Loading...
CAS-06_HILLSIDE OAKSE • 14 CITY OF CgANNA3SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952,227.1180 Fax: 952.227.11go Engineering Phone: 952.227.118o Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227,1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning g Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: February 14, 2005 SUBJ: Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The existing land use designation of the property west of Powers Boulevard is Residential - Large Lot. This area is developed with single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 2.2 to 3.96 acres. Since 1997, the city has reviewed variations on a development proposal for the area. However, none of the proposals were approved. The Planning Commission directed staff to re-evaluate the land use designation for the Hillside Oaks development to determine if a change in the land use is appropriate. City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. Were City Council to vote to amend the land use, then a 2/3'u majority of City Council is required. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Public works 1591 Park Road The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 18, 2005, to review Phone: 952.221.1300 the land use for Hillside Oaks. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to affirm Fax: 952.227.1310 the existing land use designation. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la Senior center of the City Council packet for February 14, 2005. Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax:952.227.1110 RECOMMENDATION Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified in the staff report dated January 18, 2005 affirming the Residential — Large Lot land use. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Dated January 18, 2005. Letter from Arild Rossavik to Mayor and City Council Members dated 2/l/05. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DAN: 01/18/05 CC DATE: 02/14/05 REVIEW DEADLINE: NA CASE #: 05-06 BY: RG PROPOSAL: Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision and Potential Land Use Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density. LOCATION: Northwest and northeast comers of Powers Blvd. and Lyman Blvd. APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 PRESENT ZONING: 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Agricultural Estate District, A2 Residential — Large Lot ACREAGE: 20.0 DENSITY: 0.35 units/acre SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision and Potential Land Use Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving land use amendments and rezonings because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or land use amendment must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. ecN Location Map 0 Hillside Oaks Land Use Amendment NW Corner of Powers and Lyman Blvds. Planning Case No. 05-06 Lyman Blvd (CSAH 18) Subject Site Planning Commission Hillside Oaks LUA Planning Case No. 05-06 January 18, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The City is evaluating the land use designation for the property within the Hillside Oaks subdivision. BACKGROUND As part of the 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, the Hillside Oaks subdivision west of Powers Boulevard was guided for Residential Low Density. After the final plat for Hillside Oaks was approved and in exchange for MUSA expansion elsewhere, Hillside Oaks subdivision west of Powers Boulevard was re -guided for estate type development. However, as part of the original plat, it was envisioned that when urban services became available, this property would redevelop, but with larger lots (one acre or larger). February, 1972. The property was zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence District as part of the original city zoning. July, 1980. The property was granted preliminary approval for a Planned Residential development as part of the preliminary development plan for Lake Susan West P.R.D. 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 Residential Low Density to Agricultural and deletes the property from the MUSA in exchange for 22 acres of industrial land (McGlynns) and 7.3 acres of residential land northeast of Lake Minnewashta. February, 1987. Property rezoned to A2, Agricultural Estate District as part of comprehensive rezoning of the city. February, 1991. Property brought back into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and guided for Residential - Large Lot. Summer, 1997. Property owners for Lots 1 and 2 brought in preliminary plat for both lots including a land use map amendment and rezoning to single family residential. The property owner for Lot 1 decided not to go forward with the project and the application was withdrawn. February 23, 1998, the City Council: • denied a request for a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential - Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. Planning Commission Hillside Oaks LUA Planning Case No. 05-06 January 18, 2005 Page 3 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 inconsistency 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 requirements. November 26, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council voted to: *Deny the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential - Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. -Deny the rezoning 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 creating six lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. On May 27, 2003, the Chanhassen City Council voted to: • Deny the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential - Large Lot to Residential - Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. • Deny the rezoning 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 creating five lots for the Powers Circle Addition subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. The City Council adopted the following findings of fact as the basis for their denial of the land use amendment: The land use amendment is premature without the redevelopment of the entire area. The land use amendment creates an island of low density land in a large lot development. Traffic circulation and impacts on Powers Boulevard from this area must be resolved. On September 21, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission directed staff to re-evaluate the land use designation for the Hillside Oaks development based on the changing conditions in the area including the extension of city sewer to the area, the opening of the 2005 Metropolitan Urban Service Area for development, the widening of Powers Boulevard and the pending construction of Highway 312/212. Planning Commission Hillside Oaks LUA Planning Case No. 05-06 January 18, 2005 Page 4 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 2-46.03, subd. 4 of the Chanhassen City Code states: The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties allowed under State law, including: (a) To prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the City that is submitted to the Council for implementation and to recommend amendments of the Plan to the Council from time to time as may be necessary or desirable. DISCUSSION In reviewing land uses and zoning, amendments are warranted if there is an error in the guiding and zoning of the property that needs to be corrected or if there are changing conditions that warrant or compel a change. Given that the two lots east of Powers Boulevard, which are part of this subdivision, are guided for Residential -Low Density, it could be argued that either the property west of Powers Boulevard is guided inappropriately, or the property east of Powers Boulevard is guided inappropriately, since an individual development is generally, but not always, guided consistent throughout. The existing land use designation of the property west of Powers Boulevard is for Residential - Large Lot. This area has been developed with single-family homes on larger lots ranging in size from 2.2 to 3.96 acres. The development abuts minor arterial roadways (Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard). Chanhassen has a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, the community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. Hillside Oaks was developed as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The existing topography contains a very steep, partially wooded slope along the westerly portion of the site in and adjacent to the city park as well as the southwest portion of the site. Some of these areas meet the city definition of bluff which may not be developed nor used in calculating lot density. There are trees, shrubs and conifers located adjacent to the park in the northern portion of the subdivision. The southern area of the subdivision consists of significant areas of woodlands. These conditions potentially limit the ability of this area to re -develop within the residential - low density range of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. Within the development, the significant environmental features, including bluffs, steep slopes and woodlands, may be preserved only through the maintenance of the Residential — Large Lot designation. The comprehensive plan policies state: Planning Commission Hillside Oaks LUA Planning Case No. 05-06 January 18, 2005 Page 5 Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality. New residential development shall be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state. 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. The following table represents the existing breakdown of land uses within the city by acreage and percent of total area. Land Use Acres Percent Commercial 214 1.4% Office/Industrial 1,222 8.3% Office/Institutional 47 0.3% Office 117 0.8% Parks & Open Space 1,466 9.9% Public/Semi-Public 1,242 8.4% Residential Large Lot 2,247 15.2% Residential Low Density 5,465 37.0% Residential Medium Density 635 4.3% Residential High Density 398 2.7% Mixed Use 134 0.9% Undevelopable 1,573 10.7% TOTALS 14,760 100.0% The 20 acres of land located within this development (west of Powers Boulevard) represent 0.9 percent of the total residential — large lot land within the community. If the land were amended to residential — low density, it would represent 0.3 percent of that land use. The two lots east of Powers Boulevard include a gross area of 7.34 acres. However, approximately half of these two lots are wetland. This area may not be appropriate for development at an urban density due to the wetlands, which may not be included in determining density, and the constraints of providing street access for any additional lots. This area represents 0.1 percent of the residential — low density land use. is Planning Commission Hillside Oaks LUA Planning Case No. 05-06 January 18, 2005 Page 6 Residential - Low Density land uses in the Lake Susan Hills PUD and in Sunset Trail surround these properties on three sides. As part of the upgrade of Powers Boulevard, sewer and water services were extended down to Lyman Boulevard to serve abutting parcels. A sanitary sewer lift station was installed across Powers Boulevard to service this area. The lift station is currently not used. The availability of an adequate sanitary sewer system is a primary consideration in the utilization of land for urban purposes. 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 minor arterial roadway and will continue to carry high volumes of traffic. Access to the site from Powers Boulevard does have right turn lanes provided. Therefore, no additional turn lanes will be necessary. Due to the high traffic volumes projected on Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard, it may be appropriate to limit the number of housing units that abut the intersection. By maintaining the Residential — Large Lot designation of the properties, no additional homes will be developed in the area. As can be seen by the table below, the lot areas are not sufficient to divide an individual lot into two or more lots as required by the 2.5 acre minimum lot size of the Residential — Large Lot land use. Lot and Block Area (acres) Lot 1, Block 1 2.5 Lot 2, Block 1 3.96 Lot 3, Block 1 2.55 Lot 4, Block 1 2.48 Lot 5, Block 1 3.35 Lot 6, Block 1 2.2 Lot 7, Block 1 2.96 Lot 1, Block 2 3.84 Lot 2, Block 2 3.5 The north central portion of the site, Lots 2 and 3 and the eastern portion of Lot 4, Block 1, have an area of less significant elevation changes than the rest of the development. These areas have a potential for redevelopment with less impacts than the rest of the subdivision and may be appropriate for more suburban style development as residential — low density land use. Staff has prepared a schematic of a potential subdivision of Hillside Oaks based on a residential — low density land use. Most if not all of the existing homes would need to be removed and all the property owners would need to cooperate and redevelop at approximately the same time. Again, the northern portion of the development has the best potential for redevelopment with the least environmental impacts. is Planning Commission Hillside Oaks LUA Planning Case No. 05-06 January 18, 2005 Page 7 The Planning Commission has the following options: Maintain the existing land use designation. (No change) Amend the land use designation for all or part of the development. Direct staff to review Block 2 for a land use amendment to Residential — Large Lot. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommends that the Affiming Goompiss City Council adopt the following motion: "The Pimtiing GswApisstea Chanhassen City Council affirms the land Use Map designation of Residential —Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Environmental Features and Existing Houses 3. Schematic Subdivision 4. Letter from Arild Rossavik to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 1/3/05 5. Letter from Arild Rossavik to Robert Generous dated 9/27/04 6. Location Map Hillside Oaks 7. Figure 14 — AUAR Development Scenario 8. Page 17, Chanhassen 2005 Alternate Urban Areawide Review 9. Hillside Oaks Subdivision 10. Chanhassen AUAR 2010 Total Traffic 11. Chanhassen AUAR 2003 Background Traffic 12. Chanhassen AUAR Figure 12 — Zoning Map 13. Photo Water and Sewer Lots 1 and 2 14. Photos Hillside Oaks 15. Photos Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard 16. CSAH 17 Improvements Assessment Roll B 17. Reduced Half Section 18. Chanhassen AUAR 2010 — Build Hwy 2121312, Figure 2 — Site Plan 19. Under signers requesting change from Residential — Large Lot to Residential —Low Density 20. Powers Circle Utility Plan 21. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing 9Aplan\2005 planning mes\.05-06 hillside oaks land use amendmenAstaff report hillside oaks lmAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN • CAR AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MIIVNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of City of Chanhassen for a Land Use Amendment. On January 18, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of the City of Chanhassen for a comprehensive plan land use amendment of property from Residential — Large Lot to Residential — Low Density. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Large Lot and Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Hillside Oaks Addition 4. The land use designation of the property for Residential — Large Lot is consistent the following comprehensive plan policies: Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality. New residential development shall be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state. 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. 5. The planning report #05-06 dated January 18, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council affirm the Land Use designation of Residential — Large Lot for the Hillside Oaks development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18'" day of January, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman IN .5cle-V 1O1L :SL. L• a " Chanhassen City Planning Commission Uli Sacchet Kurt Papke Rich Slagle Craig Claybaugh Dam Keefe Steve Lillehaug January Yd 2005 ( Revised from August 9 h 2004) Ref City Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks Block 1 and April 2005 Dear Planning Commission Members I write to you ask that the City Land Use Guidance for Hillside Oaks Block 1 be changed from A2 to RSF. Block 2 has already been adjusted. I feel this change should have been made when the City Adopted AUAR 2005. A development which will bring 1500 new housing units and 700 thousand square feet of new o ice space south of Lyman Blvd (See Land Use attachment). As you know, highway 212 is coming just south of Powers & and Lyman Blvd, Powers Blvd will be extended down to interchange with 212, and in addition the large AUAR 2005 development: 1500 new housing units, a middle or high school for 1700 Student and 7000.00 square feet office space. Constructions of both these projects are scheduled to start in April this year. Powers Blvd will be turned into the main drag for this construction for years to come. When Powers Blvd hook up to new 212 it is reasonable to assume that traffic now using Minn. 5 to get to 494 will drive down Powers Blvd to new 212. Doing so will save 4 or 5 traffic lights. These developments will forever increase traffic intensity on Powers as it is extended down to new 212 and AUAR 20005. Lyman Blvd will be built into four lanes and there will be a traffic light to control this intersection. (Powers & Lyman) I have collected the following figures from the City's study: Powers Blvd: Lyman Blvd 2003 — 7700 Vehicles/Day 2010 Daily 14800 Vehicles/Day 13000 Vehicles/Day (Peak hours 3100 Vehicles)/hour (These projections are subject to another planned collector road, not funded yet, is 1-1 constructed south of Lyman. Adjustment until it is constructed: the traffic load on Powers Blvd increases 12200 to 27,000 vehicles a day (see encl map) Hillside Oaks (see list of owners attached) development consist of two blocks seven lots on the western side of Powers Blvd and two lots on the eastern side of Powers Blvd. The increased traffic and construction vehicles, on Powers and Lyman Blvd for years to come will cause property value to depreciate in value if the City continues to limit its use to Agriculture Estate (A2) . We will be living in a construction zone for years to come, especially if it remainsA2 Only RSF (Single family residential) guidance will allow owners to rezone and optimize their investment .Rezoning will also make it possible to build a Sound berm, or wall along Powers Blvd to shield the neighborhood These are significant changes. This conflicts with A2 Land use guidance , a guidance intended to preserve a rural feel and character Clearly A2 has been abandoned in this locality by the City. In addition A2 designation has been abandoned for future use overall because of the high cost of bringing in water and sewer. In 1980 the land use designation for Hillside Oaks blocks 1 and 2 was RSF. Later Hillside Block 1 was later changed to A2, and Block 2 went to RSF. I have researched the City's records but 1 cannot find a reasonable explanation for this change. Sunset Trial, west of Hillside Oaks lot 5 Block 1, fits the criteria for A2; but Land use guidance is RSF, making Hillside Oaks Block 1 a A2 sandwich between RSF, Hillside Oaks Block 2, and Sunset Trail! North and South are RSF (PUD) or medium density Hillside Oaks is fragmented into four pieces. 1. Lot 1 and 2 share a common driveway which access Powers Blvd Directly 2. Lot 3,4,5 and 7 share a Cull De Sac, Oak Side Circle 3. Lot 6 may have a deeded access to Oak Side Circle but in realty accesses Lyman Blvd 4. Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 accesses Lyman Blvd In 1995 water and sewer service and lift station was brought down to serve Hillside Oaks Block 1 ( lot 1 to 7) Block 1.It was projected to serve 32 lots. It has now stood unused for ten years. (City project 93-29) Its cost to the City and Taxpayers are now over $400.000.00. (My streetlight has been turned off for the last three years, so the City could save money.) So far this misuse of resources has been ignored. Clearly the sewer and water improvements anticipated land use guidance change from A2 to RSF. I have written and/or contacted every property owner in Hillside Oak. Most recognize the reasonableness of this request, but some wish to ignore the significant change that is coming. I ask that the City Planning Commission initiate a correction of the City Land Use Guidance for Hillside Block ],from A2 to RSF. This does not change anything for the affected property owners, but will open possibilities for new land use when they are ready. My earlier planned Subdivision for 5 lots was supported by The City Staff. The pending proposal is only for three lots and is enclosed for your reference and my neighbors response are indicated. Respectfully Arild Rossavik Ph 952 448 4844 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 e-mail: AR e.ARILD.US Enclosures CC City Manager Todd Gerhardt Senior Planner Bob Generous E The following are present owners: Lot 1 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: George & Jacqueline Bizek (different time frame for Rezoning) Lot 2 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Arild Rossavik Lot 3 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Jame & Carol Lee (different time frame for Rezoning) Lot 4 Block I Hillside Oaks: Brenda & John Hill (no objection) Lot 5 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Craig & Ellie Peterson (no response, 2003 objected) Lot 6 Block I Hillside Oaks: Minh cam & Margaret Tram (no objection) Lot 7 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Keith & Mary Buesegens (different time frame for Rezoning) Lot I Block 2 Hillside Oaks: Brent & Kathy Miller (Directly supports) Lot 2 Block 2 Hillside Oaks: Duane & Julie Skluzucek (Directly supports) L Robert Generous Senior Planner City Of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 September27,2004 Ref land Use Guidance change Hillside Oak Block 1 Additional comments: Thank you for you cooperation in the above matter. I may want to add CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd) Improvements City Project 93-29 Assessment Roll B to my argument that Land Use Guidance Change for Hillside Oaks Block 1 should have been changed when the City put a lift station and water and sewer In my driveway and my neighbors driveways belonging to Hillside Oaks Block 1. It was stipulated to serve 32 single family houses in Block 1. (my pending request design will allow two more houses to be built on my property) The fact is that we have all been sitting with these improvements in our driveways for the last ten years.... The property owners of Hillside Oaks Block 2 can interesting enough access these improvements (Lift Station) as they are Guided for RSF, and therefore can redevelop their properties without a request for Land Use Guidance Amendment, but they where not included in the Estimated Assessment Roll ? Also I would like to point out that it is the property owners cost to build berm or other noise reducing walls to limit the noise effect of the increased traffic on Powers Blvd as I we are going to get most of the traffic now going 5 east to the where the freeway begins in Eden Prairie. This traffic now will have the opportunity to drive down on Powers Blvd and be on the freeway.... and also the reverse will be truth , traffic coming from Eden Prairie will stay on the new extension of 212, take Powers Blvd exit into the City and even going west on 5 making Powers Blvd the main drag All the owners of Hillside Oaks Block 1 & 2 will have direct exposure to this traffic, with maybe an exception to Lot 5 Block 1 which is on the hill and covered by threes, and a land use guidance change for these will allow each property owner to redevelop his property in their own time or to keep their large lot size, as development of neighboring property will have little impact compared to what the increased traffic will do to the area. Also the major investment( must be over $500,000.00 now) the City did in water and sewer for Block 1 10 years ago can be recouped so this can ease the burdens to the taxpayers. Respectfulll Arilld R sa'v- li cp%W4-� Encl RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2004 CM OF CHANHASSEN d CSAH 1) (POWERS BOULEVARD) IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 93.29 Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership Potential Gross Exist Future Area .Units U • Y 1.:. Lo11, Block i i .. 25.3530010 :;: r°t ir::�r •.. u' ',F., ' ' n is dyc ; '• i' �^�� . Hillside Oaks 2.5 1 4 Add i n ddiIot 3 �y.6yi'ar;•. r Hillside Oaks 253 530020 RlD 3.72 j 8 Addition ock 1 25.3530030 RLD t .y `y� Hillside Oaks 2.52 1 4 Addition Lot 4,Block`1 25-3530040 RLD r' '�'";' 't` Hillside Oaks 2'S 1 4 Addition Lot 5, Block 1'a'. 25-3530050 Hillside Oaks , .RLD 3.48 1 5 Addition "t" ems.^'-<•--; Lot Block 1 „ 25.3S300. 60 ���."i:+.�, ;'(`3Tiy"1L:s 7�'sl � Hillside e Oaks RLD 258 1 4 Addition;t-�n� Lot 7, Block 1 Hillside Oaks 25-3530070 RLD 3.42 1 5 TF ,050.00 Sanitary Watermain" 'SI,0S0.00/REU (residential equivalent unit) 051,375.00/REU "'Future subdivision of property wi0 be charged trunk hookup fees at current year rates based on the number of lots (units) created ASSESSMENT ROLL B Watennain Present Total s2,42s.00 r11 L • Location Map Hillside Oaks ero S� G N -0 N� yi m W 3 N 4 laf m L 50 O c o ern rt ; 't m o. <d F S c � owers N J � f 0 N 001 N rbara Crt � c 002 iq Z U 003 am m i 004 O IZSF _Z005 �N IL�N O� N N 007 001 (y�dQcourt 006 Z RSF 002 L man v yrnanJBI 1K S F P1tID(vC N5 T 10 Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ram' iai Y� 1 ♦ )..J ". I :� i i AA .v t J w. Legend �DAR Dave) mt S nano Land Du EmlmivMM sows uwr-oa`wr n..r�ua — �n + - CM1 p� �atOna O TX. 21M12 W�,ht Lft - phe lmee�a iNY AINwn Dvely NealvWl _ q^VmM1BMY�n naaaa ^aY - Ort .rM- bMln 1WI�,al Yr�nM O�ia1/pM.f StlN -� N o aso sm +.000 Fw August,2003 Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review Portions of the project area drain to and will utilize ponds constructed within the proposed TH 212/312 right-of-way. Stormwater improvements will need to be reviewed with MnDOT to ensure storm water facilities are properly sized based on the recently revised roadway alignment (August 2003). Nate: the RGU ntum assure that the development described complies with the requirements of 4410.36K1. subpart 3 (and also That it properly orders the AGAR midsets the description in that order as required by 4410.3610, subpart 3). City of Chanhassen Resolution # 2003-70 ordering the preparation of the AUAR is included as Appendix 1. The Order for Review was passed by the Chanhassen City Council on Monday, August 11, 2003 consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Section 4410.3610, subpart 3. 7. PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA. The cumulative totals of the p irameters called fin- should be given far each uuyor development scenario, except that it foruuttion on "mans fitcluring, " "other industrial, " "institutional... and .1agricuhural. " . The following data represents the anticipated types and intensity/density of residential, office, office/industrial, and institutional development throughout the AUAR area based on the development scenario described in question 6. TABLE 7.1 PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA LAND USE DESIGNATION TOTAL NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES MAXIMUM INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA Medium Density Residential/Low Density Residential 120 8 du/acre 954 units Medium Density Residential 66 8 du/acre 680 units Office 17 0.35 FAR 270,00 uare feet Officedndustrial 34 0.30 FAR 450,0 uare feet* Park/Open n Space 45 Passive Park Park 35 Athletic Fields Institutional 36 Middle/High 1,700 Students * rounded to nearest 5,000 square feet Developable land inventory is that land area that is unconstrained by steep slopes as defined by the City of Chanhassen GIS Steep Slope dataset (slopes greater than 18%), National Wetland Inventory, Peterson Environmental delineated wetlands, floodplain (100 year and floodway), the right-of-way for proposed Highway 212 and the collector roadway concept alignment for the AUAR (for purposes of estimating project magnitude data, the collector roadway ROW is assumed at a 60' width consistent with Chanhassen's residential collector standards). Key assumptions made to arrive at a net land area for development include the following: Park and Open Space (P/OS) areas were determined based on the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan Page 17 4 t Da 'e OA 0 V a 1 op 3 r p• _ hN..1 ;C y. /w '0 O NNN i 0 p v. E N •t i E z 0 4 - 500 EAST ]o .per Sf P 5 x P °c 9 .I P •S. Ys 00 _ nI �odm Yf bpO Sbt. r{I r s. Eo• �<os5 � dl ` � c _ oY d'63 '` Dl d J _ - 4nr ha RsP ♦' W s ... .m 5 u ' 1 v N o wo b.. b OJ SLq` S'. Y ]f 00 EA 0]w rrl IYE — .A.H. NO: 17 - -- (LYMAN BOULEVARD)]).,- -s>e- `e, ,,her< LYMAN woo- 8 �' , ULEVAR6 . Us.- 6 - 81039 NOB°« IY'E 30667 -\ ee . . -. 34000 N88 h417 E- . 3 _ (� S n. N AID z m zz _== 0 29x311)) :I) 1 109(94)1v �10((1021 � :a620) CHANHASSEN AUAR 2010 - BUILD HWY 212/312 FIGURE 9 - 2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC 2010 TOTAL TRAM NORTH L49(339) r23(94) \( Y-1, 017 19 <- XX(XX) AMrM)VPeak Hour TraXXXX Average Daily Traffic Volumes ❑Mr and ❑ ajnmd AssaaaHan tes, Inc. V� L Vr� Y MM��Ij M1i YRC OC,f. ml VO �Dlf fOP MCX R MS MVMfD m ro �-«w wo .swcw¢ uc 2003 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Ll bf ll T F e W 1\\ r<41WI>7,,,� ' \ �-94(223) d \ 21J(1J9)1 +7CY i 48) 92 r27 1M a 21(72) ' ? En4W-> H=i 4—�4(262) Aa <— XX(XX) AM(PY) Peck Hour Agra Vdumes XXXX Average Daily Traffic Volumes NORTH CHANHASSEN AUAR 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS ❑�❑ Kunley-Hom and Assoaates, Inc. FIGURE 6 - 2003 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC r.rl~jr a w4 r. rx aq r+w a: enm m M mawr. mina rix M cw4ms wo muc wennm lw4 r r remaar a 4OM2 a xm4xn aar M 11F ercrnc R1AOII 4b unrt M wla rt rs nmw®. mx Of MO YI00 IpWaL r M WCIYMI �Ilpllf wllp I11111Lr�gYl1 MO IY'ILnW fl VYIY-IY1101 NO /ffiOG�14S. WC. 9WL E �1141! IYrIfI m MYIYyYbI MO µiOCMIFS. k A0 N90 S �— _-9g0 Feel im I lui.ing= Kmglcr Gruup Im. Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review August, 2003 "m ""-"" ...,.m.�....� A- �v • Ell a E o a x a a a s � E :a a 441U1� CSAH 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD) IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 93-29 Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership Description PIN Zonin Gross Area Lot 1, Block 1 25.35300i0 RLD p.g Hillside Oaks Addition Lot 2, Block 1 25.3530020 RLD 3.72 Hillside Oaks Addition l.. Lot 3, Block l Hillside Oaks ES•3530030 RLD 2.52 Lot 4, Block 1 25-3530040 Hillside Oaks Addition Lot 5, Block 1 Hillside Oaks 25-35300S0 Addition Lot 6,81ock 1 25-3530060 Hillside Oaks Addition —v M-R Lot 7, Block i 25-3530070 Hillside Oaks RLD1 'I" 2.5 Y; •.• ..RLD 3.48 �`i.Ya'St;y 2.58 Potential Trunk Exist Future Sanitar Units Units"' Sewer' l 4 $1.0 1 8 $1.0 1 4 41 nsn nn 1 4 $1,050.00 1 5 5 51.050.00 I Sanitary Watennaiv $0.00 $1 11,050.001REU (residential equivalent unit) "Ji l.375.00/R EU "'Future subdivision of property will be charged trunk hookup fees at current year rates based on the number of lots (units) created 1 ASSESSMENT ROLL B Lateral I Present Watennain Total $2,425.00 $2.425.00 $2.425.00 i':�lr`rrfi#F� $2.425.00 $2.425.00 00 $2,425.00 �• ` #,-,_ lu c- a o ,',Z '•' 61 T' CpUN CQI N!( mw QJI Nlr �iN .•a• RB/l? rnsL—_sr.-- —_ L$ `t Y "g' Njl in bl oQJI {ll T .t [� • [its YI [fz O a' • n _ _ F � • q �! Nib( ..NN,.•.•... .�.�. .... Ewa �s P,r.-_ �`�� ___ � "t.� - S��F �`` •� o& o P Y � 9 s _ ..�. Y • ep1TH M[fl6 3M11 i � V a [ wlso, esu 1 rx, eln i S 6 r i a 3 M i - i'�j jl pp y • G y J �1,� JY' nl 'y t 0TJN�J[ J W O 0Ar ^ N mF VS. � (J N(O1 Y P ' Y �Oyp?.., e[ItE Iw. } _u f; ��•PF �i P Y �¢` 6 a g4 p�PyY r� o Akh it q ' it _ i ` I `n (L UAJ / o� 0 a 2 . sckG(-'V .e— TC/(i 2 5;e,4 c/ 3 141 .� _ .� .. \OX , ( §§ � � CITY OF CHA INHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.05-06 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision and Potential Land Use Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density on property located at the northwest corner of Powers Blvd. and Lyman Blvd. Applicant: City of Chanhassen. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Bob Generous, Senior Planner Email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on January 6, 2005) &CANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF M NNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on January 6, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Hillside Oaks Potential Land Use Amendment — Planning Case No. 05-06 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1��` day of , 2005. Notary Publi WW T MANI 3" ardt, Zfty ,�"'''g KIM T. MEUWISSEN ..' Notary Public -Minnesota Comrnirlon 1M.Wi 81, 8010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision and Potential Proposal: Land Use Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density Planning File: 05-06 Applicant: City of Chanhassen Property Northwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. 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: What Happens at the Meeting: 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. 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 Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: 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. The staff report for this Item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions. Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision and Potential Proposal: Land Use Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density Planning File: 05-06 Applicant: City of Chanhassen Property Northwest corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. 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: • What Happens at the Meeting: 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. 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 Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or Questions & e-mail bcenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: 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. The staff report for this Item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and interim Uses, Wetlantl Alters• Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party Is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey arm is not intended to be used as one. This map is a completion of records, information and dale located in various ay, carry. state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic featuresg errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stamen, §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), arm the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hdtl harmess the City from any and all clams brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties x ich area out of the use's access or use of daa provided. Disclaimer This map is nettheir a legally recorded nap nor a survey aci is not intended to be used as one. This map is a completion of records, informaion and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices antl other sources regarding the area sbawn, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic information System (GIS) Data used to prepare the map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data cant be used for navigational, thecY'ng or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic featuresIf enors or discreluarrcies are found pease cordact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is presided pursuatt to Minnesota Statuses §466.03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknoWedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all darts, and agrees to defend indemnify, and hold harmess the City from any and all dams brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse out of the users access or use of data provided. Public Hearing Notification Area (500+ feet) Hillside Oaks Land Use Amendment NW Corner of Powers and Lyman Blvds. Planning Case No. 05-06 l yman Blvd (CSH 18) Subject Site BRETT A & ANA ADAMS DARREN & JENNIFER ANDERSON 629 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 701 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KIMBERLY R ANDERSON 8671 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE R BAKKE 1371 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER & KIMBERLY BEHRENS 8780 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE A & JACQUELYN BIZEK 8750 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN D & KRISTI A BUAN 8740 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & JEANINE C CASEY 8720 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JERRY JR & ELLEN J CERCHIA 761 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DORSEY & DORSEY 1551 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JON & SARAH A BAKER 650 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICKY JOSEPH BARTHEL & KAREN ANN BARTHEL 1090 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS E BEVER & CHERRE R PELTIER 8763 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRYON J & LINDA J BOTZ 8743 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY PAT BUESGENS 1300 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT B & REBECCA A CATER 1561 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD C & VIRGINIA D COBAN 8821 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHERYL LEE DOTY 8736 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DUANE H & KAREN L ANDERSON 1570 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SREANG & SOPHORN SONG BANG 1590 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN D & DENISE A BECKER 675 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MANDALSA D BHIKHAI & RAJUNDRANAUTH BHIKHAI 1051 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROSEANNE M BOYUM 8805 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RYAN M & LISA J CARLSON 1580 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J JR & LISA A CEASER 1091 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY M & JAMIE M COOK 1101 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD M & TRACEY B DRESHFIELD 1571 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J & VICKI L EASTWOOD RICHARD & CONNIE M MARK A & REBECCA L ERICKSON 727 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR ECHTERNACHT 1110 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8746 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY S & LISA MARIE EYRE YURI F FARBER STEVEN J & NANCY S FAY 1100 LAKE SUSAN DR 8772 FLAMINGO DR 640 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURT A & SARAH J FERDERER ALAN C FIELD MICHAEL D & JOAN M FLYNN 1090 LAKE SUSAN DR 1111 LAKE SUSAN DR 660 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EY A & TERRI L FOX TRUSTEES JEFFREY S & LEE ANN FRANZ WILLIAM G GABLER TRUSTEES OF TRUST FUND 8950 SUNSET TRL 78 STEVENS ST E EXCELLSIORSIOR MN 55331 527E S POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST PAUL MN 55107 M RAYMOND JAMES GARVER JR JOSEPH GIBNEY JR & CHARLES E JR & PATRICIA HANSEN 8704 FLAMINGO DR KAREN STEIN 1561 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1594 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY D & JENNIFER L HICKS JOHN E & BRENDA L HILL KRISTIN ANNE JOHNSON 1351 THRUSH CT 1360 OAKSIDE CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8719 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY D & SHIREEN S KAHLER TONY KHOUENGBOUA ETAL JAMES R JR & SUSAN L KOZLOWSKI 8742 FLAMINGO DR 1130 LAKE SUSAN DR 8730 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD A & MARY G KRAFT TED D & PAIGE A LAMSON JAYME D & CAROL R LEE 8711 FLAMINGO DR 680 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1380 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J & CYNTHIA A LEEMAN MANATH LENGSAVATH & DOMINIC & PATRICIA A MARGARIT 8726 FLAMINGO DR DOUANGCHAY LENGSAVATH 8661 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1061 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES W & JANET L MARTEL JAY WIRTH MEYER RONALD J & DEBRA R MICHEES 676 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1574 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 8751 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & SUZANNE MILACNIK BRENT R & KATHLEEN A MILLER JOHN F MILLER 751 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1200 LYMAN BLVD 1071 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GRANT & KELLY MORRISON DANA W & SUSAN M MULLER 1060 LYMAN CT 8850 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RODNEY & BONNIE M NELSON 8764 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THU VAN NGUYEN & LIEN KIM TANG 1601 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANYA C PARKS & JEAN C SCHWALEN 8750 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL E & RONDA S PIERRE 1591 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW H SCHMIDT 8669 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & CATHERINE S SCOTT 1578 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DUANE R SKLUZACEK 1190 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KOUNTHONE SOUVANNAKANE & OULADETH SOUVANNAKANE 1600 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DIEP D, TU T, LONG D NGUYEN & THUY B & HAI B NGUYEN 1581 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THUNG M & LAN T NGUYEN 8703 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WENDY SUSAN PEKAREK 8735 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM J & NANCY E PREMO 8712 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & LORI A SCHNESE 641 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARLA J SEDLACEK 1560 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN R & CECELIA M SMITH 1361 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 631 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL MN 55155 RICHARD L & LINDA C NELSON 1070 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DZUNG H & HONG T NGUYEN 1081 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HEATHER L ODDEN 1121 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG J PETERSON 1340 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARILD ROSSAVIK 8800 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GORDON E & ARLENE M SCHULZ 1100 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILLIP R SHOEN 1584 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J SONES & JUDITH A MARTINEZ- 8756 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D TIMM 1101 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINH CAM & MARGARET A TRAN TUOI VAN TRAN & TSM DEVELOPMENT INC 1330 LYMAN BLVD VEN THI TO 222 MONROE ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8900 SUNSET TRL ANOKA MN 55303 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK K & TRACY A UNDESTAD 8800 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LANCE D & MELANIE J WEGNER 8727 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY M & PATRICIA J YEAGER 1120 LAKE SUSAN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS A & STEPHANIE A UNZE 1080 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COREY J & RUTH L WEIKLE 8744 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ODELL R & SANDRA A ZURN 8659 POWERS PL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENT B & LORI BETH WARNBERG 1111 LYMAN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL J & CARLEEN M WIERSMA 8750 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID D & SUSAN M ZW ICKEY 690 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 February 1st 2005 Chanhassen Mayor Tom Furlong City Council Member Brian Lundquist City Council Member Steve Labatt City Council Member Bethany Tjornhom City Council Member Craig Petersen Ref ; Applicant City of Chanhassen: Land use Hillside Oaks Block 1 Coming for City Council February 14a' 2005 Dear Council Members In two months: large construction vehicles will be rolling up and down Powers Blvd to facilitate construction and extension of Powers Blvd down to new 212/312. This construction is projected to take three years. At the same time AUAR 2005 just south of Lyman and Powers will start developing: 1400 new housing units ( medium density) plus 700 thousand square ft of new office space and a new public school is planned for, and infrastructure is planned for this development Lyman will be expanded into 4 lanes and there will be a traffic light at Powers & Lyman Blvd Under current land use guidance this intersection have three different land use: RSF on Northeast Corner ( Hillside Oaks Block 2) A2 Northwest Corner ( Hillside Oaks Block 1) ( RSF comes again 2 lots west ) Medium density on both Southern Corners This is not coherent. It lacks logic and reason This development activity will continue beyond 2010, Powers, and Lyman Blvd are going to be a construction zone for years. In 2210 the traffic on Powers is projected to 15,000 cars day, provided that a collector road which is not funded , is being built to offload traffic on Powers. If not built, traffic will increase to 27,000 cars. Ether way the environmental impact on the neighbor hood will be dramatic and permanent. Powers Blvd was designed for this level of traffic when built 10 years ago RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2005 Hillside Oak was poorly planned, it is fractured in three pieces: CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lot I & 2 Block 1 which has a common driveway, off Powers Blvd, there is no turn around or Cul De Sac to facilitate a turnaround for large delivery trucks ( UPS FED EX Etc) They now back out and 1& in the opposite direction on Powers Blvd. The school bus picks up the Kids right off Powers Blvd every school day. Only rezoning of Lot 2( and preferably lot 1 as well) can make a Cul De Sac feasible. And this dangerous practice. Lot 3.4..5 and 7 front Oakside Circle, cul de sac. Lot 6 has deeded access to Oakside Circle but access Lyman Blvd. In 1995 the City provided Water and Sewer to Hillside Oaks Block I jIncluding a lift station at considerable investment, It has stood unused for ten years. It has no other possible use Only RSF guidance will make it feasible for a property owner in Hillside Oak to benefit this improvement. Meantime we must do with septic system and private wells. The construction which starts in two months, will seriously affect the property owner who wish to sell. Their property values will drop and hard to sell at a reasonable price especially because of A2 land use guidance and this continuing issue. There is no rationale for the City to maintain two fragmented pieces of Hillside Oaks block 1 underA2 guidance when it is surrounded by RSF, and Medium and Density on all sides. A correction to RSF will resolve these issues and will not harm the neighborhood. Respectfully 1 3tr.VV 2 vq-ZSmvl� Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 ,� :, s — � �. � — �f� =��'� � � � q �� �x ���, � � _ � i �� T � ".°�— .. _ .� _l ... ��' Ji rR - � ��! CAS-o(-'� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMNIISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 Chairman Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Rich Slagle. MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjornhom, Uli Sacchet and Kurt Papke. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Robert Generous, Senior Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Name Address Deb Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Due to the lack of a quorum at this meeting, no official action on the minutes occurred. OPEN DISCUSSION Land Use Designation for Hillside Oaks Public present: Name Address Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard Mr. Arild Rossavik presented his reasons why the Planning Commission should consider the rezoning of the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The Commission discussed their role in land use recommendations. They directed staff to pursue a study of the land use recommendation of the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. Design Standards for Multi -Family The Commission reviewed the draft document. Requested changes included call -outs describing the pictures and specific requirements for materials. Staff was directed to bring this item back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. !CANNED ps-o� City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 • Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the rezoning and preliminary plat request for Yoberry Farms, Planning Case 04-43 until the February 28, 2005 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Taking a look at the clock, we'll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let's make it about 5 minutes. REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION AND POTENTIAL LAND AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 05-06. Public Present: Name Address Steve Buan Arild Rossavik Dana Muller 8740 Flamingo Drive 8800 Powers Boulevard 8880 Sunset Trail Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, before she gets started I'm just going to recuse myself on the possibility of a conflict here so sit this one out. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Alright. This application is before you. You have seen it a couple times before. Under this circumstance the applicant, or one of the subject property owners went to the Planning Commission and asked them, based on some evidence that they believe had circumstantially changed in the area, to re-examine the land use in this area, specifically the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The subject site includes this property here and the two lots across the street. The Planning Commission back in September when this applicant approached the Planning Commission did ask for an application to get on the agenda, which they can do. Presented their case to the Planning Commission and at that time asked the Planning Commission to direct the staff to re-examine the Hillside Oaks development. Again that includes the two lots that are on the east side of Powers, which are guided low density and then the large lots. So with that the staff again, you had seen this previously with an application attached to it so this is just really to examine the validity of the existing land use. Had something circumstantial changed to re-examine those existing assumptions. So again the Planning Commission has the powers to, under the comprehensive plan examine that so directed the staff to review it. So on page 4 was kind of our analysis of the area. Again the area has been developed into large lots, 2.2 to 3.96 acres as shown in the area. The existing topography is very steep. Partially wooded along the western side and adjacent to the city park on the southwestern. I think that's really what led the staffs recommendation to leave that existing zoning in place, or 50 SCANNED City Council Meeting — Feb• 14, 2005 • land use in place based on the fact that there's some topography issues and we did lay out some schematics which are attached. Existing Hillside Circle is the lots, existing homes on the other lots. Again you can see the park and the very steep ravine so looking at to further subdivide, it really needs to be assembled and at this time the Planning Commission recommended against changing the land use. At that time ... the fact that no additional properties or applications were included with that, so the Planning Commission at their hearing on January 18 , when they reviewed this, voted 4 to 2 to leave the existing land use. Again we are the applicant because the, one of the property owners asked to have the Planning Commission re-examine it but technically the City is the applicant on this so I wanted to clarify that. So. Mayor Furlong: So are you going to speak again when we ask for the applicant? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'm going to argue against myself here. So with that we are recommending supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation and that is leave the land use in place, and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions. For staff. Councilman Labatt: No sir. Mayor Furlong: No? None. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: One. Kate, were there, were the City to receive say, let's see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, about 9 properties in there. Or say 5 of the 9 to come forward or something like that, would the staffs view at that time change or? Kate Aanenson: Well that is kind of one of the criteria but I think the other criteria is you know, we need to work together on this property because of the topography. It may lead to something besides maybe clustering some of the units or different housing type based on the topography. So you know to have one person go, how that works with the rest of the surrounding area. The ordinance does say that you have to change the land use. We've got large lots. That's a life style choice. That's one of the things the Planning Commission also reaffirmed. You, as a council kind of reaffirmed that when you looked at Lake Lucy Road. Left that large lot. That's a life style choice that people can have. It is functioning today that way and, but the code, comprehensive plan as you indicated Councilman Lundquist, it does say that if the neighbors come in and say there's something substantially, but we have one neighbor at this point so that's some of the factual reason that the Planning Commission also said probably premature. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff. If not, I won't ask for the applicant to speak, but I did mention earlier this evening that in light of visitor presentations and looking at our agenda items, I did offer that we would take some public comment at this time as well so if there's somebody that would like to make some public comment on this. Again I'll preface it by saying that we did see the Planning Commission minutes so we do have the, all the 51 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 verbatim discussion that took place at the Planning Commission on this matter as well as the public hearing so, with that sir if you'd like to come forward. Good evening. Arild Rossavik: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Arild Rossavik, 8800 Powers Boulevard. I'm owner of the lot, Block 1, Lot 2 as you may know. This one here. You can amplify maybe this area here. Okay. This is a map here. Just briefly point to it. On this side here we have Hillside Oaks Block 2 which is zoned or guided RSF. On this side here we have Copper Hills with 9 houses, or 9 blocks or 9 lots which is also guided for RSF. On the top on here we have PUD or RSF. On this side down here we have high density coming up. There are 1,400 housing units. 700,000 units of office space. Which is planned. Now we have an addition to that, we have Powers Boulevard being extended down here to meet new 212. That traffic will start in 2 months, so even before I could come back with an application for whatever I think, that traffic here would go up to 15,000 cars a day. That's from the actually from the city. It will increase to 27,000 cars a day if the collector road in this area has not been built. That collector is not at this point in time funded. So there is a dramatic change in the whole area. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me sir, just for the benefit of the recorder, if you could speak into the microphone and if we could give them a microphone. That's better. Arild Rossavik: There's a dramatic change in the whole area here. Powers Boulevard will be extended down to 212. Construction is expected to take 3 years. At the same time 14,000 housing units, 700,000 office space and new public school in close in the vicinity of Powers and Lyman Boulevard. Lyman will be expanded to 4 lanes so there will be a traffic light on Powers and Lyman. On the current plans I'll show you the different conflict. You have 3 different land use guidance... Powers and Lyman will be construction zone for years to come. First it will be 3 years just for bringing it down. In addition to that you're out I would say probably 10 years at least. You'll be living in a construction zone. There's no question about that. So the impact on me, on the neighbors would be dramatic and permanently. And in my case, if we go to another thing here. I'll just be brief about this thing here. There's another thing here. The City put water, sewer or water in from this designation 10 years ago. This has been standing... This is a tax assessment sheet for that and the tax assessment sheet basically says if it has been assessed, it was $16,300 a year or something like that and that comes up to $160,000 a year. If you times that by 10 years, it comes out 10 years. The projection, the guidance for the water and sewer was brought in which I'll point to here. It sits right here. There's a lift station, the stub into my driveway. The stub into the neighbor. That and Simpson down there was an RSF guidance. There's no question about that. It actually shows that. If I guess to make that the cost of not collecting taxes for this year here, we'll estimate about $700,076.00 if potential development was taking place. If you also add the cost of the lift station at $250,000 for 10 years ago, probably come up to $400,000. You estimate a million dollars lost in tax revenue for the city. And of course the city can do what they want to do. Hillside Oaks is fragmented in 3 pieces. It's the. northern piece, which I belong to. There's a southbound piece with the cul-de-sac which I don't belong to, and then you have the piece on Lyman Boulevard there so it's 3 fragmented pieces. 2 of the pieces is A2 and one piece is RSF. If I can get this here. If we look at my driveway here, Lot 1. Or sorry, this is Block 1, Lot 2 and 1. If you see on the border line or the property line goes all the way here so this property could, my property can easily facilitate a cul-de-sac or turn around. Today we don't have any turn around so I pick-up, trash pick-up is down on the Powers • • City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 Boulevard itself. School pick-up is the same thing. And mailbox pick-up is the same thing. So yes, delivery trucks, if they're large enough they cannot turn around. Basically have to back up and against the traffic on Powers Boulevard here. I have myself been out guiding traffic out there. Flag stop traffic on Powers Boulevard. This is going to increase now. It's not as safe, and we don't have any turn around for fire trucks. Fire trucks will do the same thing if they should come down there. So at minimum I feel that because of inconsistency here, you have invested in the water and sewer here and not rezoning is kind of a condemning the whole water and sewer. We have to use, well we're all on septic and septic and well so these are not being available to us without re -guiding of the area. On the present guidance we cannot access water sewer at feasible cost. But in either way I have asked the city council to at least consider re -guiding my property for Lot 2, which was recommended by the staff in '92, 2003. 2003 before all this issue came up with the traffic coming down ... so at least I can facilitate and my property can facilitate a turn around ... come down so this issue can be resolved. Present I have just, that would be another issue but I have a zoning request coming up later. ...my property to two more lots actually. I've got 4 right this down there but that would finance basically the cost of putting a turn around for properties and I can't see you'd do any damage to any property. And since it's already fragmented, more fragmentation could be okay but that's up to the council to decide. If you have any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions of Mr. Rossavik? Very good, thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this matter? Address the council. Steve Buan: Hello. My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive. Just would like to say, thank you for the opportunity to address the council on this. I know you don't have to do that. There was a public hearing earlier. And I'd just like to say that I agree with the staff that the land use is appropriate as other, as the comprehensive plan and other groups, that the city has commissioned to look at land use in the city. They determined it should stay that way and just to just over ride that without a look at that 20 acres as a whole and not just 3 and 4 acres at a time, would not, I don't believe be very prudent for a number of reasons. And so I think that the staff s done their homework on this the last, it's been going on for about 5-6 years now so I think the homework's been done on it and unless the group all comes together, several of the lots down there and it comes up with a comprehensive plan for the 20 acres on the, it would be on the west side of Powers for developing. There's a lot of uniqueness in that area with the ravines, the topography, the wildlife, everything and the park. The decision to not develop the park that's immediately adjacent to this property to the west, the city made a conscience decision not to develop that. It was at one time going to have lighted tennis courts for Lake Susan Hills development and they took that away and decided to leave that as a natural park area so I believe there's something encumbent on the city to look at the abutting properties to that, to the east to ensure that that goes together in that as a natural park and that there'd be a nice segway into future development down in that 20 acres. It can be done but it really can't be done 3 and 4 acres at a time so I'd just like to say I agree with staff and I certainly hope the council would follow the staff recommendation on this one, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council on this matter? Seeing no one I'll complete the public comment period then and bring it back to 53 City Council Meeting — Feb• 14, 2005 council at this point to see if there are any follow-up questions for staff at this time. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Kate. Spot zoning. Would this be considered spot zoning? Kate Aanenson: Well my opinion that spot zoning would be one lot and really if you're just going to rezone one, that would kind of fall into that criteria because as the gentleman who just spoke indicated, really to get the lot yield, similarly we talked about on the last subdivision, you have to assemble lots to really make it work and what we're saying, as I indicated on that. You know looking at this open space it's labeled park but it's really open space. And possibly some bluffs. Really to look at the best utility that probably should be combined. I guess that's kind of what we were saying too. Maybe we do some density transfer and push things around and that, that's what the neighbor was saying too. To kind of look at it in a holistic manner. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Any comments or discussion? Councilman Labatt: I mean I would concur with staff and Mr. Buan. It's just if we're going to do it, do it all. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts? Councilman Lundquist: I would concur. As I read through the Planning Commission meeting minutes and saw on the public comment, the rest of the low owners there are along the same lines. It just doesn't make sense to blanket them with the whole thing, as this application is for, nor to change the spot zoning with just that one lot so I'm in favor of affirming the staffs recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree with Councilman Lundquist. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. You know just to address a couple issues. This is something that the City Council dealt with most recently I think just under 2 years ago. And while the applicant is different, you know some of the proposed reasonings are very familiar. I think you know just to address them with regard to the utilization of the utilities that are put in there, I view those as a sum cost. I'm not going to sit here and double or question the decision that was made at the time with regard to the issue of lost tax revenue by not rezoning this and building more properties. I think there the clear answer is, I mean that could be an argument in any zoned area throughout the city and what we try to do with our comprehensive plan is balance land uses knowing that on balance we'll have a, the tax capacity to provide the services that our residents look for. Traffic issue was raised. I think the only difference between now and 2 years ago is that we're 2 years closer to what we're expecting. I mean the, and perhaps it's a little more certain but I look at this and I don't see any changes. You know the final question here was, looking at the land uses around the intersection, I'm sure there are other examples of this but the one intersection I can think of is Highway 5 and Galpin. We've got business neighborhood in 54 City Council Meeting — February 14, 2005 the northeast corner there. Neighborhood business zoning on the northeast. I think we, didn't we put in commercial or office industrial in the northwest there. We've got a school and public, our Chanhassen Rec Center is in the southeast and we've got medium density residential in southwest, so I mean that's just one example and I think that works fine. I don't think when you're dealing with major roads like this, they provide a natural barrier. It's not like the issue we were just dealing with before earlier on our agenda items so I look at this, and as much as I appreciate Mr. Rossavik's passion, excuse me, I don't see any changes in facts and circumstances between the last time we addressed this and I don't see any compelling reason to change the land use. I concur with the others. We should have, you know staff has looked at this again. Planning Commission's looked at this again and I think everything seems to be just fine the way it is. I don't see any compelling reason to change. So any other thoughts or discussion on this? If not, is there a motion. Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I'd move that we affirm the land use designation of residential large lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition as in the staff report. Roger Knutson: And does that include adopting the Planning Commission findings as the council's findings? Councilman Labatt: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council affirms the Land Use Map designation of Residential -Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Councilman Peterson did not vote due to a possible conflict of interest. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.19 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD, JOHN HENRY ADDITION; ERNEST PIVEC AND TIM MCGUIRE, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-05. Public Present: Name Address Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located at the intersection of Melody Hill and Murray Hill. There's an existing house on the subject site. Now we need to back out. Existing 55 • 0 oS —O to CITY OF CHANHASSE14 CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.0606 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat the Chanhassen Planning Commfssionwillhold apublic hearing on Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 7:90 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose ofthts hearing is to Review Land Use of Hillside Oaks Subdivision and Potential Land Use Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density on property located at the northwest corner of Powers Blvd. and Lyman Blvd. Applicant City of Chanhassen. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Bob Generous, Senior Planner Email: laenero kci eh nha sen tan Phone: 952-227- 1131 (PublishedintheChanhas en Villager on Thursday, January 6, 2005; No. 4334) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.y" was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghllklmnopgrstuvwayz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this ku day of 2005 z l7�W Notary Public wwVwNn 4, GWEN M. RADUENZ p _g, NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA fe.�'u„'a'` My ComInssion Fxpres Jan. 37, 2005 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.18 per column inch • CITY OF CHANHASSEN • CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of City of Chanhassen for a Land Use Amendment, Hillside Oaks — Planning Case No. 05-06. On January 18 , 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of the City of Chanhassen for a comprehensive plan land use amendment of property from Residential — Large Lot to Residential — Low Density. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential — Large Lot and Residential — Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Hillside Oaks Addition 4. The land use designation of the property for Residential — Large Lot is consistent the following comprehensive plan policies: Encourage low density residential development in appropriate areas of the community that reinforces the character and integrity of existing single family neighborhoods while promoting the establishment of new neighborhoods of similar quality. New residential development shall be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state. 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. 5. The planning report #05-06 dated January 18, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council affirm the Land Use designation of Residential — Large Lot for the Hillside Oaks development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18"day of January, 2005. CHANHAS PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman g9plan0005 planning cases\05-06 hillside oaks land use amendmenAliindinos of fact.doc os-010 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISOIN AND POTENTIAL LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL -LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL -LOW DENSITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE NO.05-06. Public Present: Name Address Keith Buesgens 1300 Oakside Circle Dana Muller 8550 Sunset Trail George & Jackie Bizek 8750 Powers Blvd. Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard John Hill 1360 Oakside Circle Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Margaret Tran 1330 Lyman Boulevard Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: One question just up front before I pass it my fellow commissioners. The neighborhood to the west, just north of Lyman, is that large lot or single family? Generous: That's residential low density, so RSF would be appropriate. Sacchet: That whole Sunset Trail area is RSF? Papke: But the lots are what size? Generous: Oh, they're larger than 2 '/2 acres. Sacchet: So that could be considered too. Alright with that, questions from staff. Papke: Okay, I'll start. I have two questions. First of all could you clarify the proposed zoning just to the south of this area on the other side of Lyman that's part of the AUAR. Generous: Yes. Make sure the zoning's not in place. It's currently zoned A2 which is agricultural estate. It's guided in the comprehensive plan for low and/or medium density residential development, so it could be density ranges of 1.2 up to 8 units per acre. Papke: Okay. Second question. In the staff report, first paragraph of background. The last sentence asks or states, however as part of the original plat it was envisioned that when urban services become available this property would redevelop but with larger lots, 1 acre or larger. What evidence do we have of that? How do we know? Is this folklore? Is this a plat? I mean what does envision mean? 41 SCANNED 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Generous: Well it came from as part of the discussion of the property. There was some talk about when we get urban services down here, we should maybe at that time allow them to go to more dense development, but in this instance they're still looking at something above an acre or more with these lots. Sacchet: If I may interject. Do we have the zoning between, up to 4 units like RSF and large lot? We do not, do we? Generous: No. Sacchet: But we're talking about one here, so how does that fit together? Do you see what I'm saying? Generous: Yes. We wouldn't, until the city adopted it's comprehensive plan and made that 1.2 to 4 unit per acre density, you could have under RSF, you could have an acre and a half lot. There's nothing in the ordinance that would strictly prohibit it. However the comprehensive plan, because of the net density requirements would preclude that. Sacchet: Okay. Sorry for interrupting Kurt. Papke: That's all I have. Sacchet: Dan, you want to jump in? Keefe: Yeah, just one quick question. It looks like maybe it was Mr. Rossavik who polled the neighbors in regards to what their thoughts were. Did the City talk to any of the neighbors and sort of concur with the thoughts there in regards to rezoning this or? Generous: Only indirectly. Mr. Rossavik has presented that information to us. We know 2 that have said no, but no one's done it formally. Keefe: Yeah, alright. Good enough. Slagle: I just have a quick question. Bob, would it, again from a, I don't want to say common sense standpoint but you decide how I say this but if one is traveling southbound on Powers 8 years from now, and you have the apartments. You have townhomes. You have sort of a gap of Lake Susan Hill houses, as they start to go up that road. What road is that on the west side? Help me out. Goes up into the development. By Flamingo and. Generous: Lake Susan. Slagle: Okay. And then you have these large lots, then you hit Lyman which will be a very busy intersection, and then potentially we could have medium density units. Generous: Yeah, townhomes. as sen>z 42 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Slagle: So I'm just again, trying to think of the consistency as you see the landscape of the city in this area. It seems to me, and I'll go back to the very first time we had this, the question about if everybody was open to developing their land, would the city be as, would the city take the same position it is now? I know it's hypothetical but I mean it's a real question. Generous: Ultimately that's up to council. From the staff standpoint we do believe there is one area within this development that is more re -developable than the rest. And so it may. Slagle: And which one is that Bob? Generous: Well it's that central, north central. It's this north central area to Lot 4 approximately. The eastern part of it. Once you get a third of the way through that lot, then you start running into more topographic issues and the wooded areas start to come out. And so, but the rest of this is more open. It's been planted trees that go in there and so it makes some sense that you could look at that as a fairly easy to redevelop. Slagle: Okay, and then let me follow up by, with your comments by asking then if that is the area that you would deem at least most plausible to develop or redevelop, is it staff s opinion that collectively the owners would need to agree or can individual landowners. Sacchet: That's a tough one. Slagle: Yeah, well that's why I'm asking staff. Generous: For the southern two to work, you would collectively, Lots 3 and 4. Lot 2 could come in by itself and provide, we've seen examples where he's provided access for the abutting property and extended a private street down and that would work on his property. Now that, since all this started that now requires a variance process to have a private street rather than a public street. Slagle: I guess let me ask it in a different way. Has staffs position changed with respect to being able to redevelop one of those lots without the other lots acting upon the same plan, if you Will? Generous: We'd still like them to work together so. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. Generous: We think it works best that way. Most efficient. Sacchet: Okay, Steve. No questions? I do have a few questions. Just in terns of the time line. It says that in 1980 this area was part of the planned residential area to the north. How much of that was actually included in that? Do we know? Generous: This whole thing. 43 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Sacchet: The whole thing. Generous: It was part of it originally and then they didn't go any further and then because of property ownership and the change. Sacchet: Okay. So, because I want to make sure I understand this because the way I read this history line is that it was approved for rezoning but the rezoning was never filed. What was it approved to rezone to? Generous: Part of the planned residential development for. Sacchet: Which means single family like to the north? Generous: Yeah, very typical to the... Sacchet: Like the north, okay. That's what I want to be clear about. And then in 1991 it went back to large lot. Alright. Then my other question, I'm struggling with this one. On page 6 there is a statement that basically as a traffic cahning feature we want large lot. That's the first time I hear that as a strategy to keep traffic low is to keep the number of residents of low. It actually makes a lot of sense. I'm surprised that this shows up for the first time here all of a sudden. Slagle: We haven't used that arguments in other developments. Sacchet: Yeah, we've heard them the other way around. Like the more traffic, the more it calms it down because they can't go fast because it's clogged up. Now here we have it's the other way around. The less people that live there, the less traffic, but there's already a lot of traffic so we don't want to add more. It seems a little funny. I guess that wasn't a question. Sorry for that. With that, do we have an applicant? Yes we do. Would you please give us your part of the story in expedient way please. Wait a second. Hold it. The City is the applicant, so I've got to ask you to sit down again because I have to open, well the applicant already spoke. Yeah, the applicant already spoke. So the City is actually, now I have a question. This is a significant question. What is the City applying for? Generous: We're reviewing the land use designation of the property to see if the existing land use is appropriate. Or should we make a land use amendment to residential low density consistent with the two properties to the north and west of this. Lillehaug: Could I have a clarification? Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Can you tell them why you're doing this? Because the Planning Commission directed. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Generous: Directed us to make the study. Hopefully we can preclude, we'll find out is it appropriate. Have things changed enough since this was designated large lot in '91 that we think a land use change is appropriate. Sacchet: Okay, because I want to be very clear about that because it'd be kind of funny if the City would apply for low density, for single family residential and then recommend basically against it. You see what I'm saying? Generous: Hopefully that wasn't precluded as part of the study. Sacchet: Sure, I understand. Yeah, you explained it well. Keefe: Based upon how you kind of stated it, as to whether anything has changed to make, you know go from large lot to low density. And you're recommending no change at this point. What would sort of trigger a change in your mind in regards to timing? In regards to timing and/or? Generous: Well it could be community need. Do we see a need for different housing types? That would be something. Definitely the provision of sewer and water might be one. Do we want to utilize that things have been made available but are not being used. And you know going from, before this was a 2 lane roadway and now it's a 4 lane roadway. Does that make a difference? Should we put you know, another issue you can say, no. Low density's not appropriate. Maybe this should be high density or medium density too. Sacchet: Well, moving on with the fun we have here. I'd like to open the public hearing and invite any resident that wants to come forward and address this issue, to please do so now. State your name and address for the record. Arild Rossavik: Gentlemen, commission members. My name is Arild Rossavik, 8800 Powers Boulevard. The water and sewer was brought down here for 10 years ago and just to, if I can focus in. This was the tax projection that came with this in here. Is it upside down? But this is cast 17... This is cast 17. City project 93-29. Estimate assessment of property ownership. This is related to Hillside Oaks, Block 1 then water sewer was brought down there. And we go down assessing units here. So Lot 1, Lot 2 and such and such all the way to Lot 7. And existing units is 7 units. And potential future units 32. That's what the city projected could be totally units under RSF. So in this I'm just indicating, this indicates RSF guidance. December of'95 I got this letter here from the city and I presume the rest of the property owners got the same letter, and basically it comes down to the bottom line because water sewer's been made available to us, that my property, your property is proposed for special assessment. Based on this thing I stated well you know, these two figures here. This is RSF zoning. This is water and sewer's coming down here and that puts sewer in my driveway here. So yeah ... so this is 10 years ago so the markings here. This was water sewer's available in a joint driveway with my neighbor here. So I will just show that. And the lift station's that on the other side of the street. And as the Generous said, it's standing in use for 10 years. At a cost of $250,000. Now with 6% interest, it's more than $400,000. As a matter of fact the City has to come down and fill water into the lift station to, so it doesn't run dry. So we're not using the lift station is basically condemning the whole investment improvement. September'97, got another letter from the City which is in 45 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 conjunction with the first one, and they say the City has elected not to assess the trunk charges to your property at this time. That property will be assessed at the time you do make the connection. They don't give any reason. It was RSF or large lot or anything like that. They just say the City has elected without no more explanation. So needless to say, no assessment charges have been made. Hillside Oaks, just to show that, is 4 fractions. It is Oakside Circle which is the southbound part. It's Lyman Boulevard which, one of the lots faces Lyman Boulevard and then we have the eastern part which is, what he said. It's RSF guidance for it and we have my guidance here where my property is which is Lot 2 and Mr. Bizek's Lot 1. As you can see, the driveway here doesn't allow any turn amund's. So we have the problem here, trash is being picked up on the street every Thursday the truck, pick up truck stops in the street there and on December the 16a' last month, a car came down Powers Boulevard, crossed over the mid section here. Went over and just by the lift station, front to front collision. This was not caused by anything like that but what I'm pointing out to, delivery trucks come to either my property or Mr. Bizek's property, who has a commercial business there. They have to back either in or out. Sacchet: Just to clarify Mr. Rossavik, on this photo it looks like two driveways come together at a pretty open angle so a truck couldn't go back into the other driveway and out on the road? Arild Rossavik: Yes. Sacchet: But I guess either of the neighbors is very much in favor of that. Arild Rossavik: Yes, so and I own most of the property. I have this 4 acre property I own there. My property can facilitate a turn around, no problem. It's big enough for that and I've drafted a proposal to the City for that, and my last proposal, my eleventh proposal, my eleventh revision, the $30,0001 spent so far. Sacchet: You kept count. Arild Rossavik: Yes. Assessed on it. We're down to 2 more extra houses on my property and including too a cul-de-sac to the south. A turn around so we can facilitate that lane there too. ] have talked to my neighbors, let me see and okay, you can focus on here. I'm not quite sure where Mr. Bizek is, but I guess you can hear from him yourself. A couple of years ago he was trying to sell his property. He entertained but it was subject to rezoning and he wasn't sure about... Sacchet: Let him talk for himself. Arild Rossavik: Yeah, so either way I talked to ... and I'm not sure if he's here, just today so he is interested in facilitating another house on his property. And I talked to Keith Buesgens on comer lot there today and be said he was in favor of our said guidance for his property and the two properties over here, on this side here, well you have a written statement for they support that. They are already RSF and they would like to stay like that because they have plans around that area. So with that said, I think that's it. And also by giving, I think it was. Sacchet: You know you can come back more than once if you need to think. 46 • Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Arild Rossavik: But with that said, I think there's a majority right now in 5... and actually that property owner Brenda Hill there, they have no objection. They'd like to keep their place as it is but they have no objection. I showed my plan to her and she has no objection to it. It's only 2 more houses coming into my side. And so I have found in 2003 the city staff came up with a recommendation. City staff recommends approval of the land use amendment from residential large lot residential to low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. That was my lot. This was 2 years ago and that was actually for 5 lots. Now we're down to 3 lots. There's no cul-de-sac involved anymore. That was the cul-de-sac was the issue ... caused all kind of problems last time. The cul-de-sac is out. It doesn't pose any conflict. And the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning from A2 to RSF. That was the city staffs recommendation since that. Since that time, what has happened is basically we got AUAR 2005. We got and we have coming down there, 1,500 new housing units. 700,000 square foot office space. A public school. And of course the connection to new 212. They're going to start thinking on the new 212, this picture here. Yes, here picture here. That hill there, they're going to start digging in in a couple, say 90 days. That hill will, and Powers Boulevard's going to be turned around to a construction zone. There's going to be a stop light in this intersection here. Lyman Boulevard's going to be increased to 4 lanes. Powers Boulevard, it's kind of a four fraction pieces right now within large lot zoning doesn't make any sense. There is residential zoning proposed all around it. And this is kind of coming in the middle of 5 I would say actually in traffic wise actually. He has said 15,000 cars a day. It's 20, that's subject to the, a collector road being built. They haven't funded that one yet and we don't know who's going to fund it. If the collector road is not being built, the proposal as far as I understand is 27,000 cars a day. On, down on Powers Boulevard and that's significant change. It doesn't fit the character of the large lots which is kind of a state property that's included, except maybe that lot was maybe one of the lots that fits the stand... My lot, my neighbors lot that facing Powers Boulevard, and we're going to have all this traffic. And land use guidance change will allow me to put ... if something had to come up my own pocket. The city will not build a sound wall to shield me from that noise. So I will just ask this Planning Commission to find the most and least for my property and the other owners will have to speak for themselves and since the Planning Commission, the city staff recommends what 2 years ago. Now my lot can be a transition place and we will solve the traffic issue but we can have a turn around so we don't have any accidents coming down on Powers Boulevard and we can open up for the city a sewer investment so that certainly now can be facilitated. If not, it's a taxpayer pay for that thing. Sacchet: Thank you. Arild Rossavik: Thank you for your time. Sacchet: Appreciate your comments. I'd like to invite anybody else who wants to address this item to come forward at this time. Tell us what you think about this situation. What, how it affects you. What you recommend. State your name and address for the record please. George Bizek: Hello. My name is George Bizek. I'm at 8750 Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: So you're the northern most lot, Lot 1? 47 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 George Bizek: Right. Yeah, we have the joining driveway at the bottom. This is the fourth time been in front of you with this rezoning and regards to his petition to the city to rezone this. I'm against it. That cul-de-sac that he's got on there would be a detriment to my property and developing my property. What was found, one of the members here asked what needs to change for this and it was decided at all 3 meetings that this has to be done with more than one property owner. It's kind of a unique piece of property. He keeps referring to the road and how dangerous the road is. We do have a turn lane in front of our house. The garbage truck that has to pick up our trash has a full lane to get off the road with. You're dumping more traffic onto a road that now, to go to Chanhassen we have to go down and make a U turn and if you ever tried to go down to Lyman Boulevard and Powers and make a U turn at Lyman, you cannot see around those corners, so we make the U turn whether it's no turn lane to make a U turn because I feel it's a safer. I don't know some day I'll probably get a ticket for doing it but that's the way I do it because I feel it's safer and he wants to dump more traffic onto this road to have to do that. In regards to these people on this list, I strongly suggest that you talk to all these people because the only, one of the two strong supports I talked to today and she signed off that she did not sign this. She did not agree to it and I have her signature right next to where she supposedly was on the list and I think some of these people that he's got on here that have no objection, they're here to speak for themselves. And I thank you for your time. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Let us know what you have to say. George Bizek: Do you want a copy of this? Sacchet: You can give it to staff if you want. Please, good evening. John Hill: Thank you. My name's John Hill. My wife. I live at 1360 Oakside Circle. Sacchet: You want to, this is what lot number? John Hill: Lot 4, Block 1. My wife Brenda and I live there. And in your packet it states that we do not object to rezoning and I don't know where that information came from but we do not support and never have supported rezoning of our area. Mr. Rossavik did talk to my wife last fall, but she said, at that time she said she would consider allowing 2 homes to be built but nothing was ever, but she needed to talk to her husband fast, and nothing was ever mentioned in that conversation about rezoning. Sacchet: So you're vetoed. John Hill: Well she's not in favor of it either. And what drew us here 10 years ago was the elbow room and the openness of that area and we do object to the rezoning and support the staff position of leaving the zoning as it is. Thank you. EE Planning Commission Meeting —January 18, 2005 Sacchet: Thank you for letting us know. Anybody else want to speak up to this item? Please come forward. And if you want to state your name and address please. Margaret Tran: My name is Margaret Tran and my husband and I own the Lot 6. My husband asked me to come tonight to represent us and just to tell you that we are not in favor of any change. We want our lot size. We built back in '86, back when there was just, what was it, a gravel road in front of our house and we've never wanted to change and at this point, because we have such a large wooded lot, we feel that if we rezoned it to smaller, that it would just decrease the value of the homes in the area and this zoning that he's proposing is just going to benefit his property at the risk of the surrounding properties and that's my view. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comment. Anybody else wants to talk to this item? Arild Rossavik: Just a comment. I did show Brenda Hill and she said actually, she didn't have any problem with me rezoning. It should be no problem. I never heard back from the husband or then after that so yeah, I gave them a copy of the suggestion they have already got all the copies which is gone to you for the process of this is. Like I said, I don't see Jamie is my neighbor to the south but he, I talked to his wife today and take my word for it, they seemed to be, they should be here today but I did talk to Mr. Buesgens. He called me as a matter of fact. He would like to have RSF zoning on his property, and either way, the concern of Tran here, she is, this is the property of Tran. They're facing Lyman Boulevard so it's a fraction up there. Mr. Tran also, the city can correct me if I'm wrong but he has a commercial business there. Sacchet: Arild, excuse me. I would strongly recommend you speak for yourself and that everybody, if everybody speaks for themselves, everybody will be covered and property represented. If we start talking for each other we're getting nowhere. Arild Rossavik: Okay. That's the only comment. And if Mr. Bizek, we can probably accommodate, we can move the cul-de-sac to accommodate him but he just has to come and ask and I will facilitate anything be wants to have so... I'm not against it so, but I can facilitate the whole cul-de-sac or turn around on my property. If he wants to participate in this, then we can share it... Sacchet: ... at the overall zoning. I mean, and I would. Arild Rossavik: Rezoning issues. Sacchet: But it's a different issue in front of us. I mean if you have a proposal, I would strongly recommend you work it out between you before you come in front of the city with it. But that's not the issue in front of us right now. Is there anybody else wants to address this item? Please. Keith Buesgens: Yeah, I'm Keith Buesgens. I live at Lot 7,1300 Oakside Circle. I bought this lot back in '85 and I bought it for the size and for the room and so forth. Currently I have no interest in subdividing. That's not to say 15 years down the road I might when I'm 60. It's a possibility. 42. Not interested right now. But I think like you say, the approach on this has just Planning Commission Meeting —January 18, 2005 been, hasn't been correct. I think that, like you say, it's got to go from within and then come to the city and it's been quite the opposite on that so, but that's basically my feeling on it right now. Sacchet: Thank you for comments. Anybody else? Yes. Steve Buan: Yeah, I'm Steve Buan. I actually live on Flamingo Drive, 8740. I love the property and my comment is, is that if something looking at this 20 acres, there ought to be a comprehensive plan of how the whole 20 acres is going to develop, not piecemeal. 3 acres here, 2 acres there. It adds to the aesthetics of the entire area, not just the 20 acres. There are extreme safety issues with so many accesses to Powers Boulevard within a quarter mile and the speed of Powers Boulevard and the amount of truck traffic and things that are coming. I'm sensitive to the issues of the property owner's right down there of what that's going to do, but I'm also sensitive to the safety of me pulling out from Lake Susan Hills Drive onto Powers with another street potentially coming in there. I think that should not happen. They have driveways now. I would be completely against a street there. There should be one street and whether it's at where Oakside Circle is now or somewhere else, up the line, halfway between, that's for somebody else to decide but there's a lot of issues that are not going to be solved by just blanket changing the whole thing over to residential single family in 2005 and then having 2 acres here, 4 acres here and then having a bunch of arguments about each of those so I think there ought to be a larger more comprehensive idea of what the whole 20 acres is going to do before we jump the ship and go down to the low density zoning. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, so I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for discussion and comments. Who wants to start? Looks like you're ready Steve. Lillehaug: I'II start. I'm going to start right off by saying my position, I do not support a re - guiding and it was based on what we discussed back in what was it, 1993 for two main reasons. The land use amendment is premature without redeveloping the entire area, and without having those other landowners on board. We discussed previously back in '93 what's the percentage? Well I don't know but right now we don't have that percentage. One or two out of 7, it's not it. The other reason, the land use amendment creates an island. If the land use amendment went through, it does create an island of low density a large development lot and it's simply put, we shouldn't do that. And one other thing I want to kind of throw out to commissioners. We directed staff to do this, but nothing's changed. Nothing has changed since we, since Mr. Rossavik brought this to us previously so going forward here, I think we need to be real critical on when we direct staff to re -look at land use changes because in my mind this, it's good to go through this exercise but we just did it a little while ago. So recent there hasn't been enough changes and we shouldn't be wasting staffs time to re -look at this when we know that a decision was just made on this. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Jerry, do you want to make a comment? McDonald: Well I've got, yeah some comments and some questions. The issue of, about the lift station being brought up as a reason for doing this because it's under utilized. What was the plan there as far as that lift station? Is that to take care of future development across Lyman? 50 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Generous: No. It would just be for this area. McDonald: Okay, so it's only designated for this area. There's no future benefit build into it then? Generous: Correct. McDonald: And with the capacity it has, it would support the smaller lots? As far as adding to the area. Generous: Yes, it would have accommodated, based on the assessment roll that they could have subdivided at a RSF density. McDonald: Okay, so it has a future capacity if the land as a whole is rezoned to something else? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Then the other question I've got is, okay. A lot's... Lyman Boulevard and the future use of that and everything and future plans. Going to 4 lanes and everything. If that begins to happen, what happens to these south lots? I mean what happens to those as far as encroachment of road, berms. What kind of problems do we end up with there that we have to solve as far as dividing up these lots at higher density? Generous: Well that's only if you do a land use amendment. As it is they wouldn't further subdivide. McDonald: Okay, well I'm, I guess that's all. Sacchet: Okay, Rich. Slagle: The only question I have to staff is, if, again I'm throwing out a hypothetical but if we had 4 or 5 of these land owners in front of us suggesting that they wanted to develop their land, I'm not sure that we would feel the same. I think part of the issue is there's some acrimony amongst the folks here and if I can comment to Commissioner Lillehaug's point that nothing's changed. I would say the fact that Lyman and southward is going to change dramatically. And again as I mentioned, you're going to have this pocket of 7, 8, 10, whatever it ends up being, large lots surrounded by traffic and development. I mean it's just going to happen. And so I think, I don't want to say anything more. I just think that I just raise that as something to consider. Sacchet: So something did change is what you're saying. Slagle: I think so. I think so. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Dan. 51 Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Keefe: Sure. I think the area is definitely going to change. I think it's going to change dramatically but sort of where I come down on this is, at least I'm looking at the list that Mr. Rossavik sent in and given the people who spoke up, I'm not finding anybody on that side of the street who supports it other than he did. You know you've got 3 different times for plans for rezoning. I've got 2003, objected. I've got the 2 that had no objection, are now objecting. I just, other than him I don't see any other support so I think at this time you know, I think at some time in the future it would make some sense because I think big change is coming to this area but I don't know that now is the time. Sacchet: Kurt. Thanks Dan. Papke: The only thing I would add is, Mr. Rossavik has gone to some considerable expense already to move his agenda forward and city staff and now Planning Commission has spent a fair amount of time on this. What I'd like to do is make sure that we come out of this with some sort of crisp criteria so that Mr. Rossavik doesn't incur further expense, and staff doesn't spend further time on this until it's quite clear that this has a reasonably high probability of moving forward. So if we can, I don't know how we formulate that or what action we can take make that happen, but I think that's in the best interest of everyone involved. Sacchet: Well my comments are a little different. I'd really like to stick with the matter in front of us, which is the aspect of rezoning. Changing the land use designation. I really want to stick with that because that's the issue in front of us. And I'd like to take a different position altogether. I think this large lot right now is a spot zoning. I would like staff to look at, if we have this large lot also, the two lots on the east side of Powers, and the Sunset Trail neighborhood to be also large lot, then we have actually a reasonable block of large lot and we, and I think it can be justified in terms of what I consider good planning. Alternatively, it's a tricky thing to deal with, but that's where I stand with it. I'd like to direct staff, like one of the options staff made was to direct staff to review Block 2 for land use amendment to residential large lot. I would go one step further and also include the Sunset Trail area. Because currently the Sunset Trail neighborhood, I think they are large lot and that, and it would be consistent with the sense that there is parkland and wetland around it, and it would be a large enough block that it would make sense, this designation at that point. Otherwise I consider this large lot thing a spot zoning. That's the position I take. Slagle: Mr. Chair if I can add, 100 percent in support of that. I concur. I think that we are being a little bit inconsistent with how we've approached this. I don't know the reasons for it but I'd like to know. Again to Mr. Papke's comment, what do we need to get to? Sacchet: Let me ask one more question. What's west from Sunset Trail before it gets to the wetland? To the Bluff Creek area. Because it's. Generous: Residential low density but they're large parcels right now. Sacchet: So I would say that also needs to be included in that consideration. All the way over to the Bluff Creek wetland or what that's called. W Planning Commission Meeting — January 18, 2005 Slagle: Basically south of the park. Up in Lake Susan Hill. Sacchet: That's I think would make it a consistent sizeable block of land use, of guidance to really have hand and feet, as I call it. Kurt. Papke: May I make a comment? Yeah, I'm somewhat concerned that if we open that Pandora's Box, the people who are currently zoned residential single family, we would be taking away their ability to develop if we were to rezone that and. Sacchet: That's right. Papke: ... see some opposition to that. Sacchet: And then these people would have to come speak up. I'm not saying we can do it. I'm saying we need to study it. Papke: I just think we need to be, you know, we all need to conscience of what we're precipitating by making that call. Right now it seems pretty straight forward that there is not public support among the local residents to change this zoning, but I would guess that there would be some opposition to, for those other property owners to limit their freedom. Sacchet: I would expect so too actually. Any other comments? Discussion. Somebody want to venture a motion please. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion as staff recommends, the Planning Commission affirms the land use map designation of Residential -Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission affirms the land use map designation of Residential -Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. All voted in favor, except Slagle and Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20-615 TO AMEND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOT WIDTH REOUIRMENTS. Public Present: Name Address Dennis Wolt 4291 West 200u' Street, Jordan Michael Callies 937 Shumway Street, Shakopee 53 9.i i /!/,i%VN4/./ice/./ri.I%/. NO �, !i Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 Mayor and Council Members City of Chanhassen MN 55317 Feb 2005 Ph. 952.448 4844 Email: AR@ARILD.US Re: The Use of Zoning to Excuse Hillside Oaks from City sewer and water Connections and Assessments. Dear Mayor and Council Members Ten years ago Chanhassen City Project 93-29 improved Powers Blvd and extended sewer and water, (including a lift station) for seven homes in Hillside Oaks Block 1. This neighborhood on the west side of Powers Blvd just north of Lyman Blvd (Co. Rd.18) was at the time zoned RLD — Residential Low Density * On project completion the properties were scheduled for Trunk sanitary sewer and Trunk water main assessments of $2425.00 each. * [CSAH17 (powers Blvd) Improvements City Project 93-29-Assessment Roll B]. Despite the 1993 plan to assess the properties and the public interest in. and long term Public Policy of, assessing benefited properties for improvements, no home in this neighborhood was ever assessed, no monies have ever been collected, and the trunk line and lift station stands unused. Why?, because the City Council urged on by then Planning Commission Member, (now City Council Member), Peterson (who lives in the neighborhood), moved to change the Zoning of this small area from RLD to A-2 Large Lot (2.5 Acre minimum). Doing so allowed the City to decline to assess the properties for trunk sanitary sewer and water main and defer any assessment to when the properties elect to connect to City sewer and water. [Correspondence of C.D. Folch , P.E.,.Dir Of Public Works/City Engineer 9.9.97] Unlike the balance of the City abutting Trunk Sewer and water mains, the Hillside Oaks Development continues to employ septic systems and individual wells for water. None have connected to the system. The continued use of septic systems is a source of ground water pollutions and threatens the water quality and environment of the wetland on the eastside of Powers Blvd. Moreover, annually the City continues to carry the burden of unrecovered construction costs and connection fees, as well as lost sewer and water service fees. Is not Large lot preservations a good thing? Typically, yes. However, here the surrounding zoning of this diminutive area was already RLD Residential Low Density. To the north are duplexes and town homes, to the west, the properties are guided RLD, and soon 1400 new homes are to be built in a compact neighborhood to the south. In Chanhassen Large Lot Zoning is found along the open lands fronting Minnesota River Bluffs, not small islands of land amongst town homes and heavily traveled arterial boulevards. So on Monday February 14d , it was no surprise when the City Council received a staff report on the merits of restoring the RLD zoning of Hillside Oaks ,(Council Member Peterson recused himself) and voted to take no action. This is the fourth refusal in ten years. Three times I have requested that the zoning of my Hillside Oaks property be restored to RLD zoning to permit additional lots. Each time Mr. Peterson's political ability to preserve himself to the continued deferment of Trunk line, connection and service fees, has blocked my request. How long can the leadership of the City continue to refuse a reasonable request to zone property in a manner consistent with the surrounding area, and mismanage public finances, by refusing to collect monies due? Apparently indefinitely, unless the community takes note of this tacit deal (to accord special treatment and privileges to City politicians), nothing will change. Sincerely Arild Rossavik * [CSAH 17 City Project 93-291 Encl. CC: Tom Caswell, Metro Council The Editor, Chanhassen Villager mlllillillill WSAN r `((3/ '�q.�\\ to S w �s I �OWERS & I 1gN 3 $ ZL PLACE S 20 �\ ., SUSPN 11 n Is I• ra e 10 v 't II 2ND ADD zi .� la I2 ie 3 v9 IT IT CNANNASSEN _ .: IA S, 6� I z I • I I 23 m'I+W.c� 5 �� `a.\� 16 � I• z 2 e z • _ � 2T zs zs `�•j L. - P ° e 'Jjj A d. • • �✓F !�/ ADD._... � �9a 13 P M /. SYRtME iT3 �s ^a Y z y z�n `k • mc. •.»r • � » � 2 � I 2 rf �y rov 11. S ? 0 12 3 (! m 86.:J3 z ii Ia s a • z • to �T s 4 \0 11 21 �Ol • �i� II C\ O +� m (pIPO C 1t J • 8%j9 a S9 sk O� ! ro s 11LJL Sly W f) SAPB A CT- I y 9 sus T ... - - � •sue zs 8n _ s F 91 z J s a5.0a313or� y �Iod.N5 T s rJyO �Aa i e Y I „'�= I kilo �: wIt4441 40EP2 GER 4 20I°w `.,a. Rv-k Ig 'siz 3 I Its �C7J p■ ,�t f V� i. iel "GIs a o-g3Fc c3 0 (120 d1• I 18 13 o'i MZ7d1Ci% _01, Vc\(10LE I o 1z�2 ourlAT A .�ILLlt. ymLEP z }y 2', 3 a5s-'��3C65o 9 to iso� �.loa Pc- ��•(M- p �.•:."�.'» > i iC 2 �'`� N! asvyp„ _ .11 �. Ii 4Y 4 O ry�b �CS!'�j� �Y TZ I DE I ....y . T 5 wi 'M41 _ 35. ftt 1 7 I .,op Qc a aJ 35�x 0 J, O v s er'J- Q n.r ``\_ � 3 2q_I dS.i1 e ma. w..w...,...w • 3 ^ taCX) IPiO � � �. 9"+HWY2 -ti.-_NO.—tl`A4AN- to-- wc:D--� GS.A. HWy N0. IB WILLIAMS SMOTHERS PIPELINE EASEMENT R s� _ U • 2 j l 4✓,e NH ® I •,� LaE21r dyGz � I . wx1W *- pry„ Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 5:56 AM To: City Council Cc: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd; Richard Crawford Subject: Land Use change Hillside Oak Block 1 Lot 2 (6600 Powers Blvd) Dear Council member I have read the revised staff report , I feel it addresses rezoning issues not land use issues and Recommends maintaining different Land Use for Hillside Oaks It is still my opinion that Hillside Oak Block I should have the same land use as Hillside Oaks Block 2 (RSF) Alternative I will ask at a minimum that my property Hillside Oaks Block Lot 12 being Re guided to RSF so it can by is itself facilitate a turn around place for traffic. At a optimum Hillside Oak Block 1 lot I as well would open up for the best solution . for a joint tum around place ( There is no turn around place today for Fire Trucks ) Re guiding of Hillside Oak Block 1 Lot 2to RSF was recommend by the City Staff two years ago, and the new staff report opens for possibility as well Respect fully Arild Rossavik 2/14/2005 Page 1 of 1 Arild Rossavik From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:58 PM To: City of Chanhassen Councimember (council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) Cc: Generous, Bob (benerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us), Todd Gerhardt (terhardt@ci. chan hassen. mn. us) Subject: Cul De Sac Hillside Oaks Block 1 Lo1&2 Chanhassen City Council SAFETY CONCERNS My last request in spring 2003 (land use guidance and rezoning ) it did include a Cul De Sac totally built on my property and Financed by me. ( this request was recommend by Staff) That would have resolved the safety issues as we have now by delivery trucks backing up on Powers Blvd in the opposite direction of the traffic . June 12th 12003 1 requested the City to do a feasibility study for the City to build a Cul De Sac . on my property The City asked for $1600.00 to do this study, but June 18a' sent the check back and quote: City Staff have been unable to define a public need for the Cul De Sac since It would serve only two properties that already have access to a public street Again , 1 can only stress out the need for land use guidance change for Lot 2 and preferably lot I (A preferred Cul De Sac will require 10 feet of land of Lot 1) and This serious safety issue can be resolved . Re\ pgtfullyQ o Arild Rossavik 2/9/2005 Page I of 1 Arild Rossavik From: Seam, Matt [MSaam@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:47 AM To: 'Arild Rossavik' Cc: Burgess, Teresa Subject: RE: cul-de-sac CITY OP CNA+i: i JUN 1 7 2003 ENGINE€Rltv, •Li - I - N:"t-3 -"� Mr. Rossavik, In order to proceed with completing a feasibility study for the cul-de-sac to your property, the City requires that you escrow funds to cover the cost of preparing the feasibility study. If the project ends up being ordered by the City Council and is built, then you will receive the escrowed funds back. If, however, the project is not ordered to be built by the City Council, then the funds will be used to cover the cost of preparing the study. The cash escrow amount that is required for this project is $1,600.00. If you want to proceed with the feasibility study, please deposit the $1600 with the City at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this e-mail or contact me by phone at 952-227-1164. Thanks, Matt Saam, P.E. Asst. City Engineer --Original Message ----- From: Burgess, Teresa Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:25 AM To: 'Arild Rossavik'; Burgess, Teresa Cc: Saam, Matt Subject: cul-de-sac Mr. Rossavik, Thank you for the information you provided. I have asked Matt Saam in the Engineering Department to start looking at the Feasibility Study and the City records so that we can determine a cost estimate for preparation of a study. Based on the amount of work that has already been done, it should be relatively simple to prepare the study and therefore not expensive. Someone from the Engineering Department will contact you next week with an update on the study and potential costs so you can determine if you desire to move forward with the Study. Teresa J Burgess, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1169 Far: (952) 227-1170 E-mail: tbwgess@cichmhassen.mn.us 6/17/2003 Page 1 of 2 Saam, Matt From: Saam, Matt Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:23 PM To: 'Arild Rossavik' lor Cc: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd; Burgess, Teresa Subject: RE: cul-de-sac Mr. Rossavik, City Staff have been unable to define a public need for the cul-de-sac since it would serve only two properties that already have access to a public street. Given that, Staff does not feel that we can in good faith prepare a feasibility study at your expense knowing that the likely recommendation would be denial of the project. Instead, we are returning your check via the US Postal Service. Please accept our apology that we are unable to assist you at this time. Sincerely, Matt Saam, P.E. Asst. City Engineer — Chanhassen, MN -----Original Message ----- From: Arild Rossavik [mailto:ar@arild.us] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:02 PM To: 'Saam, Matt' Cc: Bob Generous; City of Chanhassen Councimember; Todd Gerhardt Subject: RE: cul-de-sac Dear Matt $1600.00 will be put in the City's Escrow account on June 17'h 2003 Sincerely Arild Rossavik -----Original Message ----- From: Saam, Matt [mailto:MSaam@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:47 AM To: 'Arild Rossavik' Cc: Burgess, Teresa Subject: RE: cul-de-sac Mr. Rossavik, In order to proceed with completing a feasibility study for the cul-de-sac to your property, the City requires that you escrow funds to cover the cost of preparing the feasibility study. If the project ends up being ordered by the City Council and is built, then you will receive the escrowed funds back. If, however, the project is not ordered to be built by the City Council, then the funds will be used to cover the cost of preparing the study. The cash escrow amount that is required for this project is $1,600.00. If you want to proceed with the feasibility study, please deposit the $1600 with the City at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this e-mail or contact me by phone at952-227-1164. 6/18/2003 February 9, 2005 Chanhassen Mayor Tom Furlong City Council Member Brian Lundquist City Council Member Steve Labatt City Council Member Bethany Tjornhom City Council Member Craig Petersen Ref ; Applicant City of Chanhassen: Land use Hillside Oaks Block 1 Coming for City Council February 14t' 2005 CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I will respectfully ask Council member Craig Peterson to recuse himself in this case . He is one of the 7 property owners of Hillside Oak Block 1 ( lot 5) and therefore could have a judicial interest in the outcome. Sincef,k ldGZO%4 ate^ , Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cc: Senior Planner Bob Generous City Manager: Todd Gerhardl Page 4 — Chanhassen Villager — Thursday, February 10, 2005 Teaching us to be involved GOP activist Jim Mullin was a man who was passionate about his political beliefs. His Feb. 4 death will certainly be felt among Carver County Republi- cans. However, his love of politics and his active citizenry should be felt by those on both sides of the political aisle. Former representative K.J. McDonald said of his friend and campaigner: "He was a loyal, dedicated patriotic Ameri- can who really believed in the principals of the Constitution of the United States and recognized the citizen's responsibili- ty to be active in the political process." Whenever Mullin made a beeline from his Pine Street home, kitty-corner from the Chaska Herald newspaper office, staffers knew they were in for a politi- cal barrage. He'd walk in the door with a mischievous smile and head for the back office to argue politics with Herald editor LaVonne Barac. Barac, a one-time Republican activ- ist, changed her political bent during the Ronald Reagan administration. The pair would engage in lengthy sparring sessions. However, it was done with the EDITORIAL respect from both sides and a love of the game. "I'd always call LaVonne his other girlfriend," joked Jim's wife, Jean. Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau reminisced, "I think he never stopped and gave up the possibility that if enough conversa- tion occurred that he couldn't convert someone." Mullin's death increases the political void left by Chanhassen resident and DFL activist Marcy Waritz, who died last August. Despite suffering from ill- nesses, each struggled to remain politi- cally active until the very end. Waritz would be considered Mullin's political counterpart, but both were on the same page when it came to fulfilling their du- ties as U.S. citizens. In a political system that appears to be increasingly fragmented, Mullin taught us to have fun, be engaged in the political system and do it with class. Teens and meth: What can parents do? By Ellie McCann summouRm Meth production is widespread in ru- ral and semi -rural populations, in resi- dential areas and on public land. Meth - amphetamine (meth) use typically starts during the teen years. In 2002, the U.S. Department of Health Meth use among teens and Human Services reported that over 12 million people ages 12 and older said typically starts with they'd used meth at least once in their lifetime. This means parents of teens casual use. Because have a critical communication role re- of the of rush garding the use ofmeth. pattern Methamphetamine is a substance s and crash that develops p that is derived from amphetamine and is a stimulant that strongly affects the from meth use, users central nervous system. Meth can be smoked, snorted, injected or ingested may quickly become orally. It's available in many forms such as powder, ice and tablets. It has a addicted. variety of street names, including ice, crystal meth, chalk, sketch, yellow pow- der, poor man's cocaine, speed, go -fast, Discuss with teens what's happen - and glass. ing in their world. If a teen feels secure So why would teens be interested in within the family and comfortable shar- trying meth? ing their opinions, they are less likely Maturing teens need to develop to give into pressure from friends. Tell healthy ways of taking risks, especial- your teen to use you as an excuse to get ly when faced with new situations. But out of an uncomfortable situation, such if they don't have a good understanding as: "No way, my mom and dad won't let of boundaries, they may think it is OK me go!" to experiment with drugs such as meth, Combine the realities of his or her not fully realizing the potentially haz- world with the information you have to ardous effects. help guide relevant and useful conversa- Meth use among teens typically starts tions. If you don't know the answer to with casual use. Because of the pattern his or her question, help your teen find of rush and crash that develops from the answer. Deciding whether or not you meth use, users may quickly become share your own experiences with drug addicted. It is possible to get addicted use is a personal choice. Either way, face - to meth with the first use. to -face conversations are critical. So, what's a parent to do? Here are Model the values and behaviors that some ideas: you hold important for your family. Mod - Be involved with your teen's activi- eling may not seem immediately effec- ties, friends and other important adults tive, yet has a lasting impact on the val- in their lives. Being informed and mon- ues that teens develop, and the choices itoring your teen's relationships and they make about drug use. behaviors will help you distinguish More information is available at between possible signs of drug use and www.parenting.umn.edu in the "Teens typical changes in behavior. and Meth" fact sheet, part of the "Teen Follow through — consistently — Talk" series. with rules and consequences for behav- ior. Teens need expectations. So when Ellie McCann is afamily relations spe- parents follow through, teens will learn cialist with the University of Minnesota they're accountable for their choices. Extension Service. Chanhassen VILLAGER+ a READER VIEWS Lotus Lake garbage I just wanted to comment on all the disgusting garbage I have found on Lo- tus Lake this winter. From what I can tell it is mostly from ice fishing houses. In the last month, I have found several piles of bottles, cans, plastic cups and a smaller -empty propane tank. If that isn't enough, my neighbors found an old TV just sitting there after an ice house had been moved! Where do you think this junk goes, if someone doesn't pick it up? I have now made a point of driving around the lake once a week, to pick gar- bage up. I am a member of a Lotus Lake association and an avid fisherman my- self, and it's very upsetting that people disrespect our lake this way! Thomas Wilson Chanhassen More on winter rules We believe that the winter parking restrictions in Chanhassen should be enforced only after a snowfall so that the plows can run. We have never seen winter parking restrictions such as Chanhassen has.. We think it is very unfair that we can not park in front of our own house for five months out of the year. Rick Block family Chanhassen I find the parking bans in Chanhas- sen to be excessive. I live in the Fox Hol- low development where the driveways are typically very short and garages are small. If you have teenagers and/or visitors you are frequently forced to park in your yard to stay off the street. I un- derstand the need for restrictions whgn there is unplowed snow, but I fail to see the need when there is no snow or the street has been plowed to the curb. Not everyone has two- three- or four -car ga- rages in Chanhassen. John C. Richmond Chanhassen Land use should change Editor's note: This letter was addressed to the Chanhassen City Council and the Villager. In two months large construction vehicles will be rolling up and down Powers Boulevard to facilitate con- struction and extension of Powers Bou- levard down to new Highway 212. This construction is expected to take three years. At the same time, there are 1,400 new housing units (medium density), 700,000 square feet of new office space and a new public school and infrastruc- ture planned in the vicinity of Lyman Boulevard and Powers Boulevard. Lyman will be expanded to four lanes and there will be a traffic light at Pow- ers and Lyman. Under current land -use rules, this intersection has three differ- ent land uses: ■ Single-family residential with a minimum lot size of one third of an acre on the northeast corner; (Hillside Oaks Block 2). ■A2 agriculture estate, single family with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres on the northwest corner; (Hillside Oaks Block 1). ■ Medium -density residential (townhomes) on both southern cor- ners. This is not coherent. It lacks logic and reason. This development activity will con- tinue beyond 2010. Powers and Lyman are going to be a construction zone for years. In 2010, traffic on Powers is projected to be 15,000 cars a day, provided that a collector road, which is not funded, is built to off-load traffic on Powers. If not built, traffic will increase to 27,000 cars a day. Either way, the environmental impact on the neighborhood will be dramatic and permanent. Powers Boulevard was designed for 10,000 vehicles per day when built 10 years ago. Hillside Oaks was poorly planned. It is fractured in three pieces. There is no turn -around or cul-de-sac to facilitate traffic flow. The school bus picks up children off Powers Boulevard every school day. Rezoning is necessary of two lots to make a cul-de-sac feasible. In 1995, the city provided water and sewer to Hillside Oaks Block 1, includ- ing a lift station, at considerable invest- ment. It has stood unused for 10 years. Only single-family guidance will make it feasible for a property owner on Hillside Oaks to connect to city water and sewer. In the meantime, we must do with septic system and private wells. The construction that starts in two months will seriously affect the property owners who wish to sell. Their property values will drop and it will be hard to sell at a reasonable price, especially because of the A2land use guidance, where min- imum lot size is 2.5 acres. There is no rationale for the city to maintain fragmented pieces of Hillside Oaks that are guided for different uses. A correction will resolve these issues and will not harm the neighborhood. The Chanhassen City Council should re -guide the properties on the northern fraction for single-family use when it considers the matter Feb.14. Arild Rossavik Chanhassen Dance tourney a success The Chaska Hawks Dance Team and their parents sincerely thank'the com- munity for its outstanding support of the Lake Conference Dance Team Championship Tournament in Decem- ber that was hosted by Chaska High School. It was through the tireless ef- forts of many that this dance tourna- ment was a huge success. We received many compliments on the integrity of the volunteers and the organization of the event. One attendee wrote us, "I would like to congratulate all of you for a job well done! The Lake Conference Dance Team Championship Tournament was a huge success. I heard nothing but positive comments all day on Saturday. You should all be very proud. ® 2005 Rochester Post -Bulletin Ed Fischer S,n&ale Tischer®PosfOutletin.com Everyone was so nice. That, makes the event so enjoyable; - dancers, coaches, workers a positive attitude and atmos; people will remember abop Chaska. Kris Rydland, yoi to watch! ram so impressed tine way that you work wi Keep up the great work." We recognize and thank t that contributed special eff the positive impression we community at this tourname. High School Activities Depart, todial Staff, Student Council, Arts Class, Booster Club, Dan Alumni and Families; and conti area businesses. Good luck to the Chaska Hawks Team at the State Tournament I Feb.18 at the Excel Energy Center. WHOA CHASKA!! Linda Barnhart and Lai Hassens 2004-2005 Lake Conference Dan Championship Tournament Pare. Manage Dayton's `lame' confirmation vote I was shocked and dismayed to learn that our esteemed Sr. U.S. Sen. Mark Day- ton voted against the confirmation of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the new Secretary of State. Such a "follow the herd" men- tality is not what we expect or are known for in Minnesota. We expect leadership, critical thinking, principled and con- structive criticism. We hope and strive to gain exposure and draw attention to our innovation, forward -thinking, and the pioneering spirit that characterizes us - especially in these winter months. Indeed, Dayton's action on needed Medi- care reform stands in stark contrast to this sheepish acquiescence to this lame party tactic. But just as it is possible to for a child throwing a tantrum in a store to gain attention, Dayton's name calling, epi- thet hurling, allusions to un-American activity and deception during the 9 hour debate on Dr. Rice's confirmation are indeed garnering attention - even inter- national attention, but unfortunately, it is attention gained for all the wrong reasons. Furthermore, Dayton's tired attempt at an explanation that his was a vote against lying that was somehow geared to protect you and me is as lame as it is transparent. While judicial nominees hold their posts long after the appoint- ing president leaves office, cabinet mem- bers do not. The country has spoken loudly and clearly in this last election. Democratic issues did not resound with the voting public. Dayton's participation in this stunt makes him a part of an activity akin to the tantrum of a disgruntled child. Senator Mark Dayton may take his toys and go home if he must. Howev- er, he should realize that, outside of the echo -chamber of the Democratic party, the rest of the country sees this not as a principled act born out of the necessity to inform the people whom he serves. Rather, we see it as reinforcement and confirmation that we made the correct decision last Nov 2. Billy Cripe Chanhassen OUR GUIDELINES FOR PRINTING LETTERS Here are some guidelines for those who would like to write letters to the Chanhassen Villager. ■ We generally do not print letters exceed- ing about 500 words in length. There is no official word limit on commentaries, al- though we encourage writers to limit those to about 1,000 words. ■ Writers can have up to two opinion pieces printed per month. However, that cannot always happen due to space restric- tions or the amount of letters received. ■The newspaper reserves the right to edit letters for length, grammar and clarity, but without changing the writer's message. We will not print letters of a libelous nature or in poor taste. ■ Deadline for letters is noon on the Mon- day proceeding the Thursday publication date. Letters must contain the address and daytime phone number of the author, as well as a written signature (for those faxed, mailed or hand -delivered). ■ Letters can be mailed to Editor, Chanhassen Villager, P.O. Box 99, Chanhassen, Minn. 55317; delivered to 80 W. 78th St., Suite 170, Chanhassen; faxed to 934-7960; or e-mailed to editor@chanvillagercom. Thursday, February 10, 2005 — Chanhassen Villager Page 3 Lifelong friends share Chanhassen classroom In conversation, they practi- cally complete each other's sen- tences. The teachers, Shelly Lannon and Molly Gove, share a second - grade classroom at Chanhassen Elementary School. Gove teaches on Mondays, Tuesdays and every other , Vednesday, while Lannon fills out the week. More notable is that these two have been friends since high school. They believe their friendship makes their job - share arrangement even better. Q: How did they become friends? A: They grew up together, at- tending Prior Lake High School.$ The friendship began with their y tci y dads, who played basketball to- q y gether. The girls also played bas- !e n d 9 ketball. "Molly and I spent more ' time on the bench together and hat's probably why we became / 'riends," Lannon said. Q: What about college? A: Gove decided she wanted go to Winona State University I asked Lannon to go there The first year they decided to room together. "We were Rd to because people said that D 1 live with your friend you PHOTO BY PAULINE CHANDRA ibly won't be friends," said By the second year they Shelly Lannon, at left, and Molly Gove are lifelong friends over that and roomed to- who teach at Chanhassen Elementary School. r anyway. "We could have d together the first year," gether but the best thing is that Once they went on a cruise and innon. They each got their they can call each other late at it rained, but they didn't care be- -'s degrees at Mankato night without worrying if the cause they had so much to talk iversity other person will be angry. They about anyway. tat was their path to each have different strengths. W. Do they fight? sen Elementary? Lannon plans all the math and A: No. Neither can remem- ly got hired first while science activities while Cove is ber a time they had a fight or hing my certification stronger in language and arts. an issue. "I think it's because 3ducation," said Lan- This is their sixth year and it gets we care about each other," said i (Merchant, princi- easier each year, they said. Lannon. "It's also our history," I knew anyone else Q: What about their hus- said Gave. king for a teaching bands? They know everything there is is how Shelly got A: Their husbands are also to know about each other. In the always taught first friends. Gove's husband went classroom they are very consider - Lannon taught see- to college with them, while ate of each other, so they are sure Lannon's husband went to high •-to put things away and keep order did job sharing be- school with the pair for the next person. Lannon'shusbandtaughtGove They hope the students see ,an after they started to drive a stick -shift car "Usually this and benefit from it. They lldren:.After Gave had when we get together the four of made a poster outlining their Ad, they each decided to us play cards oX we go out to din- lives together that they show to une and share a job. ner and mouibs. In the summer the students. "We tell them about hat's the most difficult we get the "kids together and go when Mrs. Gove and I were grow- .tbout job sharing? to the beach," said Lannon. ing up," Lannon said. here is nothing difficult, Q: Vacations? They don't know if their ar- said. Sharing a job is like A: Yes, they vacation togeth- rangement will last forever but college roommates. "You er They have a group of college they can't imagine life with - to have the same philoso- friends and their families all take out each other or without their about how to treat kids," trips together. The other friends shared classroom. t Lannon. assume that the Lannons and they're on the phone a lot to- Goves will room near each other. —Pauline Chandra )og reunited with owners after 35 days �romstaff reports Clay and Donell Pederson of i't;itt),p: ft'Iti t i,t Morristown, S.D., said they need- ed a miracle in the new year. They apparently got it. Last week the Pedersons were jl reunited with Chico, a 3-year-old mix of Australian shepherd and red heeler. They had lost track of Chico during a holiday trip to relatives Mike and Joleen Pe- tersen of Eden Prairie. The dog ,a ' which got away while the couple was out to dinner, had been miss- ing since Dec. 31., a ` The Pedersons extended their holiday stay for about a week to "Lf search for the dog. They checked with local pet shelters and the Animal Control unit of the lo- cal police department and fol- lowed up on possible sightings. Reported sightings came in from the cities of Eden Prai- rie, Chanhassen and Chaska, Clay said. Although the Pedersons re- turned to Morristown empty handed the first week of Janu- ary they didn't give up hope in + s finding Chico and they placed ads with Chico's photo in a variety of ; newspapers. That photo was recognized by Rick and Michelle Marsch" of VILLAGER PHOTO BY RICHARD CRAWFORD Shakopee, who had seen a dog Clay and Donell Pederson, from Morristown, S.D., are re - roaming on their farm property. The Pedersons made the drive united with their dog Chico after 35 days. The Pedersons back to Minnesota last week and lost Chico while visitingrelatives in Eden Prairie. Chico found Chico on the Shakopee was spotted in Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska, and farm. ultimately was found at a farm in Shakopee. "My heart just about jumped out of my chest," said Donell. their dog when all expenses were that the Pedersons bought in the Even though the Pedersons factored in. interim. had offered a reward, none was "He's our baby," Donell said. Before heading home they taken, they said. They returned to their ranch wanted to express their thanks They estimated they spent last week, where Chico will find to several local residents who close to $1.,000 tracking down a new Australian shepherd pup assisted in the search. -------------------- —� ------------- -- 1 NJO 1 l ® APR 9-10 I ' ' L�' Sat: loam m -9pI 1 I t Sun: I0am-5pm i 1 �tZ gad &e& 1 T�iL v44WW ' Canterbury ParkShakopI , naa fFREENee,MN i i gym !: 1 -200 U ue Exh,b tars end vendors -Pmsen of FREE NonSnl Speakers I 1„ Presenlp. aand..a Emenainmenl $3001 OFF -OL4NT Spa and Sauna Sak I M }�a yLM y1}fin y �ji ...} 1-EveDMm6 ffom AZn,ar makes I 1 a any menso 4'hild$t liG{IWrk, yourhome a MASTERPRCEI 1 qqr�a, Value .p I 1 _Ce4bntVx Amhora and Experts I 1 pZ' Wcf Ot$1a Value A Expires Februarfr24,q 00 /F 1 -Door Prues Special Drawing and MORE! www.MediaMaxEvents.corn To EXHrBTT Call: (952) 238-1700 Eden Prairie • 952-943-2491 (next toApplebee's) 1 ADMIT up to 5 FREE Valid only at Eden Prairie location. Reg $30 Value Not valid with other offers. m="------------ ----- ----- - - - - -- Home Improvement Expo set for Feb. 26,27 The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce's West Metro Home Improvement Expo is planned for Saturday, Feb. 26, and Sunday, Feb. 27, at Chapel Hill Academy, 306 West lath Street in Chanhassen. The hours will be 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday. There will be a variety of displays by local specialists in landscaping, cabinetry, home furnishings, lighting, flooring, interior and exterior remodel- ing and other areas. There will Buyers/Sellers Compare Online! Take Advantage of the Latest Technology be free seminars on both days and parking and admission are free. For more information, call the chamber at (952) 934-3903. A complete schedule of events will be included in next week's paper. Your Biggest Asset Deserves Experience! Get LA-Z-BOY REBATES worth l 4% up to IN SAVINGS HOME FURNISHINGS & FLOOR COVERINGS icy FURNITURE STORE HOURS: MON.-FRI. 9-8 • SAT. 9-5 FLOOR STORE HOURS: T-TH 9-8 • M-W-F 9-6 • SAT. 9-4 MAKE THE SVATCH Get the Good Stuff with Digital! Our Digital One Star Pak brings you 45 channels of Digital Quality Music from Music Choice. Plus, STARZI and Encore, featuring hit movies and time tested favorites on up to 30 channels. Even More Options... Digital Video Recorder - Pause and rewind live TV at the push of a button. Get in the Fast Lane! Experience the full power of the Internet with Mediacom Online. Play games, download music, videos and more. Download at speeds up to 3Mbps. No hidden fees and up to 50 times faster than 56k dial up. Mediacom rgke�p ?--- GUARANTEED LOW RATES FOR 12 MONTHS!' • UP TO 150 CHANNELS • UP TO 3Mbps SPEEDS • UP TO ZD CHANNELS OF STARZ! • ALWAYS ON • 45 DIGITAL MUSIC CHANNELS • STREAMING VIDEO • INTERACTIVE GUIDE • ONLINE VIDEO GAMES Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:19 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council; Richard Crawford Subject: Land use South of Lyman Blvd Dear Bob, Looking at case 2002-3PUD Proposal: 88 Acres for 540 residential units Location South of Lyman and East of Audubon Applicant: Town & Country Homes Present Zoning A2 , Agriculture Estates 2020 Land use plan : Office / Industrial, residential Medium Density This area has the same zoning as Hillside Oak Block 1 but Land use is different ( large Lot for Hillside Oak Block 1) A snivel ( 7 properties) of Powers Blvd has a land use which crates two fragmented pieces in this area) Powers Blvd is going to be the main drag for these 540 housing units and more to come. I feel strongly that that there is an error in the Land use plan . which needs to be corrected . Respectfully Arild Rossavik 2/14/2005 February 12, 2005 Chanhassen Mayor Tom Furlong City Council Member Brian Lundquist y City Council Member Steve Labatt City Council Member Bethany Tjornhom City Council Member Craig Petersen Ref ; Applicant City of Chanhassen: Land use Hillside Oaks Block 1 Coming for City Council February 10 2005 Dear Council Members I have read the revised staff report , I feel it addresses rezoning issues, not land use issues and recommends maintaining different Land Use for Hillside Oaks . One should note that Hillside Oak Block 2 which is guided for RSF has wetland issues which the City Has recorded with Carver County Recorders Office . ( No records for Block 1) Also Block 2 was not included in water and sewer improvement, this is in contradiction that water and sewer was brought only into Hillside Block 1 which (allegedly) is guided for A2 Large Lot where these improvements effectively has been condemned. I feel there must be political overtone to this, since it lacks rationale, logic or common sense. and is a misuse of taxpayers money. I maintain my opinion that Hillside Oak Block 1 should have the same land use as Hillside Oaks Block 2 (RSF) This was the Land Use in 1980. Alternative I will ask at a minimum that my property Hillside Oaks Block] Lot 2 being re guided to RSF so it can by itself facilitate a turn around place for traffic. As an optimum Hillside Oak Block 1 lot 1 as well as this would open up for the best solution. for a joint turn around place or Cul De Sac There is no turn around place for Fire Trucks today: they have to back out and up against the traffic flow on Powers Blvd Re guiding of Hillside Oak Block 1 Lot 2to RSF was recommend by the City Staff two years ago, and the new staff report opens for this possibility as well Respectfully Arild Rossavik &ri o-� ou,A 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen CC: Senior Planner Bob Generous CC City Manager Todd Gerhardt �C4 Pik DevelopmentE Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review City of Chanhassen, Minnesota - - - 1 � aIC III Yr �% LeWd AUM OCYN.W l SC ..land U6C �j EmEm�vYM FY�vea lWllYtYun OmY.Y PesNmtlal Q�Y Fe.a.,m orxr rr<wmm — uvm,.inwawr�4mm1 CTa O iN.1t]1f13 Poynq-Wry - C11Y :Nue1M stt'> pgEmY BusNa.M tM1.un penflfY PeaNmml � _ GNO{an 5pxe I j_ j irgetl NUMSY 4kntlM al Yvu'n Av 'Z C.IusYa MNaXg� $tlM _ .A, a N n 2m soo ,.oao c,.l August, 2003� ®v�. la �sl+ Message Page Generous, Bob From: Generous, Bob Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 8:46 AM To: 'Arild Rossavik'; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Angela Williams; Brent Miller; City Council; Melissa Gilman Subject: RE: Prperty vaule Arild: There are no permitted commercial or industrial properties in your neighborhood. The City has been trying over the years to correct violations of the City Code in your neighborhood. The City Attorney's office has determined that the home occupation of your neighbor to the north complies with city ordinances. The City has issued a citation for the property on the corner to eliminate the contractors yard. We will continue to try to bring the property in to compliance with the ordinance. The City has taken the property owner in the southwest corner of the development to court to get him to relocate his business. However, the judge dismissed the case because the city did not have sufficient information regarding the business including details about the operation of the business including the number of employees, the hours of operation and what exactly goes on with the business. The judge needs proof the the operation is a "for profit" business. We continue to monitor the site, however, it is difficult to get the proof without violating the property owners rights. However, these operations are irrelevant to the issue of the land use for the property. That is a legislative decision that must ultimately be determined by the City Council based on what the City believes is best for the community overall and the neighborhood in particular. If I can be of further assistance or if you have additional questions, please contact me. Bob Generous -----Original Message ----- From: Arild Rossavik [mailto:ar@arild.us] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 8:23 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Angela Williams; Brent Miller; City Council; Melissa Gilman Subject: Prperty vaule Ref Land Use Hillside Oaks Block 1 Dear Bob In the Staff report it says that Hillside Oaks has developed as large lot residential. Some years ago I filed a complaint with the City over my neighbor's applied commercial/ industrial Use of his property and how it affected my property value. The City recognized this and lowered my property tax value so today, even I have the largest property in Hillside Oaks ,at least I enjoy the lowest Property tax. 1/25/2005 Message Page 2 of 2 The City records shows that other property owners of Hillside Oaks Block 1 have industrial/commercial application of their property . I would ask the staff report to reflect this Sincerely Arild Rossavik 1/25/2005 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 3:49 PM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Anglia 2; Brent Miller; City Council; Leland Roth; Melissa Gilman Subject: Emailing: P1220004, P1220007 P1220004.JPG (70 P1220007.JPG (106 KB) KB) Dear Bob Generous Ref Land Hillside Block 1 The enclosed pictures taken today Jan 220 2005 of Hillside Oak block 1 lot 1 & 2 (8750 Powers Blvd and 8800 Powers Blvd) shows clearly the problem during winter time. Post delivery on the street, mailbox is just hanging after being hit by the City snow remover truck . Trash pick up is on every Thursday for both lots on the Powers Blvd itself. How does the City feel about UPS and Fed Ex backing out on Powers Blvd? That is what they do now The pictures also show the two separate drive ways to my neighbor. My property line (Lot 2) extend to 8 feet from his driveway to his two story warehouse which makes delivery to Lover lever impossible as there is no possible turn around A turn around on my side would facilitate this. Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1 Page 1 of 2 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 12:33 PM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Angela Williams; Brent Miller; Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council; Jerry Julius; Leland Roth; Melissa Gilman; Melissa Gilman Subject: Mailboxes facing Powers Blvd Ref Land use change Hillside Oaks Block 1 Yesterday it snowed and the City Snow plover knocked down my mailbox. This is not the first time. My mailbox and my neighbor to the north is facing Powers Blvd directly , That means every day I go out on Powers Blvd to pick up my mail. There is possibility I could be mowed down as well by the ever increasing traffic , ( I realize some may not se this as a loss) But it could raise a serious liability issue for the City which designed it like this and refused to convect it it when it was brought their attention . Only land use change of my property Hillside Oaks Block I Lot2 , which by itself can facilitate a full Cul De Sac or a private street so mail boxes can be moved Off from Powers Blvd and this goes for Trash Pick up as well which also now is directly on Powers Blvd . The Thrash Company long time ago stopped picking up trash Outside my house because of the lack of turn around possibilities. UPS and Fed ex Still does and they back down into Powers Blvd. This I have I earlier brought to the City's attention and I will refuse any liability issues caused by this and refer it back to the I City. Construction traffic on Powers Blvd starts April this year, I ask again the City to at least give Hillside Oaks Block 1 Lot 2 the land use correction So my property can facilitate a turn around place. My Neighbor to north which I share driveway with is complaining how the increased traffic causes him problems ( he runs a commercial plumbing business) from his two story warehouse and private residence with two separate driveways ) All his delivery trucks is facing the same problem. His property cannot by itself facilitate A Cul De Sac. This is also a request to repair my mailbox, while I am digging though the snow to find my mail The Post Office refuse to hold my mail for the winter, and they suggest I put a bucket of sand out on Powers Blvd and they will deliver my mail In the bucket .......... it works very well , they told me. So if you see a bucket of sand, you know you have come to the right address 1/25/2005 Page 2 of 2 And I invite the City and the Council Members to drive by Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/25/2005 Page I of 2 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:48 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council; Melissa Gilman Subject: Land use Hillside Oaks Dear Bob Generous At the Planning commission, Public Hearing on Jan 18's 2005 several property owners expressed concerns about a possible laud use change of their properties This was the owner of lot Hillside Oaks Block 1 Lot 1 His property is facilitating a Plumbing and Heating Business. The owner of Lot 6, His property is facilitating a Plastic Mold Tool Industrial business . The owner of lot 7, His property is facilitating a Landscape Business ( This is all what the City has on record and they themselves advertise ) There is total of 7 owners ; if I as the owner of lot 2 with my 4 acres joins a request for industrial use of my property , we could be in majority . In a couple of months, April 2005 this area will turn into a construction zone for the next 10 years. If the present land use is upheld: the intersection of Powers and Lyman will have three different land use. North west comer: A2 and two lots to the west RSF again North East Corner: RSF South . West Comer Medium to High Density South East Comer: Medium to High Density This intersection will be one of the busiest intersection in Town ( I believe the City Manager expressed this view last year) In 1995 The City put water and sewer in my driveway and sent a letter that they would asses me water and sewer for my puppetry. This with the projection that my property could potential 6 units is evident that the land use was RSF. In 1997, after my first application for rezoning , the City sent me another letter saying that they had elected not to assess my property water and sewers Charges. This , at least to me , is evident that any land use change took place after the lift station and water and sever connections was installed . Either way, I feel the City should correct his . either make the whole area zoned for Industrial or RSF or at least make Lot 2 RSF. 1/25/2005 Page 2 of 2 I will support either Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/25/2005 Page 1 of i Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:35 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council Subject: Conflict of intrest Dear Council member Craig Peterson Ref ; Land use Change Hillside Block 1 This matter is scheduled to come to the City Council on February 14'h 2005. You are on of the affected property owners, and it would appear tome that you have A judicial interests in the out come in this matter I will ask you to recluse your self. Sincerely Arild Rossavik 1/25/2005 Page I of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:14 PM To: Generous, Bob Subject: 3 Buinsesnes in Oakd side Hill Block 1 Ref land Use guidance Hillside Oaks A request from the Planning Commission is to get more people onboard in my Land use request Well , Three property owners run commercial business: One AC and heating Business, one Landscaping business And one plastic molding tool business. These people will never have any change as long as the City let them run their business. I would like to see more effort to close them down and what kind of evidence , support can I provide Arild Rossavik 1/25/2005 Lc,* rt cr �1ZRluo�9+�a T4 Z 9'3cf -7039 Chian A b n, 3 '� Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:40 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Brent Miller; Carol @ Jayrne Lee; Keith Buesgens; Uli Sacchet; City Council Subject: Tabling of Land use Guidance Dear Bob Generous ( Senior City planer Ref Land Use Change Hillside Oaks Block 1 Dear Bob. May I Suggest that the City Tables its own appncatio t There is to many issues not addressed by the staff report , Also I raise serious s questions about the possible scenarios The Staff report opens of for which would include a participation Of all the property owner of Hillside Oak Block 1. We know that one of the property owner Mr. Petersen was as the chairman of the Planning commission ten years ago and He was against t my first application (as a private person and as chairman ) for Land use Change then and now He is a City Council Member, and he as a property owner still objects to any land use change .He is also known to have a business as a real estate consultant His property is not the best candidate for rezoning and redevelopment ,as it is shielded and set back on the hill . My property has direct exposure to Powers Blvd , (where traffic is projected to increase to 27,000.00 cars a day ) and is a good candidate for redevelopment , So it can also can facilitate a turn around place for deliver truck before more accidents happens on Powers Blvd . Again I ask the City to Table its ap;'.:,.tian �o i.,. "" that has been raised can be addressed and use the public hearing to hear other issues form other affected residents . Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page I of 1 Generous, Bob From: AdIdRossavik[ar@adid.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:42 PM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Brent Miller; Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council; Keith Buesgens; Uli Sacchet Subject: Septivc Tank Draffield Dear Bob Generous Ref Land use Guidance Hillside Oaks Block I It is my understanding that if the septic system fails for any owner of the 7 lots of Hillside Oaks Bock I They would be required to hook up to City Sewer , since that is available to each one of us. With Large Lot Guidance that cost could be a financial ruin for the affected property owner. Only RSF Guidance will allow the affected property owner to spread the cost as now he has the possibility to redevelop His property and thereby recoup this cost. Also what happens to the neighbor next door , would he be required to hook up as well? By making sewer evadible, the City have implied RSF guidance. (Previous I did hear a planning commission member suggesting we move the tift station to another area.........) Maybe you can clarify these issues and correct me if I am wrong Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@ arild.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:40 PM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council; Keith Buesgens; Uli Sacchet; Carol @ Jayme Lee Subject: Tax value Large Lot to RSF for Hillside Oaks Blkocl Dear Bob Ref Land use Correction for Hillside Oaks to RSF. Would correction of the Land use from Large Lot to RSF for Hillside Oaks Block 1 trigger property tax increase for the affected owners . ( Nor rezoning ) Maybe you can clarify this at the Public hearing. Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 2 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:11 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council; Melissa Gilman; Uli Sacchet; Keith Buesgens; Carol Cc? Jayme Lee; Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council Subject: Letter form City Of Chanhassen December 13 1195 Dear Bob Generous Ref Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks On December 13. 1995 the City of Chanhassen sent me a notice for Powers Blvd (CSAH 17) I was informed that my property was proposed for special assessments to pay for the improvements Estimated at $4,400,000 This was based on the tax estimates from City Project 93-29 :Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership for hillside Oak block 1 Lot 1 to 7. It was projected that the water and sewer improvements which was constructed could 1 serve the existing 7 units on and a potential of total 32 units in Hillside Oak. This clearly reflects a Land Use Guidance, RSF for Hillside Oaks Block 1. Controversy, Hillside Oak Block 2 ( which was RSF) was never included ............. (The notice was later withdrawn by the City, and I was told that it was a mistake: to put water and sewer in my driveway For the ten last year I have 3 1 times applied the City to correct the Land use guidance from Large Lot to RSF so these improvements can be available to me. I have been denied three times. How ever the City Staff recommended my last request This times The City of Chanhassen Applies for the Land use correction /Change and The City Staff recommends against it ???????? I am sorry to say: there is no logic or common sense in this, but a big financial burden to the tax payers of Chanhassen Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:48 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council; Keith Buesgens; Melissa Gilman; Uli Sacchet; City Council; City Council Subject: Carver County Recorders Office Dear Bob Generous , Senior City Planner Ref Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks In December 2004, I researched Carver County Recorders Office in Chaska regarding Hillside Oaks I did get assistance from a clerk , we went through the Computerized Data base and the big book . The only recording the City may have filed; is the Wetland notification on Hillside Oaks Block 2. The only other recordings are normal real estate transaction of the properties of Hillside Oaks. Nothing what so ever the staff report refers to, again with the exception of the Wetland Use on Block 2. This is very concerning, and I will ask the City to provide underlying documentations of their records of Hillside Oaks , as none were available when I researched the City's records in fall 22094........ Respectfully Arild Rossavik M :INGIR Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@adld.us] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:28 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Uli Sacchet; City Council; Melissa Gilman Subject: An Accident Waiting to Happen Dear Bob Generous Ref land use guidance Hillside Oak Block 1 Lot 1 and 2 ( Powers Blvd 8750 and 8800) On December 10h 2004 I was woken up by a big bang. I went outside: A van southbound on Powers Blvd had lost control and crossed over to northbound lane and hit Car front on just next to the lift station .. It seemed both cars were totaled and the Fire department and medical had to help one of driver out her car She was trapped and hurt. The drive entrance to my property and my neighbor to the North ( We share ) does not have any turn around capacity for trucks . Trash pick is right on Powers Blvd Every Thursday. Delivery trucks, as I have pointed out numerous times before, has to either to back in from Powers Blvd or back out to Powers Blvd. The traffic on Powers Blvd is projected to increase to 27 thousand cars a day , we will have serous construction coming down and up Powers Blvd in a couple of months (New 212 and AUR 2005) This is no longer an accident waiting to happen, it is question how many accidents will happen before the City Correct the Land use Guidance for Hillside Oaks Block 1 Lot I and 2 from Large Lot to RSF so at least I as the property owner of lot 2 can facilitate a turn around lane. Also not correcting the land use guidance has effectively been blocking access to City Water and sewer , which has been sitting unused( with the lift station )in the joint driveway for the last 10 years At an expense of over $400.000.00 to the City and Tax payers . In Addition, all property owners in Hillside Oaks has Septic System and drain fields, every one in Block I has had access to City sewer for the last ten years, This is an unnecessary pollution of the environment. Only Land Use Correction for Hillside Oak Block I to RSF can change that To bring water and sewer into Hillside Oaks Block 1 (1995) and not correct the land use guidance, is nothing less then condemning the same improvements Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page I of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 7:40 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Brent Miller; Carol @ Jayme Lee; Keith Buesgens; Uli Sacchet; City Council Subject: Tabling of Land use Guidance Dear Bob Generous ( Senior City planer Ref Land Use Change Hillside Oaks Block 1 Dear Bob. May I Suggest that the City Tables Its own application There is to many issues not addressed by the staff report , Also I raise serious s questions about the possible scenarios The Staff report opens of for which would include a participation Of all the property owner of Hillside Oak Block 1. We know that one of the property owner Mr. Petersen was as the chairman of the Planning commission ten years ago and He was against t my first application (as a private person and as chairman ) for Land use Change then and now He is a City Council Member, and he as a property owner still objects to any land use change .He is also known to have a business as a real estate consultant His property is not the best candidate for rezoning and redevelopment ,as it is shielded and set back on the hill . My property has direct exposure to Powers Blvd , (where traffic is projected to increase to 27,000.00 cars a day ) and is a good candidate for redevelopment, So it can also can facilitate a turn around place for deliver truck before more accidents happens on Powers Blvd. Again I ask the City to Table its application so issues that has been raised can be addressed and use the public hearing to hear other issues form other affected residents . Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.usj Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:42 PM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Brent Miller; Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council; Keith Buesgens; Uli Sacchet Subject: Septivo Tank Draifield Dear Bob Generous Ref Land use Guidance Hillside Oaks Block 1 It is my understanding that if the septic system fails for any owner of the 7 lots of Hillside Oaks Bock 1 They would be required to hook up to City Sewer, since that is available to each one of us. With Large Lot Guidance that cost could be a financial ruin for the affected property owner. Only RSF Guidance will allow the affected property owner to spread the cost as now he has the possibility to redevelop His property and thereby recoup this cost. Also what happens to the neighbor next door, would he be required to hook up as well? By making sewer evadible, the City have implied RSF guidance. (Previous I did hear a planning commission member suggesting we move the lift station to another area.........) Maybe you can clarify these issues and correct me if I am wrong Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:40 PM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council; Keith Buesgens; Uli Sacchet; Carol @ Jayme Lee Subject: Tax value Large Lot to RSF for Hillside Oaks Blkocl Dear Bob Ref Land use Correction for Hillside Oaks to RSF. Would correction of the Land use from Large Lot to RSF for Hillside Oaks Block 1 trigger property tax increase for the affected owners . ( Nor rezoning) Maybe you can clarify this at the Public hearing. Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 2 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 7:11 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: City Council; Melissa Gilman; Uli Sacchet; Keith Buesgens; Carol @ Jayme Lee; Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council Subject: Letter form City Of Chanhassen December 13 1195 Dear Bob Generous Ref Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks On December 13. 1995 the City of Chanhassen sent me a notice for Powers Blvd (CSAH 17) I was informed that my property was proposed for special assessments to pay for the improvements Estimated at $4,400,000 This was based on the tax estimates from City Project 93-29 :Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership for Hillside Oak block 1 Lot 1 to 7. It was projected that the water and sewer improvements which was constructed could 1 serve the existing 7 units on and a potential of total 32 units in Hillside Oak. This clearly reflects a Land Use Guidance, RSF for Hillside Oaks Block 1. Controversy, Hillside Oak Block 2 ( which was RSF) was never included ............. (The notice was later withdrawn by the City, and I was told that it was a mistake: to put water and sewer in my driveway For the ten last year I have 31 times applied the City to correct the Land use guidance from Large Lot to RSF so these improvements can be available to me. I have been denied three times. How ever the City Staff recommended my last request This times The City of Chanhassen Applies for the Land use correction /Change and The City Staff recommends against it ???????? I am sorry to say: there is no logic or common sense in this, but a big financial burden to the tax payers of Chanhassen Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:48 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Carol @ Jayme Lee; City Council; Keith Buesgens; Melissa Gilman; Uli Sacchet; City Council; City Council Subject: Carver County Recorders Office Dear Bob Generous, Senior City Planner Ref Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks In December 2004, I researched Carver County Recorders Office in Chaska regarding Hillside Oaks I did get assistance from a clerk, we went through the Computerized Data base and the big book . The only recording the City may have filed; is the Wetland notification on Hillside Oaks Block 2. The only other recordings are normal real estate transaction of the properties of Hillside Oaks. Nothing what so ever the staff report refers to, again with the exception of the Wetland Use on Block 2. This is very concerning, and I will ask the City to provide underlying documentations of their records of Hillside Oaks , as none were available when I researched the City's records in fall 22094........ Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Page l of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik [ar@arild.us] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 6:28 AM To: Generous, Bob; Gerhardt, Todd Cc: Uli Sacchet; City Council; Melissa Gilman Subject: An Accident Waiting to Happen Dear Bob Generous Ref land use guidance Hillside Oak Block 1 Lot 1 and 2 ( Powers Blvd 8750 and 8800) On December 161 2004 I was woken up by a big bang. I went outside: A van southbound on Powers Blvd had lost control and crossed over to northbound lane and hit Car front on just next to the lift station .. It seemed both cars were totaled and the Fire department and medical had to help one of driver out her car She was trapped and hurt. The drive entrance to my property and my neighbor to the North ( We share ) does not have any turn around capacity for trucks . Trash pick is right on Powers Blvd Every Thursday . Delivery trucks, as I have pointed out numerous times before, has to either to back in from Powers Blvd or back out to Powers Blvd. The traffic on Powers Blvd is projected to increase to 27 thousand cars a day , we will have serous construction coming down and up Powers Blvd in a couple of months (New 212 and AUR 2005) This is no longer an accident waiting to happen, it is question how many accidents will happen before the City Correct the Land use Guidance for Hillside Oaks Block 1 Lot 1 and 2 from Large Lot to RSF so at least I as the property owner of lot 2 can facilitate a turn around lane. Also not correcting the land use guidance has effectively been blocking access to City Water and sewer, which has been sitting unused( with the lift station )in the joint driveway for the last 10 years At an expense of over $400.000.00 to the City and Tax payers . In Addition, all property owners in Hillside Oaks has Septic System and drain fields, every one in Block 1 has had access to City sewer for the last ten years, This is an unnecessary pollution of the environment. Only Land Use Correction for Hillside Oak Block 1 to RSF can change that To bring water and sewer into Hillside Oaks Block 1 (1995) and not correct the land use guidance, is nothing less then condemning the same improvements Respectfully Arild Rossavik 1/18/2005 Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph 952 448 4844 ar@arild.us January 10th 2005 Re: Land use guidance Change Hillside Oaks Block 1 Dear Neighbor I have filed a request with the City for a land use correction/change Hillside Oaks Block 1. 1 ask you to consider to support this and I invite your comments and concerns My rationale is enclosed in my letter to the Planning Commission of Jan 3`d 2005. A copy with all enclosures is enclosed for your info. Briefly: We will have up to 27,000.00 cars coming down and up Powers Blvd on a daily basis. Lyman will be extended to 4 lanes And there will be a traffic light in this intersection. Construction of Extension of Powers Blvd to new 212 will start in April this year, also the AUAR 2005 just south of Lyman 1500 new housing units and 700,000.00 square foot of office space and a public School for 1700 students. Needless to say we will be living in a construction zone for many years to come as Powers Blvd will be the main drag for this construction traffic starting this spring. Noise will be a major problem and our property values will go down under the present land use guidance which was designed to preserve a rural feel and character. Only RSF guidance will make it possible for the property owners who which to look for another place to maximize their investment in their properties. Some of us have direct exposure to Powers Blvd At the same time the property owners where the traffic does not bother them and wish to stay, a land use change does not affect the tax value of their properties, They may even apply to get a reduction in their tax value because of the increased traffic ( I have earlier applied and now have the lowest property tax value in Hillside Oaks) A request to rezone my property into three lots will come later. The house I plan to build and live in on projected lot 1 is enclosed for your reference . Sincerely Arild Rossavik CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 13, 1995 Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Notice of Public Hearing for Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) Improvement Project from Trunk Highway 5 South to Lyman Boulevard - Project No. 93-29 Parcel No. 25-3530020, Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks Dear Property Owner: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing has been scheduled for public discussion on the Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) from Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard, Project No. 93-29 feasibility study at the City Councirs regular meeting on Monday, January 8, 1996 at 7:30 p.m in the City Hall Council Chambers located at City Hall, 690 Couher Drive. Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) is proposed to be reconstructed to a four -lane, divided urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, trails, street lighting and landscaping. The total project cost of said improvements is estimated to be approximately $4,400,000. Said improvements are proposed to be financed by a combination of special assessments to benefiting properties, local funds, and County funds. YOUR PROPERTY IS PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. A copy of the feasibility study showing the project scope, costs and proposed assessment is available for review in the Engineering Depart mrt, Mondays through Fridays from 8:00 am. to 4:30 p.cr. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Folch, P.E. Director of Public Works CDF:ktm CITY OF CHANHANEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 September 9, 1997 Arild Rosavik 88UU Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317-9030 RE: CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) Improvements City of Chanhassen Project No. 93-29 Dear Mr. Rossavik: The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed assessrttegts for thc. CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) Reconstruction Project, Improvement Project No, 93-29, on Monday, September 22, 1997, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The area to be assessed includes parts of Sections 19, 27 and 56 T 116 R 25. Your property was originally proposed to be assessed trunk sanitary sewer and water main charges as a part of the project. After further review, the City has elected DZ to assess the trunk charges to your property at this time. Assessments to your property will, therefore, not be considered at the Council Meeting on September 22, 1997. The trunk sanitary sewer and water main charges will instead be billed to your pruperty if and when you connect to these facilities in the future. The charges will be billed based upon the rates at the year of connection. Please feel free to call me at (612) 937-1908 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN y Charles D. Folch, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739 December 13, 1995 Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Notice of Public Hearing for Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) Improvement Project from Trunk Highway 5 South to Lyman Boulevard - Project No. 93-29 Parcel No. 25-3530020, Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks Dear Property Owner: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing has been scheduled for public discussion on the Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) from Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard, Project No. 93-29 feasibility study at the City Councirs regular meeting on Monday, January 8, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) is proposed to be reconstructed to a four -lane, divided urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, trails, street lighting and landscaping. The total project cost of said improvements is estimated to be approximately $4,400,000. Said improvements are proposed to be financed by a combination of special assessments to benefiting properties, local funds, and County funds. YOUR PROPERTY IS PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. A copy of the feasibility study showing the project scope, costs and proposed assessment is available for review in the Engineering Depart....nt, Mondays through Fridays Torn 8:00 a.m to 4:30 p.m. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Fok:h, P.E. Director of Public Works CDF:ktm CITY OF CHANHANEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 September 9, 1997 Arild Rosavik 88UU Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317-9030 RE: CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) Improvements City of Chanhassen Project No. 93-29 Dear Mr. Rossavik: The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider proposed assesstxiegts..f'or thp,CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) Reconstruction Project, Improvement Project No. 93-29; on Monday, September 22, 1997, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 690 Coulter DtiVe, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The area to be assessed includes parts of Sections 19,27 and 56 T 116 R 25. Your property was originally proposed to be assessed trunk sanitary sewer and,.water main ". charges as a part of the project. After further review, the City has elected ram( to assess the frank charges to your property at this time. Assessments to your property will, therefore, not be considered at the Council Meeting on September 22, 1997. The trunk sanitary sewer and water main charges will instead be billed to your pruperty if and when you connect to these facilities in the future. The charges will be billed based upon the rates at the year of connection. Please feel free to call me at (612) 937-1908 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANEUSSEN Charles D. Folch, PE Director of Public Works/City Engineer Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: 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 rezoning property 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 rezoning, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT I . The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Large Lot. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. 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: 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) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use does conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance subject to the revisions of the plat recommended by staff. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT 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 rezoning property 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 rezoning, 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: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Large Lot. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. 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: 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) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use does conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance subject to the revisions of the plat recommended by staff. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 20 d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. �r 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 streets serving the property. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: 1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The proposed subdivision meets all minimum ordinance requirements for RSF zoned properties. 2) 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 to approval of the land use amendment from Residential — Large Lot to Residential — 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 report. 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 adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter, Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure with a variance for the use of a private street. 5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage to site topography through grading and removal of vegetation. Restrictions on the housing types Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 21 and limitation of the grading area will reduce the developments impacts on natural features and abutting property. r� 6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Findin : 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 subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Findine: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure 6. The planning report #97-12 Sub. dated May 6, 2003, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 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 I•- V ATTEST: Secretary g:\p1anft\deve1opmmt mvim\pow cimle 2003 mvised.doc Its Chairman Dakside Circle Sewer Extentia N/L L WV& ®AK5S N 4° 10'21"E 133 133 263.31..... _ v: / 3 (J QP/ / O a3� O Li 3 N.E.COR.OF EI/2 OF NORTHWEST I/4 O A. N Oy O f/-WEST LINE OF NE 1/4 OF SEC.23,T.116,R23 WEST LINE OF NE'A SEC.23, T.116, R.23,\ o°> ` °p�,•0 i 3 CARVER CO. MON. , -(-(0 N In A Iv_N 00 Q\Q / SO°19'10"E i _ L-420' R=1/45 N / e LL 0 II /ps�j\/\ .520° �• \ A, CENT f\ I 617.61 QS L/ z W soo Or DESCRIBE OF COUN — _ _...... 650.63 S 3023' 17"E - 0 n 044 BOOK 158 AID HIGHWAY 17 / EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD N0.1 J O I / �...L-48 ED fly rY STATE / _ �� /4T8 - _ Lo R=/145.92 , PAGE 129 I r` OO I , d` 24°0I`18" --- _ I .- - 797.26 S3°23'17E.. tX ° I L a _ , l I Y, �K - - , - O = CIDI G;2/s oo S�( 8e ° I I ri t_1 r7 i i i v� /. z `/ODDS\I 4 24°O/rl8n j .-WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO.17 n 22 �R= 1220.92 _..._ i ....-._' _.....794.48 N 3°23' 17" W ..... ti L= 29 50.0 (� 90.00 560.00 — 88 Q:13°55 56' 151.46 �� � ' ° , yC 0 y N 86, 36 43"E / /� --- �$ �O, \8S/O O 3 . `- \ C °° N20001 � F � /-rti. d- p 62.50 _13T50 O� \36 35 - -o o 0 0. 0 e �� ;; 0 00 w; IN2°00'00"W �3500 N�9. °O� 3• °O — a41 000 l� z 1 1 LL O I M �c N V) `�- uitr tn.- W I L0 U- T x O I WM I O ZN N ¢o O O W 1'n I v� zo •--- - _.....675.00 S I050'17"E ...._ -- -----• — WEST LINE OF SF 1/4 OF NWI/4 nF ccr 9a Tna 6'41.03 - 1 5 NI°50'17"W- - - O rZ 00` N jY in i W N cp m M z M � OD N U UJ C j I� �y CO N 1pM_ N Q O O a �l J Ld z Z Q M 170 LL O V. W rM = O00 O� N�4 10 o O • 0 M M ri Z G N o m a �. I: ( .}.I 0 M u v � M W to m Z N 9 M M 1 � u- O d 3 .^. z LL O "� 7 In - W to 0 U_ l0 W z f. I_J S) f M cr O 0 / L- I � w ti ,J OD O oI O Z to = j :L CO U 33 to ` i 1 100 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET o denotes 1/2-inch x 14 inch iron pipe marked by License No. 9066 The south line of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 23, T.116, R.23,.has an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 44 minutes 17 seconds East Drainage and utility easements shown thus: 6.0 I 6.0 0 0 0 0 - - L-AL_ Being 6 feet in width and adjoining lot lines, and being 10 feet in width and adjoining right- of-way lines, unless otherwise indicated on the map. ., at DRAWING NUMBER I DRAWING NUMBER I I--- _-_____-_.__ _ DRAWING NUMBER ' R ?_. ,]i A , tt:!';I�RnT3fr�,, In. ✓VF � .*.t�:q•d� DRAWING NUMBER 1 DRAWING NUMBER 1 N.W. 1/4 SEO.23 W I G O Z Z CO O 2:: [-mI—H cc O �c U) Q 3= U) Z a C) a: H W W :F:: m OCr) MEL[n Z =) W LL Q Z L 2 W 1 Z EG c[ZQ O 2:: Lu = W >- F U EL aa: H W Lu cf) C cc: CD U) 3 W I— Z >- W Z H F f— W C) H UJ2:�C10U I--::DLLIS C^O=7H2 O O U a- W 27 J H d W 0 _1 = W �> 0: Q F- CL W L.L E 2,114,000 E 2, 1 14, 500 E 2, 1 15, 000 E 2,115,500 E 2,1 16,000 THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR TWO FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL MAPPING CONTOUR INTERVAL TWO FOOT BASED ON MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM HORIZONTAL DATUM BASED ON MINNESOTA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: 4-15-89, 5-9-89 PREPARED BY AERO-METRIC ENGINEERING, INC. - SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN PROJECT NO. 038949 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 PROJECT NO. PW 125A NOTE: DASHED CONTOURS INDICATE APPROXIMATE ELEVATIONS AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 7.1.3.6 OF THE MANUAL OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, 4th EDITION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WHATSO- EVER WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN i NOTE: IMAGES OF OBJECTS NOT AT GROUND LEVEL MAY BE DISPLACED. a 0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET SCALE : 1" = 100' N 674, 000 N 673,50C N 673,000 N 672,500 N 672,000 N 671,500 ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHIC MAPPING OF NW 1 /4 SEC. 23 T 116 N, R 23W MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission CITYOF FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner CHMNSEN DATE: September 21, 2004 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Hillside Oaks Subdivision Administration Phone:952.227.1100 SUMMARY Fax: 952227.1110 Building Inspections Mr. Arild Rossavik has requested that the Planning Commission initiate a Phone, 952.227.1180 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment for the properties in Block 1, Hillside Fax:952.227.1190 Oaks Addition from Residential -Large Lot to Residential -Low Density. Mr. Engineering Rossavik is one of seven property owners, nine properties if you include the two Phone:952.227.1160 lots east of Powers Boulevard, in this development. He alleges that there is an Fax:952.227.1170 error in the guiding and zoning of the property that needs to be corrected, Finance especially since the two lots east of Powers Boulevard, which are part of this Phone:952.227.1140 subdivision, are guided for Residential -Low Density. Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax:952.227.1110 Section 2-46.03, subd. 4 of the Chanhassen City Code states: Recreation Center 2310 Coulter The PlanningCommission shall have the and duties State Phone: 952.227.14W e:952227.1400 powers allowed under Fax:952.227.1404 law, including: Planning & Natural Resources (a) To prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the City Phone:952.227,1130 that is submitted to the Council for implementation and to recommend Fax:952227.1110 amendments of the Plan to the Council from time to time as may be Public works necessary or desirable. 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Section 20-42 (a) of the Chanhassen City Code states that "proceedings to amend Fax:952.227.1310 this chapter, including the zoning map shall only be initiated by the council, the Senior center planning commission or a petition of the property owner." Phone: 952.227,1125 Fax: 952.227A 110 RECOMMENDATION Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission as to the initiation of the amendment process for the property in Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map. 2. Letter from Mr. Rossavik to Chanhassen City Planning Commission dated 8/9/04. ■ gAplan%gWevelopm t reviewUtillside oaks.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Location Map Hillside Oaks Chanhassen City Planning Commission Uli Sacchet Kurt Papke Bethany Tjornhom Rich Slagle Craig Claybaugh Dam Keefe Steve Lillehaug August 9, 2004 Ref City Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks Block 1 and Feb 0 2005 As you know, highway 212 is coming just south of Powers & and Lyman Blvd, and in additional a large development AUAR 2005, 1500 New housing units, a middle or high school for 1700 Student is projected, 7000.000 square feet office space is part of this project which borders to Lyman. Construction of both these project have been scheduled to start February 4`h 2005 Powers Blvd will be turned into the main drag for this construction years to come and when Powers Blvd hooks to new 212 it is reasonable to assume that most traffic mow using 5 west to get to 494 will drive down Powers Blvd and hit 212 new 212. saving 4 or 5 traffic lights. These developments will forever change traffic intensity on Powers Blvd and Lyman Blvd. I have collected the following figures from the City's study. Traffic on Powers Blvd: 7700 Vehicles (2003) Daily 14800 Vehicles (2010) (Peak hours 3100 Vehicles) Traffic Lyman Blvd Daily 13000 Vehicles The increased traffic and construction vehicles down on Powers and Lyman for years To come will cause depreciation in property value guided as Agriculture Estate (A2)) We are all going to be living in a construction zone for years to come. Only RSF guidance will allow the affected property owners to rezone and optimize their investment while looking for other suitable hosing. (These projections are subject to another planned collector road is being constructed south of Lyman (to take the load of Powers Blvd). If this is not constructed, the traffic increases 12200 vehicles a day, see encl map) I write to you to correct City Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks Block 1 from A2 to RSF, Block 2 has correct Guidance which I feel should have been corrected at least when the City Adopted AUAR 2005. which will brine 1500 new hosing units and 700 thousand new office space south of Lyman. Also in light of A2 Land use Guidance has been abandoned by the City . Hillside Oaks development consist of 2 blocs: 7 lots on the western side of Powers Blvd and two lots on the eastern side of Powers Blvd. The following are the present owners; Lot 1 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: George & Jacqueline Bizek Lot 2 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Arild Rossavik Lot 3 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Jame & Carol Lee Lot 4 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Brenda & John Hill Lot 5 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Craig & Ellie Peterson Lot 6 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Minh Cam & Margaret Tram Lot 7 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Keith & Mary Buesgens Lot 1 Block 2 Hillside Oaks: Brent & Kathy Miller Lot 2 Block 2 Hillside Oaks: Duane & Julie Skluzucek Land use for block 1 is A2 Land use for block 2 is RSF ( different time frame for Rezoning) ( Different time frame for Rezoning) ( No objection ) (No response) ( No objection) ( Different time frame for rezoning) Directly supports Directly supports In 1980 the land use designation for Hillside Oaks for block 1 and 2 was RSF Why Hillside Block was later changed to A2, and later Block 2 went to RSF again, I do not find any reasonable explanation for. ( I have researched the City's records ) Especially in light of the land designation of the properties On Sunset Trail next to Lot 5 and 6 block 1, (adjoining lot is over 6 acres) these are again RSF. In addition to this Hillside Oaks are fragmented in four pieces 1. Lot 1 and 2 share a common driveway which access Powers Blvd Directly 2. Lot 3, 4, 5 and 7 share a Cull De Sac, Oak Side Circle 3. Lot 6 may have a deeded access to Oak Side Circle but in realty accesses Lyman Blvd 4. Lot I and 2 Block 2 accesses Lyman Blvd In 1996 Water and sewer and lift station was brought down to serve Hillside oaks lot 1 to 7 Block 1. It has stood unused for all these years, because of wrong Land Use Guidance. As I have pointed out Hillside Oak is fragmented, Lot 8 and 9 does not need any land use amendment they are already RSF. I have however written and / or contacted every property owner with my proposal to split my property into three lots and now 7 and 9 which either supports my request (to split my property into three lots) or does not object. Some will do the same, but has a different time frame. I summary: I ask The City Planning Commission to imitate correction of the City Land Use Guidance for Hillside Block 1 to RSF. This does not change anything for the affected property owners, but will open up for rezoning in their own time frame (My Plans for Subdivision my property into three lots is supported by The City Staff and is enclosed for your information.) Respectfully �iv� 12 o3a o:u.� Arild Rossavik Ph 952 448 4844 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 e-mail: AR@ARILD.US Enclosures CC City Manager Todd Gerhardt Senior Planner Bob Generous n� n z ➢Pun tlW • uinP Oak.1 CirCla CLtY LaM usa Ouitlanw k3 MP Ot PIM.0 L.b 6... Hill. CStl LIM OIa wianee P6r 'Intas..Vl. ne..s. . LN . 61ytl P... Blvd .111 G a .M.d d .n thr .CM h111 " nav 313. Lot data rM Ith 3005 tnterawtten LYPan .M 6un..t 6ra11 Country MLl. 3a M) ee xillaias wka nieak 1 L.0 Le[ 6. (A3 COUx'19tY Was C Vlsr or 0 LOS6 fM Let nM [e Hill.1d. W. Lot 3 6 6 1. ]Ian. aM is orivab aM aeelWad. CICY L WE 4VID3HCl P6r i LE X//// Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review City of Chanhassen, Minnesota — ---- ""' /i a b 'ram,; • ,��- r_a.s7T�='- .,,.�,. ALM Devdopmem S a6o Land Use ��., ER,ya,me,na vean— �o.-nwe�.n oenW rammsr o.m�av �T ten, om i� � Diem e�re�� nose.-+r es�.eev Q ixzizn+z wgv.oFw.y umxm om�r n<�mm aan✓ooe�spra L-3 agm�eau�amy Prt -r 9easn g�' AMeTeiYAUYnb N o zso 1,0oo Fen August,2003 emsm�•'.�+wic�+u.e im uoie Us ,e •`:: av: to [+i'.,�� r a� LAND USE TOTAL NET MAXIMUM PROJECT DESIGNATION DEVELOPABLE INTENSITY OF MAGNITUDE DATA ACRES DEVELOPMENT Medium Density 120 8 du/acre 954 units Residential/Low Density Residential _ Medium Density 66 8 du/acre 680 units Residential Office 17 0.35 FAR 270,00 s u re feet' Office/Industrial 34 0.30 FAR 450,000 s are feet• Park/O en S ace 45 Passive Park Park 35 Athletic Fields Institutional 36 Middle/I li h 1,700 Students i c Y N Cn N t t0 c L -A U F Figure 12 - Zoning Map Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review u�. Legend q Ag ml P�elen PSN O Tn 21M12 RQ1 -Wry 51veISM WSIa9.t 0ve yZones — RWMYBwWim ® eenc�w wwy L�i P,95n twreleY f%l/a 1+Ye nnzw�reorenrr �..- s�reem BWGreekO My DIehILI OW'"'n the sem1wYtae N Ao 245 490 9e0 feel ®Bolsingo Kac Glop 1W. - August, 2003 umnr w.�..a ww�en r�eemm.e,mw �m,>mxmY Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review Portions of the project area drain to and will utilize ponds constructed within the proposed TH 212/312 right-of-way. Stormwater improvements will need to be reviewed with MnDOT to ensure storm water facilities are properly sized based on the recently revised roadway alignment (August 2003). Note: the RGU must assure that the development described complies with the requireniews of dd 10.3610. subpart 3 (and also that it properly orders the ALAR and sets the de.wription in that order as required by 4410.3610, subpart 3). City of Chanhassen Resolution # 2003-70 ordering the preparation of the AUAR is included as Appendix I. The Order for Review was passed by the Chanhassen City Council on Monday, August 11, 2003 consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Section 4410.3610, subpart 3. 7. PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA. The cumulative tulale of the Parameters calledfin- should be given for each major development scenario, ercep that iujbrmalion au 'inamyiteturing. " "other industrial," "instiuuitnual. " artd ..agricullural. " The following data represents the anticipated types and intensity/density of residential, office, office/industrial, and institutional development throughout the AUAR area based on the development scenario described in question 6. TABLE 7.1 PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA LAND USE DESIGNATION TOTAL NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES MAXIMUM INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA Medium Density ResidentiailLow Density Residential 120 8 du/acre 954 units Medium Density Residential 66 8 du/acre 680 units Office 17 0.35 FAR 270,00 sq feet Office/Industrial 34 0.30 FAR 450,000 s5lbare feet* Park/Open Space 45 Passive Park Park 35 Athletic Fields Institutional 36 Middle/High 1,700 Students * rounded to nearest 5,000 square feet Developable land inventory is that land area that is unconstrained by steep slopes as defined by the City of Chanhassen GIS Steep Slope dataset (slopes greater than 18%), National Wetland Inventory, Peterson Environmental delineated wetlands, floodplain (100 year and floodway), the right-of-way for proposed Highway 212 and the collector roadway concept alignment for the AUAR (for purposes of estimating project magnitude data, the collector roadway ROW is assumed at a 60' width consistent with Chanhassen's residential collector standards). Key assumptions made to arrive at a net land area for development include the following: Park and Open Space (P/OS) areas were determined based on the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan Page 17 2003 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC �7ooee((n) a 7n2�� r24IX4ae) � 1?r� 72(i061:� g V � T F<4O" }\2433((,39))31163)— �9148) 27 144 21(72192(324 tE,149P-) l :;262) s) Peak H 167(623)� � r u 4- XX(XX) T uific )Voluumesour XXXX Average Daily Aa Traffic VolumesNORTH CHANHASSEN AUAR Kimley-Horn 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS ❑M❑ and Associates, Inc. FIGURE 6 - 2003 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ..�ri"a�: M. r. «"wl ra-w oet onm m� T6 Om�011. 100f11111 pIM M rQMfil13 /ID rbi6 A®Ilm Elp� Y /Y �611��RI1 Uf ERR 6 MOOF➢ blY M M 9Talt RWE /ID CM WII MYI R ! Y4]MED. ttlC If /IO VItlU11OY114i M 11R Lgi�pll .IIIAII .011d MIIIOGIYI IIO .WMRI R WRHlY ND .rmOV6 K 9WL E'111M IMEIII A IWLTy�YM MD .�1Li E:. 29x315;..., i ,iW(94 ti v 2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC 229(214) i 1 (194) si N f `,47(,a2) N J j t:99(e2o) 10(,81 e2IX7os�—' E— XX(XX) AM(ic Peak Hour QTraiflVolumes ® XXXX Average Daily Traffic Volumes NORTH CHANHASSENAUAR ❑�❑ IOmley-Hom 2010 - BUILD HWY 212/312 and Associates, Inc. FIGURE 9-2010TOTAL TRAFFIC wrll`.�. 6 Mil �Y BIN MO M-li OCL B1m1 T6 WL,IIBMI. 11�2TQ BIM M Cd4V15 NB C{906 P64111FD IQpI tl.W �6BIIIdf K B'.IM1M.S_ B MDl'EO BlY N_ _1 M_ l6fIC_M1_A_'GQ_N_O _NM f_A 111_f:X rt BK VIFPIAFD. 1616E kit _ F-, -J95.14 NB9'00'00'E O I, - r ,I0.16 ydW ppp04r Nbj Op- O Y•). o � r It go r. Ss N � 9€ 0 cl p o Y ' m _ 34 •� O Et �. Q D. �� c C - �, A2 ,N=IRs1 I N x A H. NO. 17 OMAN BOULEVAWO . = � LYMAN rm'- v - BOULEVARO 8L ' 30] _ 0 01. _B ea 7 E Z �i0c C — ( on 00� om = 0 k I 2, 3 �'"-qcr� L oA�-- (.3 til;1/e.- Q oo L y M k /SI- zld ij" ` n LL Ia /i1 / ao d k ';Jck6L 4) Tull. �1. 2, Q-w„a,- o..� � S' o O mot' o-w�+o � � � °" ►-°� why L (3 he,. ln, I/e - Q oo L yM q ti ls4 vd f�y!2 C.(- b_,j / ao o A:g me n 6Uj d , it �T� ���� � ,�'�. ✓��C Io ljll ExrSrE / HOUSE ' 4 p l l 3-9 W PVC •e740 \ C-9 WATERMAIN p 1o7—e'• PVC aP �Qb; Py0 / CONNECT TO EXIST. [\/ —O Day. \\� / / / 8" SAN. SEVERRSTUB ' EXIST. \ ' - 309r fi" P/C xjl '1 I I HOUSE C-9 WA MA I Il /LH / `_ 317-6" PVC C�00, \ ' VO• / WATERMAIN / / /tl / / CONNECT TO EXIST.ANT - --- RO / / 6" WATERMAIN STUB E ql nv y � p H \ 4.. PVC �yyNI_T'1Ry 0R 26 / / �� / / / S 7 EkCAQ SERHC 5 \ \ / 9 WATER CR\ l 4 / 9. Rocc CONNECT TO MHCB 3 SAN. MH 1 SAN. MH 3 / P 0.4 x PVC , tl / / _ EXIST. CB RE 907.8 RE 909.10 RE 910 IE 893.50 IE 897.50 IE 896.11 (IN) IE 89ZBS (OUT) _\ / l �l / / tl / 21'-12 RCP MHCB 4 SAN. MH 2 O 0.385 RE 907.5- RE 915.20 N / IE 903.14 (IN) SAN. MH 4 ECONSTRUCT IE 903.04 (OUT) 1E 896.88 (IN) RE 906.10 TRAIL AFTER IE 896.78 (OUT) IE 89218 (IN) S71A CONST. MHCB 5 IE B9218 (OUT) q/ iy i eoy l /1 1/ l I # RE 907.8 V I p 11 I 7V-12" RCP Baz1 it l p 11 tl I ; O 13.44X 1'-12" RCP �-•-� . I O 1OS i 1 n tl {1I N I \>�) Ii'/ I III t`� , ( , I Y I II II > ill Il i Nil 19 Na BY DAIS NEM9MSOCSO�TDN �� n•A Ww�M1 AM r..sw. w AA.r Au+oon w IHI—-mATT °,.A�.9�E�ATK� m 1Y , YAS M AWD BY Y M Uf.'fA YT �R SLVERU9DN AND(ENryM41AATT1[[f IpDj�" A DMY OFSTAAM OF / NIDFII ME LAWS ' .i i f, POWERS CIRCLE PREUMINARY 1 ITII ITY PI AN 9Y: L£9W BT: CSB 'Y: DND MANE Pwa-um OWNER: ARILD ROSSAV A � � m 0 Scate V = 50 - sed July 14, 2004 'Fed August 8, 2003 - 3 lots ;sed April 22, 2003 sed April 1, 20C3 .Fed March 27, 2003 ed February 7, 2003 ed February 6, P003 Fed December 27, 2002 sed Decenber 16, 1997 sed December 15, 1997 ---c. _ ' - .;, 1996- Driveway easements DlYI85-fJFBQ.06 rr v� 3ab-10 L.S. !M L i iie Ho. EF414 sale AREAS. LOT 1, MOCK I- 95.P73.5 90 rr LOT P. AOIX I- 35.7X..9 30. PT LOT I MOCK I- M,499b $0, FT. TOTAL AREA- 162,205 so. FT Tor 60 X 60 Building Site Ctyp.) unless otherwise noted on drawing 5% I -Bonding Sites t0 be Cust on Gradetl- � o Setbacks RSF - 30 Feet Front \ Note' Lots 2 B 3 will be served by driveway easement. 39 Reor Drainage 8 Utility Easements are 10 feet in width IC - - Side A: 5 !rer b .anti iiiui g mr / - �.wwss along street lines and 5 feet in width aloe lot f rFxrwi-e halca Md eM /O !rcr h wdM antiwwa>g 9 - - �ys-nr-wey rw,rs, os s/o.n m rnr dwr (unless noted otherwise on drawing) ggo 49 LO PID- a-35300.a LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Lo< 2- Mock L NRLSIM OgKS OWINERS & DEVELOPER .it Ross BB00 Pavers BOWevor'd Ganbassen, MN 55317 9-440-494. SJPVEYOR Dena�s-(gylel LUM SurveYa's, Ix_ 3030 IbrWr Lnrw Plymouth, W 55447 559-o9as PRELIMINARY PLAT ROSSAVIK ADDITION PREPARED rW' Zoning - Existing A-2 Proposed RSF ARILD ROSSAVIK 1=50. 0 ! ! � . §ƒ d iz m eroosoi au�a—p iaf9wH uoieos. El V aoo� N wws w.won� p- w ..e E MM-q�R41 i4F/LIL N'1 O � - 1w�lyl�WRtlINOR PYOW�TVWPII- i-Pmms vo-d-"--o �VIpr14�Yo+SaMutrgMaO aYflY j PU958-1 mwuTW`wssvq=gD;o.(n:) .- R- nrivn��n v���nrin����rr vvrw _ ai vn)f: i `-6 o17� (-o e11t 004�> JUS( 15 c o'IPICE'� ve atsl o N 1j nr L) Sh � c c C o4Z�EC>`l o��s OF L= ?107<<6;�?- 'P ,I 'pe tS Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 To: 0 $ G c- �- t!� a- c z W To: _ Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 G-L--ha.,-d,f-, c ko.,Ok "�, n :zj o M- O T C7 fi l = O � Z ZsD CM a CD m z Chanhassen City Planning Commission Uli Sacchet Kurt Papke Rich Slagle Craig Claybaugh Dam Keefe Steve Lillehaug January Yd 2005 ( Revised from August 90'2004) Ref City Land Use Guidance Hillside Oaks Block 1 and April 2005 Dear Planning Commission Members I write to you ask that the City Land Use Guidance for Hillside Oaks Block 1 be changed from A2 to RSF. Block 2 has already been adjusted. I feel this change should have been made when the City Adopted AUAR 2005. A development which will bring 1500 new housing units and 700 thousand square feet of new office space south of Lyman Blvd (See Land Use attachment). As you know, highway 212 is coming just south of Powers & and Lyman Blvd, Powers Blvd will be extended down to interchange with 212, and in addition the large AUAR 2005 development: 1500 new housing units, a middle or high school for 1700 Student and 7000.00 square feet office space. Constructions of both these projects are scheduled to start in April this year. Powers Blvd will be turned into the main drag for this construction for years to come. When Powers Blvd hook up to new 212 it is reasonable to assume that traffic now using Minn. 5 to get to 494 will drive down Powers Blvd to new 212. Doing so will save 4 or 5 traffic lights. These developments will forever increase traffic intensity on Powers as it is extended down to new 212 and AUAR 20005. Lyman Blvd will be built into four lanes and there will be a traffic light to control this intersection. (Powers & Lyman) I have collected the following figures from the City's study: Powers Blvd: Lyman Blvd 2003 — 7700 Vehicles/Day 2010 Daily 14800 Vehicles/Day 13000 Vehicles/Day (Peak hours 3100 Vehicles)/hour (These projections are subject to another planned collector road, not funded yet, is constructed south of Lyman. Adjustment until it is constructed: the traffic load on Powers Blvd increases 12200 to 27,000 vehicles a day (see encl map) Hillside Oaks (see list of owners attached) development consist of two blocks seven lots on the western side of Powers Blvd and two lots on the eastern side of Powers Blvd. The increased traffic and construction vehicles, on Powers and Lyman Blvd for years to come will cause property value to depreciate in value if the City continues to limit its use to Agriculture Estate (A2) . We will be living in a construction zone for years to come, especially if it remainsA2 Only RSF (Single family residential) guidance will allow owners to rezone and optimize their investment .Rezoning will also make it possible to build a Sound berm, or wall along Powers Blvd to shield the neighborhood These are significant changes. This conflicts with A2 Land use guidance , a guidance intended to preserve a Waal feel and character Clearly A2 has been abandoned in this locality by the City. In addition A2 designation has been abandoned for future use overall because of the high cost of bringing in water and sewer. In 1980 the land use designation for Hillside Oaks blocks 1 and 2 was RSF. Later Hillside Block 1 was later changed to A2, and Block 2 went to RSF. I have researched the City's records but 1 cannot find a reasonable explanation for this change. Sunset Trial, west of Hillside Oaks lot 5 Block 1, fits the criteria for A2; but Land use guidance is RSF, making Hillside Oaks Block 1 a A2 sandwich between RSF, Hillside Oaks Block 2, and Sunset Trail! North and South are RSF (PUD) or medium density Hillside Oaks is fragmented into four pieces. 1. Lot 1 and 2 share a common driveway which access Powers Blvd Directly 2. Lot 3,4,5 and 7 share a Cull De Sac, Oak Side Circle Lot 6 may have a deeded access to Oak Side Circle but in realty accesses Lyman Blvd 4. Lot 1 and 2 Block 2 accesses Lyman Blvd In 1995 water and sewer service and lift station was brought down to serve Hillside Oaks Block 1 ( lot 1 to 7) Block 1.It was projected to serve 32 lots. It has now stood unused for ten years. (City project 93-29) Its cost to the City and Taxpayers are now over $400.000.00. (My streetlight has been turned off for the last three years, so the City could save money.) So far this misuse of resources has been ignored. Clearly the sewer and water improvements anticipated land use guidance change from A2 to RSF. I have written and/or contacted every property owner in Hillside Oak. Most recognize the reasonableness of this request, but some wish to ignore the significant change that is coming. I ask that the City Planning Commission initiate a correction of the City Land Use Guidance for Hillside Block 1 from A2 to RSF. This does not change anything for the affected property owners, but will open possibilities for new land use when they are ready. My earlier planned Subdivision for 5 lots was supported by The City Staff. The pending proposal is only for three lots and is enclosed for your reference and my neighbors response are indicated. Respectfully GZokb wj4, Arild Rossavik Ph 952 448 4844 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 e-mail: ARgARILD.US Enclosures CC City Manager Todd Gerhardt Senior Planner Bob Generous The following are present owners: Lot 1 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: George & Jacqueline Bizek (different time frame for Rezoning) Lot 2 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Arild Rossavik Lot 3 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Jame & Carol Lee (different time frame for Rezoning) Lot 4 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Brenda & John Hill (no objection) Lot 5 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Craig & Ellie Peterson (no response, 2003 objected) Lot 6 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Minh cam & Margaret Tram (no objection) Lot 7 Block 1 Hillside Oaks: Keith & Mary Buesegens (different time frame for Rezoning) Lot 1 Block 2 Hillside Oaks: Brent & Kathy Miller (Directly supports) Lot 2 Block 2 Hillside Oaks: Duane & Julie Skluzucek (Directly supports) Location Map Hillside Oaks r s� > o � m lar � oa�o 0 Q� �C 0 em n 0 0 a !y Fm s G O a m 7 �$ a o�W0r�5 m NS 001 rbara Crn c L 0002 Il z V 003 am i a> 004 0 IZ S F 1-005 oC " N N 007 001 oun o 006 Z (ZSF 002 Lyman Blvd 4- M�T)(✓ri 17( NSA 1 1f 1{ Chanhassen Altemative Urban Areawide Review City of Chanhassen, Mmesota MUR oae loommtS ano Land Uu Em vmsratf�� la+n.lmvn Cwsny Pez1mW a � uea✓� o..wy u�m — nil awn aMnw Irvnna - Gllz O 1 X. 211A11lay.�d'wN - CT Ir4usvlal »3'a ggpry OUMarb Yvl OVWY RevC.�lul ' - Ps��CP^Sle¢ . �Tgc7 nnm Geh �.� Evesn tMM1neMi CiWW~aE.MtIa Stlod N a ass m I.M fr A � HOISI��on K' IM. August, 2003 [imlry iNm.W Cu P mZ2. "cmeltil{ me .t,s Chanhassen 2005 Alternative Urban Areawide Review Portions of the project area drain to and will utilize ponds constructed within the proposed TH 212/312 right-of-way. Stormwater improvements will need to be reviewed with MnDOT to ensure storm water facilities are properly sized based on the recently revised roadway alignment (August 2003). Note: the RGU trust assure that the development described complies frith the requirements of 4410.3610. subpart 3 (and also that it properly orders the AUAR and sets the description in thin order tcs required by 4410.3610, subpart 3j. City of Chanhassen Resolution # 2003-70 ordering the preparation of the AUAR is included as Appendix 1. The Order for Review was passed by the Chanhassen City Council on Monday, August 11, 2003 consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules Section 4410.3610, subpart 3. PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA. The cumulative totals of the parameters called frrr should be givenfin- each major development scenario, excep that it f truaaion on "many Jitctnring, " "other indtcstrial, " "institutional. -and "agricultural. " The following data represents the anticipated types and intensity/density of residential, office, officelindustrial, and institutional development throughout the AUAR area based on the development scenario described in question 6. TABLE 7.1 PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA LAND USE DESIGNATION TOTAL NET DEVELOPABLE ACRES MAXIMUM INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MAGNITUDE DATA Medium Density Residential/Low Density Residential 120 8 du/acre 954 units Medium Density Residential 66 8 du/acre 680 units Office 17 0.35 FAR 270,00 uare feet Office/Industrial 34 0.30 FAR 450,0 uare feet* Park/Open Space 45 Passive Park Park 35 Athletic Fields Institutional 36 Middle/Hi h 1,700 Students * rounded to nearest 5,000 square feet Developable land inventory is that land area that is unconstrained by steep slopes as defined by the City of Chanhassen GIS Steep Slope dataset (slopes greater than 18%), National Wetland Inventory, Peterson Environmental delineated wetlands, floodplain (100 year and floodway), the right-of-way for proposed Highway 212 and the collector roadway concept alignment for the AUAR (for purposes of estimating project magnitude data, the collector roadway ROW is assumed at a 60' width consistent with Chanhassen's residential collector standards). Key assumptions made to arrive at a net land area for development include the following: • Park and Open Space (P/OS) areas were determined based on the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan Page 17 Y N m _J Z 1 _ O = oa J p LI O'>r. fir. ea o3 . 3 LI(wn88N wOe£ - - L990£ - _. NtlWAI a^.c.3.11 `—`s'`.r •m[t/021Vh31f108 NtlWAl1 LI ON -H'V' :[. l}l».iW M(6[ C ZvtO[-Iy HJM ui cs[ 04 cSn 06 QFI �. FOF49 ... C O • I Q o 9 sr JJJ�rb M9i 'a~r°� a og n � - i1r'Yr.y a s fib•f9N .... °o ;;e � U 9' ' rF .o`s S 9 ;;m 9 'r /',lac °`sb ram.• Q._� i,>, 3s>„� ao`f•�99 n LStl3 CC S' N n_ pO O (� e •I C O.0 A CD l Yir�,• `•NM O 0 0 4 t J.8 n N F ,O 3,OO,OD.68N st-S6E- h 4,2(,&)� 22 N91 2010 TOTAL TRAM \ I � \ i was „L35s(�2e) x,os1 i r ,72) nfn�1, 42 343 T A-71 t49(339) dddd ♦ j1 d) r23(94) 00 e) I 1 J 1 a JF�„a I \ �\ 29(,,,)11 i 1 2%.7((,a2) 20) AM(PM) Peak Hour s2IX3oe -� �— XX(XX) Tralfic Volumes XXXX Average Daily TI, TroffiC Volumes NORTH CHANHASSEN AUAR 2010 - BUILD HWY 212/312 FIGURE 9 - 2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC ❑rr an❑ Kimld Assoaaey-Hom tes, Inc. 2003 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 1 •" T 41 1 � W ; W J-4 �S \\ 12(12)1 R \ \ 12(12)1 \ x 98 \ J u3) \ 31 312(163): .�.. F•� «1CY 48) �32 182 I i r211NJ 12(60 1 Vn- \ <41 H > F �' I I �86,(262) r�(v) 187(i211 rry � u • XX(XX) AM Tra(PM)VPeakeHHour Aa XXXX Average Daily Traffic Volumes NORTH CHANHASSEN AUAR 2D03 EXISTING CONDITIONS Kimley-Hom ❑M❑ FIGURE 6 - 2003 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC and Associates, Inc. �1� L1Y4 �.MY Y. M1 OR tltta id 116 NLVOIf. IORiM01 AIM M CO®IS YO OCIYB N®am Ippl M IM Y6T�I�FIR IF mML 6 Map® OLY (tll M YfLfIC MIYGII /10 a111! M .Itll It .16 Plp�l@ Ip8 K MO �/IA.q IpIW.E W M WLl�pll .IMIR .OIIOI M14Q.Y11fN .YD IOMLUYIM R W[YyYIN MO .YSIAOlS K 9Wl t .1101R 1Y�lfY A RYIYti.l1 MO .WOM1fS. K 0 N5� Feet Ilouinµwn Kaoglcr Group Irc. j Delp Man.N ewnro Chanhassen Alternative Urban Areawide Review August, 2003 u. a.•e--w veeera t1M amu1M Oikan�� C1tOL clay LYtl usa wltlanca rn[erseptlnn Lfmun eM Sunaat Sriar COnf.[ry N111D SRIiTTie—fv -[o HS31D1OI Oala Bloeh ] LOt 6_(l3) COfllifAY XLLLB CONSI9S W 9 LOSE rM Lot next to Mlllsld Mks Let 9 f 6 la ]Iola. iM is OILIit. iM IaeJW crrr LL[9 ces wtcaxa •ar CSAH 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD) IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT 93-29 Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership Potential Description PIN 2onin Gross Area Exist. Future Units Units Lot 1, Block 1 25.3530010 RLD Hillside Oaks 2.5 1 4 Addition rK. !ol 2 Block 1 25 3530020 ' j} Hillside Oaks RLD 3.72 1 E Addition Lot 3, Block 1 25-3530030 RLO 2.52 Hillside Oaks Addition Lot 4, Block 1 25-3530040 RLO Hillside Oaks 2.5 Addition I Sanitary Watermain•• ' 1 < • ' w ill `L- '!� .'•Vr' ..:. 2!'t. ti:x�!Jf $1,D50.00 $0.00 $1.379.00 1 4 $1,050.00 $0.00 $1,375.00 Lot 5, Block 1 25-3530050 RLD 3.48 `e Hillside Oaks 1 5 51,050.00 Addition Lot6,Blockl , 25.3530060 rJtl'::r' RLD �idel'L 4i .:,r ✓�Y �"4 ;. Y v. a Hillside Oaks 2.58 4 i�.t $1,050.00 Addition Lot Block i HilisideOaks 25 3530070 RLD 3.42 1 '=�� : $1,050.00 Addition '$I.050.00/REU (residential equivalent unit) "$1,375.o0/REU "'Future subdivision of property will be charged mink hookup fees at current year rates based on the number of lots (units) created ASSESSMENT ROLL B Laterai Present We Total r— $2,425.00 $2.425.00 $2.4��25.00 b $2,425.00 $2,425.06 $2.425.00 w / �� 9 w - � r oQ '� <A 99 sir & (ki �� O�i, a AOry]' .Q R V)M� ew._♦ '" F ,, .. NaP ttESSI is to x�1( JJJ ii � O _ xc9/ (QJ cOq << f 1 cE_ N Y = � z J 52 S �t aaa •N'n >rC1r �-. •s W r ja ,N.. �\ a. J - .p � WhUQ����—`. y A r. �A �i S� �, J 11, 3 IL — w ^� O -w j0 LID LR " F ,Q w -� •� ! Al II���QQQZ 4 mo= x ug e � rw �v N • al- a m �s Hnoo to 0 ? 0 ro .3 M • � � rfx 6 V �• ��C.JF /Il���Pr laco LyMati, /3Lv� lI BTU �X��.v .6z- 1! N N Y ZZS 3� C �9 g IMTl I s .n-mAim-N"AsmoLc\x (w t) 3 m ems �[c:s cme 'se M aura Lou * 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 Chairman Slagle called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Rich Slagle. MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjomhom, Uli Sacchet and Kurt Papke. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Robert Generous, Senior Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Name Address Deb Lloyd Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Due to the lack of a quorum at this meeting, no official action on the minutes occurred. OPEN DISCUSSION * Land Use Designation for Hillside Oaks Public present: Name Address Arild Rossavik Mr. Arild Rossavik presented his reasons why the Planning Commission should consider the rezoning of the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The Commission discussed their role in land use recommendations. They directed staff to pursue a study of the land use recommendation of the Hillside Oaks neighborhood. Design Standards for Multi -Family The Commission reviewed the draft document. Requested changes included call -outs describing the pictures and specific requirements for materials. Staff was directed to bring this item back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Metropolitan Council March 7, 2005 Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 Re: Sewer and Water Connections Dear Mr. Rossavik: RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I received both your letters regarding sewer and water service along Powers Boulevard. In our telephone conversations, you indicated that the City would not allow you to connect to these systems. I have spoken to city staff, and they indicate that connecting your existing home to sewer and/or water service should be an easily accommodated request. In your letter dated February 18, 2005 indicates that you have tried unsuccessfully to have your property rezoned to allow subdividing into smaller lots. As you note in your letter, the City has denied your rezoning request several times. As you may be aware, both the rezoning request, and connection to urban services are local decisions. Sincerely, Tom Caswell, Sector Representative Scott/Carver County Cc: w .metrocouncil.org Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen Metro Into Wne 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street • St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax 602-1550 • TTY 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer