Loading...
1h Rezone 1916 Crestview CircleCITY OF PC DATE: Jan. 2, 2001 CC DATE: Jan. 22, 2001 REVIEW DEADLINE: 01/30/01 CASE It: REZ 2000-03 By: JH STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of property from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF). .. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 1916 Crestview Circle Tory Gene Walton 1961 Crestview Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: RR, Rural Residential Residential-Low DenSity .947 acres, 41271.547 square feet DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential District, to RSF, Single Family Residential. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezoning, 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 the City's Comprehensive Plan. IIII 'k 0 0 0 ~ pj!ql~u! JJuJr H Hi 0 O^ Walton Rezoning January 2, 2001 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant would like to be able to build on this property. Under the current zoning, Rural Residential (RR), a minimum lot size of 2½ acres is required. The existing lot is non-conforming with the RR district regulations. The applicant is requesting to rezone this property to Residential Single Family, RSF, which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. This property is guided for Residential-Low Density. Rezoning of the property to RSF is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designation. The applicant owns the parcel directly to the north of this property, which is part of the single family residential subdivision known as Rolling Hills. To the south of this property is a RR, rural residential large lot subdivision, Lake Lucy Highlands that was subdivided in 1985. As required by the 1995 amendment to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, land use and zoning must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposal to rezone Mr. Walton's residential property to Residential Single Family, RSF, from Rural Residential, RR, reinforces a pattern of development that is consistent with the comprehensive plart PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On January 2, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this application. The Commission requested that further information be provided on the site characteristics, specifically house placement, site access, and existing natural features. The main concern was the possibility of a future subdivision of this property. Staff examined the environmental features on site and determined that there was a wetland and ravine with drainage channel on site. Staff further determined that because of these features it would be difficult to subdivide this property and place more than one single home on site. On January 16, 2001, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning of Mr. Walton's property from Rural Residential, RR, to Residential Single Family. The update memo to the Planning Commission detailing staff's findings of the site characteristics and subdivision feasibility follows this report. BACKGROUND This parcel was platted in 1967. In 1972, this property was zoned R1-A, Agricultural Residential, that requires a minimum lot size of 2½ acres. By 1986, the zoning changed to RSF, Single Family Residential. This zoning continued through 1990. On the zoning map revised in 1994 this property is covered by the boundary line separating the RSF, Single Family Residential district from a RR, Rural Residential district (see Attachment 4). It is thought that at this time the zoning was inadvertently changed to RR, Rural Residential. However, staff is unable to ascertain when the zoning changed. An error was made at some point in the zoning of this property. Staff wants to follow the appropriate process to make certain the zoning is in compliance with the ordinance. Walton Rezoning January 2, 2001 Page 3 REZONING Rezoning of the property from RR to RSF is consistent with the City's adopted comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential-Low Density and would be compatible with the property to the north. The rezoning would also bring the lot into compliance with the single family district regulations. DISCUSSION This property has been guided for Residential-Low Density since the adoption of the 1990 Comprehensive plan. At one time this parcel was zoned as RSF, but for unknown reasons, was changed to RR on the zoning maps. The 2020 Land Use Plan depicts this property as Residential-Low Density. Approval of the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential will bring the zoning and use into compliance with the land use plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning (#2000-3) of Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 Creswiew Circle, from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF." ATTACHMENT 1. Memo to Planning Commission from staff dated January 16, 2001 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 3. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 4. 1986 Zoning Map 5. 1990 Zoning Maps 6. Zoning Map, Revised 1994 7. Memo Attachments 8. Minutes from January 2, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 9. Minutes from January 16, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting CITYOF 690 G0, Center D~ive ?0 Box 147 Chan/Jmsen, 3,li;mesota 55317 Phone P52. P3Z I~00 Gene~'al ~.~' ~52.~3~ 573~ E~tgineeri~g Department 952.937.9152 Buildi~g D~Tm.tment Fax -952.934.2524 I[~b Site u,wu', ti. chmt]~asseu, mjb. us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Julie Hoium, Planner I DATE: January 16, 2001 Rezoning of 1916 Crestview Circle UPDATE On January 2, 2001, the Planning Commission tabled a request to rezone the property at 1916 Crestview Circle from Rural Residential (RR) to Residential Single Family (RSF) until more information could be provided on the site characteristics. In addition, staff was directed to provide additional information on the possibility of a future subdivision of this site. The purpose of this memo is to present the information as requested. The rezoning is scheduled for the January 22nd City Council meeting. STAFF FINDINGS The property is currently zoned RR. It is approximately 41,270 square feet or .95 acres in size. The topography of the site slopes from a high of elevation 10 ! 8 at the fi'ont (western) property line to a low of 994 at the southeastern property line Upon preliminary inspection there appears to be a small portion of a larger wetland basin in the southeast comer of the property. There is also a drainage way in the northwest comer of the' property that flows southeast into the wetland. A 24 inch drainage pipe located underneath Galpin Boulevard feeds this drainage channel. While researching the site characteristics, staff considered three different scenarios that could be applied to this property. The 3 scenarios include: 1. Rezone the property to RSF, and construct one single family home 2. Rezone the property to RSF and subdivide the property 3. Leave property zoned as RR and grant variances to make the property buildable The following paragraphs give a description of each scenario along with an explanation of the resulting outcome. he Gtv of Chanha,t, en. ,4 .~;'owi~r communitn, with c/ea~J /ake.c re:a/in, schooh, a chm,Hn~ ~tou,,tou,,. th;'iHnv ht,~&~e,ec ,md hemtti~d ~m'hr. ,4 v','~'m H,~re m/i,~, m,,.h, m,d ~,l~ January 16, 2001 Page 2 REZONED TO RSF & BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME Rezoning this property to Residential Single Family (RSF) would bring the zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. If this property were rezoned to Residential Single Family (RSF) and the property owner decided to build one single family home, staff would still have some control in how and where the home would be built. The property owner would be required to submit site plans and specifications as required under Section 7-19 of the city ordinance (Attachment 1). A wetland delineation would be required to show the exact wetland boundary. A storm water plan would also be required. A 0-20 foot buffer with a minimum average width of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback would have to be maintained from any wetland. In addition, any proposal cannot alter drainage patterns off site. As stated in Section 7-20 (Attachment 1), the city could deny a building permit if the dwelling is on ground too low for adequate surface water drainage. The permit can also be denied if it appears that the construction would cause a change in the existing drainage of surface water. REZONED TO RSF & PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED If this property were rezoned to RSF, the property owner could apply to subdivide this parcel into two separate parcels. Some of the same standards and regulations that applied to the previous scenario would apply to this scenario. The owner would be required to submit site Plans and specifications. A wetland delineation would be required along with a storm water plan to show that existing drainage patterns would be maintained. As stated above, a 0-20 foot buffer with a minimum average width of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback must be maintained from a wetland. In this situation, additional requirements would be applied. The city could require an easement be dedicated over the drainage way that runs from the northwest corner to the wetland. This would allow the city to access the drainage way for emergency or maintenance purposes. As stated in Section 18-76 (Attachment 2), the easement would have to be sufficient width to provide proper maintenance and protection. The owner would not be allowed to build over this easement. If the owner wanted to reroute the drainage channel so that it followed the property boundary instead of traveling through the property, they would have to hire an engineer to design the channel. Storm water calculations would also be required. This can be a very expensive course of action. The city would also require the applicant to pay SWMP fees to cover water quality and water quantity related maintenance and improvements. A tree survey would be required and would have to be prepared by a registered landscape architect or forester. As required by the ordinance, a minimum amount of canopy January 16, 2001 Page 3 coverage must be maintained on site. The homes would be required to hook up to the city's water and sanitary sewer systems. The only place to hook up to the sewer system is along Crestview Circle, however based on the elevations in the area this would require an ejector pump to be installed in the new home. As stated in the previous section, the city could deny'a permit if it appears that the surface water drainage would be adversely affected. The applicant would also have to meet all required setbacks from the property lines, and the wetland. Based on the preliminary inspection by staff, it appears that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to subdivide the property and meet all the setbacks and additional criteria. Attached is a map (Attachment 3) that shows there is very little room on this site to divide the property. A 50 foot setback would have to be maintained from the wetland. A drainage channel would have to be maintained on the western portion of the property. Access to this property would most likely be along County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.), which is under Carver County jurisdiction. The only way to subdivide this lot would be via a private drive or a flag lot. If the property was divided there does not appear to be a 60 x 60 foot building pad on the western half of the property. It is the opinion of staff at this time that the property cannot be subdivided. LEAVE AS RR & GRANT A VARIANCE Should this property be left as Rural Residential the owner would not be allowed to subdivide. To make this a buildable lot, the city would have to grant variances from the RR lot requirements and setbacks. Some of these include a variance from the minimum lot area, lot frontage, and driveway separation. As with the two previous scenarios, the owner would have to provide a site plan and specifications to show storm water drainage. A wetland delineation would also be required. The city could also deny any permit if the ground is too low for adequate drainage or a change in existing drainage occurred. If this property was left as zoned as RR, there are some additional factors that should be noted. One is that if the owner met the setbacks (front, rear and side) after the initial variances were granted, no additional variances would be needed in the future. Two, in a RR district agricultural uses are allowed, meaning the property owner could build a barn or raise livestock or poultry. Three, in RR districts accessory structures could be as large as 30% of any rear yard. Finally, height limitations do not apply to barns, silos, or farm buildings, which are allowed in RR districts. January 16, 2001 Page 4 ADDITIONAL POINTS OF INTEREST In the immediate vicinity of this parcel there are several lots zoned as RSF that are as large or larger than this lot. These lots, as shown on Attachment 4, could be subdivided if all the ordinance requirements were met. The map (Attachment 4) also shows two lots on the north side of Crestview' Circle. These lots are the result of a subdivision that occurred in 1993. Rezoning this parcel to RSF therefore would not create a unique circumstance that would provide an opportunity for one large lot to be further subdivided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is staff s conclusion that this property could not be subdivide& Considering the physical features on this property there is not enough room to create two lots that meet all the ordinance requirements and provide for two 60 x 60 foot building pads. Even if this property were rezoned to RSF, a site plan and wetland delineation would be required before any building permit could be approved. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning (#2000-3) of Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 Crestview Circle, from Rural Residential, RR to Residential Single Family, RSF." ATTACHMENT 1. Section 7-19 & 7-20 of the city ordinance 2. Section 18-76 of the city ordinance 3. Site map 4. Map of subdividable RSF lots 5. Elevation map g:\plan\jh\projects~rezone\waltonmemo.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Tory Walton Rezoning On January 2, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Tory Walton for rezoning property from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT o The property is currently zoned Rural Residential, RR. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential-Low Density. The legal description of the property is Registered Land Survey No 31 described as follows: All that part of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter(SW ¼ of the NE ¼) of Section 3, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principle Meridian lying Southerly of the plat of the Lot 4, Block 1, Rolling Hills, thence Southerly on the Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 4 to the South line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence continuing southerly along said extension a distance of 115.00 feet; thence westerly parallel with the South line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter a distance of 230.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along a line, which if extended would intersect the most Westerly comer of said Lot 4, to the south line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter and the actual point of beginning of line to be described; thence continuing along the extension of the last described line to its intersection with the most westerly comer of said Lot 4 and there terminating. 4~ 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: 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) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. , The planning re12ort #2000-3 dated danuao; 2, 200!, _pre_pared by dulie ttoium is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16na day of danuary, 2001. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman Secretary g: lplan ~d'h lprojects [rezonel~valton rezone, doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CiTY OF CHANHASSEN R:rtEIVED 2000 APPLICANT: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) TorY Gene Walton 1961Cresrv~m¢ Ct. Nxc,3ls~or ~N 55331 952-889-6207 OWNER: Tory Cene Walton ADDRESS: 1961Cr¢~tv~m~ Cr, E>:cclsior_~ 55331 952-470-6398 TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __, Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal X Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARANAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ 500.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. '~Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applicatlons through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME Walton Rezonin~ LOCATION 1916 Crestview Cr. Excelsior MN 553~1 LEGALDESCRIPTJON T,And survey #31 t-r~r,r'.q A ~ 'R 1.02 TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING RRF REQUESTED ZONING RSF PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES × NO Residential' low density Resident~a]' ]m~ ~¢n.~¢y Appl~ woul~ l~k~-a'bility to build on property. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be-accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written 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. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title 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 progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with 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 within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant 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 app[iccDt. Signature Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Date Fee Paid ~¢' ~.,~ Date Receipt No. -'7¢ 5c~O'''~ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Rezone Property from RR to RSF APPLICANT: Tory Walton LOCATION: 1961 Crestview Circle NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Tory Walton, is requesting rezoning of property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential for property located at 1961 Crest'view Circle. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public headng is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public headng through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Julie at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 21, 2000. > I t ir le * * ADDRESS CORRECTION * * NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Rezone Property from RR to RSF APPLICANT: Tory Walton LOCATION: 1916 Crestview Circle NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Tory Walton, is requesting rezoning of property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential for property located at 1916 Crestview Circle. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fdday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Julie at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public headng has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 21, 2000. ... Smooth Feed SheetsTM KPdSTEN A STRUYK 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH 2041 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Use template for 5160® SHAWN & CHERRI ENGSTROM 1950 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DORIS LILLIAN NIKOLAI 6570 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING 6640 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN & SHARON T HERRON 1941 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE A & JEAN A MATTSON 2020 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NANCY K MANCINO 6620 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CLARENCE E & LIEVA H SCHMIDT 1930 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JEFFERY W & BARBARA A PESHEK 6480 WHITE DOVE DR EXCELSIOR h4N 55331 MARY TRIPPLER 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TIMOTHY P EIDEM 2050 CRESTViEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RANDAL J & JOAN M MEYER 6470 WHITE DOVE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KRISTEN A STRUYK / 1941 CRESTVIEX~.}}.~A4k"~ EXCELSIOR...--'~ MN 55331 BRECK O & MARLIESE JOHNSON 6621 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DUANE D & KAREN K MALMSTROM 6460 \VHITE DOVE DR EXCELSIOR MN33.~.> .... t TORY G WALTON & CAMILLE S RA-ICHE_~~ E~R MN 55331 STEVEN W & WENDY LAM BURESH 6651 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIK A & cHRISTINE M TAMMEARU 6450 WHITE DOVE DR EXCELSIOR MN 5533 PETER R & BARBARA MEYER 6441 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR M'N 55331 CHRISTIAN P & ELIZABETH PREUS 1851 LAKE I!i. UCY LN EXCELSIOR 1¥9q 55331 RICHARD J & SALLY A OESTREICH 6440 WHITE DOVE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DUSTIN A & KELLY A BRAKEMEIER 7386 KOCHIA LN VICTORIA MN 55386 TIMOTHY J & DEBRA R HAGELE 2020 65TH ST W EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES E & AMBER F BULLINGTON 6430 WHITE DOVE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICIA HELENE HAUGEN 1960 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANA F NICHOLSON & DEBRA A PITTMAN 6500 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TORY G \VALTON & CAMILLE S RAICHE 1961 CRESTVIE\V CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KENNETH \V & NANCY C EATO 1950 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3ENE D DEWEESE & ULIE A THORNDYCRAFT 1940 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT ;XCELSIOR MN 55331 AMES H & ALICE M BERQUAM 930 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT ;XCELSIOR MN 55331 ,HOMAS S KASPRZAK 920 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT XCELSIOR MN 55331 AY P & JAMIE S KARLOVICH 910 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT XCELSIOR MN 553.31 1990 Zoning Map o o C o o o4 "o o D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I ~'f/~'1 ~ 't .......... F'--' - ~ ..... ' '"-~'~'" 7 ' ' ' I ~1/I/'~ ~ ~ "j ' %' / / : ' ~ / J// ~ .~ . . ,.':., . . / ~, ,- .~ ...... .... ~ . CITY OF ..~, ~A~SS~ 'q,," )' / ' ZONING MAP -" PREPARED BY: CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. REVISEO JAN..1990 LEGEND 'ID-R AGRICULTURAL PRESERVA'PION DISTRICT (-~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT " RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT [. ___ HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT z~i ..... NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT -- ~i ' ,iG,WAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT ~-m!''-- CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT /~-- _ GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT .... -~/ FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT ///~ OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT ..... INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT -"-~? PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ,'/ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKES /9" "'k RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES /~' :'~ ~ LAK£ [---, OOg~ · I UI ! ~ i § 7-18 ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance, Section '7-19, Building Plans and Specifications CHAN~SEN CITY CODE Sec. 7-18. Fees. (a) The fees to be paid to the city for building permits and inspections shall be as established by resolution. The value of construction shall be determined by the building official. (b) Upon return of a building permit to the city by th'e holder thereof, with proof' satisfactory to the building official that no construction was undertaken pursuant hereto, he shall refund to the holder the building permit fee paid by Mm, except that ~venty (20) percent of the fee paid or twenty-five dollars ($25.00), whichever is greater, shall be retained by the city. A similar refund shall be made of' any plan-cheddng fee paid e×cept that no retired shall be made if the city has caused the plans to be checked. (c) In addition to the permit fee required by subsection (a), above, the applicant shall pay a surcharge to be remitted to the Minnesota Department of' Administration as required by Minnesota Statutes 1990, § 1613.70. (Ord. No. 23-B, § 5, 2-23-81; Ord. No. 84, § 2, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 167, § 4, 4-27-92) Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications. .- The building ~)fficial may require that plans and specifications, required under Section 302(b) of the UnifOrm Building Co'de, include a survey of the lot upon which th~ proposed building or construction is to be done, prepared and attested by a registered surveyor. An ori~nal signature is required o~ the certificate of su_rvey. The survey shall prey;de the follo~qng information unless otherwise approved by the administrative authority: (1)_ Scale of drawing and north arrow; (2) Legal description of property;. (3) Dimensions and bearing of front, rear, and side property lines; (4) Front, rear, and side yard setback dimensions of all proposed structures; (5) Location of all existing structures on the property, including but not limited to sanitary and storm manholes, hydrants, catch basins, power poles, phone boxes, fences, and any encroachments; (6) Outside dimensions of proposed structure(s) including decks, porches, retaining walls (include elevations at bottom of footing and top of wall), stoops, stairs, cantilevers, fireplaces, bay and bow windows, egress window wells; (7) Location of a benchmark stake established by the surveyor at the front setback line within twenty (20) feet of the proposed structure. Maintenance of the benchmark stake once established by the surveyor shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant; (8) Location of stakes established by the surveyor on side property lines at: a. Front setback line. b. Front building line. Supp. No. 8 386 ATTACHMENT 2 Ordinance, Section 18-76, Easements SUBDIVISION § 18-77 storm water improvement which has been oversized to serve property outside the subdivision. The charge for lots oversized due to individual onsite sewage disposal and water Systems will be reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half acre lot. An additional charge will then be imposed if the lot is further subdivided less a credit for the charge previously paid. The charge shall be paid in cash before the subdivision is approved by the city unless the city and subdivider agree that the charge may be assessed against the property. Property being subdivided shall be exempt from the water quality and water quantity connection charges imposed by this section if the charges were paid or assessed in conjunction with a previous subdivision of the property and if the property is not being zoned to a classification with a higher charge. (c) Within the Bluff Creek Overlay (BCO) District, meet the additional purpose, intent and standards of the BCO District. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.8, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 225, § 1, 10-24-94; Ord. No. 286, § 2, 12-14-98) Secs. 18-64--18-75. Reserved. ARTICLE IV. EASEMENTS, DEDICATION OF LAND OR CASH CONTRIBUTION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS Sec. 18-76. Easements. (a) All easements shall be dedicated by appropria'te language on the final plat in accordance with this section. (b) Easements at least ten (10) feet wide along all street right-of-way lines, five (5) feet along both sides of rear and side lot lines, shall be provided for utilities where necessary. If appropriate, easements of lesser or greater width may be required by the city. Ail utility easements shall have continuity of alignment from block to block. (c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerline of any water course or drainage channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to provide for storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of twenty-four (24) hours' duration. Where necessary, drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Such easements for drainage purposes shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in width. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 7, 2-25-85) Sec. 18-77. Dedication of land or contribution in cash for public purposes. in every plat or subdivision the developer may be required to dedicate to the public streets, easements for sewers, electric, gas, water facilities, storm water drainage, holding ponds and similar utilities and improvements. (Ord. No. 33-D, § 8, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 85, § 1, 3-14-88) Supp. No.' 11 1014.5 ATTACHMENT 3 Site Map SITE MAP l/i _._J LEGEND Drainage Pipe Drainage Channel Wetland Buffer ATTACHMENT 4 Map of RSF zoned property large enough to subdivb MelOd,V F iii Crest~ ~'. 65th st. r ~ Fi.qbg~te..9~ ~~ ~,r J-----J Lots that have been subdivided r----J Lots that can be subdivided N . ¢,, :..¢ . .. .. ,, CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 2001 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Ladd Conrad and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Julie Holum, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1916 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE, TORY WALTON. Public Present: Name Address Carmen McMeen Karen & Duane Malmstrom Tory Walton Paul Pudlitzige Lynnae Nikolai 9391 Foxford Road 6460 White Dove Drive 1961 Crestview Circle 5107 Woodhill Road 6570 Galpin Boulevard Julie Holum presented the staff report on this item and asked for any questions. Burton: Any questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I've got a couple questions. First of all, with the RSF designation this lot, at my reading could potentially have 2 homes on it. Is that a possibility in your view? We have to have some cross access agreements I believe but would that be a possibility if we rezone to RSF? Aanenson: If more than one house was to go on the property they would have to come in and apply for a subdivision. At that time you would evaluate whether or not you allow a private drive or how it would be subdivided. It is on a collector street so you'd want the house set back a little bit further so it's a possibility but again it would come through a subdivision so you'd have another chance to look at it. You may decide you may not allow it to be accessed by a private drive to two homes. Blackowiak: Okay. And that I guess kind of leads to my second question. I don't know if it's for you Julie or Kate but, since we have a rural residential immediately south of this, which is a 2 lA acre minimum. We have a I acre lot here. Would there be any reason we would want to leave this a non- conforming lot to force a variance and then essentially only have a single home on it as sort of a buffer between the rural residential and then the RSF to the north? Aanenson: Well if someone was to build on it with the existing non-conforming, they're going to have to request a variance and the setbacks, the side yards can still be 10 feet. The rear yards 50 and 50. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Blackowiak: 50? Aanenson: 50 in the front and the rear. It's just the side yards would be the same, the 10 and 10. Blackowiak: So why are the front and rear 50? Aanenson: Generally because you have a 2 ½ acre lot, you set back further from the street. Blackowiak: Right, no oh I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to this lot potentially. Aanenson: No. I'm saying if it was left that way. So you know. Blackowiak: I'm just curious. I'm playing devil's advocate in saying. Aanenson: Here's the other issue. There's always a cloud over the property so anytime somebody wants to do a deck or anything they have to come back and ask for approval and I'm not sure it was the intent to leave this out. In the map that we showed you there, at that time when they were doing the mylar and the zipotone, they went right over the lot. I'm not sure, we tried to research exactly what, was it an anomaly? Left over remnant piece from the subdivision? But as a general rule we wouldn't have left a lot remnant with a subdivision of 1 acre because at that time, it's always been 2 ½ acres so what we're trying to do is take the cloud off the property. So you don't have to, every time somebody wants to add a deck or something like that they have to come back and request that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Maybe Alison got at this and I missed it but, if it was subdivided into two, we don't allow more curb cuts on Galpin so they would have to have access through Crestview. Is that a correct assumption? Aanenson: Well you need 90 feet of frontage for residential single family so I don't know if they have 180 or, but you're right. We would limit the access points so that's what I'm saying. It'd have to be served by a common driveway, which would require a subdivision approval through the Planning Commission and you may decide that that's not an appropriate way to subdivide. It's appropriate the way it is as a transition piece. As part of your findings of the subdivision you would not approve it. Kind: Okay. How did this come to staff's attention? Aanenson: The applicant wants to sell the piece of property as a separate lot of record and has a cloud over it with the non-conformity. Kind: Okay. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah. Where would the access then go? Planning Commission Meeting- January 2, 2001 Holum: It is off of Crestview Circle. I believe. There is right now, I'm not certain. Maybe the applicant, I think the applicant is here, could answer it but there is a house on this property right here and there is a private drive. Sacchet: So there is access from Crestview Circle up there? Holum: Yes. Sacchet: So the idea is not to access it from Galpin? The idea is to accesk it from Crestview? Okay. I just want to clarify that, thank you. Holum: Yes. Burton: Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the commission? Is the applicant here? Are they here? You're okay? Do you want to address the commission? Do you have anything you want to add? Tory Walton: No, not really. Burton: Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion to open up for public hearing. Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody would like to address the Planning Commission on this matter, please approach the podium and state your name and address and tell us what you want us to know. Lynnae Nikolai: My name is Lynnae Nikolai. I'm representing my mother, Doris Nikolai, 6570 Galpin Boulevard. Our front yard would be directly across from this area. That's why my mother is very much concerned about access of this area because she doesn't want lights coming into the living room. Have any of you actually been out to the lot to see the ravine? It is not a normal building lot. It is all ravine. This was Roy Stellar's pony farm. That ravine, that water supplied the horses, the ponies. It also currently supplies water to all the wildlife in the area such as the deer, raccoon, ducks. There's nesting ducks in that area and everything else. I feel that it should be kept as a green belt area and left as it is. If Tory doesn't like that area he should sell and leave it as a full 2 ½ acre rural place. That house he's in now used to be Roy StelIar's house. His son Merle Stellar also lived up on that top area. I think that's when the area was all subdivided up when Roy passed on. And I believe Merle's daughter, Kathy Stellar, I don't know her married name, also has a house on the back side of that area. What is now, what used to be Lake Lucy Road but that was cut off some years ago and is now White Tail Grove or whatever now. So the history of that area was rural. I played with the ponies. I fed them. I watched them and that whole area is nothing but ravine. What I'm concerned about is the watershed area. At the top of Murray Hill is the watershed divider line. To the north flows into Lake Minnetonka. To the south flows all the water into major culverts that go past 65th, down the road in front of our area and then when the city bought the land in front of our house to put in the trail, other big culverts were put in under Galpin Boulevard to flow into that ravine. That ravine also flows into the Lake Lucy/Lake Ann area. All the wildlife things. In order to build on that property you're going to have to fill it in. And that is a big mistake. All those hills are butter clay. You have to use drain tile or you're going to have nothing but water in the basements. So these are all items that I feel that need to be addressed and to put another house in there is folly. If the Planning Commission wants to change it to single family, then they need to put in something else that that chunk of land, that one acre cannot be subdivided into little 1/3 acre Planning Commission Meeting-January 2, 2001 parcels. It's all ravine. It is all sloped unless you're a mountain goal or a mountain sheep. There's not really any place that you can walk standing up straight without some effort. So the erosion factor, the clay factor, all those building factors need to be taken into account. Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Can I have a motion then? Sidney moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Comments? Kind: Kate, I'm wondering if you can comment on, is there a bluff present? Would that require some setbacks for future building? Aanenson: No. There is a ravine that runs through the area. The Stellar subdivision, the Stellar Court Subdivision is encumbered by a lot of wetlands. It's the area surrounding this, up in here. When we looked at the comp plan, that area was left A2. We don't believe a lot of it can be further subdivided. We are aware that there is... coming in for the rest of this property here. That subdivision will be at your next Planning Commission meeting, but that area immediately to the south, this property was left out of that subdivision. We do not believe that can be further subdivided again. As the previous person stated, it is encumbered by some wetlands and slopes. It's not suitable for further subdivision. This property was looked at by the staff and we do believe, if you do not rezone it someone will come in and ask for a building permit on the property. What we're trying to do is, it will have the variance with it and that's another way to go. But someone is seeking a building permit on the property. Kind: And there is a suitable building pad on the property? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: That meets setbacks from bluffs and that sort of thing? Aanenson: We'll have to look at that in the siting of the house, correct. But there is enough buildable area. But it is, the rest of that Stellm- area again, we made the decision on this being left. There's no sewer to that property. It's left because it has wet soils and cannot be further subdivided. Kind: Okay. Sacchet: Well, it appears that this property has been going back and forth in zonings and it's basically, there's a fat line...so if it strays I'm assuming it was actually zoned into residential at one point and then it was kicked out again so I think it's reasonable to grant this request. That this is included with the smaller lots because it is a smaller lot. However, if subdivision comes back for that lot I would oppose that. That's where I'm at. Sidney: I think while the application is straight forward, I agree with staff's recommendations. Since it is a non-conforming lot with the rural residential regulations, this rezoning would bring that into compliance with residential low density and I think that makes sense and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. We can speculate about what will happen with the property but until we see that, I guess I would reserve judgment. We have mechanisms to address issues of siting of buildings or subdivisions or whatever at that time. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 Burton: Comments? Blackowiak: I think my questions kind of tipped my hand. I'm almost in favor of a single home on this lot. Not only to kind of preserve some of the bluffand some of the natural. Or I shouldn't say bluff. I guess it's technically not a bluff. The ravine and the natural features but also to act as a buffer between the homes to the north and to the 2 ½ acre lot to the south because I think that's a very, it's a very natural break at this point and that's why I was asking if we should even leave it non-conforming just to force the issue to have a little more control. However I do understand the rationale between rezoning to low density but I would like to make it clear that I would only support a single' home on this lot and would vote against any potential split in the future because I don't think that that would fit with the character of the neighborhood or the character of the lot. Burton: Okay, thanks. Ladd. Conrad: We probably have more control if we keep it on non-conforming. Aanenson: Yes. You would have reasonable conditions. You have more control but then it also puts the burden on if you try to get financing or anything because it's non-conforming. If there's a way that the seller's interested in the lot and wants to put one home on there, if we could get a home placement plan before it goes to City Council to show it. Conrad: I like that idea. Aanenson: Where they place a home is going to preclude a subdivision in the future. Conrad: Yeah, that's real clear. If we grant the change, then I think we lose some control. And they could come back and have a pretty good argument if they meet all the codes. They could put, and we have nothing. We have something here. So I guess, I don't mind taking it out of the non-conformity if we have some guarantee that there's only going to be one house, and until that's there, I can't. I can't do that. So I suppose we can pass this along if we attach some kind of condition to it with the house placement and if the applicant agrees to that so we have something enforceable. Otherwise I won't move it. Burton: Okay, thanks. My comments would be the same. I have the, I think it makes sense to rezone it. I would like to keep the control over the property and to limit it to one house. The question is how to do that. I don't know the answer. So do we want to take a crack at a motion? Does somebody want to? Kind: Mr. Chair, I'd like to continue the discussion a little bit. Burton: Sure. Kind: I'm thinking maybe the best way is to leave it non-conforming. Do you think there could be a condition? Burton: But then it does affect their ability to finance the property. Kind: Oh, is that right? Burton: That's the problem. Planning Commission Meeting- January 2, 2001 Kind: That's the issue? Conrad: We shouldn't care. We don't care. That's not our deal. Our deal is to allow one house and we shouldn't impose some restrictions that are unnecessary but on the other hand we want what we want and what we want is one house. So I think it's up between the applicant and the staff to figure that out and if we can do that tonight, that's fine. If we have to bring it back, that's f'me too. We don't need to move this through tonight for any particular reason. Kind: Is it reasonable to put a condition for this specific lot that only one house is allowed? Conrad: You could attach a condition. Aanenson: I guess I would just add, if you could see the home placement plan, if you could see where the ravine is, it may preclude how you can further subdivide it. Access, etc. So if there was a home placement plat it may put your fears at ease that it cannot be further subdivided. There might be some other physical constraints that's going to prohibit that. Also where they're going to put the home. So if you could get that information I think that would be helpful. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chair. Kate, would something like that be binding? I mean they provide us with a plat. Aanenson: Well just the landform itself was what I'm saying. If the ravine is a topographic break, which it is, it's going to limit some of the setbacks and access to the lot so if we can get that information to you, that may ease your fears on how we can further subdivide it. Which is the issue. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I'm trying to be clear what you just said Kate. Did you just say that we could, as one possibility, wait to see house placement before we settle this? Aanenson: Correct. Tabling it and getting additional information. We'd bring you back a topo map showing you where the buildable area and that would alleviate. Sacchet: I kind of like that. I think that would bring this to a common denominator. Kind: And Plan B would be to recommend approval with the condition that staff prepare that information before going to council. Which I think would be my preference. Just to move it along. Conrad: Then you lose control. Kind: Right. Conrad: But that's okay. Whatever you want to do. Kind: I don't have high control needs. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I don't think it's a matter of control to me. I think it's a matter of making sure that the best possible solution is reached and I consider that our responsibility here so I'm in favor of seeing Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2001 that first. I think that's a fair resolution. And I think that can happen pretty fast. I don't think it's too much... Aanenson: We can put it on the next meeting. Burton: That makes sense so does somebody want to bring a motion, or make the motion? Blackowiak: Well I'll do it. I will make the motion that Planning Commission tables rezoning #2000-3 of Mr. Walton's property until we receive a plan for the proposed building site, including topographic information. Sacchet: I second that. Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission tables Rezoning #2000-3 for property located at 1916 Crestview Circle until the applicant supplies a plan for the proposed building site, including topographic information. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Aanenson: Just another side bar on that. The law does require that the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan be consistent so if we do decide to leave it as one lot, then we should amend the comprehensive plan to make it a large lot so whichever way we go, but we want consistency. So I guess the reason we took this tact is we believe that was the inconsistency on the other side. To that information, I believe we can have that for you by the 16th. Sacchet: Mr. Chairman, one comment for staff. In the Findings of Fact, number 3. The legal description of the property is blank. Aanenson: Okay. OLD BUSINESS: Aanenson: Old business, we have advertised for the Planning Commission vacancy so I'm not exactly sure when that date closed but it was in the Villager so we're expediting that. Conrad: Do we have any applicants yet? Aanenson: I was just going to, we had some from before that we'll go back to when Uli interviewed so we'll ask those people if they still wanted to be reconsidered and hopefully they'll come through. I haven't seen any come in. I did put in here your meeting attendance. That will be modified as we add an additional person so if you have a conflict, if you want to just find somebody to trade with or whatever. I did put the Planning Commission update in your packet. Kind of where we were on some of the issues. Again we're continuing with the comprehensive plan, land use amendments. Again the consistency issue. Bob's setting up some neighborhood meetings on those. Sidney: I had a question about the Mattson property. That caught my eye. What does that involve? Aanenson: It's guided industrial. I walked it with the developer and the developer's engineer. Engineering and planning. They're putting together, it does require right now, it does require an EAW so they're working through that process. It is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District so we wanted to walk that. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2001 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blaekowiak, and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1916 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE, TORY WALTON. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Thank you. Any. questions for staff?. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. What I'm struggling with, besides the subdivision potentially, two lots which I really don't think is really realistic considering the grade and everything, is the access point. It seems like the logical access point, and the way the neighborhood is built would be from Crestview Circle. And that would have the least environmental impact also. Now that would reqUire an easement and that would go over the land of the current owner? Hoium: To the north, that is correct. Sacchet: To the north? Has that been explored? Hoium: Well we could recommend that but we couldn't require that as it would possibly be a taking if this land was sold. And the rezoning is a stipulation of this land being sold to another party. We can recommend it. Sacchet: But we can't require it. Hoium: But we can't require. Whether it was rezoned or if it got a variance. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Okay. This is not, well I don't think there will be many comments. Anybody in the audience, well first of all. Do you guys want comments? Let's just see, does anybody here want to comment on this? Okay. So we won't open it for a public hearing. Do you guys have comments on it then? Planning Commission Meeting- January 16, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have been thinking about this a little bit and 7[ really don't like the idea of potential subdivision of that place. It doesn't make sense. The topography is relatively steep. There is an old creek on one side and there's wetland on the other side. I think it'd be very hard to reasonably, or should I say environmentally sensitive to put one house there. And to do that it would need access from Crestview Circle and not from Galpin because if you do it from Galpin you have to go across the ravine basically. So I'm a little bit in a quandary because if we could require that the access is from Crestview Circle, I would be inclined to rezone it to single family residential. Make it consistent with all the other aspects. But in the absence of having foundation to ask that the access is from Crestview and have some assurance that that's going to go that way, I start wondering again whethei' it's better to leave it rural because the possibility to have some animals on that property to me is less threatening than the possibility of having access from Galpin and having a potential subdivision. That's my comment. Burton: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Kind: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the applicant's here and can address where they are planning on accessing the site from. Applicant #1: There is no plan as to where the site's going to be accessed at this point. Applicant #2: The builder who is, has purchased the lot is planning to build one home on it, if that makes a difference at all. His plan is one single family home. Applicant #1: His single family home. Sacchet: But you wouldn't knox,, where the access will be? Applicant #2: Not exactly, no. Kind: Well with that Mr. Chair ['11 add just to my comments. I'm convinced that the topography limits this to one home and I'm comfortable rezoning it since it is guided for Iow density residential and our comp plan is consistent with that. I live on a one acre lot that technically could be subdivided and there's just no way it could be done because of the topography so I can relate to this particular lot and so I would agree with the staff report. Burton: Anybody else comment? Sidney: Well [ guess I'd just like to add very thorough staff report. All my questions were answered, thank you. Burton: Yep, I agree. And I would just add that I agree with Deb. I'm convinced that with the change that's not practical to build more than one home on this lot so I agree with the planning department's recommendation. So if there's not any more comments, does somebody want to make a motion? Sidney: I'll make a motion. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning #2000-3 of Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 CresWiew Circle from Rural Residential, RR to Residential Single Family, RSF. Kind: I'll second that. Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2001 Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning #2000-3 of Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 Crestview Circle from Rural Residential, RR to Residential Single Family, RSF. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. REZONING REOUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY TO MED/UM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBDMSION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY D/STRICT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (383 UNITS) CONSISTING OF CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON TFIE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND HWY. 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Farrell James Haugen Dennis R. Griswold Mark Guenther Dan Cook Tom & Kay Faust Bill Coffman Tom Furlong Linda Bergan Pat J. Connolly Leah Hawke Steven Berquist Karen Weathers Jerry and Jan Paulsen Deb Lloyd Dan Shoemaker Mel Kurvers Anne Ryan Mike Zumwinkle 7336 Fawn Hill Road 7800 Bavaria Road, Victoria Pulte Homes Pulte Homes Pemtom 541 Mission Hills Drive 600 West 78th Street 1841 Ringneck Drive 3241 Tanadoona Drive 2008 Grand Avenue, St. Paul 7444 Moccasin Trail 7207 Frontier Trail 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7380 Kurvers Point Road 7240 Kurvers Point Road 2595 Southern Court 7250 Hillsdale Court Kate Aanenson and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Burton: Questions for staff. APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN LIBRARY BUILDING COMMITTEE City of Chanhassen, 690 City Center Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Date: 01/31/01 Name: David Andrew Happe Address: 604 Summerfield Drive - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home Phone: 952-233-2029 WorkPhone: 952-233-5750 No. of Years in Chanhassen: 1 Highest Level of Education Attained, Plus Degrees, if any: Normandale Community College, St. Cloud State University, and several continuing education classes in business and technology. Employment History (State position, employer and brief description of duties: After spending 11 years in the corporate management for Best Buy in Eden Prairie and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Bentonville, AR) managing marketing and purchasing with P&L management of $750M annually, I opened a company in April of 1999 called EcruitersTM. EcruitersTM is an executive recruiting company headquartered here in Chanhassen that specializes in retail and eCommerce executive recruiting for Fortune 500 companies. Activities and Affiliations (Include elective offices, honors, and recognitions received, if any): Current MiniMite Hockey Coach, Chaska/Chan ~2ooo/2oo~ Coach a,,d ~oo~/~oo~ Commissio,~er) 1999-2000 Volunteer Board Member, United Way Agency Review Team Past United Way Capital Campaign Corporate Coordinator (Best Buy, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.) Past Fundraising Chair, Christmas in May*Shakopee Active church member Ohrestwood, Chanhassen ~ Joel Johnson, reference). Reasons for Seeking this Position: This library is a super important project for the city.., one that the citizens have voted with their checkbooks to support. As a result, this community is going to be blessed with an amazing gif~ that will last into the next generation and beyond. I am interested in making sure that our taxpayers voices are heard, understood, and given consideration as we build this facility for everyone in Chanhassen to enjoy. I have been looking for a way to volunteer my time, energy and resources to a project that will make a difference ... and am excited about the impact that this project will have on our community. (Plus, I have a 3~a grade daughter that is prone to reading through 10 books in a weekend. I think the librarians were about to put me on work detail anyway, so I view this kind of as "enlisting in the army before you get drafted!" © ) Specific Qualifications for the Position: I have investigated the future plans for Chanhassen, including speaking with residents, current and past counsilpeople and reading the city's business plan. I have a solid background in business management, with particular strength in contract negotiations, strategic planning and project management. My strongest suit is in interpersonal communications. I have experience with multimillion dollar budgeting, with emphasis on profit and loss management. I understand the urgency of deadlines, combined with the foresight to plan time and contingency plans for unanticipated obstacles. In addition to this business experience, I have contracted to build two homes, from blueprints to completion. And most of all, I have enthusiasm for this project, and willingness to serve and do what ever it takes to make this a success. THANK YOU! - DH