The URL can be used to link to this page

1 Subdivision 8800 Powers Blvd.' CITY OF PC DATE: May 6, 2003 J) CC DATE: May 27, 2003 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 13, 2003 STAFF REPORT Dy-' I~LI, I¥1D, ~31, I¥1L,. V PROPOSAL: Request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for re.zoning of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural'Estate District, A-2, to Single Family Residehtial District, RSF; and subdivision with a variance for a private street of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, into 5 lots, Powers Circle. LOCATION: 8800 Powers Boulevard, Lot 2, Block 1,.Hillside Oaks APPLICANT: Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 448-4844 LtJ PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Large Lot ACREAGE: 3.72 acres DENSITY: 1.34 gross; 1.5 net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density and rezoning of LOt 2, BlOCk 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate, A-2, to Single Family Residential; RSF, to permit the subdivision of LOt 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, with a Variance to permit a private street creating 5 lots for a development known as Powers Circle. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to P UD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. '~ Blvd (C.R. I~B) Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 2 The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This item previously appeared before the Planning Commission on March 18, 2003 as a six lot subdivision. The project was tabled to permit the applicant to revise the plans. The issues the Planning Commission wanted addressed were: · Reduce the number of lots by one, to five total. · Define the bluff area to determine whether Lot 5, formerly Lot 6, is developable. · Address drainage issues. · Reduce the cul-de-sac length. · Reduce the private street length · Reduce the number of conditions of approval The Planning Commission minutes form March 18th have been attached for your review. Staff has prepared a new report based on the revisions to the plan. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment from Residential Large LOt to Residential Low Density and rezoning of LOt 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate, A-2, to Single Family Residential, RSF, to permit the subdivision of LOt 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, with a variance to permit a private street creating 5 lots for a development known as Powers Circle. As part of the 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, this parcel as well as the rest of Hillside Oaks subdivision was guided for Residential Low Density. After Hillside Oaks final plat was approved and in exchange for MUSA expansion elsewhere, this property 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. This property and the lot to the north are separate from the balance of the Hillside Oaks development and are served via a shared driveway off Powers Boulevard. Low Density Residential Development in the Lake Susan Hills PUD surrounds 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. Redevelopment of the properties would assist in paying for these public improvements. Redevelopment of these parcels would use existing public facilities, rather than requiring the extension of additional trunk sewer and water lines. Powers Boulevard is a collector roadway and will continue to carry high volumes of traffic. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 3 The applicant is providing access for the future redevelopment of the property to the north. All of the proposed public street and right-of-way have been contained on the applicant's property. In addition, the development will provide service stubs for the connection of the property to the north to city sewer and water services. The applicant previously had submitted a subdivision request that included six lots. The lot areas and required lot width did not all comply with the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant reduce the length of the cul-de-sac to create a larger setback area for the house west of the cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission also directed that the applicant provide the bluff area and required setbacks information on the plans for review. The comprehensive plan policies state: Encourage low density residential development in 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. This site serves as a transition area between different densities of low density residential, with low density residential development all around the site. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. Development should occur in areas where services are available before extending services to new areas. 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. 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 proposed development will provide a conservation easement over the steep slopes and trees. The City of Chanhassen is committed to providing a variety of housing styles with housing available for people of all income levels. The City of Chanhassen supports a balanced housing supply including the provision of estate type homes. Staff is recommending approval of the Land Use Map Amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the staff report. Staff concurs with the 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan which guided this parcel as well as the rest of Hillside Oaks subdivision for Residential - Low Density. As part of the Hillside Oaks subdivision, it was envisioned that when urban services became available, this property would redevelop. While staff would prefer that both lots redevelop simultaneously, we are not always presented with that opportunity. BACKGROUND February 1972. The property was zoned R-lA, Agricultural Residence District as part of the original city zoning. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 4 July 1980. The property was granted preliminary approval for a Planned 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 A-2, 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, due to the existing development of the property. Summer, 1997. Property owners for Lots 1 and 2 brought in preliminary plat for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks including a land use map amendment and rezoning to single family residential. The 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. 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. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 5 March 18, 2003, the applicant presented a six lot subdivision of the property. Since one of the lots did not comply with the RSF district regulations, the applicant was directed to revise the plan. The subdivision currently being reviewed includes this reduction to five lots with shortening of both the public and private streets. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Sections 20-41 through 20-45, Amendments Section 20-571 through 20-576 Agricultural Estate district regulations Section 20-611 through 20-616, RSF district regulations Section 20-1400 through 20-1407, Bluff Protection SUBDIVISION REVIEW LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Staff has approximated tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Powers Circle development. They are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 3.7 ac or 162,205 SF 1.07 ac or 46,475 SF 29% 30% or 48,662 SF 20% or 31,868 SF The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore, the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 16,794 SF 1.2 20,153 SF 19 trees Buffer yard plantings are required along Powers Boulevard as follows: East property line - buffer yard B Required 6 overstory 13 understory 18 shrubs IProposed 0 overstory 16 understory 0 shrubs Staff recommends that the developer provide evergreens at the south end of the proposed private street to help screening of headlights for the property to the south. Trees shall be planted in a staggered pattern every 15 feet along the length of the turn-around. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 6 A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacement and buffer yard plantings. All plants must meet minimum size requirements. WETLANDS There are no wetlands on this site. BLUFFS Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) on Lots 3, 4 and 5. The toe of the bluff which varies is generally at the 922 contour and the top generally at the 950 contour. The toe and top of the bluff change elevations as the slope visually changes. These areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top, toe or side of a bluff). The bluff areas and corresponding 30-foot setbacks should be shown on the grading plan. While the bluff area constrains development of Lot 5, it does permit a significant buildable area. The building width at the front setback line could be in excess of 60 feet in width. The buildable envelope narrows at the rear conservation easement to 40 foot in width, approximately 105 back from where the house building pad is shown on the plans. It should be noted that the preliminary plat sheet incorrectly shows a bluff setback line on Lots 3 and 5. The end of the bluff on Lot 5 ends at the 922 contour so the bluff setback bends to the south following the bottom of the bluff. The 30 foot bluff setback line does not correspond to the actual bluff setback on Lot 3. The bluff setback line on Lot 3 was shown 30 feet from the 916 contour. However, in this area, the toe of the bluff jumps from the 910 contour, up to the 922 contour, then moves back down to the 916 contour on the north property line SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) As part of the Powers Boulevard Construction project, the City built water quantity and water quality ponds to service this area under ultimate development conditions. The proposed project should not alter existing overland storm water drainage patterns or rates. Particular attention should be paid to maintaining the storm water drainage patterns and rates on Lot 4 and ensuring there is adequate infrastructure and/or area to accommodate the runoff coming down the ravines onto that property. Water Quality Fees The SWMP established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication is equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The water quality charge for single-family resident developments Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 7 is $949 per acre. area of 3.7 acres. SWMP fees for this proposed development are based on a total developable land Therefore, the applicant is required to pay $3,511 in water quality fees. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,348 per developable acre. The total net area of the property is 3.7 acres. Therefore, the water quantity connection charge is $8,688. The total SWMP fees of $12,199 are due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. SWMP Credits Because the City incorporated the storm water volumes resulting from the ultimate development of this site into the Powers Boulevard Construction project, the project is not eligible for SWMP credits. OTHER AGENCIES The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM Onsite utilities. The existing well may continue to be used on future Lot 5 after City utilities are provided to the lot. A licensed well abandonment contractor must abandon the well if its use is discontinued. The existing ISTS (individual sewage treatment system) must remain undisturbed until the existing home is connected to City sewer. The system should be located and protected before site grading begins. The septic tank for the ISTS must be properly abandoned by a licensed ISTS pumper. Abandonment includes pumping, removing or destroying the tank and filling the excavation or the destroyed tank. Proof of abandonment must be furnished to the Inspections Division before issuance of any building permits in the subdivision. Soils Report. Before building permits can be issued a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required. The soils report should include lot-by -lot tabulations for land development with controlled earthwork prepared according to HUD Data Sheet 79G. This information is required in order to be able to review building plans. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 8 Addressing. The house directly to the north of the proposed subdivision will be accessed from Powers Circle. This new driveway location will require an address change for that home. The existing home within the proposed subdivision will also require an address change. PARK AND RECREATION The subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks results in an increased demand on City park and trail services. The four new homes will be required to pay full park fees as a condition of the subdivision (4 x $2,400). The existing home is exempt from this requirement. The project site lies within the park service areas of Power Hill Park, Prairie Knoll Park and Lake Susan Park Preserve. This property connects directly to the City's trail system at Powers Boulevard. No other park and recreation conditions apply. GRADING Approximately one-half of the site is proposed to be graded for the house pads and street layout. The existing topography contains a very steep, partially wooded slope along the westerly portion of the site. The westerly portion of the site contains a variety of trees, shrubs and conifers. In addition, two drainage ravines also intersect the parcel on this west slope. While previous upstream development has decreased the amount of runoff that flows through the ravines, they still act as a conduit to neighborhood drainage and need to be preserved. In an attempt to preserve the drainage ravines, the applicant has proposed drainage and utility easements over the ravines in Lots 3 and 4. Staff believes this is a good way to protect the ravines and would only recommend that the easement for the northern ravine be extended through Lot 3 to the private street. Lot 5 is proposed to be "custom graded." As such, a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan will be required at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval. The rear house pad elevation for Lots 3 and 5 must be shown on the grading plan as well. This development is adjacent to Powers Boulevard (County Road 17), which is listed as a collector street in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. According to City Code, the development will require screening of the adjacent lots from Powers Boulevard. The applicant has proposed a combination of landscaping and separated berms to accomplish the screening. The separated berms will provide openings for the runoff to drain out to Powers Boulevard as it does today. Staff has some concerns with the berming and screening in the rear yard area of Lot 1. The berm, which is meant to screen the rear of the house from Powers Boulevard, does not extend far enough south to screen any of the rear house pad. Staff is recommending that the berm be extended, approximately 40 feet, to the south and that the berm be raised to an elevation of 910 at the northeast comer of the lot. In addition, there should be a minimum of 20-feet off the rear Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 9 house pad with a maximum slope of 10:1. This ensures that the future homeowner will get a usable backyard area and more screening from Powers Boulevard. It appears that fill material will need to be imported to construct the lots and streets. The applicant and/or contractor must supply the City Engineer with a haul route for review and approval prior to grading activities commencing. The applicant should be aware that any grading outside of the property limits will require a temporary easement. DRAINAGE The existing site drains from west to east onto Powers Boulevard where an existing storm drainage system collects stormwater runoff and carries it north to a stormwater quality pond for pretreatment prior to discharging into a downstream wetland. The pond has been sized for development of this site and, as such, no on-site pond will be required for this development. The parcel was not assessed for any storm drainage improvements with the Powers Boulevard project and therefore will be responsible for surface water management fees. The plans propose two catch basins to convey stormwater runoff from Powers Circle and the property to the north into the existing drainage system in Powers Boulevard. There are also three proposed structures within the site to convey the stormwater from the northern ravine, private street, and a large portion of the lots to Powers Boulevard. In addition, storm drainage calculations for a 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event must be submitted for review and approval along with a drainage area map. No increase in off-site runoff rates to the south will be allowed. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Silt fence is shown along the majority of the site perimeter where stormwater and sediment can run off the site. A 75-foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the proposed street access off of Powers Boulevard. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around any and all trees to be saved. UTILITIES There is an existing home on the site which utilizes a well and septic system. Upon installation of the public utilities, the existing house will be required to abandon the septic tank and connect to the public sanitary sewer. The applicant will have the option of doing the same with the existing well. In the meantime, the existing septic and well locations need to be shown on the plans so they can be protected during construction. The site has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the installation of the existing stubs to the site. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The connection charges will be applied toward the first building permit that is pulled for the site. The property is Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 10 also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. In addition, since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,100 per unit and a sub-trunk charge of $902 per unit will be due on each lot. These charges are collected prior to each building permit issuance. In conjunction with the Powers Boulevard project municipal sewer and water service was extended to serve this parcel and the one to the north. An 8-inch sewer line has been extended out along the northerly lot line of the site from Powers Boulevard. The plans propose on extending the sanitary line into the site and then going south to serve the lots. Staff is recommending that the southern most sanitary sewer manhole (#1) be moved within the paved portion of the private street. This will provide easier maintenance access for City utility workers. A 6-inch watermain is also proposed to be extended into the site along Powers Circle and then along the private street. The watermain must be extended to within five feet of the south property line for future looping with the property to the south. The applicant has included public sanitary sewer and water main stubs off of the cul-de-sac for future development of the property to the north. Upon installation of these utilities, the house to the north will be within 150 feet of the sanitary sewer. As per City Code Section 19-41 (a), this house will then be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system within twelve months of the sewer becoming available. Since all of the lots will have a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less, in-home pressure reducing water valves will be required on all lots. Utilities along the private street will need to have a drainage and utility easement dedicated over them. The minimum width will be 30-feet depending on the utility depth. The interior site storm sewer will also need to have a minimum 20-foot wide easement dedicated over it. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and approval by the City Council at time of final plat consideration. Since the utilities and part of the street improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agency will be required, including but not limited to: Watershed District, MPCA, Dept. of Health, Carver County, etc. STREETS Access to the site is proposed by both a public street (Powers Circle) and a private street to serve up to four of the lots (1, 2, 3 and 4). Based on the surrounding parcels, there appears to be no need to extend a public street to the south. The adjacent parcel has access from Oakside Circle immediately south of the development. The parcel to the north will have access from Powers Circle. The plans propose to construct a new driveway entrance off of Powers Circle for the parcel to the north. The preliminary plat also shows a future street access to the north. Staff is recommending that this street be stubbed out to the property line and constructed with this project. Staff would also recommend that the driveway entrance be revised to come off of the new stub street. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 11 The public street width and fight-of-way for Powers Circle per City ordinance must be 31-feet back-to-back within a 60-foot wide fight-of-way. The plans comply with each of these requirements. However, the plans show a triangular area in the northwest comer of Powers Circle. This area should be incorporated in Lot 5, not as part of the fight-of-way. Also, the City's maximum street grade is 7%. There is a portion of Powers Circle on the grading plan that is greater than 7%. This section will have to be revised to comply with the 7% maximum. The private street must be paved to a minimum width of 20-feet and built to a 7-ton design. A turnaround area, acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal, must be provided along the private street. The private street must be located within a 30~foot wide private easement and dedicated to the benefiting property owners. Access to the site from Powers Boulevard does have a fight turn lane provided. Therefore, no additional turn lanes will be necessary. As a result of this project, both existing homes will be required to change addresses to correspond to the new street name. COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (sq. ft.) Frontage (ft.) Depth (ft.) Setbacks (ft.): front, rear, sides Code 15,000 90, 100 if 125 30, 30, 10 accessed via a private street Lot 1 21,041 120 152 30, *, 10 Lot 2 23,147 150 161 30, 30, 10 Lot 3 41,845 150 271 30, 30, 10 @ Lot 4 36,499 63 # 260 30, 30, 10 @ Lot 5 22,113 104 202 30, 30, 10 @ ROW 16,650 Total 162,205 * Comer lot front setback on street sides and side yard setbacks on other two sides @ = conservation easement proposed over portion of property. # Exc~ds 90 feet at the building setback line. REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The existing land use designation of the property is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been developed with single homes on larger lots. The parcel abuts a collector roadway. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. The community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development of this site for single family homes on half acre or larger lots would be consistent with surrounding development. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 12 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The proposed subdivision meets all minimum ordinance requirements for RSF zoned properties. o 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 and limitation of the grading area will reduce the developments impacts on natural features and abutting property. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. . The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 13 d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. VARIANCE FINDINGS WITHIN SUBDIVISONS The city may grant a variance from the regulations of the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street preserves significant site features. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties due to the unique site features. . The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS (1) (2) (3) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city considered the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of bluffs. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources in this instance site topography and wooded area. REZONING FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 14 3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential - Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks." "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks." "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street for the Powers Circle Addition subject to the following conditions: o o o The developer shall pay the City applicable GIS and recording fees. A preservation easement shall be recorded over the westerly portion of the site to preserve topography and trees. This easement shall include land west of a line beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 3, 80 feet east of the westerly property line, to a point on the north property line of Lot 3, 180 ft. east of the westerly property line; and west of a line beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 4, 180 feet east of the westerly property line, to a point on the north property line of Lot 4, 50 feet east of the westerly property line; and west of a line beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 5, 50 feet east of the westerly property line, to a point on the north property line of Lot 5, 50 feet east of the westerly property line, there terminating. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters (Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1). Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 15 , There will be no parking allowed along one side of the new proposed road. Fire lane signs will be installed by the developer per requirements set forth by Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904-1 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. o No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must either be removed from site or chipped. o The proposed new driveway extending south from the cul-de-sac is in excess of 150 feet. Per 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4, dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Exception: When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of the turn around may be modified by the Fire Department. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for more information regarding the exception. o The applicant shall submit a separate landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Each lot is required to have a minimum of three overstory, deciduous trees. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. No one species may account for more than one-third of the total required. Be Buffer yard plantings must meet minimum requirements: 6 overstory, 13 understory, and 18 shrubs. o All areas with trees outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. 10. All bluff areas shall be preserved. All structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top, toe or side of a bluff). The bluff areas and corresponding 30-foot setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. 11. The proposed project shall not alter existing overland storm water drainage patterns or rates. Particular attention shall be paid to maintaining the storm water drainage patterns and rates on Lot 3 and ensuring there is adequate infrastructure and/or area to accommodate the runoff coming down the ravines onto that property. 12. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 3.7 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,511; the water quantity fees are approximately $8,688. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $12,199. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 16 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Existing well and septic site shall be protected during construction and properly abandoned in accordance with City Code and the Minnesota Department of Health once the sewer and water lines become operational and are accepted by the City. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Retaining walls over 4' high require a permit and must be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. The private street must be paved to a minimum width of 20-feet and built to a 7-ton design. A turnaround area, acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal, must be provided at the southerly end of the private street. The private street must be located within a 30-foot wide private easement and dedicated to the benefiting property owners. Provide a copy of a final soils report for all building pads. The report should include 79G lot-by-lot tabulations. The developer shall pay full park fees for four lots pursuant to city ordinance at the time of final plat recording. Lot 1, shall maintain a 30 foot minimum setback from the west property line Lot 5 shall be designated as a "custom graded" lot. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City at time of building permit application for review and approval. The applicant and/or contractor shall supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route for review and approval prior to site grading. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. The plans shall be revised as follows: i) Show the rear house pad elevations for Lot 3 and 5. ii) Extend the berm in Lot 1, approximately 40 feet, to the south and raise the elevation to a high of 910. iii) Add a benchmark and legend to the plans. The legend should define all of the different line types, utilities, contours, etc. iv) Move sanitary sewer manhole (4/1) to within the paved portion of the private street. v) Extend the watermain to within five feet of the south property line of the site. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 17 vi) Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. The developer shall supply the City Engineer with storm drainage calculations for a 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour storm event for review and approval along with a drainage area map. There shall be no increase in off-site runoff rates to the south. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for City Council approval at time of final plat consideration. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or a cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements and compliance with the Conditions of Approval. All disturbed areas as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The developer shall include a drain tile system behind the curb to convey sump pump discharge from the units not adjacent to ponds and/or wetlands. This includes the private street. Any offsite grading will require a temporary easement. The site has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the installation of the existing stubs to the site. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The connection charges will be applied toward the first building permit that is pulled for the site. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. In addition, since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,100 per unit and a sub-trunk charge of $902 per unit will be due on each lot. These charges are collected prior to each building permit issuance. Due to the low floor elevation of the proposed lots, in-home pressure reducing water valves will be required on all lots with a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less. Utilities along the private street will need to have a drainage and utility easement dedicated over them. The minimum width will be 30 feet depending on the utility depth. As per City Code Section 19-41 (a), the house to the north will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer within twelve months of the sewer becoming available. Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 18 35. The interior site storm sewer will need to have a minimum 20-foot wide easement dedicated over it. 36. The plans show a triangular area in the northwest comer of Powers Circle. This area shall be incorporated in Lot 5, not as part of the fight-of-way. 37. There is a portion of Powers Circle on the grading plan that is greater than 7%. This section must be revised to comply with the 7% maximum grade requirement. 38. A new street shall be stubbed out to the north property line and constructed with this project. The existing driveway for the property to the north shall be revised to come off of the new stub street. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the modifications, including the relocation of the fire hydrant and street light pole at the entrance to the site." ATTACHMENTS: o 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat Reduced Copy of Preliminary Utility Plan Reduced Copy of Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Letter from Robert Generous to Arild Rossavik dated 3/20/03 Memo from Arild Rossavik to Bob Generous dated 3/19/03 Planning Commission Minutes from March 18, 2003 Letter from Steve and Kristi Buan to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 3/18/03 Memo from Don Coban to Bob Generous dated 3/12/03 Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 3/10/03 Letter from Arild Rossavik to Chanhassen City Staff dated 2/14/03 Letter from Arild Rossavik to Affected Neighbors dated 2/13/03 CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd.) Improvement Assessment Roll B Area Land Use Map Letter from Arild Rossavik to Chanhassen City Staff dated 2/12/03 Letter from Arild Rossavik to Chanhassen Mayor and City Council dated 1/12/03 Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HE--PIN 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 Adld 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 o 2. 3. 4. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Large Lot. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) c) Zoning Ordinance subject to the revisions of the plat recommended by staff. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. The proposed use does conform to all performance standards contained in the Powers Circle May 5, 2003 Page 20 d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of 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. 6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure o The planning report #97-12 Sub. dated May 6, 2003, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION 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 ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman Secretary g:\plan\bgXdevelopment review~powers circle 2003 revised.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB ! 2 2O03 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 'ADDRESS: OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim USe Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* . V" Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* % .. Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNARNV AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with-the application. '-~._Q~ ~.z.~.. C~ ~.~-..~ "~.o- Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size ,folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy of .~ transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION (~ ~ O O LEGAL DESCRIPTION L. ~ TOTAL ACR EAG E WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING YES ~ NO REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION- REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FORTHIS REQUEST ~ ~ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed an~ must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and 'procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that i am responsible for complying with. all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my.name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase' agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120-days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on Date Date Fee Pai~ [ Q" ~ ~ R~eipt No. B ~ 3 ~ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. m°oo . §.~P'l, irl--a#td\£H$--NV-ld~.6[Ol.~6Z~'~:bl (90'!;1.) :3Y'tVN ]'IL:I )ISIQ ~dOl:l.- £00~ '0[ uop :]I.VQ lO-Id 6A'.P'LOO--~IMcI"~J-HS-NV'IcI~.61,OI-g6L£~:~I (90'cjL) ~'IYN ~FIEI ){SlO uJoB~:~ £00~ ';~1- qe:l :33.¥0 lO-Id CITYOF FO B3:~: !47 {? '?'assert. I.,~i! 55317 Administration r,'~, ~.. ~'~ ".z,-'/. ,100 Fax: 952.227.1 i 10 Building Inspections ......... 2f.11Su c-.,. c~2 '~2711a0 ~ 5,,. ~'~ .~- .... Engineering :~," ?[2 ~2'7 ii75 Finance Park & Recreation :-:-'(-!' 7, Planning & Natural Resources Public Works _ · ' i[~i~ :!::_ Senior Center Web Site March 20, 2003 Mr. Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Powers Circle Dear Mr. Rossavik: Due to the need for revisions to the plan based on the elimination of one lot, revision of lot lines, change in building pad locations, change in private street turn-around location, shortening of the cul-de-sac, eliminating the retaining wall, review of drainage and grading issues and the need for surveying of the bluff, the city will be unable to complete the development review process within 60 days of the original submittal (submitted February 13, 2003). We are therefore notifying you that the city will be taking up to an additional 60 days to complete the development review for the project, which would extend the review period to June 13, 2003. Based on our discussion yesterday and your ability to have the revised plans submitted to the city by April 1, 2003, the project has been tentatively re- scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2003. If acted upon by the Planning Commission, it would be sent to the City Council May 12, 2003. If you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 227-1131. Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner Page 1 of 1 Generous, Bob From: Arild Rossavik[ar@arild.us] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:25 AM To: Bob Generous Subject: Majority Issue Ref Subdivision 8800 Powers Blvd Dear Bob. The majority issue was raised yesterday by the Planning Commission members and I would just like to make some additional comments on this issue. The neighbors to the south is served by an existing Cull De Sac and a possible rezoning and subdivision served without the construction cost and giving up of land for a Cull De Sac which is required on my side there could be Also I feel that 8800 powers Blvd is 3.78 acres compared to 2.5 acres for 8750 Powers Blvd and is the majority land owner and the only contributor of the necessary land required for the Cull De Sac and the initial construction cost which will serve and benefit both properties. March 19. 2003 Sincerely Arild Rossavik 3/19/2003 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Craig, any other information? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'd like to just highlight the point I made earlier that I believe it's a unique property insofar as that it really truly does not have any street frontage. And not in order to justify this particular signage but possibly something to address with respect to our signage statute and ordinances in the future. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. This item goes to City Council on the 14th of April, and Bob you're waving your hand over there. What can I do for you? Generous: Chair, just one point of clarification. You said tenant and Giant Panda but you really mean for this unit. The next person could have... Blackowiak: For the specific south unit. I mean the southern most tenant. Claybaugh: End cap. Blackowiak: Yeah, southern end cap, whatever we want to call it. And you know we could actually even say, I don't even have the specific address. Are they 463 West 79m? Giant Panda, okay. So we could specify that this applies to the property at 463 West 79th, further defined as the southern most unit. Okay? Clear enough. Alright, so that's our, those are our notes to council. Thank you for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A-2~ TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF~ AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT Iv BLOCK 1~ HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 6 LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATE STREET LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, ARILD ROSSAVIK, POWERS CIRCLE. Public Present: Name Address Arild Rossavik Mark Kelly George & Jackie Bizek Greg Kahler Cheryl Doty Steve & Kristi Buan Jayme Lee 8800 Powers Boulevard 351 Second Street, Excelsior 8750 Powers Boulevard 8742 Flamingo Drive 8736 Flamingo Drive 8740 Flamingo Drive 1380 Oakside Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners. Uli, would you like to start? Sacchet: Yeah I have, I'd just, a lot of few questions. I've still got 16 left because I want to do this real quick. First of all the time line. When was this re-guided from low density to estate? Do you have a time for that? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: In 1984. Sacchet: '84. And so even when it was re-guided to be estate type development, it was considered that it would be developed for larger lots. Can you define larger lots? Generous: Well I would think over the minimum. Half acre to acre. Sacchet: But definitely subdivide it into multiple small lots. So division has been consistently that this property would be subdivided into further lots, but not necessarily as small as possible? Generous: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. Additionally the city did extend the utilities, sanitary sewer service down to across the street from this property. There is a lift station in place to accommodate suburban style development. Sacchet: So not only was it envisioned, it was actually not only planned for it was even action in investment made by the City for, in preparation for that to happen. So this is not an unexpected event? Okay. Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: On page 2 you're talking about, when you talk about combining those two lots that front on Powers. You say the turn around for the private street could be moved to the north, meaning it would have to go as far down, it could be shorter? Generous: The short, and that's exactly... Sacchet: Could be shorter, okay. Slagle: Can you show us Bob? Generous: Well on the plans they show it going all the way to the south property line for a hammer head turnaround. We're suggesting that it be provided where the 4 lot line comers come together. Sacchet: Now if we only have 2 lots on the east side, wouldn't that allow also for the public street, the cul-de-sac to be shorter? The turnaround be closer to Powers, and therefore the building pad on Lot 6 to be moved out of the slope further down into the flatter area. Generous: Sure, that would work. Sacchet: That would be a possibility, right? Excellent. Now you're talking that at one point you were making a comment that this is a transition area between different densities of low density residential. Do you feel that it is accommodated with having this in 5 lots? I mean it's still pretty standard low density. Can it be considered transitional? Generous: Well you have the large buffer area on the north and yes it could be. Sacchet: Could be with a little imagination. On page 5 you're talking about the lot number 4 building pad being moved 20 to 30 feet to the south to give more space for the easement to the north of the ravine. 20 or 30 feet, is it possible to do 30 or do you want 20 or do we say 20 to 30 and we know we certainly won't get more than 20 or what's the reasoning? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: Well the problem shows up on the grading plan. If you look at it, and it's about, it's located 10 feet to the side property line. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: If you look at the preliminary plat they've shifted it over in the location that we think is more. Sacchet: So it's closer. Now wouldn't it be also the case that if the private street doesn't have to be as long, that there is more room to maneuver there or possibly even the lot line between Lot 3 and 4 could be a little bit moved so that the lot, building space on Lot 4 could be moved further out from the ravine? Generous: This lot line shifted to the east? Sacchet: Like if the lot line between 3 and 4 would be more at a right angle. Right now it's not. Generous: That's possible, except for you're creating a smaller lot adjacent to the roadway. Sacchet: Well not necessarily because we're combining 3 lots into 2. Generous: But they're narrower. Sacchet: It'd be the narrowness, alright. That's a concern. The berming. Now all the berming is going to be different if you combine these 2 lots so that all will have to revised. Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: You're talking about the grades will have to be revised to remove the retaining wall to the north, so that there's a significant amount of change in grading that would have to be taking place there? Some, I guess that's more a Matt question. Saam: Some, yeah. I don't know about if... Sacchet: Not too significant but some. Saam: ...right word. Just revise it to delete the wall. Sacchet: Alright. You also make the comment that Lot 3 appears to trap water. That's also something that would have to be corrected through grading, correct? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, at the southeast corner of the lot. Sacchet: Southeast, okay. Saam: So again it's not a huge change but it would have to be revised. Sacchet: Okay. The neighbor to the north would be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system within 12 months. Saam: Correct. That's per city code. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any indication that the neighbor to the north would like that? Saam: No, I don't but maybe he's here tonight. Sacchet: Maybe we hear. Yeah, he's here so we hear from him. Same would apply to revising the driveway to connect to the cul-de-sac which sure would make sense. Now here's a technical question for you Matt. On page 8 in the middle it talks about a 31 foot wide face to face street where it's reduced to 31 feet back to back. Could you explain what that means? Saam: Sure. The face to face and back to back designation is to the curb, so when we say back to back, it' s the back edge of the concrete curb to the back edge of the opposite concrete curb. And what they had proposed was a 30 foot wide street face to face which would be the face of the curb. Sacchet: Including. Saam: So if you go 31 foot wide face to face, you still have to account for the bid of the concrete curb and I think it's 6 inches for the back part. So we're saying decrease that. It's essentially a one foot difference. Sacchet: Okay. That explains that very well, thank you. Bob, could you show us the contour of the bluff? There's a statement here that says the toe of the bluff is at the 960 contour line, and we're requiring a 30 foot setback. Could you point out where we are there? Generous: Well that's what we tried to highlight. The 916 contour comes in here. Sacchet: Right. Generous: And then it wraps around and the bluff actually ends for a period inbetween and then picks up over on this side at the 916 contour which comes in right through the conservation easement line. Sacchet: Now this is probably a Saam question. Matt Saam question. On page 10, talking about sewage treatment system, there's a statement in the report that says the existing well may continue to be used on future Lot 5, but that's a contradiction to actually 2 conditions. Condition 15 and 27 both state that the well, as well as the individual sewage treatment system is going to have to be abandoned. Are we saying they could continue or are we, the condition say obviously they have to abandon. Saam: Yeah. Actually the city code currently does not require for wells to be abandoned if you're, if the house is within like 150 feet as with the sewer code. What we would recommend I guess to the applicant that they, this house does connect to city water. Sacchet: So we want to have the condition that there would... Saam: Yes, we would like to yeah. Sacchet: The compliance table on page 11, I assume that most of that would change with changing it to 5 lots versus 6. Is that certainly would change quite a bit, wouldn't it? Generous: Well Lot 1 and 2. Sacchet: 2 and 3. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Generous: One is going away, yes. Sacchet: Yeah, 2 and 3 and possibly some on the other ones. The more substantial question. We're talking about the comprehensive plan. Asking for natural features and so forth to be preserved, but then in Finding number 2 we say the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. Could you help me out because I seem to not be totally clear. Generous: What the revisions to the plan to pull it down the bluff... Sacchet: Okay, so we can mitigate sufficiently that we feel that staff feels it's sufficiently in line. Alright. And one more question. Believe it or not, this is number 16. What's a majority of two? It's not a trick question because it looks like in this neighborhood, specifically this development area, we're talking about 2 parcels. We're talking about 2 owners and the ordinance says a majority of residents in the neighborhood should agree to development. Now here we have a very unique situation. We're talking about a majority of 2, which by deFmition would be 2 because 1 is not a majority of 2. So I' 11 come back to that one in my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I'm not going to go after him. Blackowiak: Okay, Steve. Lillehaug: I have a question that kind of hits on a question that, a letter that was presented here by Mr. and Mrs. Coban, and that is, what has changed from the previous application to now? And I'm not basing any decisions that I'm making on that but I am curious. Has there been anything that's changed other than a revision to these plans? Generous: Part of it was the discussion regarding the City's infrastructure improvement down there. The, what do we call them? Our superintendent of utilities says that we have a pump station that they actually have to go down and pump water in so that we use it. So it doesn't go bad. So the City did make that investment in there. There was an expectation that this area would develop. Lillehaug: That's really not a change from previous application though. Is that... Generous: Well, that's. Lillehaug: That's your interpretation, okay. Let me get to a more specific question here. And this one's tough for me. Could you point, pull up the bluff diagram there. So there's an area inbetween there that you specifically don't consider a bluff, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: I did my own calculations and I'm looking specifically for Lot 6, the south line. If I look at those elevations, right on that south lot line, I get an elevation change from 922 elevation to 948 elevation. It's a 26 foot elevation difference. The horizontal distance I measure to be 79 feet. So this equates to a 32.9 percent grade. So would you consider, based on my calculations, would you consider that to be a bluff?. Generous: If it's 32 percent, sure. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: Okay. So based on those calculations. Generous: The line would have to shift. Lillehaug: That would have to change. And maybe, I'm not sure who made the bluff area map here but is, has someone checked that? Am I in the wrong? Matt, do you have capabilities of checking that right now? Saam: Yeah, I can sure check it. Lillehaug: And it specifically again it was on the south lot line of Lot 6. Saam: Yeah, I'm getting the same thing you are. 80 feet and then the drop is about, well it's over 25 feet. Lillehaug: So based, okay. Blackowiak: So what you're saying is there's another bluff. Generous: However the problem is you need to determine what the toe and the top are. Those numbers change as you go across. Lillehaug: And that's my question. Is this accurately reflecting the bluff area? Because in my mind it's not. In my mind it ends about halfway. Halfway through on Lot 6, according to my calculations. On the north end of Lot 6 it doesn't appear that that's a bluff. But then further up beyond the existing house and the next lot up there, then there' s a bluff area. So it comes and goes. Generous: We could go out with the applicant and actually flag where we think the toe and the top would be and have them survey that and then they could make those exact calculations. This is based on these drawings and there are, because like I said it goes. Sometimes it goes across contours. Lillehaug: Yep, and that's tough in my mind and I'll wait with my comments I guess. A simple comment here, and I can't find it in the report but on Lot 3, Lot 2, in the report it indicates you want to provide about a 20 foot area there with a 1 to 10 slope. If we do this that's not really going to provide any berming. Would the city be acceptable to increasing that slope and maybe if I could fmd this in the report I could point it out. It's on page 5 at the bottom. Would staff agree that it'd be possibly more important to provide berming than providing really a flat slope... That's something I guess we can. Saam: Yeah, we can look at that. I looked at it 20 feet off the back pad of that Lot 2. You kind of come to the toe of that berm that they're showing. So to me, while that berm isn't that high, it is a berm so, unless you're looking for more of a 6 or 8 foot berm to really screen the roadway, then I agree that the 20 foot wouldn't be enough but. Lillehaug: I mean in actuality I don't think a one, based on that width and a 1 to 10 slope is basically no berm in there. Saam: Yeah. Well, we could look at that to see. Lillehaug: Sure. There's a lot of stuff here, just for the people who haven't seen this report. It's very extensive and I guess that will end my questions of staff. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Craig, why don't you jump in. Claybaugh: I guess I don't have any new questions to add, with what's already been asked. I'll hold my comments til later. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, questions? Slagle: A couple things. Quick clarification Bob. Again, Commissioner Lillehaug's question is what has changed from the last time we've seen this? Generous: Besides some revisions to the plan incorporating staff's comments, and our concern for a use of infrastructure. Slagle: Which is more of an awareness issue... Okay. Generous: One of our goals is to utilize existing utilities wherever possible. Slagle: Okay. Bob can I ask, would you say that it's fair to make an assumption there are few things that are not complete in this application with respect to the trees. With respect to, I don't know if there's been a determination on this retaining wall for the lot to the north. Track with me a little bit. You've got on page 6, this area for Lot 3 appears to trap water. Needs to be revised to ensure the stormwater. I mean I guess I'm just asking before I even get to the comprehensive plan rezoning, would you say there's a few things that we're missing? And maybe that's a Matt question. I mean would you term this as a complete application? Blackowiak: Loaded question. Saam: There are a lot of conditions. Have I seen more before though? Yeah. I mean have I seen less? Sure. So I guess it's kind of up to you guys to determine if you think more work should be done on this and then maybe brought back to you. I don't know. Slagle: Okay, fair enough. That's all I have right now. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I just have one question. Uli's comment about the majority of two. I thought that was funny because as I counted there are 7 homes in Hillside subdivision, is that correct? Generous: I believe so. Blackowiak: Okay so it's really not just this one and the property to the north. I mean we should really kind of be looking at all 7. Is that correct? Generous: If you want to call, yeah as part of the subdivision. Blackowiak: Okay. Because I was just curious because it talks about you know we want a majority of homeowners to move forward on rezoning. I just felt that in an existing area would be Hillside Oaks. In other words 7 homeowners. I'm on page 13 I guess. At the bottom. I'm on page 13 at the bottom. I'm just curious, I mean we're talking about 1 and 2. We're talking 1 homeowner and then a second homeowner to the north but as I view it, this is an entire neighborhood or an entire subdivision of 7 homes. I'm just curious if you concur to that. Concur with that. Generous: That the entire subdivision is 7 homes, yes. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Blackowiak: Yes, okay. Alright, that's my question. At this point we'd like the applicant or their designee to make a presentation, so please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mark Kelly: Good evening. My name is Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney. I'm here on behalf of Afild Rossavik, the applicant. This is a renewed application requesting a subdivision of 6 homes. We've seen the report of the city staff and we appreciate their comments on this matter. My client is of the opinion that their proposal to reduce the 3 frontage lots down to 2 is acceptable. As regards to the questions that the Chair just put to city staff regarding the approval of the neighborhood. This was originally developed as a 7 lot neighborhood but you're looking at the replatting and rezoning of 2 lots of that original plat and the others are not going to be changed. The question, the proposal to you is to allow this to go forward as a logical transition that the City has already made a determination and a huge investment and it stands unused. If this is approved, this is a logical transition. If you drive down Powers Boulevard you go from relatively, townhomes and higher density, duplexes and the like, and then this would suddenly jumps to these 2 large lot homes. They're very exposed. My client's home on, which would be retained as Lot 2, is highly exposed. It doesn't have the character of an A-2 development that you would find down along your bluff area along the river where those estates are quite sheltered and private. And clearly this will open up more housing opportunities in this relatively high traffic area. This is an arterial. It's going to connect with 312 shortly. This area doesn't lend itself to buffering of my client's home in turning it into any kind of private estate. And we're asking that the City acknowledge that and that this is a logical transition. The question has been posed what's new and the answer is, I think we're taking a fresh look at this. We' ve tried to answer the questions and concerns that were raised by the city staff the last time. We have put in, tried to answer the questions regarding bluff and setbacks. Proper construction of the cul-de- sac. Dealing with the engineering issues, many of the items that are enumerated in the city staff report are engineering issues that can be sorted out. Survey issues that can be verified to the city satisfaction. So we welcome questions that you might have, and look forward to some support in making this transition. We are not trying to make a change for the area to the south. We are not asking that you change the zoning of the area to the south. Those homes actually are benefited from more shelter than this property is, so there is a distinction between this land and the land to the south. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions of the applicant? Rich, I'll let you start. Slagle: I just had just a couple. Would it be in your opinion, if I may ask, the city talks about it's commitment to natural environment and I'm just asking would you consider your client's property be deemed highly environmental? Mark Kelly: Is it uniquely, a unique setting unlike any other in the city? No. Does it have some bluff in the westerly edge of it? Yes. Has that been protected? Yes. Can it be protected with adequate conservation easements and bluff control? Yes. It's typical in these plats. Is there a reason why you would then deny the improvement of the property? No. Slagle: Would you, and Matt I might need your help on this but would you be open to assisting in the survey of that bluff? Mark Kelly: Of course. We'd want to confirm that information. The concern that was raised by Mr. Lillehaug can be verified by engineering and survey. Slagle: Okay. And you're open to the 5 versus the 6. Mark Kelly: Yes. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle: Your client's house as it sits now, those lot lines will not change, is that correct? Mark Kelly: It would appear not. I think the adjustment is going to be between Lots 1 and 3, with Lot 2 evaporating. Slagle: And if I can ask your client have a issue, or would you have any issue with putting together the request for certain items that are not part of this, that being the tree preservation, so forth and so forth. Mark Kelly: Tree preservation is typical in a land development. That's not an issue. Slagle: Understand. Okay. That's all for me right now. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. You indicated that your client would be agreeable to reducing to 5 lots. Now I have a few more specific things. It seems like along with that it would make sense to shorten the cul-de- sac closer to Powers Boulevard. Mark Kelly: To shorten that distance? Sacchet: Yes, and therefore bring the building pad from Lot 6 off of the steep slope. Mark Kelly: We would prefer that. One of the challenges of modem engineering requirements is the, when you end up putting in a 60 foot radius cul-de-sac serving a very small area, it's problematic. It eats up a lot of land. We would probably prefer a flat out driveway arrangement, but this is what your code or engineers would dictate. Sacchet: Right. And shortening the private road I'm sure is in your interest too. Mark Kelly: That doesn't hurt them. Sacchet: Possibly revising the lot line between Lot 3 and 4 to be able to move the building pad further away from the ravine, should that be helpful? ~ Mark Kelly: I haven't tried to manipulate that as has been suggested here but perhaps engineering will suggest that this line tilt slightly. It would bring the. Sacchet: That's the idea, right. Mark Kelly: Bring this comer down. Maybe bring this comer up. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question, thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: Yes I do. There's 50 some conditions in here that staff has recommended. I assume that you've had a chance to review them all, you and your client, and my question would be, are you acceptable to all of the conditions? Mark Kelly: We believe most of these are engineering issues rather than conditions that make our proposal undoable so this is not an issue for us at this time. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Lillehaug: So what you're saying is you are acceptable to all 50 conditions and their sub-conditions? Mark Kelly: Yes I believe so, yeah. Lillehaug: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay Craig, any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Maybe staff could comment on this but I'm not sure how appropriate the question is, but to dove tail Commissioner Lillehaug's comment with respect to Lot number 6. If that in fact ends up expanding that bluff area, is there still sufficient square footage for that to be a viable buildable lot? Generous: Well that's what we'd have to determine. Claybaugh: Okay. Would it be appropriate to pose that hypothetical to the applicants? Blackowiak: You know I think that at this point we'd have to find out. I mean I wouldn't want to ask him to. Mark Kelly: We simply don't know at this time. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say, I don't think it's fair to ask you to speculate. Claybaugh: How does that affect our review of this particular application at this time, I guess is the question. Generous: If they could not comply with the ordinance and the lot's undevelopable and they can't have it or they would need a variance. Claybaugh: Okay, would it be appropriate to ask the applicant's representative if that would be a make or break deal? Mark Kelly: We don't know that at this time. Blackowiak: I think what he's getting at is that, I think we have to determine the bluff survey, and then move from there. I don't think we. Let's not speculate. Claybaugh: Yeah, it's a little dicey so, okay. Sacchet: We don't know. Claybaugh: Alright. Blackowiak: We just don't know. Claybaugh: I don't have anything further to add to that, thanks. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you very much. This item is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 George Bizek: Thank you for your time. My name is George Bizek. I live at 8750 Powers Boulevard. The lot just to the north of this proposed development. I've lived there for 17 years. I bought the lot originally. Built the house there. And I, at the bottom of the hill there's only one curb cut and both driveways are serviced by this single curb cut right now. It's a shared adjoining driveway so. I was told that that would not change when we bought the lot for the County wouldn't allow another curb cut. Everything's down there. Hydrants, electrical boxes, street lights. I've seen Mr. Rossavik's proposals many times before and this will be the third time, and I don't see much change. It was decided at the last meeting that it had to have been a shared effort for both of us to agree to do this, which would be two. I just think that this would be a detriment to my property. It would be leaving my land out to be developed properly at a later date. It should be done at the same time. Both these lots, and that's basically what was decided at the last meeting. If you'll go out there and you look at Lot 6, I can't believe they would even consider it as a buildable lot. It is so steep. It's adjoining a building on my property and it's going to affect the drainage on my existing building. Mr. Rossavik's attorney says it won't impact the property to the south. What about the property to the north? You know it's going to impact me greatly. I don't know, are you going to start changing grade. If you look at this plot map to the north here, this drainage ditch, there's an unbelievable amount of water comes down that drainage ditch. Right now our driveways are approximately here and any sizable rain it's like a river running across there. Has that been considered? All the drainage from these lots and this way there's a ravine. I don't know. I think it's kind of ridiculous to be considering the wants of one for the needs of many. Thank you for your time. Blackowiak: Thank you. Jayme Lee: My name is Jayme Lee. I'm the neighbor to the south. 1380 Oakside Circle. My main objection to this is what it does for my property obviously, and the hardest thing I have is visualizing how the 3, or I guess they're going to have 2 houses real close to the road. It's really, I've tried to visualize that and it just does not look good. I think we need the open space, just as an aesthetic to the city. We've got the open area on the other side of the Powers Boulevard, and I really, I don't know. I've had a hard time seeing how that would add anything at all other than more houses. The other thing that I have is, it really does get very, very wet right here, back. I' ve had to even give up on trying to mow that area out in front of my house because it just becomes a real soggy bog. The lawnmower sinks it. It gets clogged up. I think even the city when they've gone to mow the parkway occasionally the lawn and tractor sinks in the mud there as well. So I'm definitely against it. I disagree that it would, that it does anything for making me feel more secure. I'd much prefer having the open area around so. I can't identify with the concept of actually wanting to have houses around here so thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve Buan: I'm Steve Buan, the property owner at 8740 Flamingo Drive, which is located right at, just immediately to the west of the property in question here. First I'd like to compliment Bob Generous on his excellent customer service skills in dealing with all my requests. Dealing with over the past 3 times this has been before the commission. He's been very helpful in explaining comprehensive plan versus this versus that and I think I'm starting to get it a little bit. So it's a good civic's lesson anyway. The one thing I think that's missing in the whole staff analysis is how this rezoning would impact the city park facilities that are located here. I think you've all seen various renditions of this, and the park immediately to the west of the property and extending to the south looks like about a 5 acre park is all natural upland area. It was left with the PUD development. They were actually, what we were told when we purchased there is that they were going to put lighted tennis courts in where the graded flat spot is located on this diagram here, but subsequent to it going in and different commissions and park and rec looking at it, they decided just leave that as a flat spot for open recreation. Put in a picnic gazebo and call this a vista view area. Looking off you can see Buck Hill ski area. You can see a long ways away, and just this afternoon I had the privilege to sit in my kitchen and look out to the southwest and see a red tail hawk soaring over the area. Over the trees. Swooping down into the grassland area and that's what it's intended for, and 32 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 that's what the park and rec, so there's no analysis of, and then that works with across the highway, across Powers Boulevard is a large marsh expanse area, which these are very complimentary. Right now this large lot area compliments that transition between those two and it allows wildlife to move back and forth. The parks are not hemmed in on all sides by residential single family or multi density or high density. We're allowing outlets, and I think somebody saw that when they were doing this. In the bigger scheme of things back in the 80's they saw what was going to happen and how things would work and that things are complimentary. And so I trust that they were thinking about that and so I think, and you have my letter on that and I outlined that. I outlined it last time and I'll outline it again. Another thing about Lot 6. Lot 6 has come up several times. I'm the immediate neighbor to that Lot 6. It's awfully steep from the back lot line down. Down to the current house. Very steep there. There's a small immature ravine right off the back of my property that water actually comes down these back yards and then enters into that immature ravine right now. I'm just afraid that in a 1993 type situation where we have Niagara Falls in this ravine, we have significant water coming down here, that poor Lot 6 is going to have water right in his dining room when they dig that house into that hillside. So with a tuck under style that they're talking about so, it just does not add to it. I'm not going to come up here and say I'm anti development. I believe it's possible to have additional homes down there, but the current configuration is not going to work, and for the reasons that have been, people have talked about. So premature development would be my opinion right now, and if the city's having problems with their lift station that they installed, that' s a risk the city took at the time. There' s no, if that was all it took to get development, then you'd have people beating your doors down to just run something in and then afterwards they say okay, now we'll develop because we did this. I think they can mothball the pump. I mean I think it's been done elsewhere. We're having problems with our pump down there. Let's mothball it so we don't have to go visit it so. That's all I've got. Blackowiak: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Mr. Lee. Jayme Lee: ...I forgot to say. If this development goes through this way, I'm wondering what the future might be when they want to develop my lot, should I sell and somebody wants to build on mine. And I was thinking that you know, perhaps if these lots were joined together maybe we all sold at the same time or whatever, it might turn out to be a better plan instead of doing this for this and then a different one to try to fit into my lot and so on, and I just thought about the wisdom of maybe instead of trying to squeeze it into individual lots, seeing what kind of a plan it would be if they were all joined together without property divisions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, last chance otherwise I will close the public hearing. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Thank you for your comments. Commissioners. Rich, would you like to start this time? Slagle: Sure. I just have a couple of thoughts. I think that the property is maybe a tad more unique than given credit for. With relationship to the park. The potential bluffs. The obvious drainage I think some of the comments that have been made about what yards will look like or rivers running through them, and I realize there are means to grading that can prevent some of that but I think it' s got some issues with that, but most importantly, and what I'm going to advocate, or at least suggest to my peers here is that we table this. When I see 50 conditions, I'd like to see staff go through those with the applicant to get a better, either agreement or disagreement with 50. I have a hard time remembering all 50, but I think there's some other things here that are stated that I don't need to list them all but basically you know will come. Work with staff. Applicant has not provided. I'd like to, for something this sensitive and this you know what I'll call major, I want to have a complete application and I don't think we have one. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments? 33 Planning Commission Meeting -March 18, 2003 Sacchet: Yeah, a couple comments real quick. First of all I really think this needs to be tabled. This is not cooked enough. It's not just 50 conditions. Some of these conditions, one condition has 10 sub- conditions. I mean we easily have 100 or more conditions. But the main reason why I think it needs to be tabled is not just because there are so many conditions. I think there are some very significant changes. We're talking about 5 lots or 6. We're talking about shortening at least a private road. I would propose that we would shorten the public road, the cul-de-sac to move the building pad of Lot 6. That we are more clear where we want to move the building pad for Lot 4. How all the changes in berming affect the drainage and everything. How it affects the whole table of compliance. I mean there's really a lot of aspects that seem to make it imperative that there's changes. However I have some additional comments to make. One thing, I'm still a little bit struggling with is the comprehensive plan calling out for the preservation of natural environment, including trees, slope, vista and the uncluttered open spaces. The development as proposed significantly impacts these features. That's a direct quote from the report on page 12, while about paragraph further down there's a finding that the proposed development is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan. I would want to be very clear what kind of mitigating factors are introduced that are an environmentally sensitive. That take into consideration the sensitivity of the bluff, and also that park connection aspect which is definitely an important point. I do believe that with the way it was proposed, the environmental impact is still excessive. But obviously going to 5 lots, that makes it quite considerably different. I don't think it has been sufficiently been analyzed and determined what that does. Now to come back to the aspect of the majority of two, we have been considering this in conjunction with the lot to the north the three previous times that it was here, as far as I remember. So yes, the development, the neighborhood is 6 properties but I think in terms of what we're considering here, this context, we're talking two. And I'm kind of struggling with this because a majority of two is two. Now I assume that several of us here are married and we struggle with this concept every day. What's the majority of two, and we know that the majority of two, like in the wedding environment. Slagle: It's her. Sacchet: It's her. It's her, so once in a while maybe he gets something too. No, not really. There we go, majority of two. I feel that we cannot continually keep one of the two hostages in the long run, and you have to try to be fair here. So that's my comment about that one. And there's another comment about the use of the private street here is put in here that it helps to enhance the protection of natural resources. I would argue with that. I mean the private road is to put in more lots. I mean it's not to preserve natural environment. I'm very sorry about that. In terms of the comments from the neighbors, I want to thank you for speaking up. Mr. Bizek, the property owner to the north. Is it really all to your detriment when the whole infrastructure is put onto the property to the south? The whole cul-de-sac. The whole public road. You don't have to give this away a single square foot of land for the infrastructure being there. I would disagree that it's totally all to your disadvantage in that sense. The comment of Mr. Lee about the open area, my god. Would I love open space everywhere. But we have reality here. This is a city that's growing. This has been allocated in the comprehensive plan as a place that will be developed .... just keep it open space. As much as I would like that too the best. And the other comment from Mr. Buan it was. From Flamingo Drive, Steve. Very good point about the park connection. I think that's one of the hot points we looked at the last time this proposal came before us. It's very significant that there is this park connection, but unfortunately I think with the direction the city plan has taken, not tonight but quite a while ago, that this would be developed to some extent... Slagle: I'm sorry Commissioner Sacchet, point of clarification though. We have in the staff report two differing viewpoints as to how this parcel applies to the comp plan. I'm just throwing out as a suggestion, you're making. Blackowiak: Yeah, this is your opinion. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Slagle: You're drawing a line, exactly. Sacchet: This is my opinion. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Right. Sacchet: I'm speaking for myself here. Blackowiak: Okay, but you're saying the city. Sacchet: Well the city made a determination, the way I read the report, that this property would be developed. I think that's my opinion. I take personal responsibility for that, but my opinion is that that's a city's decision that's been made in the context of how this thing was platted. In terms of how it's stated that this would be, this property would redevelop with, but with larger lots. Which is a little bit flexible term, large lots, but it would develop. I mean it's stated here. I'm not making this up so this is my opinion, interpretational something that is written. Slagle: I guess all I'm asking Commissioner Sacchet is just to remember that we have some questions of staff that they seem to be contradicting themselves in here and so it might be better to hear back from them. Sacchet: And the point of my pointing that out is to encourage that to be researched further as I said, my position is that this needs to be tabled and when it comes back I would like to have more clarity about these points. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: This is a tough 3.7 acres here. It really is. I'm not opposed to developing this. Like fellow commissioners I'm not here to punish the applicant. I'm just not comfortable with what I'm seeing right now. Items out there, I think the bluff is very significant. I think we need a bluff survey there to clearly identify where that is. How that relates to the parcels that are backed up to it. Can lot number 6 be, is that a buildable lot? I'm not sold on it right now. One thing to staff, could you maybe clarify is there a minimum throat length for that cul-de-sac? I mean can we shift that closer to the county road? Maybe we can't. I'm not too sure if we have a city standard on that. That's something I think we need to address. As long as I'm making comments here. Mr. Buan indicated that he's becoming pretty clear with the city comprehensive plan .... we have a couple empty spots on the planning commission so go ahead and apply. Thought I'd get that in there. Blackowiak: Good job. Lillehaug: As far as the existing lift station, I'd like to make a suggestion to city staff that potentially look at taking them pumps out of there. We have many lift stations around the city. Get them in a rotational plan and utilize them somewhere else. Just as a suggestion. And then to the beef of it here, there's many changes in here that I'm just not comfortable with and I will not recommend this to the council. I need to see a majority of these conditions implemented. And I just want to reiterate, I'm not opposed to this development. I really do need to see a lot of these conditions worked out. Specifically which ones, I don't think, I mean I want to be clear to the applicant and staff but there's 50 conditions here and I mean I can take the time and go through and pin point every one but I don't think that's necessary. I think there's the significant ones that other commissioners have touched on and the ones I've 35 Planning Commission Meeting -March 18, 2003 discussed that we really do need to get in touch with. Along with, there was a letter here given to us by the county implementing a few more conditions that they would like to see. Nothing too significant but that needs to be added into the mix here. So with that, likewise I support tabling this at this time. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any additional comments? Claybaugh: Yes I do. Again I'm not opposed to developing this property. In it's current form I can't support this particular application. I think it's important to note that the applicant certainly has a right to develop this piece of property and despite the fact that open space is desirable to everybody in the community, I think it's important to note that this space is being sought at the applicant's expense and I think people need to consider that if the shoe was on the other foot. With respect to the completeness of the application, after 3, or after 2 previous applications to the one in front of us, staff commented that they felt that there wasn't necessarily any significant issues. I recall a quote the Russians used to have above their tanks that went, quantity has a quality all it' s own, and I think to that end the cumulative affect of the minor issues constitute a major issue, and I think those need to be addressed on that level. And as such I'd be in favor of tabling the issue. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, additional? Lillehaug: So this doesn't come back to haunt me next time if we address this. I want to discuss with staff, one of their findings in the subdivision findings, and it would be their last finding. It says that a majority of the property owners in an existing area came and requested land use amendments, etc. That this may not be premature. You indicate that this is a policy of the city. Is this a written ordinance policy or is this just the tendency? Generous: Madam Chair, it's one of the guides, in the comprehensive plan there's a statement that says, these large lot areas will be maintained. However, if the majority of the properties come in, we'd look at it in a favorable light. However our city attorney has said we can't hold people up to that standard. We have to look at each case individually. But it's more favorable, yes. We'd have less of a problem with this subdivision if he and his neighbor to the north came in. It would lay out a lot easier. There'd be less conflict if he came in with the whole neighborhood. Lillehaug: So my understanding would be that the comprehensive plan directs us that really we need a majority of the landowners. Not directs us, recommends? Generous: Well it suggests that we look at that. Slagle: Suggest probably is a more appropriate term than policy or direct. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: It will come back to haunt you. Blackowiak: And I don't have too many additional comments. I do feel that a bluff survey is imperative before we move this forward. We really can't speculate as to how many lots are available. How long cul- de-sacs need to be, etc, until we really know what's out there so I think that's important to have before we see this again. Second, trees, preservation, etc. We need to get information about that. Thirdly, drainage issues are huge. How are those going to be addressed? What's going to be happening with the water that's coming down the hills? I don't think anybody that lives in that area would argue that point. And finally, the premature ness or lack of premature ness of this application. Do we have to look at Hillside Oaks as the 7 homes? Do we look at 2? Do we look at 3? Do we look at 17 You know what is City 36 Planning Commission Meeting -March 18, 2003 Council's feeling? I'd like to hear that. You know, do they have any guidance for us before we see it again? I'm not sure. But it sounds like all the commissioners are in agreement that we table it and get further information. Rich? Slagle: One quick question for Bob. Bob, have we heard from the attorney as to his viewpoint on that last point as far as 7 homes? I mean just like Alison said, the premature ness of this, has he given you an input one way or the other? Generous: We haven't asked that question. We have had other projects. Blackowiak: Yeah, well let's you know, then maybe we could get an opinion from the attorney before we see this application again. As to what we really should be considering in terms of a neighborhood. Should we be looking at the entire subdivision? You know property owners in existing area. Is Hillside Oaks 7 homes, you know what's the existing area, so I'd like to hear that. And that ends my comments. I'd like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that we table this item. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District to Single Family Residential, and subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 6 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Blackowiak: This item is tabled. We need, I think that we've made fairy clear the information that we'd like from you Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rossavik before we see it again. Staff, is there anything else we need to do? Generous: Not currently. Blackowiak: Not currently, okay. Generous: We will be sending a letter to them that we're going to take additional time to review. Blackowiak: Right, so we can get the additional information we're requesting. Claybaugh: That's not an issue as far as the timeline? Sacchet: What's the timeline? We're okay with the timeline? Generous: Yes. We can take an additional 60 days. It will take us to mid-June. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. One comment before we take a break. I'm just going to mention this. Our next Planning Commission meeting is Tuesday, April 1st at which time the Planning Commission will review and adopt the By-laws for the coming year, which the Planning Commission year is April 1st through March 31st. And also at that point we'll elect a chair and vice chair so that is going to happen at our April 1st meeting. Now we'll take about a 5 to 10 minute break. Get a little water. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - March 18, 2003 Claybaugh: Do we need to summarize? Blackowiak: No, we're not summarizing. We're not sending it to City Council. It's not going anywhere. Okay, so we'll take a quick break and we'll be back in about 5 to 10 minutes. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point. Commissioner Claybaugh left the meeting at this point.) Blackowiak: Craig had to leave for a personal matter so he is no longer with us. However we still have a quorum tonight so we'll move right along to item number 4. And I believe we're going to be able to finish items 4 and 5 tonight. Any commissioners have any other feeling that we can't get it done in an hour, tell me now. Otherwise I'm holding you guys to this. An hour? Okay. Alright, items 4 and 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 45~600 SQUARE FEET AND A 730 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AUDUBON ROAD~ GENERAL MILLS. Public Present: Name Address Ron Miller Chris Hall Lonnie Malikowski Mark Wasescha Jack Warner 9141 Inverness Circle, Ramsey 2442 Ponds Way, Shakopee 3402 Highlands Road, Brooklyn Park 1795 Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3721 Impatiens Lane, Brooklyn Park Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay Rich. Slagle: Just quickly. On page 2 of our report, the gray area that I see to the west of the parcel appears to abut the creek and the path along those homes. AI-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: And then when I look at the map or the diagram of the facility, specifically page 2 here, it shows what I will call the new automobile asphalt paved area. Is that into that western property? A1-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay, so the westem property that we see on page 2 is not being touched at all? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. And then I'm going to hold off the other questions until later, but just one more. I noticed on the mailing list, which first of all I didn't get one of these. FYI. But secondly, I'm a little concerned because none of the homeowners to the west are included in this, and I'm guessing that you went 500 feet 38 March 18, 2003 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission, In response to the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the request of Rezoning and Subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, we, as interested parties, submit the following written comments per this Notice. The ravine and bluff topography on the western side of this property, and adjoining areas of several other properties, is part of an integrated, interdependent natural system. This ecosystem contains a complex bio-diversity of plants and animals. Numerous species of trees, shrubs and perennial plants of varying age classes from sapling to dead and decaying are present. Tree and shrub species include white pine, red pine, spruce, oaks, maples, cottonwood, ironwood, cedar, sumac and many more. This plant life system supports a wide variety of animal life including ground-nesting birds, earth and tree-cavity nesting birds, numerous song birds, bald eagles, owls, pheasants, wild turkeys, deer, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits and many more. The city parkland immediately adjacent to the southwest is directed to be a natural landscape park consisting of prairie upland, bluffs and ravines. The city parkland across Powers Boulevard is a large marsh/wetland complex. The ravine and bluff system is a vital and important part of these parks. The varied species of animals and birds present utilize the prairie upland area for food and the ravines, bluffs and wetlands for shelter. To encroach on and damage the ravine and bluff complex would diminish the value of the parks to the residents of Chanhassen. A corridor connecting these natural entities must be maintained. This corridor can best be maintained by limiting the density of houses in the Hillside Oaks subdivision. The character of this portion of Chanhassen is defined by the dramatic rise in elevation and stand of large mature trees. The vertical rise from Powers Boulevard to the crest on Flamingo Drive is approximately 100 feet and is matched throughout Chanhassen except for the bluff area of the Minnesota River valley. The unique features encompassed within the approximately 3 acres of ravine and bluff structure are a signature of this area of Chanhassen that should not be obscured and/or encroached upon by further development. Therefore, we oppose the proposed rezoning and subdivision of this property. Respectfully submitted, Steve and Kristi Buan Generous, Bob From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Coban [dcoban@tc.umn.edu] Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:36 PM bgenerous @ ci.chanhassen.m n.us property at 8800 Powers Blvd. Dear Mr. Generous I am writing regarding the request of Mr. Arild Rossavik for a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single Family Residential, RSF, and subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 6 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Blvd., Powers Circle. As I am sure you know, Mr. Rossavik has made this same request on two other occasions. From the information I have received, there is nothing to indicate that anything has changed since his last request. Therefore, what was not appropriate at that time is still not appropriate and I believe his request should again be denied. I do not have the dates and case numbers with me as we are in California for my husband to receive proton radiation treatment for his prostate cancer. This is also the reason we will not be able to attend any of the meetings regarding this proposal. Please record our opposition to this proposal and refer to the minutes of the meetings from Mr. Rossavik's last request for the many reasons why this should be denied. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Virginia & Donald Coban 8821 Sunset Trail Chanhassen, F5~ 55317 952-448-4803 - Home 612-270-4699 - Cell CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Carver County Government Center Administration Building 600 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2102 Phone (952) 361-1010 Fax (952) 361-1025 Administration Parks Engineering Highway Maintenance Surveying & Mapping March 10, 2003 To: From: Subject: Robert Generous, Senior Planner- City of Chanhassen Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer/~.]LL~ - - Request for Land Use Amendment I~''r'~' ...... 8800 Powers Blvd. Arild Rossavik Following are comments regarding the Request for Land Use Amendment on property located at 8800 Powers Blvd. and owned by Arild Rossavik transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated February 18, 2002. These comments are not all inclusive and further comments and concerns may evolve as this project progresses and changes. Powers Boulevard in the location of this proposed development is presently on the County road system and is identified as County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17. The roadway in this area was recently reconstructed. Mr. Rossavik has had an ongoing complaint of drainage.and icing problems that occur on his driveway as a result of the trail constructed as part of the PoWers Blvd. reconstruction. Installation of the catch basins and storm sewer as indicated on the proposed plans should alleviate this drainage and icing problem if completed correctly. , When Powers Blvd. was reconstructed, the raised center median was constructed and the access driveway serving this property was changed to a right-in/right-out only driveway. Carver County will not permit construction of an opening in the median to provide full access to the proposed additional parcels. , Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Cap;er County. o Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of Carver County. o Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of-way (including tree removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to. be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way: A Clear: understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the County and the City. Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on 30% Post-Consumer Reo'cled Paper o Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance along the CSAH 17 corridor and intersections with other roadways. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right-of-way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If there are questions regarding these comments, please call me at 952-361-1010. Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph 952 448 4844 ar~arild.us · February 14, 2003 Chanhassen City Staff 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Subdivision 8800 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear City Planning Staff Enclosed please find my Application for rezoning and Subdivision of 8800 Powers Boulevard. This proposal for the creation of six (6) lots on my property necessitates the approval of rezoning from A-2 to RSF. That transition is now appropriate given the intensity of the existing development to my.west and north. It should be observed that the city has already installed $250,000.00 worth of sewer and lift station service immediately adjacent my property. The City had anticipated this development in making that installation. It stands unused. The property is exposed to heavy traffic along Powers Boulevard, it does not lend itself to the private estates typically anticipated A-2 and does not meet the character of land appropriately zoned A-2. When one considers that the Highway 212- 312 interchange will soon be developed to my south, the A-2 zoning is no longer appropriate. · I invite any question you may have and look forward to work with you. Sincerely Arild Rossavik Cc- Planning Commission Cc: City Council Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph 952 448 4844 ar@ariid.us . FEB ! -8 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN February 13, 2003 Affected Neighbors Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Subdivision 88'00 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Neighbor I have again filed my Application for rezoning and Subdivisior~ of 8800 Powers Boulevard. This proposal for the creation of six (6) lots on my property necessitates the approval of rezoning from A-2 to RSF. That transition is now appropriate given the intensity of the existing development to my west and north. It should be observed that the City has already installed $250,000.00 worth of sewer and lift station service immediately adjacent my property. The City had anticipated this development in making that installation. (As you will see on the enclosed documents ) It stands unused. The property is exposed to heavy traffic along Powers Boulevard, it.does not lend itself to the private estates typically anticipated A-2 and does not meet the character of land appropriately zoned A-2. When on.e considers that the H!~gh~aY' 2.! 27312 interchange 'will soon be developed "to-my' s0~tl~, ~th~e-~,,2"z~)ningis no longer appropriate. I invite any question you may have and look forward to work with you. incerelv . Arild Rossavik Cc: Planning Commission Cc: City Council Cc: Neighbors Ariid Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ph 952 448 4844 ar.~arild.us February 12, 2003 Chanhassen City Staff 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Subdivision 8800 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear City Planning Staff Enclosed please find my Application for rezoning and Subdivision of 8800 Powers Boulevard. This proposal for the creation of six (6) lots on my prOperty necessitates the approval of rezoning from A-2 to RSF. That transition is now appropriate given the intensity of the existing development to my west and north. It should be observed that the City has already installed $250,000.00 worth of sewer and lift station service immediately adjacent my property. The City had anticipated this development in making that installation. It stands unused. The property is exposed to heavy traffic along Powers Boulevard, it does not lend itself to the private estates typically anticipated A-2 and does not meet the character of land appropriately zoned A-2. When one considers that the Highway 2!2-312 interchange will soon be developed to my south, the A-2 zoning is no longer appropriate. I invite any question you may have and look forward to work with you. Sincerely Arild ~.R°~ao~ o~~ Cc: Planning Commission Cc: City Council Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 January 12, 2003 CITY OF (Correction of typos'in first letter, .1993 is correct not 1983, I have only lived here 10 years) Chanhassen Mayor and City Council Members 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen., ~MN 55317 Re: Proposed Subdivision 8800 Powers Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota Supplemental Material to Application for Subdivision/Rezoning Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I have resided at 8800 Powers Boulevard since January, '19,93. The City Improvement project 93-29 long' ago extended sewer and water service to my neighborhood, for the purpose of serving not only the existing seven (7) lots but an anticipated 25 additional units. Since that time, no additional housing units have been constructed. The City staff advises that the neig.hborhood lift station, sewer, and water improvement is a physical dead end which can only be used for my immediate neighborhood. But as yet, none of us are connbcted to the system. We all make use of septic systems which clearly threaten the eco-system and marsh across the way. I am advised that the cost of the sewer and water improvements for my neighborhood was $237,000.00. Because it remains totally unused, the cost has yet to be recovered. I have, in recent'yearS; twice attempted to get the City-to agree td' the rezoning of my property into six (6) lots by changing the zoning category from A-2 to RSF. This was first considered in July, 1980 when others received preliminary approval for Lake Susan West Planned Resident Development.. Because no further action was taken, the zoning remained A-2. Since that time, I have been turned down on the predicate that my neighbor (the owner of 8750 Powers Boulevard) must first consent. He has declined to do so and I have been a hostage to his approval. If you were to consider my neighborhood, you will find that just north of my neighbor are medium to high density developments fronting Powers Boulevard, a principal arterial of the City. To the west, up on the bluff are single family homes zoned PUD but effectively RSF. They are physically separated from my property by the steep bluff. The improvement of my property with additional housing will not impact the enjoyment of their neighborhood. On the east, I face a beautiful marsh which will never be developed, but as I have-noted, it is threatened bY the septic systems in my neighborhood. -2- To the south are five (5)large lot residential sites. Some are benefited by topography and seclusion, but the one immediately to my south, as well as my northerly neighbor and I, have no privacy afforded by topography or vegetation, we remain-greatly exposed to public view and high traffic volumes on Powers Boulevard. The relatively large acreage surrounding my home and that of my immediate neighbor's is not well used. Moreover, there is no added value provided by the extra land around these homes as it affords no seclusion or privacy, nor can such be added by mere landscaping. . While the City staff-report on my most recent request for rezoning cited some engineering issues, related to grading and the preservation of bluff area, ali will be fully addressed by my engineer on re-submission of my plat proposal. Of particular concern, however, was the suggestion by City staff report that the City's Comprehensive Plan to include Iow density residential development in appropriate areas of the community would be harmed if my zoning were changed. The City staff also said that any new residential development would encroach upon a significant drainage way. This reference is to the bluff run-off. That issue can be handled through proper engineering and appropriate setbacks. That said, the City staff advised that the conversion of my lot and that of my neighbor to the north from A-2 to RSF would "not have a siqnificant impact" ,on the character of the area. The City staff found that "my site was suitable for development" and "served by adequate infrastructure". Most importantly, the staff concluded "the subdivision is not premature". The only caveat put forward by the City staff was that the City would view the proposal in "a more positive light" were my neighbor to consent. For that reason alone, the City staff considered the application "premature" (.November 6, 2001 City Staff Report). !.-am-'aski(ng. th.a:t the Ci.ty acknowle_dge that:.A-2 Zoning isno .!onger._anobvious -and appropriate zoning for this site given the surrounding development, the inherent lack of privacy of the land/site, and high traffic of the Boulevard... Continuing to maintain this zoning places the marsh immediately to the east at risk and causes the City to forego monies to recoup its investment in sewer and water infrastructure. Your $237,000.00 investment languishes. Rezoning will not require my neighbor to subdivide or sell his property. Typically, in absence of a replat, there is no change in market value! I ask that the City give renewed consideration to my proposal for six (6) homes at this site. At a time when the City is financially struggling, it only makes no sense that it would not refuse such a logical development - a development which would make good use of City infrastructure - and end potential septic tank pollution of the marsh. -3- It should be understood that I have, in the past, complained of my neighbor's commercial plumbing operation conducted from his 2-story warehouse. This large gray building houses his plumbing business and is serviced by commercial delivery trucks on a daily basis. In the past, the City has taken a dim view of similar business operations within residential districts, but for reasons I fail to understand, the City has chosen to overlook his business operations. There is no reason why he should be granted deference in this regard. All persons in the City should be treated equally. Your help in this regard would be most appreciated. I hope to address ali of the engineering issues with City staff before I resubmit my .request.for rezo~ing. I would-wel¢ome.~anyquestion-s that:you might have,-.-It is-my hope to address your concerns and, in so doing, gain support for this appropriate transition. I look forward to speaking with you. Sincerely, Arild Rossavik Cc: City Staff Cc: Planning Commission Members Cc: George Bizek (owner of 8750 Powers Blvd) Cc: Neighbors m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MAY' 6, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Subdivision of Parcel into 5 Single Family Lots APPLICANT: Arild Rossavik LOCATION: 8800 Powers Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Arild Rossavik, is requesting a land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single family Residential, RSF, and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 5 lots with a variance for the use of a private street located at 8800 Powers Blvd., Powers Circle. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 24, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM .~OSEANNE M BOYUM 3805 SUNSET TRL 2HANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL D & JOAN M FLYNN 660 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5!60® STEVEN D & KRIST! A BUAN 8740 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2)ONALD C & VIRGINIA D COBAN 3821 SUNSET TRL 2HANHAS SEN MN 55317 JON & SARAH A BAKER 650 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHERYL LEE DOTY 8736 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 3EORGE A & JACQUELYN BIZEK g750 POWERS BLVD EHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN J & NANCY S FAY 640 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R JR & SUSAN L KOZLOWSKI 8730 FLAMINGO DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 5.RILD ROSSAVIK g800 POWERS BLVD EHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J & CYNTHIA A LEEMAN 8726 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IAYME D & CAROL R LEE 1380 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RODNEY & BONNIE M NELSON 8764 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & JEANINE C CASEY 8720 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IOHN E & BRENDA L HILL 1360 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER J SONES & JUDITH A MARTINEZ- 8756 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM J & NANCY E PREMO 8712 FLAMINGO DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 CRAIG J PETERSON 1340 OAKSIDE CIR EHANHASSEN MN 55317 TANYA C PARKS & JEAN C SCHWALEN 8750 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND J GARVER JR & JULIE ANN GARVER 8704 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MINH CAM & MARGARET A TRAN 1330 LYMAN BLVD ,ZHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & CONNIE M ECHTERNACH~I 8746 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE R BARKE 1371 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY PAT BUESGENS 1300 OAKSIDE CIR ZHANHASSEN MN 55317 COREY J & RUTH L WEIKLE 8744 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN R & CECELIA M SMITH 1361 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRENT R & KATHLEEN A MILLER 1200 LYMAN BLVD ZHANHAS SEN MN 55317 GREGORY D & SHIREEN S KAHLER 8742 FLAMINGO DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 GARY D & JENNIFER L HICKS 1351 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~ AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM RONALD J & DEBRA R MICHELS 8751 FLAMINGO DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 JAY W & ANGELA A MEYER - 1574 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160® BYRON J & LINDA J BOTZ 8743 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & CATHERINE S SCOTT 1578 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWARD A & WENDY S PEKAREK 8735 FLAMINGO DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 JEFFREY A PETSCHL & TRACI L PRIEBE 1580 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LANCE D & MELANIE J WEGNER 8727 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILLIP R SHOEN 1584 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 KRISTIN ANNE JOHNSON TRUSTEE OF TRUST 8719 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SREANG & SOPHORN SONG BANG 1590 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 EDWARD A & MARY G KRAFT 8711 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH GIBNEY JR & KAREN STEIN 1594 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THUNG M & LAN T NGUYEN 8703 FLAMINGO DR CHANHAS SEN MN 55317 DIEP D, TU T, LONG D NGUYEN & THUY B & HA1 B NGUYEN 1581 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KOUNTHONE SOUVANNAKANE & OULADETH SOUVANNAKANE 1600 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL E & RONDA S PIERRE 1591 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THU VAN NGUYEN & LIEN KlM TANG 1601 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Address Labels Laser 5160®