4 Powers Circle, Arild RossavikCITYOF
CHANH SEN
7700 ~ Boul~rd
PO Box 147
Chanhas.~, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1188
Fax: 952.227.1190
Englneedng
Phone: 952227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952227.1140
Fax:. 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax:. 952.227.1110
Recreation Centre'
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Plnnnlnfl &
Natural Resources
Ph0~e: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.221,1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952227.1125
Fax:. 952,227,1110
Web Site
vw,,'w, ci.chanhassen.mn.us
TO:
Todd G-e~ardt, City Manag~
FROM:
Bob Genewus, Senior Planner .~t.~.:.f'
DATE: May 27, 2003
SUB J: Powers Circle
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Thc applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment from Residential Large
Lot to Residential Low Density and rezoning of LOt 2, Block 1, t-lillside Oaks,
from Agricultural Estale, A-2, to Single Family Residential, RSF, to permit thc
subdivision of LOt 2, Block 1, I-rdlside Oaks, with a variance to permit a private
street creating 5 lots for a development known as Powers Circle.
Thc primary decision City Council must make is the appropriate land use for the
property. If the City Council believes that the appropriate land use is Residential
- T ~rge LOt, then the land use amen~t should be denied. The corres~ding
rezoning and subdivision would be inconsistent and nonconforming with the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and would also be denied. If the City
Council believes that this area should redevelop at our typical suburban'
residential density, then thc land use amendment to Residential - LOw Density
should be approved. The ~ding rezoning and preliminary plat would then
be consistent and compliant with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance
and should also be approv~
The applicant had previously a_tt_empted to include thc property owner to thc north
as part of the development proposal. However, the two were (and continue to be)
unable to communicate and cooperate with each other. Therefore, the applicant
proceeded with his development pm~al including all required improvement,
including the public stzeet, on his own property.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has sent letters to thc
property owners to thc north and south of the proposed project asking them to
participate in the rezoning and subdivision. If all three properties were to come
in, then the applicant would need to begin the process again with notice and
public hearings, since the scope of the project, would have changed significantly.
If City Council would like to accommodate thc property owner to the south, they
could require that the private driveway easement be recorded to the south end of
the property and benefit Lot 3, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, for up to two home sites as
The City of Chanhansen, A growing community with clean laY, es. quality schools, a channing downtown, thrivino businesses, windino trails, and beautiful parks. A grot place to live, work, and play.
Todd Gerhardt
May 27, 2003
Page 2
part of condition 17 of the current subdivision proposal. When the neighbor decides to develop,
he would need a land use amendment and re'zoning, and would be able to extend the private
street to provide access to his ~. Other infras~ imFrovements are already being
provided, since water is being extended to within 5 feet of the ~ line and'sewer service is
available at Oakside Circle and Powers Boulevard.
Revising the plat to put the center of the road on the north property line, and more easily
accommodate the wishes of the ~ owner to the north, cannot be accomplished unless, at a
minimum, the property owner would agree to provide a roadway easement on Lot 1, Block 1,
I-Iillside Oaks. Movement of the roadway to the north would allow sufficient lot width and area
to accomm~ three lots between the private ~t and Powers Boulevard. The City Council
could approve this change to the plat as part of the current development review, approving the
six lots which were originally noticed as part of the public hearing process, provided the property
owner to the north agrees to provide the easement or fight-of-way maligning the road. The
driveway issue then would be resolved for the north pmtza~. The property owner to the north
would be able to subdivide his pmtzaty in the future. He would also need a land use amendment
and rezoning. However, the ~ owner to the south would need to request a variance to
have more than four lots accessing a private street.
The Planning Commission and staff have different recommendations on the proposed
development. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the land use amendment,
re, zoning and subdivision as premature. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed
development accommodating, as much as possible, the ability of the abutting properties to
redevelop. As part of staff recommendation, we have revised condition 17 to provide the private
street easement to the south property line.
(Please note that the development review deadline ends June 13, 2003 unless the applicant agrees
to an extension of the development review time frame.)
PLANNIN(~ C0MMI$SI0N UPDATE
The Hmming CJ3mmLqsion held a public hearing on May 6, 2003, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Comrni.~sion voted to deny the land use amendment, rezxming and
preliminary plat.
CONSIDER REQUF_~T FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL
LARGE LOT TO RES~~ LOW DENSITY, REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESID~ RSF,
AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, HII J.qIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH A
VARIANCE FOR THF~ USE OF A PRIVATE STREET LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS
BOUI.EVARD, ARII.D ROSSAV1K: POWERS CIRCLE.
Todd Gerhardt
May 27, 2O03
Page 3
Public Present:
Name Address
George Bizek 8750 Powers Boulevard
Greg Kahler 8742 Flamingo Drive
Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard
Mark Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior
Kristi Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive
Jayme Lee 1380 Oakaide Circle
Bob Generous presented the staff r~m on this item, highlighting the chang~ that had been
to the plan since the last Harming Commi~fion meeting. Mark Kelly spoke as the representative for
the applicant. Ch~man Sacchet stated it was not a public hearing but that he would open it up for
public co~ts.
George Bizek, the protn~ owner to the north, spoke in opposition to the project. He feels it's a
detriment to his property, the driveway is very steep and dangerous, he has to change his addre~,
and is forcexi to hookup to sewer and water at a substantial cost. He feels the ~ should be
developed in conjunction with his pwtmny, but since he has no working relationship with Mr.
Rossavik, his land will basically become landlocked. He feels the development is prem~we.
Jayme Lee, the property owner to the south had concerns centering around access onto Powers
Boulevard. He felt the 3 lots should be developed together with a different road configuration and
that this project was prenmmm.
Commissioners Slagle and Feik felt the project was. premanwe and dialogue was needed among all 3
property owners to address access and road configm'afion, and drainage issues. Commissioners
Lillehaug and Sacchet felt the applicant had done a good job of addr~ the concerns of the
Planning Commission but agreed that thc project was premature. Alison Blackowiak had talked to
Chairman Saccbet prior to the meeting indicating her feeling that the project was premature.
Felk moved, Siagie seconded that the Planning Commiadon recommend denial of the Land
Use Map Amendment f~om Residential.Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block
1,1911shie Oaks. All voted in favor and the motion carried unaninm~ with a vote of 4 to 0.
Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Comminnion recommend denial of the
rezoning from A2, Agricul~ F. ztate District to RSF, Singte Family Residential for Lot 2,
Block 1, Hillni_de Oaks. All voted in favor ami the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
4to0.
Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the l~anning Commi~don reco~ denial of the
preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private
street for the Powers Cirde Addition- All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimous~
with a vote of 4 to 0.
Todd Gerhardt
May 27, 2003
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
A. 'Whe Chanhassen City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-
Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the project
being premature without the inclusion of the abutting properties."
B. 'Whe Chanhassen City Council denies the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to
RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, I-rfllside Oaks based on inconsistency with
the comprehensive plan."
C. 'Whe Chanhassen City Council denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 ~g five
lots with a variance for the use of a private slxeet for the Powers Circle Addition based on
noncompliance with the zoning ordinance."
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
A. 'Whe Chanhassen City Council approves the Land Use Map Amendment fi'om Re~dential -
Large Lot to Residential LOw Density for Lot 2, Block 1, l-Iill~ide Oaks, based on the findings of the
staffrepom'
B. "The City Council approves the rezoning from .62, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single
Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, I-lill~ide Oaks."
C. 'Whe City Council approves the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating five lots with
a variance for the use of a private street for the Powers Circle Addition subject to the following
conditions:
.
The developer shall pay the City applicable GIS and recording fees.
A preservation easement shall be recorded over the westerly portion of the site to
preserve topography and trees. This easement shall include land west of a line beginning
at a point on the south line of LOt 3, 80 feet east of the westerly property line, to a point
on the north property line of LOt 3, 180 ~ east of the westerly ~ line; and west of
a line beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 4, 180 feet east of the westerly
property line, to a point on the north property line of Lot 4, 50 feet east of the westerly
property line; and west of a line be~nning at a point on the south line of Lot 5, 50 feet
east of the westerly property line, to a point on the north ~ line of Lot 5, 50 feet
east of the westerly property line, there terminating.
Todd Gerhardt
May 27, 2003
Page 5
1
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street Imps, 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 09-1).
4~
There will be no parking allowed along one side of the new proposed road. Fire lane
signs will be installed by the devel~ per requirements set forth by Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy ~6-1991 and Section 904-1 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code.
.
No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must either
be removed from site or chipped.
6.
The proposed new driveway extending south from the cul-de-sac is in excess of 150 feet.
Per 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4, dead-end fire apparatus access
roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for
turning around of fire apparatus. Exception: When buildings are completely protected
with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of the turn around may
be modified by the Fire Department. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for more
information regarding the exception.
,
The applicant shall submit a separate lan~g plan showing 19 u-ees as replacen~nt
plantings. Each lot is required to have a minimum of three .verst.fy, deciduous trees.
Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. No one species may account for more than
one-third of the total required.
.
Buffer yard plantings must meet minimum requirements: 6 .verst.fy, 13 understory, and
18 shrubs.
e
All areas with trees outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation
fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
10.
All bluff areas shall be preserved. All structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from
the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land
located within 20 feet fi'om the top, toe or side of a bluff). The bluff areas and
corresponding 30-foot setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan.
11.
The proposed project shall not alter existing overland storm water drainage patterns or
rotes. Particular attention shall be paid to maintaining the storm water drainage patterns
and rates on Lot 3 and ensuring there is adequate infra,stmclxtm and/or area to
accommodate the runoff coming down the ravines onto that property.
12.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 3.7 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $3,511; the water quantity fees are approximmely $8,688.
Todd Gerhardt
May 27, 2003
Page 6
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $12,199.
13.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
14.
Existing well and septic site shall be protected during construction and properly
abandoned in accordance with City Code and the Minnesota Department of Health once
the sewer and water lines become operational and are accepted by the City.
15. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
16.
Retaining walls over 4' high require a permit and must be designed by an engineer
licensed in the State of Minnesota.
17.
The private street must be paved to a minimum width of 20-feet and built to a 7-ton
design. A turnaround area, acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal, must be provided at the
southerly end of the private street. The private street must be located within a 30-foot
wide private easement and dedicated to the benefiting property owners. The private
driveway easement shall be recorded to the south end of the property and benefit Lot 3,
Block 1, Hillside Oaks, for up to two home sites.
18.
Provide a copy of a final soils report for all building pads. The report should include 79G
lot-by-lot tabulations.
19.
The developer shall pay full park fees for four lots purs~ to city ordinance at the time of
final plat recording.
20. Lot 1, shall maintain a 30 foot minimum setback fxom the west ~ line
21.
Lot 5 shall be designated as a "custom graded" lot. A detailed grading, drainage, tree
removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City at time of building permit
application for review and approval.
22.
The applicant ancVor contxactor shall supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul mute
for review and approval to sim g ai g.
23. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
24. The plans shall be revised as follows:
i) Show the rear house pad elevations for Lot 3 and 5.
Todd Gerh~t
May 27, 2003
Page 7
ii) Extend the berm in Lot 1, approximately 40 feet, to the south and raise the elevation
to ahigh of 910.
iii) Add a benchmark and legend to the plans. The legend should define all of the
different line types, utilities, contours, etc.
iv) Move sanitary sewer manhole (#1) to within the paved portion of the private slreet
v) Extend the watermaln to within five feet of the south property line of the site.
vi) Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
25.
The developer shall supply the City Engineer with storm dl'ainage calculations for a 10-
year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event for review and approval along with a drainage
area map. There shall be no increase in off-site nmoff rates to the south.
6J
Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications shall be prepared and
submitted in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates for City Council approval at time of final plat consideration.
27.
The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial
security in the form of a letter of credit or a cash escrow to guarantee construction of the
public improvements and compliance with the Conditions of Approval.
28.
All disturbed areas as a result of conslxuction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in ~ce with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
29.
The developer shall include a drain tile system behind the curb to convey sump pump
discharge from the units not adjacent to ponds and/or wetlands. This includes the private
street.
30. Any offsite grading will require a temporary easement~
31.
The site has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the site will be subject to
one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the installation of the existing stubs
to the site. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513.
The connection charges will be applied toward the first building permit that is pulled for
the site. The property is also subject to sanitm~ sewer and water hook-up charges for all
of the lots. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer
and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. In addition,
since the property is within the Lake .Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of
$1,100 per unit and a sub-tnmk charge of $902 per unit will be due on each lot. These
charges are collected prior to each building permit issuance.
Todd Gerhardt
May 2'/, 2003
Page 8
32.
Due to the low floor elevation of the proposed lots, in-home pressure reducing water
valves will be required on all lots with a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less.
33.
Utihties along the private street will need to have a drainage and utility easement
dedicated over them. The minimum width will be 30 feet depending on the utility depth.
34.
As per City Code Section 19-41 (a), the house to the north will be required to connect to
the sanitary sewer within twelve months of the sewer becoming available.
35.
The interior site storm sewer will need to have a minimum 20-foot wide easement
dedicated over it.
36.
The plans show a triangular area in the northwest comer of Powers Circle. This area
shall be incorporated in Lot 5, not as part of the right-of-way.
37.
There is a portion of Powers Circle on the grading plan that is greater than 7%. This
section must be revised to comply with the 7% maximum grade requirement~
38.
A new street shall be stubbed out to the north property line and constructed with this
project. The existing driveway for the property to the north shall be revised to come off
of the new stub street. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
modifications, including the relocation of the fire hydrant and street light pole at the
entrance to the site."
ATFA~NTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Letter Dated May 8, 2003 from Arild Rossavik toe George and Jacquelyn
Reduced Copy of Original Plat include Lots 1 and 2, I-lillaide Oaks
Letter Dated May 8, 2003 from Arild Rossavik to George and J~lyn
Letter Dated May 8, 2003 from Afild Rossavik to Jayme and Carol Lee
Letter Dated January 23, 2003 from Arild Rossavik to George Bizek
Letter Dated December 26, 2002 from Arild Rossavik to George Bizek
Letter dated May 16, 2003 from Arild Rossavik to the City Council
Planning Commission Staff Retx~
George and Jacquel~
8750 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen
MN 55317
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Re. Subdivision 8800 Powers Blvd
Dear George and Jacquelyn
In 1996 we both agreed on rezoning and subdivision ofboth our properties.
The evidence is in the preliminary plat with both our names as developers and owners.
and when at 11 th hour you wanted me to move the common driveway entrance to the
south, which I could not do, you pulled your cxmsent and you have since been against
this project. Engineering cost was over $5000.00 which you left me to pay
until I had to take you to small claims court to pay your part.
When I asked you perso~y today if you wanted to participate in the Rezoning
and Subdivision you responded that it was prematm~, maybe in five to ten years.
Later when I asked you if were willing to give up the necessary land to accommodate
your request for a Cull De Sac which could serve your property better you responded
that since I had dragged you to court, and also I had complained to the City of your
Air Condition Business; you would never do any business with me.
You also promised to sue me personally if I ever got this application passed
You added: This should teach me how to treat people ......
This is strong contrast to your presentation at the at Planning Commi~ion May 6th 2003
Where you said we should file this application together and you did not understand why
I had not talked to you for several years, as you had no negative feelings against me.
You demonstrated today very strong negative feeling towards me, which I am sorry for.
I still think it is in your own and the City's interest, (they installed major infra stmctm-e
since 1996, to serve our properties) to at least consider rezoning and have the Cull De
Sac moved so it does not hurt the furore value of your property. I will pay for the Chffi De
Sac ( close to $200,000.00) now. This will only increase the resale value of your
property, when you decide to sell. ( I think you did eicon an offer on your property
subject to rezoning last year)
Talk to the City if you don't want to talk to me.
I w{,ll keqp4his option open as long as I can, before the City Council meeting
Adld Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen
CC: City of Chanhassen
~/IY 1 ~ 2803
Cl'l'Y OF OH~NHASSEN
I!
'C
Thursday, May 08, 2003
George and Jacquelyn
8750 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen
MN 55317
Re. Subdivision 8800 Powers Blvd
Dear George and Jacquelyn
I have earlier invited you to participate in my rezoning and subdivision application,
In 1996 this was a joint effort, and I am happy to now hear that you want to participate
again.
Please accept my invitation in the rezoning and subdivision process.
You can have your property re-zoned and Subdivided with mine in this
we can construct the Cull De Sac where it serves your property better.
process,also
We can talk to my surveyor, Engineers and the City Staff together, it is my wish that
this again can be joint effort, so we all can maximize this opportunity to increase the
resale value of our properties now before highway212 comes along just south ofus.
If needed, I will ask the City to table my application so we can address
your needs and incorporate them as well in the application.
Please give me a call at 952 448 4844.
Cell phone is 612 232 6890
Email: AR~MIlLD.US
Sincerely~
Axild Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen
CC: City of Chanhassen
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Jayme and Carol Lee
1380 Oakside Circle
Chanhassen
MN 55317
Re. Subdivision 8800 Powers Blvd
Dear Jayme and Carol.
Please accept my invitation to participate in the rezoning process.
You can have your property rezoned with mine in this process, also
If you want to subdivide your property we may be able to extend my projected private
street into your property to serve any future lost you may want to develop.
We can talk to my surveyor, En~neers and the City Staff together, it is my wish that
this can be joint effort, so we all can maximiT~ this opportunity to increase the resale
value of our properties now before highway 212 comes along just south ofus.
If needed, I will ask the City to table my application so we can address
your needs and incorporate them as well in the application.
Please give me a call at 952 448 4844.
Cell phone is 612 232 6890
Email: AR~ad~ILD.US
Sin,cerelv.--.
Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen
CC: City of Chanhassen
Janua~ 23, 2003
George Bizek
8750 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
Mr. Bizek
Enclosed is a copy of the first draft of the development, there will small changes, even
if you decided not to participate in this, but because your property is next to it, it will
affect you, and I will try to keep you informed as of progress.
You will see you your Sewer connection already stipulated as your property by code I
understand will be required by the City to hook up to Public sever within 12 months
The Cull de sac will become a public street, and at the request of the City Staff
(Bob Generous ) my engineers are working on extending the draft to show how your
property can access this public street in the future.
If you have any concerns or input please contact City Staff as I am woridng with them
to address any issues
The filing deadline is February 14th 2003.
Sincerely
Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd
Deeernber 26, 2002
George Bizek
8750 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
I have received your rejection to my joint request application for Rezoning. I will pursue
this on my own and I expect this to be filed In January 2003
BRW Engineers is updating the application to reflect the required
points made in the Staff report from the last time and the application will
then be filed, and I expect to get approval.
The Cull de Sac will then be on my side totally, which will not be the optimal
solution to you, therefore I invite you to give up the necessary land,
I believe it is 8 feet, and I will move the cull de sac down so it will serve
your property the best. You would not need to rezone or subdivide
If this is of interest
Please contact my attorney, Mark Kelly ph 474 5977 and Greg Brown with BRW ph
612 373 6479 as soon as possible,
so we can facilitate this at no cost for you. (Except the land)
Sincerely
Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd
Chanhassen MN 55317
CITY OF
PC DATE: May 6, 2003
CC DATE: May 27, 2003
REVIEW DEADLINE: June 13, 2003
Z
STAFF
REPORT
Request for a land use plan amendment from Resideatial l~u-ge Lot to Re~dential Low
Density;, request for rezoning of Lot 2, Block 1, ITflMde Oaks, from Agricultural'Eaale
District, A-2, to Single Family Reaidefltial District, RSF; and subdivision with a. variance
for a private street of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, into 5 lots, Powers Circle.
LOCATION: 8800 Powers Boulevard, Lot 2, Block 1,-I-lillside Oaks
APPLIC~:
Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 448-4844
.Ltl
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Reaidential - Large Lot
ACREAGE: 3.72 acres
DENSITY: 1.34 gross; 1.5 net
SUMMARY OF REQLIF~T: The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment from Re~dential
La, ge Lot to Residential Low Density and rezoning of Lot 2, Block 1,1-1111aide Oaks, from Agricul~
Estate, A-2, to Single Family Residential; RSF, to l~aXfit thc subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, I-Iillside Oaks,
with a Variance to tzamit a private street ~g 5 lots for a development known as Powers Circle.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all pmpe~ owners within ~00 feet
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
Thc City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to
PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and
amendment thereto, must be consistent with thc City's C0mprchcnaivc Plan.
· ,
~Blvd (C.R. l j~)
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 2
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 ~
project meets the standards in the Sulxlivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively
high level of discretion with a variance because the applimnt is seeking a deviation from
established standards. This is a quasi judicial deci~on.
PROPOSAI2SUMMARY
This item previously appeared before the Planning Commission on March 18, 2003 as a six lot
subdivision. The project was tabled to Inn-mit the applicant to revise the plans. The issues the
Planning Commission wanted addressed were:
· Reduce the number of lots by one, to five total.
· Define the bluff area to determine whether Lot 5, formerly Lot 6, is developable.
· Address drainage issues.
· Reduce the cul-de-sac length.
· Reduce the private street length
· Reduce the number of conditions of approval
The Planning Commission minutes form March 18t~ have been attach~ for your review. Staff has
prepared a new zc'lxm based on the revisions to the plan.
The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment from Residential large Lot to Re.~dential
Low Density and rezordng of Lot 2, Block 1, I-lill~ide Oaks, from Agricultural Estate, A-2, to
Single Family Residential, RSF, to permit the subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, I-lillaide Oaks, with a
variance to permit a private street creating 5 lots for a development known as Powers Circle.
As part of the 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, this parcel as well as the rest of Hillside
Oaks subdivision was guided for Residential Low Density. After Hillaide Oaks final plat was
approved and in exchange for MUSA expansion elsewhere, this pmtm'ty was re-guided for estate
type development. However, as part of the original plat, it was envisioned that when urban services
became available, this ~ would redevelop, but with larger lots.
This propemj and the lot to the north are separate from the balance Of the }rfllside Oaks
development and are served via a shared driveway off Powers Boulevard. Low Density Reaidenfial
Development in the Lake Susan Hilla PUD surro~ these pmix~es on thn~ sides. As part of the
upgrade of Powers Boulevard, sewer and water services were extended down to Lyman Boulevard
to serve abutting parcels. Redevelopment of the properties would assist in paying for these public
improvements. Redevelopment of these parcels would use existing public facilities, rather than
requiring the extension of additional trunk sewer and water lines. Powers Boulevard is a collector
roadway and will continue to carry high volumes of traffic.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 3
The applicant is providing access for the future redevelopment of the property to the north. All of
the proposed public street and fight-of-way have been contained on the applicant's ~. In
addition, the development will provide service stubs for the connection of the property to the north
to city sewer and water services.
The applicant previously had submitted a subdivision request that included six lots. The lot areas
and required lot width did not all comply with the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the Planning
Commission requested that the applicant reduce the length of the cul-de-sac to create a larger
setback area for the house west of the cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission also ~ that the
applicant provide the bluff area and required setbacks information on the plans for review.
The comprehensive plan policies state:
Encourage low density residential development in approgfiate areas of the community that
reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighbo~oods while promoting the
establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality. Th/s site serves as a transition area
between different densities of Iow density residential, with low density residential development all
around the site.
Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services.
Development should occur in areas where servi~ are available before extending services to new
areas. A sanitary sewer lift station was installed across Powers Boulevard to service this are~ The
lift station is currently not usecL The availability of an adequate sanitary sewer system is a prOnary
consideration in the utilization of land for urban purposes.
New residential development shall be discomaged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or
physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural st__at¢. The proposed
development will provide a conservation easement over the steep slopes and trees.
The City of Chanhassen is committed to providing a variety of housing styles with housing
available for people of all income levels. The City of Chanhassen supports a balanced housing
supply including the provision of estate type homes.
Staff is recommending approval of the I. and Use Map Amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat
subject to the conditions of the staff mIxgt. Staff concurs with the 1980 Chanhas~
Comprehensive Plan which guided this parcel as well as the rest of Hillside Oaks subdivision for
Residential - Low Density. As part of the Hillside Oaks subdivision, it was envisioned that when
urban services became available, this property would redevelop. While staff would prefer that both
lots redevelop simultaneously, we are not always presented with that opportunity.
BACKGROUND
February 1972. The ~ was zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence Distri~ as part of the
original city zoning.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 4
July 1980. The property was granted preliminary approval for a Planned Rezddential development
as part of the preliminary development plan for Lake Susan West P~RX). Since a final plat was
never filed on the project, the approved rezoning was never filed or published.
May 7, 1984. Final plat approved for Hillside Oaks Subdivision (84-2 Subdivision).
September 7, 1984. The City approves a land use map amendment from Re.~idenfial Low Density
to Agricultural and deletes the ~ from the M-LISA in exchange for 22 acres of industrial land
(McGlynns) and 7.3 acres of residential land noaheast of Lake ~Fmnewashta.
February 1987. Pmpe~ rezoned to A-2, Agricultmal Estate District as part of comprehensive
rezoning of the city.
February 1991. ~ brought back into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and
guided for Residential Large Lot, due to the existing development of the pmtxaW.
Summer, 1997. ~ owners for Lots 1 and 2 brought in preliminary plat for Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, Hillside Oaks including a land use map amendment and rezoning to single family
residential. The ~ owner for Lot 1 decided not to go forward with the project and the
February 23, 1998, the City Council:
· Denied a request for a land Use Map Amendment from Residential - T ~ LOt to Residential
Low Density for LOt 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks.
Denied a request for rezoning from A-2, Agricultural Estate District, to RSF, Single Family
Residential, for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to incon_nistency with the comprehensive
plan.
· Denied a preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition
subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirem~ts.
November 26, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council voted to:
Deny the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential - IaLrge LOt to Residential Low
Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks.
Deny the rezo~ng from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family
Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, due to inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan.
Deny the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 ~eafing six lots for the Powers Circle
Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 5
March 18, 2003, the applicant presented a six lot subdivision of the ~. Since one of the lots
did not comply with the RSF district regulations, the applicant was directed to revise the plan. The
subdivision currently being reviewed includes this reAuction to five lots with shortening of both the
public and private streets.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Sections 2041 through 20-45, Amendments
Section 20-571 through 20-576 Agricultural Estate district regulations
Section 20-611 through 20-616, RSF district regulations
Section 20-1400 through 20-1407, Bluff Protection
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
LANDSCAPING/TR~ PRESERVATION
Staff has approximated tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Powers Circle
development. They are as follows:
Total upland area (inclndtng outlots)
Total canopy area (exchuting wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposal tree preservation
3.7 ac or 162,205 SF
1.07 ac or 46~i75 SF
29%
30% or 48,662 SF
20% or 31~8 SF
The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore, the difference is
multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the requirexl repl~t plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
6,794
1.2
20,153 SF
Buffer yard plantings are required along Powers Boulevard as follows:
East property line-
buffer yard B
IRequired
6 overstory
13 understory
18 shrubs
Prop~
0 overstory
16 understory
0 shrubs
Staff recommends that the developer provide evergreens at the south end of the proposed private
street to help screening of headlights for the ~ to the south. Trees shall be planted in a
staggered pattern every 15 feet along the length of the tum-arouncL
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 6
A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be
location, species and size of replacement and buffer yard plantings. All plants must meet
minimum size requirements.
WETLANDS
There are no wetlands on this site.
BLUFFS
Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30%
and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) on Lots 3, 4 and 5. The toe of the bluff which
varies is generally at the 922 contour and the top generally at the 950 contour. The toe and top of
the bluff change elevations as the slope visually changes. These areas must be preserved. In
addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur
within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top, toe or
side of a bluff). The bluff areas and corresponding 30-foot setbacks should be shown on the
grading plan.
While the bluff area constrains development of Lot 5, it does permit a significant buildable area.
The building width at the front setback line could be in excess of 60 feet in width. The buildable
envelope narrows at the rear conservation easement to 40 foot in width, approximately 105 back
from where the house building pad is shown on the plans. It should be noted that the preliminary
plat sheet incorrectly shows a bluff setback line on Lots 3 and 5. The end of the bluff on LOt 5
ends at the 922 contour so the bluff setback bends to the south following the bottom of the bluff.
The 30 foot bluff setback line does not correspond to the actual bluff setback on Lot 3. The
bluff setback line on Lot 3 was shown 30 feet from the 916 contour. However, in this area, the
toe of the bluff jumps from the 910 contour, up to the 922 contour, then moves back down to the
916 contour on the north property line
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN {SWMP}
As part of the Powers Boulevard Construction project, the City built water quantity and water
quality ponds to service this area under ultimate development conditions. The proposed project
should not alter existing overland storm water drainage patterns or rates. Particular atmntion should
be paid to maintaining the storm water drainage patterns and ra~ on Lot 4 and ensuring there is
adequate infrastructure and/or area to accomm~ the runoff coming down the ravines onto that
property.
Water Quality Fees
The SWMP established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land
use. Dedication is equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for ~t of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The water quality charge for single-family resident developments
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 7
is $949 per acre. SWMP fees for this proposed development are based on a total developable land
area of 3.7 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to pay $3,511 in water quality fees.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP established a connection chaxge for the different land uses ba~at on an average
citywicle rate for the installation of water quantity systern~. This cost includes land acqui~qition,
proposed culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff ~. Single-family
residential developments have a connection charge of $2,348 per developable acre. The total net
area of the property is 3.7 acre~. Therefore, the water quantity connection charge is $8,688.
The total SWMP fees of $12,199 are due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
SWMP Credits
Because the City incorporated the storm water voluxnes resul~g from the ultimate development of
this site into the Powers Boulevard Consmacfion project, the project is not eligible for SWMP
OTItER AGENCIF3
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watemhed District, ~finnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps
of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATIVIENT SYSTEM
O~te utilities. The existing well may continue to be used on furore Lot 5 af~ City utilities are
provided to the lot. A licensed well abandonment conlxactor must abandon the well if its tree is
discontinued.
The existing ISTS (individual sewage tre. aanent system) must remain un~ until the existing
home is connected to City sewer. The system should be located and protected before site grading
begins.
The septic tank for the ISTS must be ~ly abandoned by a licensed ISTS pumpea'.
Abandonment includes pumping, removing or destroying the tank and filling the excavation or the
destroyed tank. Proof of abandonment must be famished to the Tnapectiomq Division before
issuance of any building permits in the subdivision.
Soils Report. Before building permits can be issued a soils report showing details and locations of
house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required. The soils retxa-t should
include lot-by -lot tabulations for land development with controlled earthwork prepared according
to HUD Data Sheet 79(3. This information is required in order to be able to review building plans.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 8
Addr~ing. The house directly to the north of the proposed subdivision will be rased from
Powers Circle. This new driveway location wffi require an sddress change for that home. The
existing home within the proposed subdivision will also require an address change.
PARK AND RECREATION
The subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, I-lillsi& Oaks results in an in~ deaxtand on City park and
trail services. The four new homes will be required to pay full park fees as a condition of the
subdivision (4 x $2,400). The existing home is exempt from this requimm~t. The project site lies
within the park service areas of Power ~ Park, Prairie Knoll Park and Lake Susan Park Preserve.
This property connects directly to the City's trail system at Powers Boulevard.
No other park and recreation conditions apply.
GRADING
Approximately one-half of the site is proposed to be graded for the house pads and street layout.
The existing topography contains a very steep, partially wooded slope along the westerly portion
of the site. The westerly portion of the site contaim a variety of trees, shrubs and conifers. In
addition, two drainage ravines also intersect the parcel on this west slope. While previous
upstream development has decreas~ the amount of runoff that flows through the ravines, they
still act as a conduit to neighborhood drainage and need to be preserved. In an attempt to
preserve the drainage ravines, the applicant has proposed drainage and utility easements over the
ravines in Lots 3 and 4. Staff believes this is a good way to protect the ravines and would only
recommend that the easement for the northern ravine be extended through Lot 3 to the private
street.
Lot 5 is proposed to be "custom gnutecL" As such, a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and
erosion control plan will be required at the time of building permit application for staff review
and approval. The rear house pad elevation for LOts 3 and 5 must be shown on the grading plan
as well.
This development is adjacent to Powers Boulevard (County Road 17), which is listed as a
collector street in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. According to City Code, the
development will require screening of the adjacent lots from Powers Boulevard. The applicant
has proposed a combination of landscaping and separated bemas to accomplish the screening.
The separated berms will provide openings for the runoff to drain out to Powers Boulevard as it
does today.
Staff has some concerns with the berming and screening in the rear yard area of Lot 1. The berm,
which is meant to screen the rear of the house from Powers Boulevard, does not extend far
enough south to screen any of the rear house pad. Staff is recommending that the berm be
extended, approximately 40 feet, to the south and that the berm be raised to an elevation of 910 at
the northeast corner of the lot. In ~ddition, there should be a minimum of 20-feet off the rear
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 9
house pad with a maximum slope of 10:1. This ensures that the future homeowner will get a
usable backyard area and more screening f~m Powers Boulevard.
It appears that fill material will need to be imported to eonsmaet the lots and streets. The
applicant and/or contractor must supply the City Engineer with a haul route for review and
approval prior to grading activities commencing. The applicant should be aware that any grading
outside of the property limits will require a temporary easement.
The existing site drains from west to east onto Powers Boulevard where an existing storm
drainage system collects stormwater runoff and carries it north to a stormwater quality pond for
pretreaunent prior to discharging into a downstream wetland. The pond has been sized for
development of this site and, as such, no on-site pond will be required for this development. The
parcel was not assessed for any storm drainage imrrtovements with the Powers Boulevard project
and therefore will be responsible for surface water management fees.
The plans propose two catch basins to convey stormwater nmoff from Powers Circle and the
property to the north into the existing drainage system in Powers Boulevard. There are also three
proposed structures within the site to convey the stormwater from the northern ravine, private
stree~ and a large portion of the lots to Powers Boulevard. In addition, storm drainage
calculations for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event must be submi~ for review and
approval along with a drainage area map. No increase in off-site runoff rates to the south will be
allowed.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Silt fence is shown along the majority of the site
perimeter where stormwater and sediment can mn off the site. A 75-foot rock cons~on
entrance has been shown at the proposed street access off of Powers Boulevard. In addition, tree
preservation fencing needs to be added around any and all trees to be saved.
There is an existing home on the site which utilizes a well and septic system- Upon installation
of the public utilities, the existing house will be required to abandon the septic tank and connect
to the public sanitary sewer. The applicant will have the option of doing the same with the
existing well. In the meantime, the existing septic and well locations need to be shown on the
plans so they can be protected during c, onstmction.
The site has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the site will be subject to one
sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the installation of the existing stubs to the site.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are ,$4,513. The connection
charges will be applied toward the first building permit that is pulled for the site. The property is
Powers Circle
May 5, 2O03
Page 10
also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots. The 2003 trunk
utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The
2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. In addition, since the ~ is within the Lake Ann
sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,100 per unit and a sub-trunk charge of $902 per
unit will be due on each lot. These charges are collected prior to each building pem~t issuance.
In conjunction with the Powers Boulevard project municipal sewer and water service was
extended to serve this parcel and the one to the north. An 8-inch sewer line ha~ been extended
out along the northerly lot line of the site from Powers Boulevard. The plans ~ on
extending the sanitary line into the site and then going south to serve the lots. Staff is
recommending that the southern most sanitary sewer manhole (#1) be moved within the paved
portion of the private street. This will provide easier maintenance ms for City utility workers.
A 6-inch watermain is also proposed to be extended into the site along Powers Circle and then
along the private street. The watermaln must be extended to within five feet of the south
property line for future looping with the ~ to the south. The applicant has included public
sanitary sewer and water main stubs off of the cul-de-sac for future development of the ~
to the north. Upon installation of these utilities, the house to the north will be within 150 feet of
the sanitary sewer. As per City Code Section 19-41 (a), this house will then be required to
connect to the sanitary sewer system within twelve months of the sewer becoming available.
Since all of the lots will have a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less, in-home pressure reducing
water valves will be required on all lots. Utilities along the private street will need to have a
drainage and utility easement dedicated over them. The minimum width will be 30-feet
depending on the utility depth. The interior site storm sewer will also need to have a minimum
20-foot wide easement dedicated over it.
Detailed utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition
of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates Will be required for review and approval by the City
Council at time of final plat consideration. Since the utilities and part of the street improvements
will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter into a development
contract with the City and provide fmancial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash
escrow to guarantee construction of the public i ~mprove~ts. Permits from the appropriate
regulatory agency will be required, including but not limited to: Watershed District, MPC&
Dept. of Health, Carver County, etc.
STREETS
Access to the site is proposed by both a public street (Powers Circle) and a private street to serve
up to four of the lots (1, 2, 3 and 4). Based on the surrounding parcels, there appears to be no
need to extend a public street to the south. The adjacent parcel has ms from Oakside Circle
immediately south of the development. The parcel to the north will have access from Powers
Circle. The plans propose to construct a new driveway entrance off of Powers Circle for the
parcel to the north. The preliminary plat also shows a future street access to the north. Staff is
recommending that this street be stubbed out to the property line and consmacted with this
project. Staff would also recommend that the driveway entrance be revised to come off of the
new stub street.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 11
The public street width and right-of-way for Powers Circle per City ordinance must be 31-feet
back-to-back within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The plans comply with each of these
requirements. However, the plans show a triangular area in the northwest comer of Powers
Circle. This area should be incorporated in Lot 5, not as part of the right-of-way. Also, the
City's maximum street grade is 7%. There is a portion of Powers Circle on the grading plan that
is greater than 7%. This section will have to be revised to comply with the 7% maximullL The
private street must be paved to a minimum width of 20-feet and built to a 7-ton design. A
turnaround ama, acceptable to the City's Fire ~, must be provided along the private streec
The private street must be located within a 30-foot wide private easement and dedicated to the
benefiting property owners.
Access to the site from Powers Boulevard does have a right turn lane providec[ Therefore, no
additional turn lanes will be necessary. As a result of this project, both existing homes will be
required to change addresses to correspond to the new street name.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Area (sq. ft.) Pront (ia) (ia) Setbacks fit):
Code 15,000 90, 100 if 125 30, 30, 10
accessed via a
private street
Lot I 21,041 120 152 30, *, 10
Lot 2 23,147 150 161 30, 30, 10
Lot 3 41,845 150 271 30, 30, 10 @
Lot 4 36,499 63 # 260 30, 30, 10 @
Lot 5 22,113 104 202 30, 30, 10 @
ROW 16,650
Total 162,205
* Comer lot front setback on street sides and side yard setbacks on other two sides
@ = conservation easement proposed over portion of ~.
# Exceeds 90 feet at the building setback line.
REZONING/COMPREBlt~NSIVE PIAN
The existing land use designation of the property is for Residential I. arge Lot. This area has been
developed with single homes on larger lots. The parcel abuts a collector roadway. Chanhassen is a
high alllenity community. The community highly regards its natural environment including trees,
slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development of thia site for single family homes
on half acre or larger lots would be consistent with surrounding development.
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 12
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The proposed subdivision meets all minimum ordinance requirements for RSF
zoned properties.
1
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan,
subject m approval of the land use amendment fi'om Residential - Large Lot to Resi~fifl
- Low Density.
3. The physical characteristics of the.site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and
storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to revisions 'to the
development plan specified in this ~ The applicant is proposing conservation
easements over the western portion of the development to preserve the trees and steep
slopes.
4. The proposed subdivision makes _sd_equate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other im.nrovements required by
this chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate ugoan infvas~ with a
variance for the use of a private street.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause envirtmmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage to site
topography through grading and removal of vegetafiom Restrictions on the housing types
and limitation of the grading area will reduce the developments impacts on natural features
and abutting ~.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing eamements, but rather will
expand and provide all necessary easements.
e
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is pmmamm ff any of the
following exists:
I_ack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer system~.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 13
d. Iatck of adequate off-site public i ,mpmv~ts or ~ systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provid~ with adequ~ urban infras~.
YARIANCE FINDINGS WIT-~I SUBDIVISONS
The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat
approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves si~ificant
site feaUa~.
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical sun'oundings, shape and topogr~hical
conditions of the land.
.
.
The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to
other properties due to the unique site fealxxr~.
The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public weffare and is
in accord with the p~ and int~mt of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS
(1)
O)
The prevailing development pa_tt__erm makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to eonsmmt a public
strut. In making this demrmination, the city cxa~dered the location of existing ~ lines
and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of bluffs.
After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street
system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, im.m, ove access, or to provide a street
system consistent with the comprehensive plato
The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural re. mm in
this instance site topography and wooded areas.
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of
and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 14
3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is propose~
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions:
'q'ne Planning Commi~j'on records approval of the Land Use Map Amendment from
Residential - lan, ge Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hill _~dde Oaks."
'q~ne Ptanning Commigsion reconumn~ approval of the rezontng from A2, Agricultural
Estate lYm~ct to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, l]ill~de Oaks."
'~rhe Planning Commi~lon recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Subdivision
97-12 creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street for the Powers Circle
Addition subject to the following conditions:
il
2~
e
The developer shall pay the City applicable GIS and recording fees.
A preservation easement shall be recordexl over the westerly portion of the site to preserve
topography and trees. This easement shall include land west of a line begirning at a point
on the south line of Lot 3, 80 feet east of the westerly ~ line, to a point on the north
property line of Lot 3, 180 ft. east of the westerly property line; and west of a line
beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 4, 180 feet east of the westerly ~ line,
to a point on the north property line of Lot 4, 50 feet east of the westerly ~ line;
and west of a line beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 5, 50 feet east of the
westerly property line, to a point on the north property line of Lot 5, 50 feet east of the
westerly property line, there terminating.
A 10-foot clear space must be maint~ned 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).
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 15
,
There will be no parking allowed along one side of the new proposed road. Fire lane
signs will be installed by the developer per requirements set forth by Chauhassen lrtre
Depamnent/Fire Prevention Division Policy ~5-1991 and Section 904-1 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code.
1
No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and bn~ must either
be removed from site or chipped.
m
The proposed new driveway extending south from the cul-de-sac is in excess of 150 feel
Per 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2~.4, dead-end fire apparatus
access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions
for turning around of fire apparatus. Exception: When buildings are completely
protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of the turn
around may be modified by the Fire Department. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
more information regarding the exception.
.
The applicant shall submit a separate landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacammnt
plantings. Each lot is required to have a minimum of three overstory, deci~om trees.
Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. No one species may account for more than
one-third of the total required.
.
Buffer yard plantings must meet minimum requirements: 6 overstory, 13 understory, and
18 shrubs.
.
All areas with trees outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation
fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
10.
Ail bluff areas shall be thy, served. All smmmms shall maintain a 30-foot setback from
the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top, toe or side of a bluff). The bluff areas and
corresponding 30-foot setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan.
11.
The proposed project shall not alter existing overland storm water drainage patterns or
rates. Particular attention shall be paid to maintaining the storm water drainage patterns
and rates on Lot 3 and ensuring there is adequate infrastruc~ and/or area to
accommodate the runoff coming down the ravines onto that property.
12.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 3.7 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $3,511; the water quantity fees are approximately $8,688.
At this time, the estimated wtal SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $12,199.
13.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Minnesota Department of Nat,md Resoumes, Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 16
14.
Existing well and septic site shall be protected during construction and ~ly
abandoned in accordance with City Code and the Minnesota Department of Health once
the sewer and water lines become operati~ and are accepted by the City.
15. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
16.
Retaining walls over 4' high require a permit and must be designed by an en~neer
licensed in the State of Minnesota.
17.
The private street must be paved to a minimum width of 20-feet and built to a 7-ton
design. A turnaround area, acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal, must be provided at the
southerly end of the private street. The private street must be located within a 30-foot
wide private easement and dedicated to the benefiting property owners.
18.
Provide a copy of a final softs report for all building pads. The report should include 79G
lot-by-lot tabulations.
19.
The developer shall pay full park fees for four lots pursuant to city ordinance at the time of
final plat recording.
20. Lot 1, shall maintain a 30 foot minimum setback from the west propett3t line
21.
Lot 5 shall be designated as a "custom graded" lot. A detailed grading, drainage, tree
removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City at time of building permit
application for review and approval.
22.
The applicant and/or contractor shall supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route
for review and approval prior to site grading.
23. All plans must be signed by a registered en~neer.
24. The plans shall be revised as follows:
i) Show the rear house pad elevations for Lot 3 and 5.
ii) Extend the berm in Lot 1, approximately 40 feet, to the south and raise the elevation
to a high of 910.
iii) Add a benchmark and legend to the plans. The legend should define all of the
different line types, utilities, contours, etc.
iv) Move sanitary sewer manhole (#1) to within the paved portion of the private street.
v) Extend the watermain to within five feet of the south property line of the site.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 17
vi) Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
25.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
The developer shall supply the City Engineer with storm drainage calculations for a 10-
year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event for review and approval along with a drainage
area map. Them shall be no increase in off-site runoff rates to the south.
Detailed utility and street cons~on plans and specifications shall be prepared and
submitted in acco~ce with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates for City Council approval at time of final plat consideration.
The developer shall enter into a development conmuet with the City and provide financial
security in the form of a letter of cre~t or a cash escrow to guarantee construction of the
public improvements and compliance with the Conditions of Approval.
All disturbed areas as a result of co~on activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The developer shall include a drain tile system behind the curb to convey sump pump
discharge from the units not adjacent to ponds and/or wetlands. This includes the private
street.
Any offsite grading will require a temporary easement.
The site has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the site will be subject to
one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the installation of the existing stubs to
the site. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The
connection charges will be applied toward the first building permit that is pulled for the
site. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of
the lots. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,~.~.0 per unit for sanitary sewer
and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. In addition,
since the property is within the l_ake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of
$1,100 per unit and a sub-tnmk charge of $902 per unit will be due on each lot. These
charges are collected prior to each building permit issuance.
Due to the low floor elevation of the proposed lots,-in-home pressure redudng water
valves will be required on all lots with a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less.
Utilities along the private street will need to have a drainage and utility easement
dedicated over them. The minimum width will be 30 feet depending on the utility depth.
As per City Code Section 19-41 (a), the house to the north will be required to connect to
the sanitary sewer within twelve months of the sewer becoming available.
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 18
35.
The interior site storm sewer will need to have a minimum 20-foot wide easement
dedicateA over it.
36.
The plans show a triangular area in the northwest comer of Powers Circle. This area shall
be incorporated in Lot 5, not as part of the right-of-way.
37.
There is a portion of Powers Circle on the grading plan that is greater than 7%. This
section must be revised to comply with the 7% maximum grade requirement.
38.
A new street shall be stubbed out to the north property line and consm~/ed with this
project. The existing driveway for the ~ to the north shall be revised to come off
of the new stub street. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the
modifications, including the relocation of the fire hydrant and street light pole at the
entrance to the site."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation
2. Development Review Application
3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Utility Plan
5. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
6. Letter from Robert Generous to Arild Rossavik dated 3/20103
7. Memo from A_dld Rossavik to Bob Generous dated 3/19/03
8. Planning Commission Minutes from March 18, 2003
9. Letter from Steve and Kfisti Buan to Chanhas~n Planning Commission dated 3/18/03
10. Memo from Don Coban to Bob Genewus dated 3/12/03
11. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous d~_ed 3/10/03
12. Letter from Arild Rossavik to Chanhassen City Staff dated 2/14/03
13. Letter from Arild Rossavik to Affected Neighbors O~t~ 2/13/03
14. CSAH 17 (Powers BlvcL) Improvement Asse,~ment Roll B
15. Area Land Use Map
16. LeRer from Afild Rossavik to Chanhas~n City Staff d_st_ed 2/12/03
17. Letter from Afild Rossavik to Chanhassen Mayor and City Council dated ldl2/03
18. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 19
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIF_S, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FA CT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Arild Rossavik for rezoning, land use amendment and subdivision.
On May 6, 2003, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Arild Rossavik for re. zoning prope~ from Agricultural
Estate District, A-2, to Single Family Residential District, RSF, a land use amendment from
Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density and preliminary plat with a variance for the use
of a private street approval for a five lot subdivision. The Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed mzoning, land use amendment and subdivision preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
2.
3.
4.
The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2.
The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Large Lot.
The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks.
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible
adverse affects of the proposed amendment The six (6) affects and our findings
regarding them are:
a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
b)
c)
Zoning Ordinance subject to the revisions of the plat recommended by staff.
The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area.
The proposed use does conform to all performance standards contained in the
Powers Circle
May 5, 2003
Page 20
e
adverse affects of the proposed subdivision.
them are:
d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of stxvem serving tho
property.
The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible
The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding
1) The proposed subdivision is conaistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The proposed subdivision meets all minimum ordinance requirements for RSF
2) The proposed subdivision ia consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plato
including but not limited to the city's com.mehenaive plan;
Finding: The proposed development is cxmsistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan,
subject to approval of the land use amendment from Re.~dential - I rage Lot to Readdential
- Low Density.
3)
Thc physical charact~stics of thc site, including but not limited to topography, mils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to revisions to the
development plan specified in this ~ The aoplieant is proposing conservation
easements over the western portion of the development to preserve the tre~ and steep
slopes.
4)
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other i .mprove~ts required by this
chapter,
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by ad_ ~w~tte urban in~ with a
variance for the use of a private streeL
5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Hnding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage to site
topography through grading and removal of vegetation. ~ctions on the housing types
Powers Cimle
May 5, 2003
Page 21
and limitation of the grading area will reduce the developments impacts on nattmal features
and abutting property.
6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will
expand and provide all necessary easements.
7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A sulxli~on is Inea~mm if any of the
following exists:
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate rostra.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or suptx~ systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban inf'mstmctu~
0
The planning report g97-12 Sub. dated May 6, 2003, prepared by Robert Generous, et al,
is incorporated heroin.
RECO~ATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
rezoning, land use amendment and subdivision creating five lots.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of May, 2003.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
A'ITF.3T:
BY:
S~cretary
CITY OF CHANHASSEN'
7700 MARK.ET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
..
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
. . CITY OF CHAN~
RECEIVED '
OF. PT
TELEPHONE (Day lime)
'OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:--
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Condilional Use Permit
Intedm Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
,
Planned Unit Development*
~ Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
,
Variance
Wetl~:l~ Alteration Permit
.-
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordlnance Amendment.
.
L//'' Notification Sign
Escrow for Filing Fees/Att~mey Cost**
($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundarlea of the property must be Included with.the
Building material samples must be subrnitt~ with slt~ plan review.. '~ ·
*Twenty~ix full size l[olded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8~' X 11' reduced copy of.,
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applicalions are processed, the appropriate fee.shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION.. ~ ~ O C) ~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION L. o-~ ~
TOTAL ACREAGE ~/~ '-
-WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
YES ~ NO
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION-
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~ o-
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed an~l must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fling.this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requiremer~, applicable tO your application.'
.,
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A wrftten
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City .and that I am responsible for complying with.
all City requirements with regard to this 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. '.1 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of T'~le, Abstract of T'~e or purchase agreement), Or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the p.rogress of this application. I'further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. wi~ an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed wtth the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed wlthin 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency re,/~ew. Therefore, the city is n .ob'lying the apprmant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within-120--days unless' additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant. ..-
Signature of ~o~icant
Date
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to Itm meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
.I
I.
"
iii
CITYOF
770~ M:';'~ B~'-".~,'ard
FO B~x 147
C~-=,-,~,~,<,,~ r~u 55317
Administration
P~:,~e: 952.227.1109
Fax: 95.'2.227.1110
Building In~pectlon~
.Pr :%: .~52.227.1180
F~,×: 952.227.1190
Finance
Park & Recreation
. . ."'t../~.. -, ~.
-. -.- ') -4
':: :.-,.2~.,11C.
Planning &
Natural Resources
· o-* ,,*?
- .-:.~_. '!.:.
· ._' "::- i:'.
Senior Center
-... ~:.- .-:.-.:..:
' :...':. :.'.7'"~.
Web Site
,',.'..-. .' ,.:~' .::.'-
March 20, 2003
Mr. Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Powers Circle
Dear 1V[r. Rossavik:
Due to the need for revisions to the pl.an based on the elimination of one lot,
revision of lot lines, change in building pad locations, change in private street
turn-around location, shortening of the cul-de-sac, eliminating the retaining
wall, review of drainage and grading issues and the need for surveying of the
bluff, the city will be unable to complete the development review process
within 60 days of the original submittal (submitted February 13, 2003). We
are therefore notifying you that the city will be taking up to an additional 60
days to complete the development review for the project, which would extend
the review period to June 13, 2003.
Based on our discussion yesterday and your ability to have the revised plans
submitted to the city by April 1, 2003, the project has been tentatively re-
scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2003. If acted
upon by the Planning Commission, it would be sent to the City Council May
12, 2003.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 227-1131.
Robert Generous, AICP
Senior Planner
Generous, Bob
From: Adld Rossavik [arC~arild.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:25 AM
To: Bob Generous
Subject: Majority Issue
Ref Subdivision 8800 Powers Blvd
Dear Bob.
The majority issue was raised yesterday by the Planning Commi.qsion meanbem and I would just like to make
some additional comments on this issue.
Thc neighbors to thc south is served by an existing Cull De Sac and a possible rezoning and subdivision
without the construction cost and giving up of land for a Cull De Sac which is required on my side
there could be
Also I feel that 8800 powers Blvd is 3.78 acres compared t~ 2.5 acres for 8750 Powers Blvd and is thc majority land owner
and the only contributor
of the necessary land required for thc Cull De Sac and the initial construction cost which will serve and benefit both
March 19. 2003
Sincerely
Arild Rossavik
3/19/2003
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Blackowialc Craig, any other information?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd like to just highlight the point I made earlier that I believe it's a unique ~
insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage. And not in order to justify this particular
signage but possibly something to address with respect to our signage statute and ordimm~ in the future.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. This item goes to City Council on the 14m of April, and Bob you're
waving your hand over there. What can I do for you?
Generous: Chair, just one point of clarification. You said tenant and Giant Panda but you really mean for
this unit. The next person could have...
Blackowiak: For the specific south unit. I mean the somhem most tenant.
Claybaugh: End cap.
Blackowiak: Yeah, southern end cap, whatever we want to call it. And you know we could actually
even say, I don't even have the specific address. Are they 463 West 79~ C_dant Panda, okay. So we
could specify that this applies to the property at 463 West 79~, further defined as the southern most unit.
Okay? Clear enough. Alright, so that's our, those are our notes to council. Thank you for coming.
PUBLIC
REQI,]E~T FOR A LAND I~E AMENDMENT FROM RF~IDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO
RESIDENTIAL LOW DEN~ITY~ REZO~G FROM AGmCUL~ ESTATE
A-Z, TO SINGLE FAMILY ~ENTIAL~ ~ AND b3,]BDIVISIQN OF LOT
HILL~IDE QAK~ INT0 6 LQT~ WITH A VARIAN~ FOR ~ USE QF A PRIVATE
STRE ,ET LOCATED AT 8800 POWER~ BOIjIJ~ARD~ ARILD R0~AVIK~ POWERS
Public Prezent:
Nnme Address
Arild Rossavik
Mark Kelly
George & 1aclde Bizek
Greg Kahler
Steve & Kristi Buan
Sayme Lee
8800 Powers Boulevard
351 Second Street, F. xeelsior
8750 Powers Boulevard
8742 Flamingo Drive
8736 Flamingo Drive
8740 Flamingo Drive
1380 Oakside Circle
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners. Uli, would you like to start?
Sacchet: Yeah I have, I'd just, a lot of few que~ons. I've still got 16 left bec~ I want to do this read
quick, trtrst of all the time line. When was this m-guided from low density to estate? Do you have a time
for that?
Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003
Generous: In 1984.
Sacchet: '84. And so even when it was re-guided to be estate type development, it was considea~ that it
would be developed for larger lots. Can you define larger lots?
Generous: Well I would think over the minimum. Half acre to acre.
Sacchet: But definitely subdivide it into multiple small lots. So division has been consistently that this
property would be subdivided into further lots, but not necessarily as small as possible7
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Alright. Additionally the city did extend the utilities, sanitary sewer seawice down to across the
street from this property. There is a lift station in place to accomm~_te suburban style devel~t~
Sacchet: So not only was it envisioned, it was actuary not only planned for it was even action in
investment made by the City for, in preparation for that to happen~ So this is not an une~ event?
Okay.
Generous: That's co~
Sacchet: On page 2 you're talking about, when you talk about combini~ those two lots that front on
Powers. You say the turn around for the private street could be moved to the north, meaning it would
have to go as far down, it could be shorter?
Generous: The short, and that's exactly...
Sacchet: Could be shorter, okay.
Slagle: Can you show us Bob?
Generous: Well on the plans they show it going all the way to the south property line for a hammer head
turnaround. We're suggesting that it be provided where the 4 lot line corners come together.
Sacchet: Now if we only have 2 lots on the east side, wouldn't that allow also for the public street, the
cul-de-sac to be shorter? The turnarotmd be closer to Powers, and ~ore the building pad on Lot 6 to
be moved out of the slope further down into the flatter area.
Generous: Sure, that would work.
Sacchet: That would be a possibility, fight? Excellent. Now you're talking that at one point you were
making a comment that this is a transition area between different densities of low density residential. Do
you feel that it is accommodated with having this in 5 lots? I mean it's still pretty standard low density.
Can it be considers! transitional?
Generous: Well you have the large buffer area on the north and yes it could be.
Sacchet: Could be with a little imaginatiom On page 5 you're talking about the lot number 4 building
pad being moved 20 to 30 feet to the south to give more space for the easement to the north of the ravine.
20 or 30 feet, is it possible to do 30 or do you want 20 or do we say 20 to 30 and we know we c~minly
won't get more than 20 or what's the reasoning?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Generous: Well the problem shows up on the grading plan. If you look at it, and it's about, it's located
10 feet to the side property line.
Sacchet: Okay.
Generous: If you look at the preliminary plat they've shiRed it over in the location that we think is more.
Sacchet: So it's closer. Now wouldn't it be also the ease that if the private street doeam't have to be as
long, that there is more room to maneuver there or possibly even the lot line between Lot 3 and 4 could be
a little bit moved so that the lot, building space on Lot 4 could be moved fixtther out from the ravine?
Generous: This lot line shifted to the east?
Saechet: Like if the lot line between 3 and 4 would be more at a right angle. Right now it's not.
Generous: That's possible, except for you're creating a smaller lot adjacent to the roadway.
Saechet: Well not necessarily because we're combining 3 lots into 2.
Generous: But they're narrower.
Saeehet: It'd be the narrowness, alright. That's a concern. The berming. Now all the berming is going
to be different if you combine these 2 lots so that all will have to revisetL
Generous: That's correct.
Saeehet: You're talking about the grades will have to be revised to remove the retaining wall to the north,
so that there's a si~ificant amount of change in grading that would have to be taking place there? Some,
I guess that's more a Matt question.
Saam: Some, yeah. I don't know about if...
Saechet: Not too significant but some.
Saam: ...right word. Just revise it to delete the wall.
Saechet: Ah'ight. You also make the comment that Lot 3 appea~ to trap water. That's also something
that would have to be corrected through grading, con'ect?
Saam: Yeah. Yeah, at the southeast comer of the loc
Sacchet: Southeast, okay.
Saam: So again it's not a huge change but it would have to be revised.
Saechet: Okay. The neighbor to the north would be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system
within 12 months.
Saam: Correct. That's per city code.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any indication that the neighbor to the north would like that?
Saam: No, I don't but maybe he's hexe tonight.
Sacchet: Maybe we hear. Yeah, he's here so we hear from hirrr Same would apply to revising the
driveway to connect to the cul-de-sac which sure would make sense. Now here's a technical question far
you Matt. On page 8 in the middle it talks about a 31 foot wide face to face street where it's reduced to
31 feet back to back. Could you explain what that means?
Samm Sure. The face to face and back to back designation is to the curb, so when we say back to back,
it's the back edge of the concrete curb to the back edge of the opposite concrexe curb. And what they had
proposed was a 30 foot wide street face to face which would be the face of the curb.
Sacchet: Including.
Saam: So if you go 31 foot wide face to face, you still have to account for the bid of the concrete
and I think it's 6 inches for the back part. So we're saying decrease that It's essentially a one foot
difference.
Sacchet: Okay. That explains that very well, thank you. Bob, could you show us the contour of the
bluff?. There's a statement here that says the toe of the bluff is at the 960 contour line, and we're
requiring a 30 foot setback. Could you point out where we are there?
Generous: Well that's what we tried to highlight The 916 contour comes inhere.
Sacchet: Right.
Generous: And then it wraps around and the bluff actually ends far a period inbetween and then picks up
over on this side at the 916 contour which comes in right through the conseawafion easement line.
Sacchet: Now this is probably a Saam question. Matt Saam question. On page 10, talking about sewage
treatment system, there's a statement in the report that says the existing well may continue to be used on
future Lot 5, but that's a contradiction to actually 2 conditions. Condition 15 and 27 both state that the
well, as well as the individual sewage treatment system is going to have to be abandoned. Are we saying
they could continue ar are we, the condition say obviously they have to abandon.
Saam: Yeah. Actually the city code currently does not require for wells to be abandoned if you're, if the
house is within like 150 feet as with the sewer code. What we would recommend I guess to the applicant
that they, this house does connect to city water.
Sacchet: So we want to have the condition that there would...
Saarm Yes, we would like to yeah.
Sacchet: The compliance table on page 11, I assume that most of that would change with changing it to 5
lots versus 6. Is that cemiuly would change quite a bit, wouldn't it?
Generous: Well Lot 1 and 2.
Sacchet: 2 and 3.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Generous: One is going away, yes.
Sacchet: Yeah, 2 and 3 and possibly some on the other ones. The more substantial question. We're
talking about the comprehensive plato Asking for natural features and so forth to be preserved, but then
in Finding number 2 we say the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive
plan. Could you help me out because I seem to not be totally clear.
Generous: What the revisions to tl~ plan to pull it down tho bluff...
Sacchet: Okay, so we can mitigate sufficiently that we feel that staff feels it's sufficiently in line.
Alright. And one more question. Believe it or not, this is number 16. What's a majority of two?
It's not a trick question because it looks like in this neighborhood, specifically this development area,
we're talking about 2 parcels. We're talking about 2 owners and the ordinance says a majority of
residents in the neighborhood should agree to development. Now here we have a very unique situation.
We're talking about a majority of 2, which by definition would be 2 because 1 is not a majority of 2. So
I' 11 come back to that one in my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Slagle: I'm not going to go after him.
Blackowiak: Okay, Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a question that kind of hits on a question that, a letter that was presented here by Mr.
and Mrs. Coban, and that is, what has changed from the previous application to now? And I'm not basing
any decisions that I'm making on that but I am curious. Has there been anything that's changed other
than a revision to these plans?
Oenerous: Part of it was the discussion regarding the City's infi-astructm~ i ,mprovement down there. The,
what do we call them? Our superintendent of utilities says that we have a pump station that they actually
have to go down and pump water in so that we use it. So it doesn't go bad. So the City did make that
investment in there. There was an expectation that this area would develop.
Lillehaug: That's really not a change from previous application though- Is that...
Generous: Well, that's.
Lillehaug: That's your interpretation, okay. Let me get to a more specific question here. And this one's
tough for me. Could you point, pull up the bluff diagram them. So there's an ama inbexween the~ that
you specifically don't consider a bluff, is that correct?
Generous: Correct.
Lillehaug: I did my own calculations and I'm looking specifically for Lot 6, the south line. If I look at
those elevations, right on that south lot line, I get an elevation change from 922 elevation to 948
elevation. It's a 26 foot elevation difference. The horizontal distance I measure to be 79 feet So thi.~
equates to a 32.9 percent grade. So would you consider, based on my calculations, would you consider
that to be a bluff?
Generous: If it' s 32 percent, sure.
Planning Commission Meeting - March ! 8, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. So based on those calculations.
Generous: The line would have to shift.
Lillehaug: That would have to change. And maybe, I'm not sure who made the bluff area map here but
is, has someone checked that? Am I in the wrong? Matt, do you have capabilities of checking that right
now?
Saam: Yeah, I can sure check it.
Lillehaug: And it specifically again it was on the south lot line of Lot 6.
Saarm Yeah, I'm getting the same thing you are. 80 feet and then the drop is about, well it's over 25 feel
Lillehaug: So based, okay.
Blackowiak: So what you're saying is there's another bluff.
Generous: However the problem is you need to determine what the toe and the top are. Those numhe~
change as you go across.
Lillehaug: And that's my question. Is this accurately reflecting the bluff area? Because in my mind it's
not. In my mind it ends about halfway. Halfway through on Lot 6, according to my calculations. On the
north end of Lot 6 it doesn't appear that that's a bluff. But then further up beyond the existing house and
the next lot up there, then there' s a bluff area. So it comes and goes.
Generous: We could go out with the applicant and actually flag where we think the toe and the top would
be and have them survey that and then they could make those exact calculations. This is based on these
drawings and there are, because like I said it goes. Sometimes it goes across contours.
Lillehaug: Yep, and that's tough in my mind and I'll wait with my comments I guess. A simple
comn~nt here, and I can't find it in the report but on LOt 3, Lot 2, in the report it indicates you want to
provide about a 20 foot area there with a 1 to 10 slope. If we do this that' s not really going to provide any
berming. Would the city be acceptable to increasing that slope and maybe if I could find thi.~ in the report
I could point it out. It's on page 5 at the bottom. Would staff agree that it'd be possibly more i ,mportant
to provide berrning than providing really a fiat slope... That's something I guess we can.
Saarn: Yeah, we can look at that I looked at it 20 feet off the back pad of that LOt Z You kind of come
to the toe of that berm that they're showing. So to me, while that berm isn't that high, it is a berm so,
unless you're looking for more of a 6 or 8 foot berm to really screen the roadway, then I agree that the 20
foot wouldn't be enough but.
Lillehaug: I mean in actuality I don't think a one, based on that width and a 1 to 10 slope is basically no
Saam: Yeah. Well, we could look at that to see.
Lillehaug: Sure. There's a lot of stuff here, just for the people who haven't seen this report It's very
extensive and I guess that will end my quesfiom of staff.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Blackowiak: Craig, why don't you jump in.
Claybaugh: I guess I don't have any new questions to add, with what's already been asked. I'll hold my
conanents til later.
Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, questions?
Slagle: A couple things. Quick clarification Bob. Again, Commi.~siongr !Jllehaug' s question is what has
changed from the last time we've sccn this?
Generous: Besides some revisions to the plan incorporaling staff's comments, and our concern for a use
of infrastructure.
Slagle: Which is more of an awareness issue... Okay.
Generous: One of our goals is to utilize existing utilities wherev~ possible.
Slagle: Okay. Bob can I ask, would you say that it's fair to make an assumption there are few things that
are not complete in this application with respect to th~ trees. With instruct to, I don't know if there's be~n
a determination on this retaining wall for the lot to the nort~ Track with me a little bit. You've got on
page 6, this area for Lot 3 a~ to trap water. Needs to be revised to ensure the stormwater. I mean I
guess I'm just asking before I even get to the comprehensive plan rezoning, would you say there's a few
things that we're missing? And maybe that's a Matt questi~ I mean would you term this as a comple.~
application?
Blackowialc Loaded question.
Saarm There are a lot of conditions. Have I seen more before though? Yeah. I mean have I seen less?
Sure. So I guess it's kind of up to you guys to detenxfine if you think more work should be done on this
and then maybe brought back to you. I don't know.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough. That's all I have right now.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I just have one questiom Uli's comment about the majority of two. I
thought that was funny because as I counted there are 7 homes in I-liil.~ide subdivision, is that correct?
Generous: I believe so.
Blackowialc Okay so it's really not just this one and the pmtmny to the nortl~ I mean we should re. ally
kind of be looking at all 7. Is that conx~?
Generous: ff you want to call, yeah as part of the subdivision~
Blackowiak: Okay. Because I was just curious because it talks about you know we want a majority of
homeowners to move forward on reffxming. I just felt that in an existing axea would be Hillside Oaks. In
other words 7 homeowners. I'm on page 13 1 guess. At the bottom I'm on page 13 at the bottom. I'm
just curious, I mean we're talking about 1 and 2. We're talking 1 homeowner and then a second
homeowner to the north but as I view it, this is an entire neighborhood or an entire subdivision of 7
homes. I'm just curious if you concur to thaL Concur with thaL
Generous: That the entire subdivision is 7 homes, yes.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Blackowiak: Yes, okay. Alright, that's my question. At this point we'd like the applicant or their
designee to make a presentation, so please come to the microphone and state your name and address for
the record.
Mark Kelly: Good evening. My name is Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney. I'm here on behalf of Arild
Rossavik, the applicant. This is a renewed application requesting a subdivision of 6 homes. We've seen
the report of the city staff and we appreciate their comments on this matter. My client is of the opinion
that their proposal to reduc~ thc 3 fi'ontag~ lots down to 2 is acceptable. As regards to the questi~ that
the Chair just put to city staff regarding the approval of thc neighborhood. This was originally developed
as a 7 lot neighborhood but you're looking at the replatting and rezoning of 2 lots of that original plat and
the others are not going to be changed. The question, the proposal to you is to allow this to go forward as
a logical transition that the City has already made a determination and a huge investment and it stands
unused. If this is approved, this is a logical transition. If you drive down Powers Boulevard you go from
relatively, townhomes and higher density, duplexes and the like, and then this would s,_,ddenly jumps to
these 2 large lot homes. They're very exposed. My client's home on, which would be retained as Let 2,
is highly exposed. It doesn't have the character of an A-2 development that you would find down along
your bluff area along the river where those estates are quite sheltered and private. And clearly this w/Il
open up mom housing opporumities in this relatively Mgh traffic area. This is an arterial. It's going to
connect with 312 shortly. This area doesn't lend itself to buffering of my client's home in turning it into
any kind of private estate. And we're asking that the City acknowledge that and that this is a logical
transition. The question has been posed what's new and the answer is, I think we're taking a fresh look at
this. We've tried to answer the questions and concerns that were raised by the city staff the last time. We
have put in, tried to answer the questions regarding bluff and setback. Ptotx~ cons~on of the cul-de-
sac. Dealing with the en~eering issues, many of the items that are enutmrated in the city staff report are
engineering issues that can be sorted out. Survey issues that can be verified to the city satisfaction. So
we welcome questions that you might have, and look forward to some support in making this transition.
We are not trying to make a change for the area to the south. We are not asking that you change the
zoning of the area to the south. Those homes actually are benefited from more shelter than this In'Opetty
is, so there is a distinction between thi~ land and the land to the south.
Blackowiak: Okay. Questions of the applicant? Rich, I'll let you start.
Slagle: I just had just a couple. Would it be in your opinion, if I may ask, the city talks about it's
commitment to rotan-al environment and I'm just asking would you consider your client's property be
deemed highly environmental?
Mark Kelly: Is it uniquely, a unique setting unlike any other in the city? No. Does it have some bluff in
the westerly edge of it? Yes. Has that been protected? Yes. Can it be protected with adequate
conservation easements and bluff control? Yes. It's typical in these plats. Is there a reason why you
would then deny the improvement of the property? No.
Slagle: Would you, and Matt I might need your help on thi~ but would you be open to assisting in the
survey of that bluff?
Mark Kelly: Of course. We'd want to confirm that information. The concern that was raised by Mr.
Lillehaug can be verified by engineering and survey.
Slagle: Okay. And you're open to the 5 versus the 6.
Mark Kelly: Yes.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Slagle: Your client's house as it sits now, those lot lines will not change, is that c. xuxect?
Mark Kelly: It would appear not. I think the adjusunent is going to be between Lots 1 and 3, with Lot 2
evaporating.
Slagle: And if I can ask your client have a issue, or would you have any issue with putting together the
request for certain items that are not part of thi.~, that being the tree preservation, so forth and so forth.
Mark Kelly: Tree preservation is typical in a land development. That's not an issue.
Slagle: Understand. Okay. That's all for me right now.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, any questions?
Sacchex: Yeah, real quick. You indicated that your client would be agreeable W red~ to 5 lots. Now
I have a few more specific things. It seems like along with that it would make sense to shorten the cul-de-
sac closer to Powers Boulevard.
Mark Kelly: To shorten that distance?
Sacchet: Yes, and therefore bring the building pad from Lot 6 off of the steep slope.
Mark Kelly: We would prefer that. One of the challenges of nuxiem engineering requirements is the,
when you end up putting in a 60 foot radius cul-de-sac serving a very small area, it's problematic. It eats
up a lot of land. We would probably prefer a flat out driveway arrangement, but this is what your code or
engineers would dictate.
Sacchet: Right. And shortening the private road I'm sure is in your interest too.
Mark Kelly: That doesn't hurt them.
Sacchex: Possibly revising the lot line between Lot 3 and 4 to be able to move the building pad
away from the ravine, should that be helpful?
Mark Kelly: I haven't tried to manipulate that as ha~ beell suggested here but perhaps engineering will
suggest that this line tilt slightly. It would bring the.
Sacchee That's the idea, right
Mark Kelly: Bring this comer down. Maybe bring thi.~ comer up.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my question, thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any questions of the applicant?
Lillehaug: Yes I do. There's 50 some conditions in here that staff has recommended. I assume that
you've had a chance to review them all, you and your client, and my question would be, are you
acceptable to all of the conditions?
Mark Kelly: We believe most of these are engineering issues rather than conditions that make our
proposal undoable so this is not an issue for us at thi.~ time.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Claybaugh:
break de~?
Lillehaug: So what you're saying is you are acceptable to all 50 conditions and their sub-conditions?
Mark Kelly: Yes I believe so, yeah.
Lillehaug: That's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay Craig, any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Maybe staff could connnent on this but I'm not sure how appmpfiam the question is, but to
dove tail Commissione~ Lillehaug's comn~nt with mspea to Lot number 6. If that in fact ends up
expanding that bluff area, is there still sufficient square footage for that to be a viable buildable lot?
Generous: Well that's what we'd have to determine.
Claybaugh: Okay. Would it be appropriate to pose that hypothetical to the applicants?
Blackowiak: You know I think that at this point we'd have to find out. I mean I wouldn't want to ask
him to.
Mark Kelly: We simply don't know at this time.
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say, I don't think it's fair to ask you to speculate.
Claybaugh: How does that affect our review of this particular application at this time, I guess is the
question.
Generous: ff they could not comply with the ordinance and the lot's undevelopable and they can't have it
or they would need a variance.
Okay, would it be appropriate to ask the applicant's mpxeaentative ff that would be a make or
Mark Kelly: We don't know that at this time.
Blackowiak: I think what he's getting at is that, I think we have to determine the bluff survey, and then
move from there. I don't think we. Let's not spe~.
Claybaugh: Yeah, it' s a little dicey so, okay.
Sacchet: We don't know.
Ciayhaugh: Ah4ght.
Blackowiak: We just don't know.
Claybaugh: I don't have anything further to add to that, thanks.
Blackowiak: Alright, thank you very much. This item is opeu for a public hearing. Pmyone wishing to
speak on this item please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
George Bizek: Thank you for your time. My name is ~ Bizek. I live at 8750 Powers Boulevard.
The lot just to the north of this prop~ development. Fve lived there far 17 years. I bought the lot
originally. Built the house there. And I, at the bottom of the hill there's only one curb cut and both
driveways are serviced by this single curb cut right now. It's a shax~ adjoining driveway so. I was told
that that would not change when we bought the lot far the County wouldn't allow another curb cut.
Everything's down there. Hydrants, electrical boxes, street lights. I've seen Mr. Rossavik's proposals
many times before and this will be the third time, and I don't see much change. It was decided at the last
meeting that it had to have been a shared effort far both of us to agree to do this, which would be two. I
just think that this would be a detriment to my property. It would be leaving my land out to be developed
properly at a later date. It should be done at the same time. Both these lots, and that's basically what was
decided at the last meeting. If you'll go out there and you look at Lot 6, I can't believe they would even
consider it as a buildable lot. It is so steep. It's adjoining a building on my property and it's going to
affect the drainage on my existing building. Mr. Rossavik's attorney says it won't imp, act the property to
the south. What about the property to the north? You know it's going to impact me greatly. I don't
know, are you going to start changing grade. If you look at this plot map to the n~da here, this drainage
ditch, flmre's an unbelievable amount of water comes down that drainage ditch. Right now our driveways
are approximately here and any sizable rain it's like a river nmning across there. Has that been
considered? All the drainage from ~ lots and this way there's a ravine. I don't know. I think it's kind
of ridiculous to be considering the wants of one far the needs of many. Thank you far your time.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Iayme Lee: My name is Jayme Lee. rm the neighbor to the south. 1380 Oakside Circle. My main
objection to this is what it does far my ~ obviously, and the hardest thing I have is visualizing how
the 3, ar I guess they're going to have 2 houses real close to the road. It's really, rye tried to visualize
that and it just does not look good. I think we need the open space, just as an aeahefic to the city. We've
got the open area on the other side of the Powers Boulevard, and I really, I don't know. rye had a hard
time seeing how that would add anything at all other than more houses. The other thing that I have is, it
really does get very, very wet right here, back. rve had to even give up on trying to mow that area out in
front of my house because it just becomes a real soggy bog. The lawnmower sinkg it. It g~ts clogged up.
I think even the city when they've gone to mow the parkway occasi~y the lawn and tractor sinks in
the mud there as well. So I'm definitely against it. I disagree that it would, that it does anything far
making me feel more secure. I'd much prefer having the open area around so. I can't identify with the
concept of actually wanting to have houses around here so thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Steve Buan: I'm Steve Buan, the property owner at 8740 Flamingo Drive, which is located right at, just
immediately to the west of the property in question here. First I'd like to compliment Bob Generous on
his excellent customer service skills in dealing with all my requests. Dealing with over the past 3 times
this has been before the commission. He's been very helpful in explaining comprehensive plan versus
this versus that and I think I'm starting to get it a little bit. So it's a good civic's lesson anyway. The one
thing I think that's missing in the whole staff analysis is how this rezoning would i ,mpact the city park
facilities that are located here. I think you've all seen various renditions of this, and the park immediately
to the west of the property and extending to the south looks lilm about a 5 acre park is all natural upland
area. It was left with the PIJD development. They were actually, what we were told when we purchased
there is that they were going to put lighted tennis courts in where the graded flat spot is located on this
diagram here, but subsequent to it going in and different corrm~i~sions and park and rec looking at it, they
decided just leave that as a flat spot far open recreation. Put in a picnic gazebo and call this a vista view
area. Looking off you can see Buck Iqfll ski axem You can see a long ways away, and just this M'temoon
I had the privilege to sit in my kitchen and look out to the southwest and see a red tail hawk soaring over
the area. Over the trees. Swooping down into the grassland area and that's what it's inten~ far, and
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
that's what the park and rec, so there's no analysis of, and then that works with across the highway, across
Powers Boulevard is a large marsh expanse area, which these are very complimentary. Right now this
large lot area compliments that transition between those two and it allows wildlife to move back and
forth. The parks are not hemmed in on all sides by residential ~ngle family or multi density or high
density. We're allowing outlets, and I think somebody saw that when they were doing thig. Ii1 the bigger
scheme of things back in the 80's they saw what was going to happen and how things would work and
that things are complimentary. And so I trust that they were thinking about that and so I think, and you
have my letter on that and I outlined that. I outlined it last time and I'll outline it again. Another thing
about Lot 6. Lot 6 has come up several times. I'm the immediate neighbor to that Lot 6. It's awfully
steep from the back lot line down. Down to the current house. Very steep ~. There's a small
immature ravine right off the back of my property that water actually comes down these back yards and
then enters into that immature ravine right now. I'm just afraid that in a 1993 type situation where we
have Niagara Falls in this ravine, we have significant water coming down here, that poor Lot 6 is going to
have water right in his dining room when they dig that house into that hill~4de. So with a tuck under style
that they're talking about so, it just does not add to it. I'm not going to come up here and say I'm anti
development. I believe it's possible to have s_ddifional homes down there, but the current configuration is
not going to work, and for the reasons that have been, people have talked about. So prematm~
development would be my opinion right now, and if the city's having problems with their lift station that
they installed, that's a risk the city took at the time. There's no, if that was all it took to get development,
then you'd have people beating your doors down to just run something in and then ~ards they say
okay, now we'll develop because we did this. I think they can mothball the pump,. I mean I think it's
been done elsewhere. We're having problems with our pump, down thexe. Let's mothball it so we don't
have to go visit it so. That's all I've got.
Blackowiak: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Mr. Lee.
Jayme Lee: ...I forgot to say. If this development goes through this way, I'm wondering what the future
might be when they want to develop my lot, should I sell and somebody wants to build on mine. And I
was thinking that you know, perhaps if these lots were joined together maybe we all sold at the same time
or whatever, it might mm out to be a better plan instead of doing this for this and then a different one to
try to fit into my lot and so on, and I just thought about the wisdom of maybe instead of trying to squeeze
it into individual lots, seeing what kind of a plan it would be if they were all joined together without
~ divisions.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, last chance otherwise I will close the public hearing. Okay, I'll
close the public hearing. Thank you for your comments. Commissioners. Rich, would you like to start
this
Slagle: Sure. I just have a couple of thoughts. I think that the ~ is maybe a tad more unique than
given credit for. With relationship to the park. The potential bluffs. The obvious drainage I think some
of the comments that have been mad_~, about what yards will look like or rivers framing through them, and
I realize there are means to grading that can prevent some of that but I think it's got some issues with that,
but most importantly, and what I'm going to advocate, or at least suggest to my peers here is that we table
this. When I see 50 conditions, I'd like to see staff go through those with the applicant to get a beuer,
either agreement or disagreement with 50. I have a hard time re~ne~ all 50, but I think there's
some other things here that are stated that I don't need to list them all but basically you know will come.
Work with staff. Applicant has not provided. I'd like to, for something this sensitive and this you know
what I'll call major, I want to have a complete application and I don't think we have one.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Sacchet: Yeah, a couple comments real quick, trh-St of all I really think thig needs to be tabled. This is
not cooked enough. It's not just 50 conditions. Some of these conditions, one condition has 10 sub-
conditions. I mean we easily have 100 or more conditions. But the main reason why I think it needs to
be tabled is not just because there are so many conditions. I think there are some very si~tmificant
changes. We're talking about 5 lots or 6. We're talking about shortening at least a private road. I would
propose that we would shorten the public road, the cul-de-sac to move the building pad of Lot 6. That we
are more clear where we want to move the building pad for Lot 4. How all the changes in berming affect
the drainage and everything. How it affects the whole table of corr~liance. I mean there's really a lot of
aspects thai seem to make it i .mperative that there's changes. However I have some ~_drlifional comments
to make. One thing, I'm still a little bit struggling with is the comprehensive plan calling out for the
preservation of natural environment, including trees, slope, vista and the uncluttered open spaces. The
development as proposed si~ificantly impacts these features. That's a direct quote from the report on
page 12, while about paragraph further down there's a finding that the proposed development is consistent
with the intent of the comprehensive plan. I would want to be vexy clear what kind of mitigating factors
are introduced that are an enviromnentally sensitive. That take into consideration the sensitivity of the
bluff, and also that park connection aspect which is definitely an i .mportant point. I do believe that with
the way it was proposed, the environmental i .mpact is still excessive. But obviously going to 5 lots, that
makes it quite considerably different. I don't think it has been strfficienfly been analyzed and determined
what that does. Now to come back to the aspea of the majori~ of two, we have been considering thi.~ in
conjunction with the lot to the north the three previous times that it was here, as far as I remember. So
yes, the development, the neighborhood is 6 properties but I think in terms of what we're considering
here, this context, we're talking two. And I'm kind of struggling with this because a majority of two is
two. Now I assume that several of us here are married and we struggle with this concept every day.
What's the majority of two, and we know that the majority of two, like in the wedding environment.
Slagle: It's her.
Sacchet: It's her. It' s her, so once in a while maybe he gets something too. No, not really. There we go,
majority of two. I feel that we cannot continually keep one of the two h~ages in the long run, and you
have to try to be fair here. So that's my comment about that one. And there's another comment about the
use of the private street here is put in here that it helps to enhance the protection of natural reso~. I
would argue with that. I mean the private road is to put in more lots. I mean it's not to preserve natural
environment. I'm very sorry about that. In terms of the comments fxom the neighbors, I want to thank
you for speaking up. Mr. Bizek, the property owner to the north. Is it really all to your detriment when
the whole infrastructure is put onto the property to the south? The whole cul-de-sac. The whole public
road. You don't have to give this away a single square foot of land for the infraKffugtu~ being the~. I
would disagree that it's totally all to your disadvantage in that sense. The comment of Mr. Lee about the
open area, my god. Would I love open space everywhere. But we have re,~ty here. This is a city that's
growing. This has been allocated in the comprehensive plan as a place that will be developed....just
keep it open space. As much as I would like that too the best. And the other comment from Mr. Buan it
was. From Flamingo Drive, Steve. Very good point about the park connection. I think that's one of the
hot points we looked at the last time this proposal came before us. It's very significant that them is this
park connection, but unfortunately I think with the direction the city plan has taken, not tonight but quite a
while ago, that this would be developed to some extent...
Slagle: F m sorry Commissioner Sacchet, point of clarification though. We have in the staff report two
differing viewpoints as to how this parcel applies to the comp plan. I'm just throwing out as a suggestion,
you're making.
Blackowialc Yeah, this is your opinion.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Slagle: You're drawing a line, exactly.
Sacchet: This is my opinion.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowialc Right.
Sacchet: I'm speaking for myself here.
Blackowiak: Okay, but you're saying the city.
Sacchet: Well the city made a determination, the way I read the report, that this ~ would be
developed. I think that's my opiniom I take personal responsibility for that, but my opinion is that that's
a city's decision that's been made in the context of how this thing was platted. In terms of how it's stated
that this would be, this property would redevelop with, but with larger lots. Which is a little bit flexible
term, large lots, but it would develop. I mean it's stated here. I'm not making this up so this is my
opinion, interpretational something that is written.
Slagle: I guess all I'm asking Commissioner Sacchet is just to remember that we have some questions of
staff that they seem to be contradicting themselves in h~re and so it might be better to hear back from
therp-
Sacchet: And the point of my pointing that out is to encourage that to be researched further as I said, my
position is that this n__~34_s to be tabled and when it comes back I would like to have more clarity about
these points. That's my comments.
Bl~kowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve.
Lillehaug: This is a tough 3.7 acres here. It really is. I'm not opposed to developing this. Him fellow
commissioners I'm not here to punish the applicant. I'm just not comfortable with what I'm seeing right
now. Items out there, I think the bluff is very significant. I think we need a bluff survey there to clearly
identify where that is. How that relates to the parcel~ that are backed up to it. Can lot number 6 be, is
that a buildable lot? I'm not sold on it fight now. One thing to staff, could you maybe clarify is there a
minimum throat length for that cul-de-sac? I mean can we shift that closer to the county road? Maybe we
can't. I'm not too sure if we have a city standard on thaL That's something I think we need to address.
As long as I'm making comments here. Mr. Buan indicated that he's becoming pretty dear with the city
comprehensive plan .... we have a couple empty spots on the planning commission so go ahead and
apply. Thought I'd get that in there.
Blackowiak: Good job.
Lillehaug: As far as the existing lift station, I'd liim to make a suggestion to city staff that potentially
look at taking them praxis out of there. We have many li~ stations around the city. Get them in a
rotational plan and utilize them somewhere else. Just as a suggestion. And then to the beef of it here,
there's many changes in here that I'm just not comfortable with and I will not recommend this to the
council. I need to see a majority of these conditions implemented. And I just want to reitemm, I'm not
opposed to this development. I really do need to see a lot of these conditions worked out. Specifically
which ones, I don't think, I mgan I want to be clear to the applicant and staff but the~'s 50 conditions
here and I xmam I can take the time and go through and pin point every one but I don't think that's
necessary. I think there's the si~ificant ones that other commissioners have touched on and the ones I've
35
Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003
discussed that we really do need to get ia touch with. Along with, there was a letter here given to us by
the county implementing a few more conditions that they would like to see. Nothing too sioonifieant but
that needs to be added into the mix here. So with that, likewise I support tabling this at this time.
Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any additional con:unents?
Claybaugh: Yes I do. Again Fm not opposed to developing this property. In it's current form I can't
support this particular application. I think it's i~t to note that the applicant certainly has a right to
develop this piece of property and despite tl~ fact that open spac~ is desirable to everybody in the
community, I think it's important to note that this space is being sought at the applicant's expen~ and I
think people need to consider that if the shoe was on the other foot. With respect to the completeness of
the application, after 3, or after 2 previous applications to the one in front of us, staff commented that they
felt that there wasn't necessarily any significant issues. I recall a quote the Russians used to have above
their tanks that went, quantity has a quality all it's own, and I think to that end the axmulafive affect of the
minor issues constitute a major issue, and I think those need to be addressed on that level. And as such
I'd be in favor of tabling the issue.
Blackowialc Thank you. Steve, additional?
Lillehaug: So this doesn't come back to haunt me next time if we address this. I want to discuss with
staff, one of their findings in the subdivision findings, and it would be their last finding. It says that a
majority of the property owners ia an existing area came and requested land use amendm~ts, etc. That
this may not be pre~. You indicate that this is a policy of the city. Is this a written ordinance policy
or is this just the tendency?
Generous: Madam Chair, it's one of the guides, ia the comprehensive plan there's a statement that says,
these Large lot areas will be maintained. However, if the majority of the properties come in, we'd look at
it in a favorable light. However our city attorney has said we can't hold people up to that standard. We
have to look at each case individually. But it's more favorable, yes. We'd have less of a problem with
this subdivision if he and his neighbor to the north came in. It would lay out a lot easier. There'd be less
conflict if he came in with the whole neighborhood.
Lillehaug: So my understanding would be that the comprehensive plan directs us that really we need a
majority of the landowners. Not directs us, reconurumds?
Generous: Well it suggests that we look at that.
Slagle: Suggest probably is a more appropriate term than policy or direct
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: h will come back to haunt you.
Blackowiak: And I don't have too many odditional comments. I do feel that a bluff survey is i ,mperative
before we move this forward. We really can't speculate as to how many lots are available. How long cul-
de-sacs need to be, otc, until we really know what's out there so I think that's i .m!xx~ant to have before we
see this again. Second, trees, preservation, etc. We need to get information about that. Thirdly, drainage
issues are huge. How are those going to be addressed? What's going to be happening with the water
that's coming down the hills? I don't think anybody that lives ia that area would argue that point. And
finally, the premature ness or lack of premauue ness of this application. Do we have to look at Hillside
Oaks as the 7 homes? Do we look at 2? Do we look at 3? Do we look at 17 You know what is City
36
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Council's feeling? I'd like to hear ~ You know, do they have any guidance for us befare we see it
again? I'm not sure. But it sounds like all the commissioners are in agreement that we table it and get
fu~er information. Rich?
Slagle: One quick question for Bob. Bob, have we heard from the attc~ey as to his viewpoint on that
last point as far as 7 homes? I mean just like Ali~n said, the premature ness of this, has he given you an
input one way or the other?
Genewus: We haven't askexl that question. Wc have had other project.
Blackowiak: Yeah, well let's you know, then maybe we could get an opinion from the attorney before
we see this application again. As to what we really should be considering in terms of a neighborhood.
Should we be looking at the entire subdivision? You know property owners in existing area. Is Hill6de
Oaks 7 homes, you know what's the existing area, so I'd like to hear that. And that ends my comments.
I'd like a motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that we table this item.
Blackowiak: Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Saeehet moved, Lillehaug seeonded that the Planning Commission table the request for a land use
amendment from Re~dential I. mrge Lot to Re~denflal Low De_ns3ty, Rezoning from Agrteultm~
Estate District to Single Family Residential, and subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 6
lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Boulevard. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Blackowiak: This item is tabled. We need, I think that we've made fairly clear the information that we'd
like from you Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rossavik before we see it again. Staff, is there anything else we need to
do?
Generous: Not currently.
Blackowiak: Not currently, okay.
Generous: We will be sending a lettex to them that we're going to take additional time to review.
Blackowiak: Right, so we can get the additional information we're requesting.
Claybaugh: That's not an issue as far as the timeline?
Sacchet: What's the timeline? We're okay with the time.e?
Generous: Yes. We can take an ,_dditiona160 days. It will take us to mid4une.
Blackowialc Okay. Alright, thank you. One comment before we take a break. I'm just going to
mention this. Our next Planning Commission meeting is Tuesday, April 1~ at which time the Planning
Commission will review and adopt the By-laws for the coming year, which the Planning Commission
year is April 1 ~ through March 31~t. And also at that point we'll elect a chair and vice chair so that is
going to happen at our April 1~ meeting. Now we'll take about a 5 to 10 minute break. Get a liRle water.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003
Claybaugh: Do we need to summarize?
Blackowiak: No, we're not summarizing. We're not sending it to City Council. It's not going
anywhere. Okay, so we'll take a quick break and we'll be back in about 5 to 10 minutes.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point. Commissioner Claybaugh left the meeting at
this point.)
Blackowiak: Craig had to leave for a personal ma_n_er so he is no longer with us. However we still have a
quorum tonight so we'll move right along to item number 4. And I believe we're going to be able to
finish items 4 and 5 tonight. Any commissioners have any other feeling that we can't get it done in an
hour, tell me now. Otherwise I'm holding you guys to this. An hour? Okay. Alright, items 4 and $.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER ~ REOUEST FOR ~ITE ~ ~ FOR AN ADDITION OF
APPROXIMATELY 45~600 SQUARE Fg. ET AND A 730 SOUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH
VARIAN~ AND A CONDmQNAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELO~ WITHIN ~
BLUFF CREEK QVERLAY DISTRI~I' ON PROPERTY ZONED INDI~I~TRIAL OFFI(~IE PARK
ANo LOCAT O AT S000 AUnWON ROAO,
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron Miller
Chris Hall
Lonnie Mdikowsld
Mark Wasescha
Jack Warner
9141 Inverness Circle, Ramsey
2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee
3402 I-lqghlauds Road, Brooklyn Park
1795 Pairview Avenue, St Paul
3721 l%nl~tiens Lane, Brooklyn Park
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay Rich.
Slagle: Just quickly. On page 2 of our ~ the gray area that I see to the west of the parcel appears to
abut the creek and the path dong those homes.
Al4aff: Yes.
Slagle: And then when I look at the map or the diagram of the facility, specifically page 2 here, it shows
what I will call the new automobile asphalt paved area. Is that into that western ~?
AI-Jaff: No.
Slagle: Okay, so the western property that we see on page 2 is not being touched at all?
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Slagle: Okay. And then Fm going to hold off the other questions until later, but just one more. I noticed
on the mailing list, which first of all I didn't get one of these. FYI. But secondly, Fm a liltle concerned
because none of the hormowners to the west are included in this, and I'm guessing that you went 500 feet
38
March 18, 2003
Members of thc Chanhassea Planning Commission,
In response to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the request of Rezoning and
Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, we, as interested parties, submit the
following written commenta per this Notice.
The ravine and bluff topography on the western side of this property, and adjoining
areas of several other properties, is part of an ~ imerdepend~ natural system
This ecosystem eontaim a complex bio-diversity of phnts and animals.
Numerous species of trees, .qhmbs and ~ plains of varying age classes from
sapling to dead and decaying are pms~t. Tree and shrub species include white pine, red
pine, spruce, oaks, maples, cottonwood, ironwood, cxxhr, sumac ami many more. This
plant life system supports a wide v~iety of animal life including ground-nesting birds,
earth and tree-cavity nesting birds, numerous song birds, bald eagles, owls, pheasants,
wild turkeys, deer, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits and many more.
The city parkland immediately adjacent to the ~outhwest is direetext to be a haan'al
landscape park consisting of prairie upland, bluffs and ravines. The city parkland across
Powers Boulevard is a large mamh/wetlaad complex. The ravine and bluff system is a
vital and important part of these parks. The varied species of anim~ and birds presem
utilize the prairie upland area for food and the mvinea, bluffs and wetlands for ahelter. To
encroach on and damage the ravine and bluff complex would ~sh the value of the
parks to the reai~ of Chaahass~n. A corridor connecting these natural emifies must be
maintained. This corridor can best be maintained by limiting the dea~ty of houses in the
Hillside Oaks subdivision.
The character of this portion of Chaahassen is defined by the dramatic rise in elevation
and stand of large mature trees. The vertical rise from Powers Boulevard to the crest on
Flamingo Drive is approximately 100 feet and is unmatched throughout Chanhassen
except for the bluff area of the Minnesota River valley.
The unique features encom~ within the approximm¢ly 3 acres of ravine and bluff
~ are a signature of this area of Chanhass~n that should not be obscured and/or
encroached upon by further development. Therefore, we oppose the proposed rezoning
and subdivision of this property.
~y submitted,
Steve and Kristi Buan
Generousr Bob
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Don Coban [dcoban ¢~tc.umn.eclu]
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:36 PM
bgenerous ¢~ ci.chanhassen .mn .us
property at 8800 Powers Blvd.
Dear Mr. Generous
I am writing regarding the request of Mr. Arild Rossavik for a land use
amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density,
rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single Family
Residential, RSF, and subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into
6 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800
Powers Blvd., Powers Circle.
As I am sure you know, Mr. Rossavik has made this same request on two
other occasions. From the information I have received, there is nothing
to indicate that anything has changed since his last request. Therefore,
what was not appropriate at that time is still not appropriate and I
believe his request should again be denied. I do not have the dates and
case numbers with me as we are in California for my husband to receive
proton radiation treatment for his prostate cancer. This is also the
reason we will not be able to attend any of the ~eetings regarding this
proposal. Please record our opposition to this proposal and refer to the
minutes of the meetings from Mr. Rossavik's last request for the many
reasons why this should be denied.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Virginia & Donald Coban
8821 Sunset Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-448-4803 - Home
612-270-4699 - Cell
CARVER
COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Carver County Government Center
Administration Building
600 East Fourth Street
Chask& Minnesota 55318-2102
Phone (952) 361-1010 Fax (952) 361-1025
Administration
Parks
Eagin~ering
~ghway Main~nance
Surveying & Mapping
March 10, 2003
To:
From:
Subject:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner - City of Chanhassen
Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer ~ ..: ...
Request for Land Use Amendment I~- ........
8800 Powers Blvd. Arild Rossavik
"' ~- '* - ..:. · ~, ~_,~,~
MAR 1 .~ 2003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Following are comments regarding the Request for Land Use Amendment on property located
at 8800 Powers Blvd. and owned by Afild Rossavik transmitted to Carver County by your
memorandum dated February 18, 2002. These comments are not all inclusive and further
comments and concerns may evolve as this project progresses and changes.
Powers Boulevard in the location of this proposed development is presently on the County road
system and is identified as County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17. The roadway in this area
was recently reconstructed.
.
Mr. Rossavik has had an ongoing complaint of. drainage.and-icing problems that occur
on his ddveway as a result of the trail constructed as part of' the POWers-Blvd.
reconstruction. Installation of the catch basins and storm sewer as indicated on the
proposed plans should alleviate this drainage and icing problem if completed correctly.
.
When Powers Blvd. was reconstructed, the raised center median was constructed and
the access ddveway serving this property was changed to a right-in/right-out only
driveway. Carver County will not permit construction of an opening in the median to
provide full access to the proposed additional parcels.
.
Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
.
Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the fight-of-way of
CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of Carver County.
.
Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities
needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county
highway right-of-way (including tree removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment
deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or
better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It-is requested that-the'city
include a provision in the developer'.s .agreement. that requires the developer' to. be
ultimately responsible for the final-condition of the. county high.way right-of:~way. A clear:
understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for beth
the County and the City.
Equal OppornmiO' Employer
Printed on 30% Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
.
Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be appmvecl by the
County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance along the CSAH 17 corridor and intersections with other
roadways. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right-of-way could be subject to
tdmming for safety or overhead utility consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If them am questions regarding
these comments, please call me at 952-361-1010.
Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ph 952 448 4844
ar@arild, us
-February 14, 2003
· .
· .
C~anhassen City Staff
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
8800 Powers Boulo~axd, Ch_A-hAsson, ~4--osota
Dear City Planning Staff
Enclosed please find my Application'for rezoning'and Subdivision'
of 8800 Powers
Boulevard. This proposal for the creation of six (6) lots on
my property necessitates the approval of rezoning from A-2 to
RSF. That transition is now appropriate given the intensity of
the existing development to my.west and north. It should be
observed that the Cit~ has already installed $250,000.00 worth of
sewer and lift station service immediately adjacent my property.
The City had anticipated this development in making that
installation. It stands unused.
The property is~exposed to heavy traffic along Powers Boulevard,
it does not lend itself to the private-estates typically
anticipated A-2 and does not meet the character of land
appropriately zoned A-2. When one considers, that the Highway 212-
312 interchange will.soon be developed to my south, the A-2'
zoning is no longer appropriate.
I invite any question you may have and look forward to 'work' with
you.
Sincerely
Arild Rossavik
Cc: Planning Commission
Cc: City Council
Adld Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ph 952 448 4844
ar~arild.us.
IIE'CF. IVED
~ ]. 8 2003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
February 13, 2003
Affected Neighbors
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Proposed Subdivision .........
88-00 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Neighbor
I have again filed my Application for rezoning and Subdivisiori of 8800 Powers -
Boulevard. This proposal for the creation of six (6) lots on my property necessitates
the approval of rezoning from A-2 to RSF. That transition is now appropriate given.the
intensity of the existing development to my west and nodh. It should be observed that
the City has already installed $250,000.00 worth of sewer and lift station service
immediately adjacent my property. The City had anticipated this development in
making that installation. (As you will see on the enclosed documents ) It stands
%
unused.
The property is exposed to heavy traffic along Powers Boulevard, it.does not lend itself
to the pdvate estates typically anticipated A-2 and does not meet the character of land
appropriately zoned A-2. When o_ne considers that the Highway 212-312 interchange ......
will soon be dev~lo'lS'~l -to 'my' ~1~, ~'A:2'~:~n~ng-i~ n510'~ger' ~ppropriate.
I invite any question you may have and look forward to work with you.
Arild Rossavik
Cc: Planning Commission
Cc: City Council
Cc: Neighbors
Adld RossaVik
8800 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 5531-7
Ph 952 448 4844
ar~arild.us
February 12, 2003
Chanhassen City Staff
690 City Center Ddve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re:
Proposed Subdivision
8800 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen,' Minnesota
Dear City Planning Staff
Enclosed please find my Application for rezoning and SUbdMsion .of 8800' Powers - '
Boulevard. This proposal for the creation of six (6) lots On my property, necessitates
"the approval of rezoning from A-2 to RSF. That transition is now appropriate given the
intensity of the existing development to my west and north.' It should be observed that
the City has already installed $250,000.00 worth of sewer and lift station service
immediately adjacent my property. The City had anticipated this development in
making that installation. It stands unused.
The property is exposed to heavy traffic along Powers Boulevard, it does not lend itself
to the private estates typically anticipated A-2 and does not meet the character, of land
appropriately zoned A-2. When one considers that the Highway"212-312-interchange
will soon be developed to my south, the A-2 zoning is no longer appropriate.
I invite any question you may have and look forward to work with you.
Sincerely '-
Adld ;avik
Cc: Planning Commission
Cc: City Council
Arild Rossavik
8800 Powers Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
JAN I 2002
January 12, 2003
cn-Y oF
(Correction of typos' in first letter, 1993 is correct not 1983, I have only lived here 10
years)
Chanhassen Mayor and City Council Members
690 City Center Ddve
. Chanhassen..,..MN 55317 ..............................................
Re:
Proposed Subdivision
8800 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota
Supplemental Material to Application for Subdivision/Rezoning
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I have resided at 8800 Powers Boulevard since January, "1993. The City Improvement
project 93-29 long' ago extended sewer and water service to my neighborhood, for the
purpose of serving not only the existing seven (7) lots but an anticipated 25 additional
units. Since that time, no additional housing units have been constructed. The City
staff advises that the neig.hborhood lift station, sewer, and water improvement is a
physical dead end which can only be used for my immediate neighborhood. But as yet,
none of us are connbcted to the system. We all make use of septic systems which
clearly threaten the eco-system and marsh across the way.
I am advised that the cost of the sewer and water.improvements for my neighborhood
was $237,000.00. Because it remains totally unused, the cost has yet to be recovered.
i-have, in recent years; twice attempted to get the"City'-to Agree't0-'the'mz0ning"of my
property into six (6) lots by changing the zoning category from A-2 to RSF. This'was
first considered in July, 1980 when others received preliminary approval for Lake Susan
West Planned Resident Development, Because no further action was taken, the zoning
remained A-2. Since that time, I have been turned down on the predicate that my
neighbor (the owner of 8750 Powers Boulevard) must first consent. He has declined to
do so and I have been a hostage to his approval.
If you were to consider my neighborhood, you will find that just north Of my neighbor are
medium to high density developments fronting Powers Boulevard, a principal artedal of
the City. To the west, up on the bluff are single family homes zoned PUD but
effectively RSF. They are physically separated from my property by the steep bluff.
The improvement of my property with additional housing will not impact the enjoyment
of their neighborhood. On the east, I face a beautiful- marsh which will never be
developed, but as I have noted, it is threatened by the septic systems in my
neighborhood.
-2-
To the south are five (5) large lot residential sites. Some. are benefited by topography
and seclusion, but the one immediately to my south, as well as my northerly, neighbor
and I, have no pdvacy afforded by topography or vegetation, we remain-greatly exposed
to public view and high traffic volumes on Powers Boulevard.
The relatively large acreage surrounding my home and' that of my immediate neighbor's
is not well used. Moreover, there is no added value provided by the extra land around
these homes as it affords no seclusion or privacy, nor can such be added by mere
landscaping. ,
While the City staff.-rel~)ort on my most recent request Tor rez~i'n~"(i'it~l'
engineering issues, related to grading and the preservation of bluff area, all will be fully
addressed by my engineer on re-submission of my plat proposal.
Of particular concem, however, was the suggestion by City staff re@ort that the City's
Comprehensive Plan to include Iow density residential development in appropriate
areas of the community would be harmed if my zoning were changed. The City staff
also said that any new residential development would encroach upon a significant
drainage way. This reference is' to the bluff run-off. That issue can be handled through
proper engineering and appropriate setbacks. That said, the City staff advised that the
conversion of my lot and that of my neighbor to the north from A-2 to RSF would "not
have a sianificant impact' pn the character of the area. The City staff found that "my'
site was suitable for development' and "served by adequate infrastructure'. Most
importantly, the staff concluded "the subdivision is not premature'. The only caveat put
forward by the City staff was that the City would view the proposal in 'a more positive
light' were my neighbor to consent. For that reason alone, the City staff considered the
application "premature' (November 6, 2001 City Staff Report).
~-' .am ~astd_ng..th..a~t..th..e.C.'..~y. ackn0wl .._e_~e th.at.~A_ '.-2-.z. ea!_ .'ng i.s-:no {onger_an.~)b~ious and
appropriate zoning for this site given the surrounding development, the inherent lack of
privacy of the land/site, and high traffic of the Boulevard...
Continuing to maintain this zoning places the marsh immediately to the east at risk and
causes the City to forego monies to recoup its investment in sewer and water
infrastructure. Your $237,000.00 investment languishes.
Rezoning will not require my neighbor to subdivide or sell his property. Typically, in
absence of a replat, there is no change in market value!
I ask that the City give renewed consideration to my proposal for six (6) homes at this
site. At a time when the City is financially'struggling, it 0nly makes no sense that it
would not refuse such a logical development - a development which would make good
use of City infrastructure - and end potential septic ta~nk pollution of the marsh.
It should be understood that I have, in the past, complained of my neighbor's
commercial plumbing operation conducted from his 2-story warehouse. This large gray
building houses his plumbing business and is serviced by commercial delivery trucks on
a daily basis. In the past, the City has taken a dim view of similar business operations
within residential districts, but for reasons I fail to understand, the City has chosen to
overlook his business operations. There is no reason why he should be granted
deference in this regard. All persons in the City should be treated equally. Your help in
this regard would be most appreciated.
I hope to address all of the engineering Issues with City staff before I resubmit my
· -. ~.. .... request.for rezoning.. I.woul~.weleome.~n~f~ques'dtms that:you migh. t:have,-.Jt is my .
hope to address.your concems and, in so doing, gain support for this appropriate
transition.
I look forward to speaking with you.
Sincerely,
Arild Rossavik
!
Cc: City Staff
Cc: Planning Commission Members
Cc: George Bizek (owner of 8750 Powers Blvd)
Cc: Neighbors
133
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY,. MAY 6, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
77OO MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of Parcel
into 5 Single Family Lots
APPLI~: Arild Rossavik
LOCATION: 8800 Powers Blvd.
into 5 lots with a ~ for lhe use of a private street located at 8800 ~ ~., ~ ~.
1. Staff will give an overview ~ ~ ~ ~
2. The al~iicant will ixesent plans on the proje~
3. Comments are received fTm~ lhe public.
4. Public hemi~ is dosed and the ~ diacIJlae6 the ~
officem, 8:00 a.m. to4:30 p.m., Mondayltrough Frklay. If you wish t~ talk to son"~e~e about this project,
pieme contact Bob ~t 227-1131. If you ~ tD submit written ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~
Smooth Feed SheetsTM .--. Use template for 5160®
.~OSEANNE M BOYUM
1805 SUNSET TRL
2HANHA~SEN MN
55317
MICHAEl. D & JOAN M FLYNN
660 LAKE SUSAN 1-111.1.8 DR
CI-IANI4_A8~ MN 55317
STEVEN D & KRIS'H A BUAN
8740 FLAMINGO DR
CI-IA.NI-IA8 ~ MN 55317
DONALD C & VIRGINIA D COBAN
t821 SUNSET TRL
2HANItASSEN MN 55317
JON & SARAH A BAKER
650 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR
CHANI-IASSEN MN
55317
CHERYl, LEE DOTY
8736 FLAMINGO DR
CHANHA8~
MN 55317
3F_,ORGE A & JACQUELYN BIZF. K
g750 POWERS BLVD
2HANIIASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN J & NANCY 8 FAY
640 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR
CHANI-IAS~ MN
55317
JAM]~ R JR & SUSAN L KOZLOWSKI
8730 FLAMINGO DR
CI-IANI-IAS~ MN 55317
.~11.1) ROSSAVIK
g800 POWERS BLVD
2:X-IANHASSEN
MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHAS~
CIO BRUCE DEJONG
7700 MAltK'RT BLVDPO BOX 147
CI-IANI-IASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL J & CYNTI.-nA A LEEMAN
8726 FLAM~GO DR
CHA_NHA~SEN MN 55317
IAYME D & CAROL R LEE
1380 OAKSIDE CIR
~I4_A_NltASSEN MN
55317
RODNEY & BONNIE M NELSON
8764 FLAMIN~ DR
CHANttASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN M & ~ C CASEY
8720 I~s, MINGO DR
· CHA.NI-IA~SEN MN 55317
IOHN E & BRENDA L
1360 OAKSIDE
12I-IANI-IASS~ MN
55317
CI-IRISTO~ J SONES &
JUDITH A MARTINEZ,-
8756 FLAMINGO DR
CltANItASSEN MN
55317
WllJJAMJ&NANCYEPREMO
8712FLAMINGODR
'(I-tANHASSEN MN 55317
[2RAIG J PETERSON
13400AKSIDE CIR
[2HANHA~SEN
MN 55317
TANYA C PARKS &
JEAN C SCHWAI.RN
8750 FI,AMINGO DR
MN 55317
· RAYMOND J GARVER JR. &
JU~.m ANN GARVER
8704 FLAMINGO DR
CHANI-iAS~ MN
55317
MINHCAM&MARGARETATRAN
1330 LYMANBLVD
UI-IANHASSElq MN 55317
RICI-IARD&~~M~A~
8746~GODR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRUCE R BARICR
1371 THRUSH CF
CHANI-IASSEN
MN 55317
KErrH M & MARY PAT BIJESGENS
1300 OAKSIDE CIR
(2HANIiASSEN MN 55317
· .
COREY J & RlYrH L WEII~.R
8744 FLAMINGO DR
CI-IANHASSEN MN
55317
STEVEN R & CECEL~ M SMITH
1361 THRUSH CT
CHANHA~SEN MN 55317
BRENT R & KATHI.~I A MILLER
1200 LYMAN BLVD
L-'HANHASSEN MN 55317
GRECd)RY D & SHIR~I S KAI41
8742 FLAMINGO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GARYD&J~NN'I~ERLHICK8
1351THRUSHCT
CHANI-{.~SEN MbT 55317
L ser
Smooth Feed Sheets
RONAI.D j & DEBRA R MICHELS
8751 FLAMINGO DR
CHAN'HASSEN MN 55317
JAYW&ANGEI.,AAMEYER-
1574LAKESUSANHII.i3DR -
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Use template for 5160®
BYRON J & LINDA J BOTZ
8743 FLAMINGO DR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JAMES R & CATHERINE S SCOTT
1578 LAKE SUSAN I-m.LS DR
CHANI-IA~ MN 55317
EDWARD A & WENDY S PEKAREK
8735 FLAMINGO DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY APETSCI-IL&
TRACILPRII:mE
1580LAKESUSANI-IilJ.3DR
CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317
LANCED &MELANIEJWEGNER
8727FLAMINGODR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHr~JJPRSHOEN
1584LAKESUSANI-mJ~DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KRISTIN ANNE JOHNSON
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
8719 FLAMINGO DR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SREANG & SOPHORN SONG BANG
1590 LAKE SUSAN ~ DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
EDWARD A & MARY O KRAFT
8711 FLAMINGO DR
CHA_NHASS~ MN 55317
JOSEPH GIBNEYJR&
KARENSTEIN
1594LAKESUSANH~.LSDR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THUNG M & LAN T NGUYEN
8703 FLAMINGO DR
CHA_NI-IASSEN MN 55317
DIEPD, TUT, LONGD NGUYEN&
THUYB&HAIB NOUYEN
1581LAKESUSANHILLSDR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KOUNTHONE SOUVANNAKANE &
OULADETH SOUVANNAKANE
1600 LAKE SUSAN I-m.l.S DR
CI-IANHASSEN MN 55317
..
crrY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O BRUCE DF_JONG
7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147
CHANI-IAS~ MN 55317
DANIi~.E&RONDA S PIERRE
1591IAkKESUSANItlI.,I3DR
CHANI4_ASSEN MN 55317
THU VAN NGUYEN &
x.n~:N KlM TANG
1601 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR
CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317
laser
ARILD RO88AVIK
8800 POWERa BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, ~~TA 55317
RECEIVED
MAY ! ~ 2003
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
May 16, 2003
Chanhassen Mayor Tom Furlong
City Council Member Brian Lundquist
City Council Member Steve Labatt
City Council Member Bob Ayotte
City Council Member Craig Petersen
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Proposed 8ubdivtMon of 8800 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mayor and Cduncil Members:
I write to you to ask for your support for the rezoning and approval of my plat
to subdivide my property. As the staff has confirrned, the City long ago
expected that my neighborhood would develop with single family homes. The
present designation as "estate" A-2 Zoning was the result of a trade made by
the City to develop other land some years ago. Clearly, my neighborhood
fronting Powers Boulevard, affords little privacy and is highly exposed on a
four-lane collector street which will soon connect to Highway 312.
The technical and engineering aspects of my plat have been addressed to the
satisfaction of City staff. I am confident that working with staff,
accommodations can be made to plan future access to the south without
imposing any expense on my southerly neighbor. The only remaining issue
appears to be the reluctance on the part of my northerly neighbor to express
approval. Ultimately, his property would benefit from having the zoning
changed to RSF. It would position his property for future subdivision,
something he has said will be useful to him in the future.
I have undertaken to place the cul-de-sac exclusively on my property. That
construction cost is substantial, and once constructed, would benefit my
-2-
neighbor without charge. It is hard to imagine a better economic arrangement
for him. I will be happy to facilitate his driveway access to Powers Circle.
Perhaps, the reason he remains opposed, is his substantial non-conforming
commercial plumbing business operated from his garage. More neighbors
would increase the likelihood the City will act to close his operation.
It has been ten (1 O) years since the City developed sewer and water for this
immediate locale at a substantial cost. It sits disused, meanwhile homes in my
immediate neighborhood are unsewered and have no municipal water. If it was
appropriate ten (1 O) years ago to build sewer and water for this neighborhood,
it is hard to understand how it can be deemed presently untimely.
If approved, my plat will provide five new homesites which will transition the
neighborhood nicely from multiple family homes on the north to single family
homes. My homes will benefit from the open space to the east and are on
substantial lots of 21,000 to 41,000 square feet; much larger than the typical
15,000 square foot lot.
Certainly, there is continuing demand for housing in Chanhassen, especially
moderately priced housing. By rezoning thc property, the City will allow
present economic demand to absorb the land.
Your support of this project would be most appreciated. It will allow City
investment to be recouped and permit a transition neighborhood to larger lots
to the south.
I welcome your questions and thank you for your anticipated support.
Sincerely,
Arild Rossavik
Enclosure