~;,)~fp$¡~ii '......________j ;l~l\:,-,:,._-. : \ \ \. , ~}, ----~, ----"'< -'~~~:;1·~- . ' . 1#")'" I I t , I I I I . . ' " '. \~~~~~:~ , I , ....... \ , ,_....' -La·ke Ann; . I . .'.; j i nne\Nashta ./ McGlynn Dr ! ; i ¡ :-;-1 !:¡¡ .-, r'¡· ~v f\71111,:)1. .. 'o1&¡§,e':.~:.'::. Coulter Blvd ~\ I' : . ." .. ¡. Ipe Arboretum ¡-";: .: ~':h·. ,,' ..".. "'...,~I:.."J,U!2\1I!...,'r CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on December 23, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Crestview Subdivision with Variances - Planning Case No. 05-02 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. ~k Subscribed and sworn to before me thisßrd day of '~~~ ,2004. SCANNED 0) c ~ G> Q) :æE 0)6 .~ ë;) :I.. t/) co._ Q)E ::J:E .2 0 :ãO :JO) a.c .- ÕC I:: Q)CO (.)- ~a. o C ZG> tJ) tJ) co ..c: C co ..c: o 0) C - Q) G> :æE C 0)0 1::.- ._ tJ) :l..tJ) mE ::J:E (.) 0 -0 .c ::JO) a.c .....c °c G> co .~ a. - o I:: z~ tJ) co ..c: s::: co ..c: o :5 .~ c.?- 0._ :~ E > > 0'- ro,(I) _Q)-O Q»Q) ~~c E (ij <5 ~ ci~->. oo=:::t 00.~ ~ t-:~¡¡;o~ +-" ~1-Q) oQ)ë:i°û) °E~~~ C\I<U<U....o . C (.) ;. <3 'E ~ ;. (ij ._ = (t) l.L ::Jg~cw:i(l) c::Jo..cfS ~°<5°ïiJ ...: 0 - en .- ~ +""'Q)~ <U<U~(.)as -OI C-o ~ 2': 6-.~ ïñ ::J:t::Q)(ijQ) f-OD:>D: Q) E .. ¡::c oð~ $ ~ ctI 0 C..J ¡¡; cn o 0. o .. D.. .c - .~ §2':- :¡¡j E > > 0·- ro,(I) _Q)-O ~:2~ E (ij <5 ~ ci~-» oo=:::t oo.~ ~ t-:~¡¡;o~ m <ñ':: c..~ l!)....<U_> oQ)ë:i°û) °Eè~~ C\I D: Q) E .. ¡:: c .2 oð_ $ ~ ctI 0 C-I ¡¡; cn o 0. o .. D.. í? E 'õ -0 <{ » Q;. .2: 8 .c :¡:; ~g Q).!!1 >..c: .-- oõ =:::-8 .~ ëñ ~5: ~~ o~ .... o~ en-o- Q)as5 ~ Q).!!1 I :5 g. cn ~ E o -05 C\I rn Q):;:; __ êtS ctI 9 G (.) <J l!) Q) 0 oS! o ..J ..J « J!! iI.;.: .. gæ~§ 'ë .5:! Q); cõ.o.ctI .!!! ~ e g D..«D....J í? o :-E -0 -0 « >. Q;. .2: 8 ..c:;:: ~g Q) .!!1 .2: :5 oõ =:::-8 .~ ëñ ~5: ~Q) o6i .... o.ê en-o- Q) as 5 ~ Q).!!1 I:5g. eneuE o -05 C\I rn Q):;:; __ ëU co 9G(.)<J L{) Q) 0 oS! 0-1-1« J!! iI c Ë >.ë Cctlt:o CUQ); cõ.o.ctI .!!! q. e g D..«D....J -0 , Q) o.!.. .c0- -.c-o -....'Q)û) .!a o.:¡::; 0> OJ·S æ .S .§.S E =::: <U~Q)g ~-g:5.2 (.)00>Q) =-c.c .c -0 .¡:: - ::JC::J.c o..<uo OJ en ::J .- û) . 0 :5Q)õ.c _::JQ)_ o o-.~ OJ Q)Q)ec (f) 1- c.. ï::::: o _en en <U e-'E:ë~ ::J<U- 0...2 "5 .2 Q)ë:i0:D .c o...c ::J f-<U<Uo.. -oQ) Q)0.c .c0- -.c-o -....Q) =-c.c .a -0 .¡:: - ::JC::J.c o..<uo 0> .!a û) . g :5Q)õ.c _::JQ)_ o o-.~ OJ Q)~ec en o.'¡:: o _en en (.) en .. en 0> ~ 0 .~ Q)en is. ..!a ..§ "<t 0 ~ _ Q) :s OQ)gE Q).8:;<v-¡U~ o...c .c E Q). - en cñ.c (/) O-::Jo EE.sg::Jo is. c 0.0 Q) cd 0 .... ¿ - ,...;,. OQ) .c -Q) -"" Q) en .c Q) - 0.c c E ::J .S :5 fã Ë :5 ~ :; '§ Æ g % æ õ ë:i 0 -0 -Q) en- ~ .c enen .c E =:::-.;::fã ~o en Q) c -0 .a 3 0 CO <U._ Q) .- Q) Q) -0 en 0';::- _ -2 ."!::::5 . 2: en> Q) c.c-(.) is. Q) ..Q a. (.) >. c (.) c Q)'OO o ~ (.) Q) ~ E ~ c <U .S Q) .S.c ctS ::J 8 -g 0 .- ~ en (ij ~ en 3 ~ ~ e ~ ~ 0 ;:; = 'E Q) ~ 0 -0 Õ a. Q) Q; .: Q) .- a. Q) .c ,::::. - -.... . c _ _ .c =:::~E(.)e'E(ij.cõQ)'Ec- :t= Q) E :ß õ. ~ I ;'.9?. È =::: ~ .8 -S.c0::JQ) >.ctSe-:t::ten (I) f- 0 0..:5 ::J ·O"!::: -0 o..'«i E . >. 0._ 0 ::J Q) 0 .,-C\Ïcw:i'<i :!=.c~:5Q)en-o(.) cnC) c C Q).- 0.- o.Q) ctI Q) :t:2 -Q) ctI.s::: .s:::- :::10 en Q) en en ::J Õ (.) Q) en .O'~ '6 .... (.) c o..9?. 0 -0 e '00 ~ a. 0 .!a OQ)=E o..c.a E o-::Jo c.. C 0.0 o Q) Q)en.cQ) .cc-.c ::::~E; oo..oc =::: -.;:: ctS Q)c-o ._ Q) Q) -0 >en>Q) (¡; Q),_ en > is. Q) ..Q 0_(.)(.) ~=~en .... =::: .- <U_~OJ ~ c ctS.§ . .- ctS en ctS- o>g 'E Q) ~ == c.. Q) J:: .:::: !~Egð '(üQ)E.cQ) _.c0::J (l)f-00..:5 .,-C\lcw:i'<i .. ~~ G),_ 0.- o.Q) ctlQ) :t:2 -Q) ctI.s::: .s:::- :::1ü oð.. cn~ c c o Q) ;E :ß E :3 0 00 .... "5 0 ~ g- ß""-.8- û) <U~Q).8Q) Q) : ~ ~ gj »:2 ~Eo~0g-6 ~ ci.Q)C\I~ (.) is. a. Eo "'Q)_ _go~::Jc= OJ..eno>~o=::: .S "<t 0 _ Q) :t= â)o-ctS:!=><U -~ <U- Q) .- en cñ.c(l) E~.sg~o . .ê co .8 CD c: ::: C) - 0.c c E .2 .S Q)°enQ) .~- o ro .~ 0 as ~ æ Qjrñ::J.c~.cE .c 3 0 S ctS .!a Q) en 0 »_-2:t:::5 c.c:!=(.)ctS -_c ~Q) ..s.c~00 a. (.) »c (.) c Q) '00 Q) ~ E Q) .S .c E - >'ctSe-."!:::-en ::J ."!::: -0 o.'«i E (ij Q) o 0 c en E.c a. 'Q » » 0._ , ::J Q) 0 :=.c~:5Q)en-o(.) cð.. cn~ c C OQ) ;E :ßE ::JO 00 0- -oõ OJ ~ ~:5 t·~ CD en .Q g~~ §£ en ~ ~~ 1û Õ .- C1> C. ctt _ ë ~-~ C. <1> cu .E 2 ~ "OQ) ~ '~Q) ctt ã: ~ ~ « ,!; _Q)0 :5 eQ) ~ ¿ -- c>~ ID~ ~ ~ 3 __0 ~ ~ ~ CD 0 ~ > §:2 Cd ~.~ f9 ~ ~ ~~g ~ëü~ca:;Z' ctt~g cCD Q)Qtt= ~~~ 8~§~[:£~£E~ 2~ ~~g ~~B ~~QE~Ë~~8~ OID 2~ID ií(æ ~ CU Q) Q) L:J Q CD ª .m ..9 t z.fJ ê'g £; W~W ~.~~i~~~§~X '5% ~g§ :::> g ~ ~;: ð ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ë ~ .ê iú . 0 '0 .§nE 03D~~cttectt~æ -0 ~~~ $ 5. ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ CD E 6 _ .S .2 -æ w Ü en E~Q) Ewm;O~E~~ê õw ~~~ ~~£ .E -a.wE-o.sg;E! ro-- "0-0 ~-5~ .S.~~~ð~~§~~ ~~ ~£~ -g"- 'E(j)--~ECD~~Q)~ O(f) ct~ O~~2._Ë~E<Dg~~~~~~~ ctt 5R~ ~ëo<1>~ ~e~ccø-~ ~m ü~~ u Q) 0 Q) Q) C a. ro - Q) Q) ~ ~'.3E .:; 0 >- CD (fJ CEil) E o..~ Q) <» ~ E ~ U E""" e g- ð.<:: º 8~~~~-~£~~:~K~~ c.~ <D~'~ ~~~~æ~~~~~EQ)~£ S~ £~~ s: ;>c~ -..c:'-oo.a~~ ~.c o;Q)ã: .~~£:ê~8-ggiû-g-;.8E~ ~-;, .§:2<D Q)~2i.ctSgc»æ-gEctSëC/)o.c ~.S cøg:5 æ8~..9~·~~c.~$~§~: ~E ~~õ @ u c. u ..c C Q) ~ § :J ~ '~'w (f.) . g ~ .2 n 2 ã:~~~~£~;8~~~:5§~:~ ~æg .& ~ ~.s .g OJ ~ ~ ~.S! E 8:.9 a. (j) -m -g a. ~ ~ ~~'~'~~~E~Bg:=~~E~B ~2~ ChE<1>~~«Q)~Q)cøcttU__ctt'- mw ë u 10.... æ a. ~ 3.c 'c :J (/) en ..t: '(3 'E .8 ~ _2 'i5 Q)~~C.~~~g~2~.~~~§m~ ,~~~ ~Eg~g~~-æ~Q)~~~e8!·~~.cctt8 £«ro~FU¿.~goc~~g£>-a.Q)c~gQ)Q) Q)c_E<D:J~ E:J'~ C. ~'-CDO'-£'- ii;!!!"E ãi en ~:8 E ° § ctt ~ a. E ü c::5 ~ .~ en Q) o a... 0 - Q).c ctt 0 Ü .- (J) - Ct'I 2 Q) 0 Q) E e ;; _ Q) ~.5: £ Q) -g ü >. êtí g> ~ Q)'~ ~ ~ É c. E U e '2,~~~c~~Q)~~'2~ECt'I~~~~o~'- u ::> ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ E.c ~ Q) 2 2 ~ 3.E fj}ã) '* ü g> ~ fUQ)¿ tcttE~.cEQ)::J .-ºtJ)~Q)Q) c»~-g .g ~ ~.~ ~ 8. ~ 8 ~ -; § .:: :rg "E :E ~ 8. E 2 .f§ ~ ü G) ~ a..~:e ~ ~ ~ Q) - 0 1ir en.{g 0 -6 en.2.S: c C.S g~EE~Ct'lcttmgg~~2e~Q)uu~~~Q) ~ 0E WW~'-~(J)Q)Ct'lCt'lc..t:OQ)C~e.c ~~Üo.SQ)tcaCt'l~_ffi~·_~~aooQ)oo =: 5 u) 0 e ~ 8. ~ g -g .Q'g ctt.~ ~"O 0 ~:ê £: g. º .~~.~~~~~o·~E.~~~£~~~8~æ~~ > -~ e·- ~ c. Q) a. Q) E E 0 Q) (J) C (f) 0> C 0 :J 0 +-' øUOê~-(f)~.coE ~~g::J'ffiQ)IDCt'lOQ) oc~~~RE~Q)Q)oo~.5~~Ec~·~~~~ ~(fJOC~Ct'lø~££~üO~~aw~Ct'lamctt(f) õ.. ... ~ Q) ~ ~ ,~Q) ~ .Q :5 g~~ c.c ~ ~ ~.c 1tí 0 .- Q) a. æ:::: ë ~'õ> c.Q) æ.9 ~ ~_Q) -g êtí·~ Ct'I õ: . ~ ~ 4: .5 ~ ~ c .c ¿ < -g~en Q)_ = U » ~~~ LJ~~ IDom 5~ c.a>~ Q)Q) w>.u ~ .E g E ëü m ro ~ ~ g.]¿ ~ "0 .:; -::J 0 Ct'I Q) E.c ° Q) :¡::-=E . Q) a. 10... a5 ~ ~ g.~ ~ .c 2 8 à3 ~-æ ~ .Q.~ :5 E "E ~ 0 ~:= g ~~£ ~~a.E'-Ë~~8~ 0; -<l>-OJ uf'~2 mIDCD-g~Q)-6~.81:: þ~ êg£ æ~-æ ~_~:5m=~.5§(f)Ct'I 'B~ ~~§ ::>uU Ct'I~5E~E~(J)£~ <1» .o~ ED-~ C30$~ëi)'5~§O:ECt'I Õ~Q) .~ ::J .D .g __ ~ 'ã; è ro à3 ~ E f? 0 ~ c.~ E 2C.~ Ct'Iëti.:::t:..ci)IDEo--- -ro ØÜctt EroQ) EøCt'l-0-æEID~§ Ü(f) ~~~ uQ).c .E _~~E-o.s~~ ß'::: "0-0 @'~~ .s.~~~~~~ªm~ §E ~.9~ - Q) - en ë ã> - ·!QE Q) - ¡;: Q).ê u en £; to ~ ~,-Q)cQ)Q)£"O~E~"O.:::t:._ Ct'I ða= .ºm2~.SEE~~~~~2E ~~ 0<1>2 ~ ~ g Q) ~ 5 5. ro - Q) ~ ~ ~.~ -;; 0 ~ ~ CJ) CEil) E 0..- Q) <» Q) E·- u E""" 0 0. ~ £; ~ oucQ)=~.c.S~Ct'lmo 0 ~e ~ _ O~~£Ct'I'~~~~~Io...~~~ o~ ~~.~ tE-~~~E£~~8~2~~ ~~ ~m~ '~~È~.28-gg~-g-;BEg ~~ .§~u~ Q)'U~rogC)~-gEroë(J)o..c ~~ ro~:þ æ8o.9=.E~a~Q)ID§~en g~ ~'~TI ~ ~ a. 'U ~ ê ~ ~ § ~.§ ~'ffi ~ . g ~ 0 .c 19 ~c=~-!!!n-o~~_2£~gQ)ID ~~§u Q)::~§a...~mO~ID~ge~,~~ ~;> ~"E~--~~~B~~~~ID~*~O Q~ID ~ID~·~.Q=E~ð&Q)=::J~E~~ ~~i 2~~£~~~~Q)c~rou_~go ChOO iCQ)rnQ)~_Ct'I~~c~'~'U~~~~~~ B~~ E W -'- 0 N ~ -- -- ~ (f.) (j) . 0 c. 1:: 0. E g ~ ~ ~ ~ 'æ = <D ~ ð- êO e 8 !'w ~ ..c en Q O«~-D~·WUOC'UID°..c C.CC5IDV ~c.~m::J~C·~§ .Clo...~-~!IDO-£'- à> ~ 'E Q> (f) >.2 E 0 § Ct'I ~ g- ~ ü 'C:5 ~ .~ C) ~ o~oECDn~oO~~~ ~Q)0.cIDE.E- _ID~-£<DCüZ'ro~~Ë~.c~~C.E"Oe 1= ·iõ B i: c:Ö Ë Q) <3 -g ï:: 1O 0 ctt ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 «; :ë; ..=>c .«o~Et=Q)Ë22U)~.E~â)û5og~ f!~~ð ·'E~o _:EE~2 '~g'~Q)~ g'-.2 .s C!ëi)g>o.roo~oo-~'E.E:.:: RE2-2~O ~ fa c..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {g .2 -5 en.8.!:: æ ffi'~ o~~E~roro~e2Io...Xêtí~0>~~~~~~~ D:. cñü §.5 ~ -ê -g a~ -~ ~ êi) 1ñ ~ g ~ g' ctt cD 8.£ :: § ufü e co 8. m ~ c.2 g ctj.~.~ u 0 :; É :5 (I)" º .~~~~g~~E·~~~g~£~~~g!iê~ ~~§~~~m~~EEO~~~~·~i~~8~ ~~~~&S~IDQ)8~~_~~~¡e~'~~~~ ~WOC~<UW~££;~OO~¡;:o.rn~<uo.ID<urn õ.. ... Jisclaimer nis map Js neither a Jegally recorded map nor a survey and is not Jntended to be used as one. his map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and >deral offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference Jrposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used , prepare thJs map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used If navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or rection or precision in the depJction of geographic features. It errors or discrepancies are found ease contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota tatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of thJs map acknowledges that the City shall not 3 liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, Jndemnify, and old harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third .rties whJch arise out of the use~s access or use of data provided. )isclaimer his map is neither a legally recorded map nor a sUlvey and Js not intended to be used as one. his map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and ,deraJ offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and Js to be used for reference urposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used ) prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used " navigationaJ, tracldng or any other purpose requJring exacting measurement of distance or irectJon or precision Jn the depiction 01 geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found lease contact 952-227·1107. The preceding disclaimer Js provided pursuant to Minnesota ·tatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not e liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnJfy, and old harmless the City from any and aJt claims brought by User, Jts employees or agents, or third arties which arise out of the use~s access or use of data provJded. Public Hearing Notification Area (500+ feet) Crestview Subdivision (Shively Addition Replat) Planning Case No. 05-02 State Hw 7 ClJI ,. \ ,. / 'VI r '\ , ,..ÿ.......... I 'U ... I , !..... , :' .......¿ .: "', . I /. . .. I I ) --j / / ,/ Subject Property .:'../. ALEXNORTHWOODS LLC CIO UPTOWN PROPERTIES PO BOX 16314 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 MARY TRIPPLER 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TROY PAPPAS & KARl A BRACKELSBERG 1961 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ROBERT M & LINDA M PETERSON 2040 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ARNON & PATRICIA M REESE 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD & BARBARA D ATHERTON 2082 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERNEST F PIVEC & TIMOTHY P MCGUIRE 2161 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 GILBERT H & JILLENE KREIDBERG TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 6444 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LECY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC DBA LECY BROS HOMES 15012 HWY 7 HOPKINS MN 55345 CHARLES CHICKS & VICKY R SHERMAN 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TIMOTHY J & DEBRA R HAGELE 2020 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH 2041 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BERNARD C JR & SANDRA BENZ 2061 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN R & NANCY H LlBERG 2091 MELODY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 261 SCHOOL AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN 0 & KATHRYN 0 DESMET 6454 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CAROL ASLESEN CHILD 6482 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WAYNE A SCHMIDT & CARTER M HEDBERG 1930 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KRISTIN F PAUL 1941 WHITETAIL RIDGECT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE A & JEAN A MATTSON 2020 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL J STACHOWSKI 2050 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN THOMAS FAVORITE II SUSAN LEE FAVORITE 2080 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN J & JUNE A HAMSHER 2081 MELODY HILL EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SCOTT G & USA B CHRISTIAN 5450 TAMARACK CIR HOPKINS MN 55345 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN J & L YNNETTE J DELUCA 6484 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA F NICHOLSON & DEBRA A PITTMAN 6500 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DORIS L NIKOLAI REV TRUST 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NANCY K MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING 6640 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD A & JUDITH LINDELL RENO R LINDELL 8433 39TH AVE N NEW HOPE MN 55427 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet: Are there any friendly amendments? Lillehaug: The amendments as I indicated in my comments. Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable? Papke: Acceptable. Papke moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD Planning Case No. 05-01, Sand Companies, Inc., with the recommendations as outlined in the staff report and Commissioner Lillehaug's comments. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Sacchet: Now it is 10:00 at night. I do want to just pose the question to the commissioners. We will go beyond cmfew but I think we can get through them all. Are you willing to stay beyond curfew a little bit tonight? Alright. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON 3.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF). LOCATED AT THE END OF CRESTVIEW DRIVE. (SHIVLEY ADDITION). CRESTVIEW. APPLICANT LECY BROS HOMES. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-02. Public Present: Name Address Pam Johnson Paul & RachelIe Tungseth Andrew Johnsrud Alan Nikolai Dick HelTboldt Tim Larkin Peter Knibble 2050 Crestview Drive 2051 Crestview Drive Lecy Bros Homes 6282 Cartway Lane, Excelsior 6464 Murray Hill Road Terra Engineering Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Rich, questions? Slagle: I just have two. Bob, you refer to the, and if we can put the plat up of the, and then the southern connection. Yeah, there we go. So I am to assume that in hearing you the City Council 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 will be voting on Monday probably on this southern development. What was staff's recommendation to the City Council regarding that road? Generous: We're still recommending the connection. However we did revise the staff report to incorporate the parks commission's recommendation that that be a permanent cul-de-sac on the south side. And then the applicant has addressed that also. They would like, if that's the case, they would like to go to a private street here and continue the trail up there because they do have to extend the sewer up in this area to serve this property, and so it would follow that same easement and alignment. So that's what they're looking at. Slagle: Okay. And if I go back to the development that we saw last time, there were comments made by the citizens of Crestview about the windiness of the road. The narrowness of the road. Is it staff's opinion, now that we are talking about this development, that that poses any concerns you know with an additional 4 or 5 homes, or 6. However many they end up with? Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Questions this side. Kurt. Papke: Yeah. The existing square cul-de-sac here, we show a new curb going here. What, and a removal of the bituminous. What happens to this property here? Does this get, does the city retain ownership of this? Does this get deeded over to the adjacent homeowners? What happens to that land? Generous: It would, the City would retain ownership of it. The abutting property owner could request a vacation of that right-of-way. And then through the public hearing process council would determine whether or not they want to vacate that. And if that was the case, then they would get that land. Sacchet: Dan, Steve, any questions from staff? Keefe: I have two questions. One is in regards to the street going south. That connects to Street B in terms of buffering next to the existing house over there. Is there I didn't see a landscaping plan or anything or berming or anything along that street on the east side of that street. Is there. Generous: Well they did show some deciduous trees along that corridor but no berming. Keefe: Okay. Alright, and then one other question. There was a lot of discussion in the last meeting in the Pinehurst development about parks and I just had a question in regards to the school. Is that, and we were talking well could we just use the school equipment or whatever and utilize that as a park. I mean do we consider that as an option in our park planning? Generous: The Parks Director did give that direction. That that is a facility that's available to the public. Keefe: So it'd be considered as a park. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Generous: Yeah. But it doesn't have the play facilities but this is also within the service area of Pheasant Hills which is to the east. Keefe: Right, so presumably if the street goes through and you have the sidewalk going through here, even people from Pinehurst development could walk over and utilize the Minnetonka Middle School West. Generous: Yes. Keefe: Thank you. Sacchet: Steve, any questions? I'm a little disoriented and I don't know exactly how to pin this into a question but with dealing with the proposed Pinehurst development, Planning Commission made their recommendation that Street B become a cul-de-sac. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: And now we're looking at this one and this one has a street in it to where we recommended there wouldn't be one, and I'm not quite, how do we reconcile that? Generous: Well your recommendation, that that street connection be eliminated and that becomes part of one of the lots. Sacchet: So it becomes part of the lot so that means the lots all would shift. Generous; Conceivably, or Lot 5 would just get bigger. Because we would have at a minimum a drainage and utility easement and a trail easement over a portion of that. Sacchet: So they could save a few more trees that way right? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, alright. Lillehaug: Would that negate the need for a variance then if that were to happen? The 5 foot front yard variance I guess is. . . Generous: No, because that's based on the extension of Crestview. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Ahight. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and give us your short version of this proposal. Please, if you want to state your name for the record. Peter Knibble: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knibble with TelTa Engineering. We're the civil engineers responsible for the development and 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 we've been working for a number of months with city staff on trying to get this site figured out. And that's the basically the project that we presented tonight is the final version of those meetings that we've come to. With me tonight is Lecy Bros Construction.. .on the 4 new lots that will be developed as part of this project. Andy Johnsrud is here representing Lecy Brothers so if there's any questions in regards to the building or the ownership or those kind of questions, he's certainly able to answer those. Just a couple of comments. We've reviewed the staff report and obviously we reviewed the project. I've got a colored up board we can show you. It's basically the same information that Bob's presented. The couple issues we're concerned with, and again we were not at the last Planning Commission meeting when Pinehurst was up for approval and we would certainly concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation not to extend that street to the south, and obviously we would just either shift the lots or make that Lot 5 bigger. We support that recommendation wholeheartedly. When we started out we were directed as part of the staff review to provide that connection and we made that accommodation of our plan but again we would certainly support your recommendation not to make that and we understand the neighbors also concur with that. The second item is the connection of the trail to the school to the west and that just came up in the staff report recentl y as part of our review. It wasn't part of our conversations early on. I think it was just based on a meeting that the staff had with the school. One of the issues we have, I guess the main issue we have is that we see that as a large collector for the 43 homes that were, or we assume are going to be approved by the Pinehurst development. We think it'd be more appropriate to have that trail connection come out of Pinehurst directly onto the middle school property and they have direct access to do that. We understand there's some topography that may limit that or restrict it but our review, it's only a 6 to an 8 foot height of that berm and based on the amount of grading that's going to happen as part of the Pinehurst, it's certainly not an insurmountable problem to have them provide that connection. We certainly think it's more fair and more equitable to have that connection made there as opposed to funneling that traffic through our property and over to the school. So that's the main issue, two issues that we have. Again that trail connection. We would again encourage you to make that recommendation that it be connected through Pinehurst and not through this small 5 lot development, and the second is we support your recommendation on that eliminating that street connection. And with that, either Andy or I are here to make any comments. Or answer any questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. Questions from the applicant. I do have a question. Would you still, you would still make a trail connection to the south over the easement. Peter Knibble: Absolutely, yes. Sacchet: You're not debating that part. You're just rather not have the connection to the school. Peter Knibble: Correct. Sacchet: Now I do want to clarify with staff because my understanding that the school specifically requested access in that particular location, is that accurate or? Generous: That's what, based on their review of this plan, yes. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Sacchet: So they specifically asked to be the connection off. Generous: To Crestview. Sacchet: Further there to the north. Not on that south side. Generous: Correct. We sent them both plats. Slagle: So you, if I may Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: So you sent them the plat that showed the connection from Pinehurst at the end of that cul-de-sac? Generous: Not with a connection, but with the plat adjacent to the property with all the development potential. Slagle: I'm only asking. Generous: They didn't have a connection shown on this one either. Slagle: Sure, I'm with you. I'm with you. Generous: Their comment back to us is they'd like to see the connection there. Slagle: I'm only saying that if you were the school and you saw a plat that had two cul-de-sacs with you know no connection and a road running north to this road, Crestview, you would just naturally say well that's where the trail should go since you have a road going up there, but if you said to them, there's no road going up there. Where would you want the trail connection from those 50 some odd homes to the south? I think they might say it should go off the cul-de- sac to the south. I don't know. Sacchet: That actually poses a question for you, and I'll ask the applicant. Would you be opposed, from your end, to make a connection to the school if there is a direct connection also from the Pinehurst, or are you generally opposed to a connection in every case? Andy Johnsrud: We'd love to see, if the road was to go away, we'd be certainly willing to put a connection from Lots 2 and 3. It's a straight shot right here right to the school. Sacchet: Straight across. Not necessarily up to the north. Andy Johnsrud: .. .that makes the most sense. Sacchet: It's the shortest, yeah. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Andy Johnsrud: Than shooting all the way up here and across. Because if there is a connection with the road and a trail this way.. . parents are going to drive up here and drop their kids off. We know it's going to happen so, we'd love to just see no access there and a trail here along Crestview. That could be. . . Sacchet: Yeah, the Planning Commission made a very strong recommendation based on the neighbor's input. This was definitely more the neighbors driving that. And so at this point to be consistent with the consideration that the Planning Commission did in the recommendation, I'm assuming it's going to be cul-de-saced. Andy Johnsrud: Conect Absolutely.... Slagle: One last point of clarification. We're there also assuming, if I hear you right, that you would do a trail to the school for Crestview, quote unquote, and those who walk up the sidewalk or the trail and then we would have potentially Pinehurst for their, okay. Peter Knibble: That's what we would prefer. Slagle: Okay. Andy Johnsrud: Right, and even to have a sidewalk along this property, we don't think is necessary you know for these 4 homes or 5 homes. You know the trail access here would be plenty fine for that. I don't think that a 4 or 5 foot sidewalk along here is really necessary by any means. Sacchet: Alright. Appreciate your input. This is a public hearing so I'd like to invite anybody who wants to address this item to come forward at this time. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Thank you. Dick Herrboldt: Good evening council. My name's Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road, which is, if you can. Yeah, I'm right, my property is right here. Sacchet: Just nOlth of it. Dick Herrboldt: So I'm adjacent, just adjacent to this development and I'm totally opposed to the proposal for the sidewalk running through here and up this property line. That's going to go right next to my property and there's a tremendous amount of trees in there that are going to wind up getting cut down in order to access a sidewalk, which is in my opinion not needed. I'm opposed to the road, the attachment to the south development primarily because I don't think that the road is wide enough to accommodate the kind of traffic that's going to be going through there. If the sidewalk does go in, that's going to become a point where the builder just stated the people in the development south are going to be dropping their children off to access the school, which is going to cause a major traffic problem in that area. So I am opposed to both the sidewalk and the access. It makes a lot more sense to put the access through here. In my propelty there is an access to the school currently. One of my neighbors several years ago 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 bought a large parcel of property, an access to deed to the city by the water tower for access to the school. That's about a 12-14 foot wide path. I don't know if you're familiar with that. Sacchet: Yes we are. Dick Hen"boldt: So if you're going to put an access on the bottom of my property line, it's going to be about 25 feet from an access that's already there, so that doesn't make a lot of sense. Thank you. Sacchet: Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing somebody, alright. Tim Larkin: Mr. Commissioner and members, I'm Tim Larkin. I live at 2150 Crestview Drive which is the existing home. The only existing home in that proposed cul-de-sac. I guess I'd like to make just a couple of points. Just of note. I received no notice on the last public hearing when the development to the south was considered. I think it's a clerical error that my property is still listed apparently in the computer as Lecy Bros so I received no notice and could make no comment on the last week's hearing. I would just like to concur that if City Council doesn't take the recommendation of the commission and puts that road back in, it will literally be at the end of my driveway. I think it's obvious to all and it's been amply stated by Lecy Brothers that that literally becomes a driveway for the school. 43 homes to the south. 4 homes here. That doesn't seem equitable at all. I believe in the staff report that I received on last week's hearing that there is in fact a recommendation from the commission that there be access from the south. Sacchet: Right, that's correct. Tim Larkin: So it seems to be, as my neighbor has stated, it seems to be redundant to put any access to the school from the east through this cul-de-sac at all, although if the commission deems that essential, I would agree with Lecy that it should go between Lots 2 and 3. I'm being affected on Lot 1 already by the cul-de-sac, which we were aware of when we purchased the property. We were not aware that there was any consideration of a trail going down the western edge of my property. In addition the sidewalk affects us the same way. There's been discussion of having the sidewalk on the north, as well as on the south. Again I don't see that the sidewalk is necessary without that road to the south. Again if the commission deems that a sidewalk is essential, it would seem more equitable to put it on the south edge of that cul-de-sac where it would affect no existing homeowners than my existing property. I would just note very quickly, I believe the commission may be aware of this. You may not be able to see that. Orient this properly. The access that my neighbors have spoke up there's an existing access to the south. There would be an additional access to the south. You'll have two accesses to the south to the junior high. There are two existing to the north. I've only noted one but there are two existing to the north and there is one existing to the east. So again it seems to put an additional access to the junior high is redundant at best. There's ample access already there. Slagle: If I may though. Can I ask you? Tim Larkin: Sure. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Slagle: If you were a family member on Crestview, how would your kids, say you lived closer to Galpin. How would they get to the middle school? Tim Larkin: They'd walk over one block to I believe it's, and forgive me, I've only been there only 3 months. I believe it's Murray Hill is where the access is. They'd go over one block. Slagle: Or would they cut through? Would they have to go to Galpin and then. Tim Larkin: I'd go down Galpin where there's an existing sidewalk, or trailway along Galpin. They'd take the sidewalk over one block and up to where the existing. Slagle: So go east northwest. Tim Larkin: They would go east to Galpin. Over Galpin and then up. And there's an existing, as I said, there's an existing trailway along Galpin there. Sacchet: Alright. Anything else? Tim Larkin: I believe that's it. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. I think there was somebody else starting to get up before. Alan Nikolai: My name is Alan Nikolai, 6282 Cartway Lane, Chanhassen. Good evening everybody. I've talked with my mom. She lives at 6570 Galpin Boulevard which is just right down the hill. Comer of Crestview and Galpin. She indicated to me, she's not feeling well tonight so she asked me to speak on her behalf and her name is Doris Nikolai. She does not want to see an extension to Pinehurst to the south at all because of the additional traffic concern on Crestview. Also she supports the bigger lot sizes in this development and, but would not SUPPOlt an additional lot with the vacation of that road. That south road. Sacchet: I don't think that's a concern. Alan Nikolai: She wants to be careful that it does so it doesn't becomes an additional lot gets factored in there. Sacchet: Okay. Alan Nikolai: As far as, and she also does not like the idea of the walkway extension from Pinehurst up to Crestview there. Sacchet: Why? Alan Nikolai: There's some talk about maybe there's, where that road is. That have maybe a walking path there. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Sacchet: Yes, there is definitely concern. Alan Nikolai: It's maybe not to have, not to have that have the Pinehurst have their own access to the school property. In other words, to traffic it back up to Crestview and that type of thing. She said that they should, Pinehurst, that's their development, they should have the access to... Sacchet: That what match what we just touched on. Would you also oppose a connection between the Pinehurst and Crestview, not for the school part but for just the trail? Alan Nikolai: Well that's what that trail would probably be used for though. Would be the primary access would be to the school property. Unless there's another access... Sacchet: Right, that's what we just touched on. Alan Nikolai: I didn't bring that up with her. I can't really comment on that but more common sense I guess on that. At the same time I brought it up to her because I actually used to walk to that school from my mom's house and cut through the yards there you know over 30 years ago. And what I saw here tonight, you know between I think it's Lot 1 and 2, basically you're going straight west out that cul-de-sac would be the logical access you know. It's the most logical without going to the gentleman's property up to the, further to the north, that type of thing and that would be a very logical. Sacchet: Let me just be real clear. You mean the one on the cul-de-sac going straight across or the one going north? Straight across, okay. Just want to be real clear. Alan Nikolai: Right here. That doesn't make sense. This would, you know just to have a.. .but have the access available for those residents and also the residents of Crestview to access the property there. Then one other consideration, a vacation of the existing cul-de-sac right here. You know whether or not that goes over to the Paul Wolff, or that used to be Paul Wolff's, consideration may be possibly as a totlot too. Down the road. Being the City does own that property, that might be a consideration just for the Crestview residents. That might have a swing set, sand box type area for the kids. That might be you know that type of thing for a consideration. Also somewhere down the road, I don't know if you can make a recommendation on it because it's not directly tied but at the same time some fore thought there I think would be wise. And that's it. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much sire. Alan Nikolai: Any questions or? Sacchet: I think we're clear. Thank you for your comments. We got another person. Janet, welcome. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Ijust have a comment to make about the 25 foot setback from the street. I know we have private streets to preserve trees. I didn't know we had public street set backs to preserve trees. I think it's a bad precedent to set. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 5 feet isn't going to save that many trees. I think the question is, they're cramming more of a home into a lot. Especially on Lots 2 and 3. Lot 3 has a 54 foot frontage. How far back is that house going to have to be? The statement says, while that may not seem a significant savings now, in the future when homeowners are adding porches, patios, decks or additions, the extra distance from the trees may be enough room so the trees aren't removed. That's a question in the future for the homeowners to face. I don't think we should change our standards for something like that. And therefore I don't think it meets the variance conditions. That can be applied anywhere in Chanhassen and that is a really bad precedence to set. Thank you. Sacchet: Question for staff based on this comment. Does that variance enable an additional lot? Because that seems to be the implication somewhat here. Generous: It's not the lot. They can meet the 30 foot setback. Sacchet: And then follow-up question with, I'm assuming that south road connection goes away because that's what position we took as a commission when we dealt with Plowhurst to the south. Wouldn't that enable to pull back the cul-de-sac a little bit easterly? Just an idea. Alright. Let's keep going. Public hearing is still open. Yes we have some takers. Dick Herrboldt: I wanted to address one other subject and that is the drainage problem that we have. There is a drain on our cul-de-sac that runs into my, right next to my driveway. Sacchet: Now you're talking to the north. Dick Herrboldt: I'm talking to the north. I'm talking about this property here. There is a drain in the street located about here. It empties into my property about right here. All the water from the 5 houses in the cul-de-sac up here, the water runs down into the woods and follows this line approximatel y and runs down into here and that's going to be a substantial amount of water in the spring or after a large rainfall. That was designed originally when our property was built, Curt Ostrom was the builder and that was the design that the watershed district gave him. But now that these houses are being developed back here, there's going to be a substantial amount of water that's going to be running into those lots. Now I talked to the builder before the meeting and he has a drain located here and my suggestion would be that somehow that pipe be lined up up here into my back yard so that water doesn't run over those existing lots. Sacchet: Matt, from your viewpoint, what's the drainage thing here? Saam: It looks like they have it graded to go, it would go around the west side or the rear of Lots 2 and 3. The drainage that this gentleman is speaking of. Sacchet: Would be shifted to the west? Saam: That's the way that it's designed, yeah. To go around the back of the house. Lillehaug: Existing or proposed? 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Saam: No, on their proposed. Under existing I'm assuming it goes just, it goes right through into Pinehurst. Dick Herrboldt: Yeah it runs right about this direction. Saam: Down to that ravine... Dick Herrboldt: Down the ravine and ultimately, I think there's a drain down there now but it used to go into the lake on 41. So it's going to be a major problem for those houses. Saam: I think we can deal with it with swales and that sort of thing. And in working with the development. Sacchet: So it's something that still would need to be refined at this point. Saam: Minor grading. Sacchet: Okay. Something extra. Slagle: But I think also, if I can interject, the comment that the developer would be open to talking to this gentleman might even add more value. Right Matt? Sacchet: Certainly. Dick Herrboldt: Yeah, that could be hooked up into a drainage pipe in this area to flow into that would make a lot more sense than having that water run over the surface of the land. Sacchet: Yeah if you want to address that, please do. Peter Knibble: Just a quick comment. Actually we weren't aware where the storms were coming in. That's one of the reasons we're here to get this kind of input. We would prefer to put a pipe through here and pick that up as opposed to redirecting with swales... Sacchet: Makes more sense. Thank you. There was somebody else standing up I believe. Deb Lloyd: Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Further comments to what Jan's remarks were. When you grant a variance you know the conditions for which you cannot, or which you can grant it. I don't believe you really meet the variance requirements here. Have you proven how many trees would be saved? Is there a calculation for that? Sacchet: Is that something staff can say something to or? Generous: Only to the extent that the grading limits are reduced through the granting of the varIance. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Deb Lloyd: I think we need to quantify how many trees would be lost. I mean this is valuable property giving up 5 feet on each lot times the width. You do the calculations. Or put in a requirement for a tree conservation type easement. Because I mean the staff report clearly states in the future they can build on the back. They could put in, I mean it's like so wide open. In the future when the homeowners are adding porches, patios, decks or additions, the extra distance from the trees may be enough room so that the trees aren't removed for the new construction? I mean they're suggesting trees might need to be removed for the new construction. It's like planning for that future inevitability. You're giving them 5 feet for that. I think you need to look long and hard at this. I was thinking about Yoberry Farms. Who, or whatever that development was. Was it farms or? Sacchet: Y obelTY Farms. Deb Lloyd: Who would need that 5 feet more than those people who have no back yard? I mean we have codes for a purpose and that is to standardize the lots. There is, I haven't seen a quantification of what this is going to do for the City, and as a resident I feel compelled to bring that to your attention. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else wants to speak up to this item? This is your chance. Seeing nobody, I'm going to close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. Who wants to start? Keefe: I've got a question. What's driving the variance? Is it the house size? I don't understand what's driving it. Generous: It's reduction in the grading limits. To save trees. As part of the subdivision ordinance we anticipate that they will grade, at least the 105 feet into the development. With this variance their plan is showing that they're moving that back. Keefe: Okay. And I think it goes to VIi's point which is, you know if we take this southerly road out, can we move the cul-de-sac to the right 5 feet? Saam: I guess we were just looking at that. I don't see what the north/south street has to do with the location. I mean they can move the cul-de-sac to the east right now. That doesn't affect, at least that I can see. Keefe: So could we move it 5 feet to the right and not have a variance? Generous: Well you could deny the variance and they could still comply. They just have a 30 foot front setback. They may take, their grading limits may shift a little bit but. Keefe: But in terms of the location of the cul-de-sac, there isn't sort of a driver behind that? Generous: No. If they go 5 feet farther back for their setback, the house pad gets even wider. Because they're exceeding the 90 at the 25 feet so. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Lillehaug: Are we at comments right now? Sacchet: Yes. Comments and discussion. Lillehaug: Okay I'll go ahead since no one's talking. I do not support providing a variance for Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5. I'm looking at the existing, or the proposed grading limits on Sheet 4. I do not see a significant savings in trees by granting that and I guess I don't support it, but I do see where it is needed for Lot 1. Because the existing house is it looks like exactly 25 feet right off the property line. And I guess I would support a variance of 25 feet. Or a variance of 5 feet. Putting the setback at 25 feet for only Lot 1. Other than that everything looks fine to me. I do want to comment, you know I read in this report, I'm kind of miffed that there's not a single mention of what we recommended the other week's with regarding not making that connection. I mean not a word in here and it's kind of upsetting to me I guess. I mean it puts things into perspective of what our recommendations do I guess, but I certainly want to make sure that the council understands that our recommendation is to not make that connection. I understand what staff is saying here. Yes, it's a good land use policy. Yes, it's a good transportation policy to make this connection but, and it's good planning to do so. It's good on safety, etc. but if you live on Crestview, yeah you talk about doing it 10 years ago but previous to that was it planned? Was there a sign up? Can those residents actually anticipate that connection being made? Absolutely not so it's my opinion that I definitely do not support shoe horn some planning in here to do that as you're suggesting, so that's where I stood the previous weeks on making that connection and I still stand in that sense, so yes. I agree that we should not make that connection. Shift the easement over. Shift the sanitary and watermain over if we need to, and trail wise, I'm not too sure where I stand on that. It'd be good to make that connection from Pinehurst up. A little more community I guess by making that connection but I do see possibly some few residents making that trek to the school. Or do they actually even use that school. Do those residents use that school? Aanenson: Minnetonka district. Lillehaug: I don't know. I don't have a feel for how many pedestrians that would be but I think it's legitimate to make that connection a sidewalk and I would support that. Sacchet: Okay. Dan any comments? Keefe: Sure. I mean I support vacating that southerly road. I think, I don't know, I don't understand why we need the variance based on the count. I mean I understand why it's there but I don't, that I support that. The sidewalk, I'm not clear why we would have a sidewalk coming up at that point from Pinehurst. Why we wouldn't just move, try to get a sidewalkfrom the other cul-de-sac and Pinehurst up to the school. I do think that having an easement in there between 2 and 3 makes some sense. For future if we don't even pave it today but at least have an easement in there. Saam: Commissioner Sacchet, could I add one thing about the trail between 2 and 3 because we never said anything. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Sacchet: Please. Saam: One of the reasons we recommended that it go between 2 and 1 is because of the proposed grades. We've got walkouts between 2 and 3 so you're dropping 10 feet. I mean we don't want a stairs, that sort of thing in there. We want to have it as accessible as we can, so if you go up Lot 2 as we had proposed, the grades there work better so that was the main reasoning. Sacchet: Okay. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I don't support the variance. I think when I walked the lots yesterday, the trees in here, there's a fair number of trees but there's no 4 foot oaks or anything like that. I mean they're fairly small diameter. And just the prospect of hopefully you know not mowing them down in the future I don't think justifies the variance at this point so, that's all I have. Sacchet: Rich. Slagle: I'm a no go on the variance. I certainly think with the reputation of this builder, I mean which everybody hopefully has heard of, I trust you to do a nice job with those trees. I almost wonder, if I can throw out for consideration, if this is not premature. Only because of the upcoming council vote. I mean we get back to the thing of wondering if Pinehurst was premature because we knew this was coming on. I don't know if I'm prepared to suggest that we table it but just as an FYI. We have a proposal in front of us that shows a road connecting and we're voting yes or no, and most of us, if not all of us are saying no, we don't want the road and that's what we said earlier but yet we have a plan that has a road. So I don't know. Sacchet: Well I would take it actually a step further. I mean there are several points here that I really would like to see how it works out. I'd like to see how this looks like without the road. I'd like to see where the trail can be worked out. I'd like to see if that cul-de-sac can be pushed back a little bit and if this can be done variance free and what, how feasible that is. I mean to me adding all these things up, none of these single things would be reason to table but you add them all together, I'd like to see it. It seems reasonable to propose a variance of setback for the existing house on Lot 1. But for the other ones, it's fluffy. This thing with the trails, we don't know yet even the major road connection. With that, I guess we would also get clarity where, whether that Pinehurst connection is something that council supports, which is a major variable in this. To have a trail connection makes a lot of sense between the neighborhoods to me, but we don't have all the variables around it to really make the context. Does it need a sidewalk? Well, if there is just a trail connection between the neighborhoods, it doesn't really need a sidewalk. If there's a road, it probably does. So I mean there's a lot of variables that are intertwined that actually I would go as far as thinking this should be tabled. Lillehaug: Can I further comment on it? Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I can see your concerns Commissioner Sacchet, but I mean we approved Pinehurst based on the fact that that road's going to be, Street B is going to be cul-de-saced, so I'm very 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 comfortable in moving forward and making a recommendation for approval with certain conditions again that this road will not be connected and if the council chooses to connect this road, so be it. Then they will have the revisions for both sets of plans, but I mean I can foresee minor changes in this plan so there isn't a variance needed on that setback. Right-of-way width, I support the 50 foot right-of-way width. I mean I don't see a major problem with that. But other than that, I mean I think that they can work with staff and shift those lots ever so slightly and make it work. Sacchet: And I would think the reputation of the builder certainly would support that notion. I certainly would give you that. Papke: Where do we actually end up with the trail? Is it, okay. It'd be nice to have it between 2 and 3, but then. Sacchet: Well that's part of the confusion. Papke: Yeah I mean you came back and said well, due to grading maybe it, you know that was why we put it between. Slagle: Point of clarification if I can on the change in topography. I mean I only look to Vasserman Ridge. The one that comes down and connects into the wetlands. I mean that's between two walkout homes and it's a little steep. You know you've got to huff and puff when you run so I mean it's doable. Saam: Yeah it's doable. It's just do we have another alternate that is better in our mind. Slagle: I'm with you. Yeah and I'm just saying I don't think it's stairs though. I guess is what I'm trying, I don't think it's stairs. Papke: It's a pretty flat lot. Keefe: It's 4 feet over 150 feet or something. Papke: Yeah, it's not much of a grade. Saam: No, these are walkouts. That's 8 or 10 feet. Sacchet: Yeah, it's 8 feet. Keefe: It's 8 feet okay. I'm looking at the wrong one. Okay. Sacchet: It goes from 56 to 64. Keefe: I'm looking at the wrong sheet. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 Sacchet: Well the pat1 that is really steep is 8. Then it flattens out. So where do we go with this guys? Somebody want to make a motion? Slagle: I'm going to make a motion. Sacchet: You make a motion. Go ahead. Slagle: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat review for this 5 lot subdivision with variances. Sacchet: Do we have a second? I can second right? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: I second. Li1lehaug: Do you want to? Slagle moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table Planning Case #05-02, the preliminary plat for a 5 lot subdivision with variances. Slagle and Sacchet voted in favor. Keefe, Papke and LilIehaug voted against the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Sacchet: So we have 3 to 2. So the motion was denied. Now does that mean we need to make a second motion, right? Do we have an alternate motion? Keefe: I'll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend approval of Planning Case #05-02 for a 5 lot subdivision with variances for a reduced right-of-way. Sacchet: Keep going. Keefe: I don't know that I want to. And reduced front yard setbacks, I don't want that. Sacchet: So you stop after reduced right-of-way of 50 feet. And you do not want the rest of it. Keefe: Right-of-way with plans prepared by Terra Engineering 11/22 based on findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions, and we need to amend some of these. Sacchet: State which, we have 1 through 24. Keefe: Numbers 1 through 24 with, but amendment to number 1. Change to between Lots 1 and 2 to Lots 2 and 3. And the same thing on the second one. And something, I don't know, something about vacating the road to the south. Slagle: I wouldn't say vacating it. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Keefe: How would you say that? Sacchet: Delete. Keefe: Delete the road to the south. Sacchet: However have a trail or? Keefe: You can add that if you like. I'll take amendment. And then the last would be, I think there was something about sidewalks in here too isn't there? Sacchet: Where's the sidewalk one? Keefe: Oh, it's actually in number 1. Yeah, so really we would just want to re-word number 1 to say, the developer shall include an easement for walkway or trail between Lots 2 and 3 to the school property located west of the site. Slagle: So point of clarification. You're not requesting a sidewalk. Keefe: Along the entire road, which is what I thought that was, I'm just requesting it, between 2 and 3. Sacchet: Okay? Papke: Second. Sacchet: Alright, friendly amendment. The trail connection. North/south from Street B cul-de- sac to Crestview. Keefe: That's fine. Sacchet: Because there's an easement. Okay. Thank you. Lillehaug: Point of clarification. So you added a condition deleting the roadway connection to the Pinehurst? Sacchet: Con·ect. Lillehaug: And then adding to that a friendly amendment? And then adding to that further, shifting the lots appropriately and working with staff to. Sacchet: Yes. And can we say, pulling the cul-de-sac back east a little bit because since we don't do the variance, we could even be specific and say pull it back 5 feet. Slagle: I'd rather leave it.. . 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 Sacchet: Work with staff to consider pulling back the cul-de-sac easterly, considering we don't have the variance. Keefe: Right. Sacchet: Okay, is that acceptable? Keefe: Acceptable. Lillehaug: Another point of clarification. On the existing house there it's 25 feet from the proposed right-of-way, so we need to, so the roadway would need to be revised to shift that back. Am I understanding that cOlTectly? Generous: Conect. Sacchet: From the existing house. Lillehaug: So condition necessary I guess. Just to work with staff to make it 30 feet, yep. Sacchet: Actually point of clarification. So we would not have a variance for the existing house, so the road would have to be pulled south. Generous: That would be a 5 foot shift. Lillehaug: Which I think can easily be done, looking at it. Sacchet: Okay, and it's variance free. That's good. Alright. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #05-02 for a five lot subdivision with a variance for a reduced right-of-way (50 feet), plans prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. dated 11/22/04, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall include an easement for a sidewalk in the extension of Crestview Drive and from the end of the cul-de-sac between Lots 2 and 3 and then along the north lot line of Lot 2 to the school property located west of the site. 2. The developer shall dedicate a trail easement from Crestview Drive to the west property line between Lots 2 and 3, Block 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 loL 61 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 5. No buming permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 6. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 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 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 si de 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 11122/04 shall be saved. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) 7 Days 14 Days 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. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4, 2005 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 IT Construction Permit), Minnesota Depat1ment of Natural Resources (for dewatering), and Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The stOlm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing cales 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. Show a minimum 75-foot rock construction entrance. d. Add a legend. 19. On the utility plan: a. Any connection to existing manholes or catch basins must be core drilled. b. All sanitary services must be 6"PVC-SDR26 and water services l"copper. c. Show watermain pipe class as C-900. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe type and class. e. Show storm sewer pipe type and size (minimum 15-in.) f. Add a hydrant on the eastern property line of Lot 1. 20. If imp0l1ing 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. 21. 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 building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 22. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 4,2005 the fOlm of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 23. In conjunction with the final plat approval, the developer shall vacate the existing Crestview Dlive light-of-way dedicated as part ofthe Shively Addition. 24. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat." 25. Delete the road connection to the Pinehurst development but keep the trail connection to the end of Street B. 26. The applicant will work with staff to shift the cul-de-sac to the east. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. 64