Loading...
CAS-01_ROSSAVIK ADDITION (5)a CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being fast duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 9, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Rossavik Addition - Planning Case No. 06-01 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sw rn to before me this 94-11 day of ruA r , 2006. Notarktu-bilic Kpiee'n J. Enge ar t, De u y Clerk KIM T MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota • ' My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 SCAHHED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for rezoning of Lot 2, Proposal: Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -Family Residential District, RSF; and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, into 3 lots with variances Planning File: 06-01 — ROSSAVIK ADDITION Applicant: Arild Rossavik Property 8800 Powers Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227-1131 Questions & or e-mail bcenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialrndustdal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for rezoning of Lot 2, Proposal: Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -Family Residential District, RSF; and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, into 3 lots with variances Plannin File: 06-01 — ROSSAVIK ADDITION Applicant: Arild Rossavik Property 8800 Powers Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about t applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighbor about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will leadTffe public hearing through the following steps: What Happens W 1 • Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227-1131 Questions & or e-mail bcenerousfci.chanhassen.mmus. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6(weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey amd is not intendod to bat used as one. This map is a compilation, of records, informed. and data located m various city, county, state and federal offices Will other spumes regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference Wrposes only. The City does not wanam that the Geographic Infomation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracl,ng or any other purpose requiring enacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. g enors or discrepancies are found please comW 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknoWedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, wo expressly waives all darns, and agrees to tlefenQ indemnity, and hdtl hamiess Me City from any and all claims brought by User, is employees or agents, or Mid parties w ich anse out of the users access or use of data provided. This map is nether a legally recorded map now a survey and is not imende i to be used as one. This map is a compilation of retorts, infomation and data locales in various city, county, state and Mdand offices and other soumes regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes drily. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Infornation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this rrep are error free, arM Me City, does not represent Mat Me GIS Data can be uses for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or directon or precision in the depiction of geographic lectures. If enors of discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-110T The preceding fisdartar is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statures §466.03, Sutxl. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, arM expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indertaity, and hdtl hamYess the City from any and all Gans brought by User, is employees of agents, or Mid parties v ich arise out of the users access or use of data provided- • DIEP D & TU T NGUYEN JAY WIRTH MEYER DANIEL E & RONDA S PIERRE LONG D NGUYEN1581 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1574 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1591 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHA HANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8538 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8542 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8538 RODNEY & BONNIE M NELSON JAMES R & CATHERINE S SCOTT CHRISTOPHER J SONES & 8764 FLAMINGO DR 1578 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR JUDITH A MARTINEZ- DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8543 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8CHA 542 FLAMINGO HANHASSEN . MN 55317 -8543 DAN D & DEBRA DEFORE RYAN M & LISA J CARLSON STEVEN R & CECELIA M SMITH 1351 THRUSH CT 1580 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1361 THRUSH CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8555 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9542 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 41555 BRUCE R BARKE PHILLIP R SHOEN TANYA C PARKS & EN 1371 THRUSH CT 1584 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR JEAN C SCINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8555 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8542 CHA FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8543 SREANG & SOPHORN SONG BANG RONALD J & DEBRA R MICHELS JOSEPH GIBNEY JR & 1590 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 8751 FLAMINGO DR KAREN STEIN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 48542 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317.844 51594 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -8542 KOUNTHONE SOUVANNAKANE & STEVEN J & NANCY S FAY JON & SARAH A BAKER OULADETH SOUVANNAKANE 640 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 650 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 1600 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8701 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8701 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8553 MICHAEL D & JOAN M FLYNN RICHARD & CONNIE M ECHTERNACHT THUNG M & LAN T NGUYEN 660 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DR 8746 FLAMINGO DR 8703 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8701 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8543 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8544 BRYON J & LINDA J BOTZ EDWARD A & MARY G KRAFT KRISTIN ANNE JOHNSON 8743 FLAMINGO DR 8711 FLAMINGO DR TRUSTEE TRUST CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8544 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8CHA 544 8719 FLAMINGO HANHASSEN . MN 55317 -8544 GEORGE A & JACQUELYN BIZEK COREY J & RUTH L WEIKLE LANCE D & MELANIE J WEGNER 8750 POWERS BLVD 8744 FLAMINGO DR 8727 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9001 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8543 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8544 WENDY SUSAN PEKAREK RAYMOND JAMES GARVER JR GREGORY D & SHIREEN S KAHLER 8735 FLAMINGO DR 8704 FLAMINGO DR 8742 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 56317 -8544 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 43543 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8543 0 STEVEN D & KRISTI A BUAN 8740 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8543 CHERYL LEE DOTY 8736 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8543 MICHAEL J & CYNTHIA A LEEMAN 8726 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -8543 DONALD C & VIRGINIA D COBAN #1275 2040 WEST MAIN ST STE 210 RAPID CITY, SO 57702 -2446 KEITH M & MARY PAT BUESGENS 1300 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9005 WILLIAM J & NANCY E PREMO 8712 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8543 STEVEN M & JEANINE C CASEY 8720 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8543 ROSEANNE M BOYUM 8805 SUNSET TRL CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9404 JOHN E & BRENDA L HILL 1360 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9005 ARILD ROSSAVIK 570 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 - JAMES R JR & SUSAN L KOZLOWSKI 8730 FLAMINGO DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -8543 JAYME D & CAROL R LEE 1380 OAKSIDE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9005 BRENT R & KATHLEEN A MILLER 1200 LYMAN BLVD CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9168 0 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Rossavik Addition Planning Case No. 06-01 8800 Powers Boulevard City of Chanhassen N /N w S hrus rt p F� Power Hill Park V a� Lake Susan Preserve Subject Site m a� o�c O Om L man Blvd (C. R. 18) This map is neither a legally mounded map nor a survey and is not imendW to be used as one. This npp is a compilation of records, Information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other wunSS regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference puNoses only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this MP are anon free, antl the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any Wear purpose rertudng exiling measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. t emors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The irweding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Mms som Statuses §466,03, Subd. 21 (2000). and to user of this map acknow/edgee that to City shell not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all owns, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City Iron any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents. or third parties which arise oN of the user's access or use of data provided. This map is nether a legally riorded map nor a survey and is not mended to 1,a used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county. state and ledwal offices aml other sources regarding tte area shown, aW is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not vwamant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and to Ciy does not represent that to GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exiting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic featuree If errors or discrepancies are faxd please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided W recant to Mtnnasota Standee §466.03, Subd. 21 (2"), and Me user of Iris rrap arlmowfedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and mpressfy waives all dame, and agrees to defend, indenniy, and hold Iamiess the City from arty and all clans b Qhl by User, its employees or agents, or mid parties which was out of the user's access or use of data provided. 11 V_W9I 111101"M 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 www.d.chanhassen.mn.us 49 \alp 1 Craig J. Peterson 1340 Call Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (1 p \p t0 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.usA ',yam \IV Minh Cam & Margaret Train 1330 Lyman Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for rezoning of Lot 2, Proposal: Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -Family ResidentialDistrict, RSF; and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 3 lots with variances Planning File: 06-01 — ROSSAVIK ADDITION Applicant: Arild Rossavik Property 8800 Powers Boulevard Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227-1131 Questions & or e-mail bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for rezoning of Lot 2, Proposal: Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -Family Residential District, RSF; and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks into 3 lots with variances Planning File: 06-01 — ROSSAVIK ADDITION Applicant: Arild Rossavik Property 8800 Powers Boulevard Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhtp about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead t public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Robert Generous at 952-227-1131 Questions & or e-mail baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to Comments: submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure; • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, City ordinances require all property within.500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialdndustdal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethinu to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.06-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the ChanhaesanPlanning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the CouncilChambers inChanhaaaanCity Hall, 7700MarketBlvd. Thepurposeof this hearing is to consider a request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for rezoning of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -Family Residential District, ESP; and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, into 3lots with variances on property located at 8800 Powers Boulevard - Rossavik Addition. Applicant. Arild Rossavik. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing andexprewtheiropinions withrespect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner oeenerou_s(mci.enannassen mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Published inthe Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, February 9, 2006; No. 4607) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. ci (a C r was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on Us 9 day of2006 GWEEExpres ]2010 NOTARY P iy Cw nm Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.06-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a land use plan amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; request for rezoning of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Single -Family Residential District, RSF; and subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, into 3 lots with variances on property located at 8800 Powers Boulevard — Rossavik Addition. Applicant: Arild Rossavik. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: beenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on February 9, 2006) O�—o1 Carver County GIS Mapping Application e � l y 17 I Y ' r.:. Copyright ®"LCG6, Caner Cwniy, Hinnevxa Legend Rwd Tea US MShny, ry whghwrys N SSµ Map Created on: C" RwN �� 2-2-2006 uke. Carver P'rt"• County 4nYl PMP 2002 This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. GCANN60 i 0 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. . , n City Council Meeting —Mot 13, 2006 ' Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39 % hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April I or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. It. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REOUEST FOR 32 SCANNED City Council Meeting—Ma•13, 2006 REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1. HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address Ed Kraft 8711 Flamingo Drive Mark Kelly 351 2°d Street, Excelsior Kate Aanenson: Thank you. There are a couple actions in your packet. One, the first being the land use. I'd like to break them out. We have all the motions in there because if you deny the land use, it negates the possibility of the subdivision, so I'll break it out into two and if there's motion for approval on the land use amendment, then I'll be happy to go through the subdivision. Again subject site, Mr. Rossavik did present this item to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2006. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the application. The Planning Commission felt that the redevelopment of the individual lot would change, without changing the adjoining lots, would change the character of the neighborhood and the findings that they felt in the comprehensive plan so again the subject lot is on Powers Boulevard, and I'll show it to you. This is a large lot. Oakside Circle so this would be the subject lot right here. It's hard to see that color. There is a neighboring lot to the south and to the north that are also large lots that would be impacted by the potential development of this lot. So if you look at the proposal summary on page 2 of the staff report, looking at the subdivision itself. There are some requirements but what I'd like to do is just focus on the land use amendment itself. We've given you the background, how many times this has come. The applicant, it's his belief that there's been substantive changes in the area that would make his different, or changing circumstances. The staff does not believe that nor does the Planning Commission. But in reviewing land use and the zoning in the zoning ordinance amendment if there's an error guiding that needs to be corrected, changing conditions, then we would bring that property forward. In looking at the challenging topography in this area, and hopefully with the color you can see, there's a lot of contours here as you can see through here. Steep ravines on this property. The backs of these properties which makes it challenging for development, so that's one of the issues, and the fact that there's large lots on either side that aren't ready to develop, that the Planning Commission and the staff agree that the, that would be premature, and those items are also stated on page 4 of the staff report. I'm not going to read through those but those are the ones that would give the substantive findings of why we would not support it at this time. Again, if it was to subdivide, future access has to be provided to the property to the, this property to the south because they do not have access, we would want to limit the access on a collector street, Powers Boulevard. So taking those into consideration, again just strictly talking about the land use, the Planning Commission did recommend that the land use be denied, so I'll take questions on that at this point and if you do recommend denial, then it would negate the rezoning and the subdivision itself. The findings of fact are also in the staff report. 33 �3Nsaq� City Council Meeting —Ah 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Ms. Aanenson, a couple just clarifying questions. This is currently zoned residential large lot. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: That's what it shows in the comprehensive plan. It's not similar to what we were talking about earlier this evening, an agricultural piece that is guided to become another. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and I think that's important to keep in mind and this is a land use amendment, which you have the most discretion on. The other ones were consistent that you saw when we were talking about the 2005. Mayor Furlong: With future guiding. Kate Aanenson: Future guiding, correct. So this asking for a change in guiding, where you have the most discretion. That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And we have other large lot residential land uses in our city... Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and actually the Planning Commission spent a lot of time talking about that. That there are quite a few other large lot subdivisions that really that the Planning Commission doesn't anticipate the character of those neighborhoods changing any time soon. Even those with significant amount of development around them. As a matter of fact, one being close to the new Powers Boulevard down on Homestead Lane. That neighborhood down there too, so they felt like the characters of those neighborhoods, that's a lifestyle choice some people have bought into and they want to maintain that character. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point with regard to the land use? Is the applicant here this evening? Or representative. Good evening. Mark Kelly: Good evening Your Honor and council members. Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Rossavik who is out of the country at this time. I've certainly heard the report of staff and Mr. Rossavik has requested that the City Council consider the fact that the area along Powers Boulevard has changed substantially based on approvals that this council has made, and past councils made recently. Just to the west you approved a large development. Just to the south of Lyman Boulevard you approved 440 townhomes on a lot that are going in there. You have the Highway 312 that's going in immediately to the south of Powers Boulevard, and Lyman Boulevard. All of which are changing the character of the area and placing this collector street into a very high volume street. While that area right now has a few homes along it which are very large lot, all the surrounding areas to the north are highly developed. Now, you installed in 1994 under your comprehensive plan at that time you anticipated the need to provide sewer and water to this area. This is an island that has no sewer and water connection in that neighborhood. We don't understand why the sewer and water that was brought forward at that time in 1994, for which the City paid $260,000... the use of these neighboring properties. In particular the property near Oakside Circle recently was allowed to re-establish it's septic system without being required to connect to city sewer and water as your ordinance 19-4 requires. My ty Council Meeting —March Ci13, 2006 0 client has asked that he be allowed to connect and has been told that right now the City would not allow him to connect because ostensibly his house is less than, is not 150 feet. Within 150 feet of the sewer and water. We understand there's sewer and water connection stubs at the comer of Mr. Rossavik's driveway, as well as down at Oakside Circle. Despite that proximity, preference was given to a council member and neighbors in that area so that no sewer and water was required to be connected at that location. These have been conveniences that have denied Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to convert an area that, it's a very large lot, into some reasonable development of 5 lots. Last time this matter was presented in 2004 I believe, the City gave some consideration and concern regarding the ravine and that in the westerly side lot. All of those were adequately addressed and confirmed by the City staff as being handled by the drainage plan. There is no encroachment on steep slopes or bluff nor is there a loss of vegetation or any other impacts in terms of drainage. This plan, if approved, would provide access to the property to the south so as that becomes available and those property owners decide they want to develop their land, they might. As a practical matter, the development of this land by rezoning this does not deny or impose on any of the neighboring property owners a need to change at this time. The reality is this is a high density area that's increasingly being commercialized. Within a year you'll have a major intersection here, just about 2 blocks to the south. Mr. Rossavik's development will allow access on a cul-de-sac that will service some land to the south. That's good planning. Doesn't require multiple curb cuts. In fact there's already a right hand turn lane that's been established. The City planned this area to have in and out right hand turn lanes when it redeveloped Powers Boulevard 10 years ago. It is certainly within your discretion to exercise your decisions as you see fit, but we're asking for consideration of the fact that change has been approved and density has been approved by the City over the course of it's conduct to the north, to the west, to the south. Nothing can happen to the east because it is wetland, but you did install sewer and water for the purpose of this area developing. And allowing Mr. Rossavik to install a handful of single family homes identical to that which you have off of Flamingo Drive, is not unreasonable. And it doesn't impose change on anyone. It gives opportunity to others and perhaps those who own on Oakside Circle will gradually change over. But in the meantime my client has been faced with a great deal of frustration as well. His neighbor to the south, or to the north, Mr. Bizek runs a commercial operation out of his garage. The City's been unwilling to address that matter and has showed preference to Mr. Bizek's refusal to approve this project. This project came close to being approved a few years ago but was withdrawn, but the City withdrew it's support when Mr. Bizek decided not to support it. Again Mr. Bizek runs an unlicensed operation from his home which is to this date the City has refused to do anything about. For all the reasons that I've described, I think the timeliness of this matter is certainly present and we'd ask that the City reconsider despite the fact that the staff has made it's presentation asking that it not be approved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? I guess I have some follow up questions based upon some of the statements made to staff. First of all there was a statement that Mr. Rossavik would not be allowed to connect to city utilities. Is that a true statement? Paul Oehme: No it's not. There, the sewer off it is right there. I mean right against his property. He can definitely hook up at any time that he wishes. In fact if his septic system were to fail, I think that the building officials would require him to hook up at that time. 35 City Council Meeting -A 13, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there was also made mention of another property owner who I believe the phrase was something to the effect was not required to hook up as ordinance would require. Paul Oehme: Yeah, in that case I did talk to the building official who issued that septic system permit and he did not, that particular property owner did not meet the requirements of city code 19-41. His septic system, his property is more than 150 feet away from that sewer stub off the cul-de-sac so he did not, he would not be required to hook up at that time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so no special preference was made. Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the commercial operation to the property to the north. Kate Aanenson: Sure, I can address that. The City did research a number of years ago Mr. Bizek. It was determined at that time, working with the City Attorney's office that it was a legal non -conforming use. We did pursue that and Mr. Rossavik is aware of what our findings were on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it has. Kate Aanenson: It was a non -conforming. There are some non -conforming. At a time there are some off of Pioneer Trail too. Some contractor's yards that were permitted under a different zoning ordinance. Pre -dated zoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thank you sir. Mark Kelly: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other follow up? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to add a couple other questions. Comments just regarding large lots and kind of reiterating what the Planning Commission felt. I did mention Homestead Lane. Timberwood is also another large lot subdivision that's been impacted by single family lots all the way around. They maintain that character. A very healthy neighborhood. I think we've had one or two systems in there that are on the edge that have actually hooked on, but again they did not change the character of the neighborhood. Did not subdivide further. There's 2 �h acre minimum and that's a lifestyle choice that those neighbors selected. Again, if there's a possibility to hook up and it's cost effective, they're within that and the sewer's available, it's a separate issue from subdividing, that they're being provided efficient services that we'd always look at that. 36 City Council Meeting—Ma•13, 2006 • Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess the overall comment of the amount of development that has occurred, I guess I'll go back to I think my earlier question is, has that development occurred consistent with our comprehensive plan? Kate Aanenson: That's correct, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is there anybody that would like to provide public comment on this matter? I know it was heard at the Planning Commission. Okay, very good. Council discussion. Thoughts, comments. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, have commented on this in years past that the hang-up that I have always had, and continue to have on this is that it's an island. If it's, you know it's not the most northerly lot. It's not the most southerly lot. It's pretty much right in the middle, so some issues and challenges with that. Have voted for in the past, and would consider developments that make sense for the area as a whole, but to drop a, to drop this in the middle of that is where I continue to have a problem. Yes there's been developments to the west and south. Lots of changes in the area, but as we've looked at those, if they make sense as infill developments and other things going on is the issue that I continue to have with this one. Is that, I don't see a compelling reason to make a land use amendment for a 5, or how ever many home development in the middle of that area. Once these properties can get together and come together and present a unified plan to develop, or as that development proceeds from the north to the south, or the south to the north I might feel more compelled to look at that right now. I don't see a compelling reason to make a land use amendment for that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I guess I wish Mr. Rossavik would have been here tonight because I would have asked him why he bought his property. I'm assuming it's because he chose that life style of living on a large lot residential area and I'm sure if we asked any of the neighbors that lived there why'd you buy your property, it was because it was a large lot residential area. I think it's a unique part of the city and I don't think we'll see a lot more of those being developed in our city and I think they need to be respected and protected and so I too am not in favor of changing anything that's existing there already. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, yeah. Obviously I've been on record before about this project and more importantly about other projects where subdivisions are in the offing, and historically I try to find ways not to do subdivisions when the city can maintain a look and feel that a lot of our residents wanted when they moved to Chanhassen. And I've been pretty vocal about the need to maintain a wide variety of housing styles and maintain as much green acres as we possibly can. I mean our city survey, it's a resounding yes when you asked the citizens if you want more green space, less green space... maintain green space, but to Councilman Lundquist's point, the island is clearly in this situation probably the most compelling reason not to make an adjustment. And we've got an area to the east that is open and wooded and wetlands. You've 37 + City Council Meeting —Ah 13, 2006 got a park to the west and you've got large lots surrounding it, so it just simply doesn't fit. For those reasons I would affirm the staff position and deny the request. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar to those expressed. I think that in this particular case it is a single lot within a currently zoned next to the neighboring lots, as part of my questions. Though development has occurred, it's been consistent with the comprehensive plan generally and so I don't think even with the Highway 212 being constructed, that was part of the comprehensive plan so the changes are consistent with what could be expected by all property owners. And I agree with Councilman Lundquist's positions both in terms of the island and in terms of when as a council we should consider changing these, and it takes more than one property owner. Does it take all of them? The factor probably depends, but it certainly takes more than one. We had a situation like this up along Lake Lucy Road last year when we were looking at a street project and extending utilities in that case. I think there were a number of property owners that would be willing to take the assessments for the utilities if they were allowed to subdivide, but it was clearly not a consensus among property owners that subdivision was what that neighborhood wanted and so in the end we did not move forward with the utility assessments, because it was pretty clear that many of those property owners would not accept the assessments without that subdivision option and that just wasn't there yet from the property owners so, I think we have a very similar situation here. And I see, I don't see any justification for not following staffs recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter. Is there other comments or thoughts on this? If not we have, beginning on page... Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move the City Council deny the land use map amendment from residential large lot to residential low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact. Roger Knutson: And includes adopting the findings? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Based on adopting the findings of fact Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to pick up B and C there? Do we need to do that as well, since that's part of the application? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: We're required to. Kate Aanenson: You can make it all one motion. Roger Knutson: Yeah, you'd turn down all three. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to keep going? Councilman Lundquist: Why not. Mr. Mayor, I'd also move that the City Council deny the rezoning from A2 to RSF for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council deny the preliminary 38 City Council Meeting —March 3, 2006 • plat of the Rossavik Addition creating 5 lots and variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that combined motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: It's made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, adopting the findings of fact. That the City Council denies the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council denies the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street, based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Move on to the next item here which is consideration of Halla Greens. We have a number of people here so I'd like to try to keep our meeting moving at this point. Kate Aanenson: Take a quick break. Mayor Furlong: Is there a desire for. Councilman Lundquist: 5 minutes recess. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We'll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let's keep it short though. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto Gaye Guyton David & Judy Walstad Sandy & Don Halla Dave Wondra 9631 Foxford Road 10083 Great Plains Boulevard 10071 Great Plains Boulevard 6601 Mohawk Trail 9590 Foxford Road Rig • • vQ�-01 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan Keefe, and Debbie Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: ROSSAVIK ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH Public Present: Name Address Mark Kelly 351 2°d Street, Excelsior Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone want to start? Keefe: Yeah, I've got a couple questions. It sounds to me since the last time that we were here, and I was here for the last time that they came through, the City was going to do a study in regards to whether that should, that neighborhood should change and it sounds to me, just I think to restate what you said, the City essentially came back and said, there isn't enough and maybe you can sort of restate it. Planning Commission Meeting — February 21, 2006 • ' Generous: Well in February of 2005 the City Council did affirm the land use for residential large lot for that subdivision. They felt that it was appropriate. One of the things that we look at is providing a full range of housing types. Estate type housing is one of the housing types that we have in our community. There's not a lot of them and we're not going to create any new estate type homes so, suburban style development, there are other locations for that. There is land currently guided and vacant that's guided residential low density. That would be appropriate for a suburban subdivisions. Keefe: Did we do a traffic study along there? I'm trying to remember if that was something that was requested as a part of that. Because I remember there was some question that came out of that meeting as to the level of traffic along there and what would happen if we were to put it into a higher density type of. Generous: Well there wasn't a study done specifically for that amendment because adding 5 lots is 50 trips a day on average so it wouldn't have a great impact. Powers Boulevard yes, does have, will be carrying a lot of traffic. Should you add additional traffic to it, that could be an argument that no, you don't want to. The 2 lots are sufficient. The rest of them come off the cul-de-sac. Keefe: I did see the one e-mail or letter that came in from, it looks like the Bizek or Bizek family where, as I recall from the last meeting a number of the neighbors were opposed to this. Have we had change in their position that we're aware of or did we receive anything beyond what the Bizek's have received? Generous: We only had that one letter. I've talked to 2 neighbors and they were both, they didn't want to see the change. They thought it was premature. Keefe: Okay. And then do we have, last question. Do we have instances where we change one lot in a neighborhood like this and not, I mean at least what we typically see are neighborhoods come in with a change. This would be really, I mean it is a large lot but, you know where we would just sort of change a lot in the middle of the neighborhood and not change the others? Generous: Not since I've been here and generally we don't. It's either an all or nothing proposition. And all the developments that come in for suburban or residential single family have been guided for low density, residential low density. We have a case coming forward that's actually guided for medium density and they're requesting a down zoning if you will. Down guiding. Keefe: Thank you. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No questions for staff. McDonald: Debbie? Deborah? ` Planning Commission Meting — February 21, 2006 • Zorn: Just have a question of clarification. You indicated that there was some sewer lines that were placed in this area in case there were future redevelopment. Can you just talk to what that redevelopment would be. Would that be if this neighborhood were to collectively say let's subdivide? Would that qualify or what would qualify as redevelopment? Generous: That would be one if the neighborhood came in and the City determined that it was appropriate to go to a higher density. I believe there's a lift station right, just across the street from the site. The way the force main to service this. There is a manhole, or actually I think it's a 8 inch line that's across under Powers Boulevard at the end of the driveway. The applicant, one of his issues is with the city ordinance says that if you have sewer available you're supposed to connect. Our ordinance actually says within 150 feet, and we've been interpreting that from the building, not from the property line and this is, his house is over 200 feet from that sewer line ending. As a matter of fact the house to the north is almost 200 feet away too so neither of them are in real close proximity. ...the property on the east side, down on Lyman does have potential for subdivision. It's guided for residential low density. It has the big wetland complex in the back of it so we don't know if, when that would happen but we're trying to be, have proactive in widening the infrastructure should that ever be necessary. McDonald: I have a question for you concerning the private drive. You said that if we approve this, you want the private drive to go all the way to the south property line. What are the limits on access on a private drive. I thought we were limited to 3 houses. Generous: You can have up to 4 homes accessing via a private street. Yeah, private street requires a variance but. McDonald: Okay. Generous: In the rear of the lot to the south is wider so we anticipate that this lot were to develop at a suburban density, they may split off the northern end of their property and that would be their access. It really narrows down as you go to Oakside Circle, and there's some, I believe some wetland, or at least lowlands on the street side of that property. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, as you're coming out of this development you're going to be making a left hand turn on Powers. At that point is the road divided? Is there a median there or are you able to make a left hand turn? Generous: You can't make a left directly off, no you have to go down south to Oakside Circle and then there's. McDonald: Turn around in there and come back to go north on Powers. Generous: Correct. McDonald: I have no further questions. At this point I would ask the applicant to come forward to present their case. Planning Commission Meeting — February 21, 2006 • Mark Kelly: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name's Mark Kelly. I'm an attorney practicing in the city of Excelsior. Mr. Rossavik is not able to be here. He's abroad. I'd like to thank Mr. Generous for his comments in his report over the years he's worked with Mr. Rossavik on this matter, trying to... It's clear from the presentation that's been made by staff that this area has always been anticipated by the city to be ultimately redeveloped. While it's lawful to maintain large lots ... changes have happened along this area. Just to the west you approved a subdivision. A substantial one. Just to the south of Lyman Boulevard you have a very large development, 440 units going in. You have the highway being extended. The intersection at Powers Boulevard and Lyman is going to be a very major intersection, drawing traffic heading west and east... Traffic's coming from the north down Powers Boulevard... It is, while it is true that typically one would rezone an area larger, the request at this time for the comprehensive plan change that will permit the zoning change... reasonable and in fact if you do change the zoning it doesn't mean the properties are going to be taxed or ... impact is going to happen to them. It does mean that they will have the opportunity, the way Mr. Rossavik is suggesting and redefine his property for ... that smaller lot subdivisions produce more economical, more affordable housing for people rather than as in this case one house on a very large parcel. That was a norm when I was growing up some years ago in the whole area and the like. I grew up on Christmas Lake Road ... used to ride my bicycle out to Chanhassen ... butthe reality is that that has changed and just to be able to afford housing in the western suburbs means that you're going to have to have smaller lots and ultimately unfortunately those smaller lots are going to be found on properties that have higher traffic. Some minor arterial, it's on a collector street... It's going to have major traffic on it. It already does. The City's already planned this matter substantially. This area has a right hand turn lane. You can go right -in or right -out and turn around to the south and... The plan of including the extended causeway to accommodate traffic to the south is logical. If you look at that property to the south, that will remain and they can parallel a lot of these services by this common driveway. It's unfortunate that just like happened back in 1997 there about when the Bizek family was interested in... To date they're unwilling to discuss the matter. Their property would benefit by being, having the opportunity at some point to be able to be subdivided. It's not within Mr. Rossavik's ability to convince them of the economic value of that... Some of the items that have been raised in the report by Mr. Generous, we would ... there is some bluff area and some trees, largely on the west side. That is preserved by the plat. It was preserved by the plat when it was presented last time, and there are adequate building pads to accommodate the use of 5 lots as has been prescribed. One of the curiosities of this now ... when Mr. Rossavik wanted to consider having this matter divided into a 3 lot subdivision, perhaps make it more preferable, the city staff noted that that would not be acceptable under the rezoning that we're requesting. That the lot then wouldn't be in fact small enough, so we went back to a 5 lot subdivision. So the City has the opportunity here to provide an equally valid use for the land. One that the economy and the city does need a mix of more affordable housing for new housing along this area here. The sewer and water was built some years ago. It has never been recovered in terms of investment, which I understand was approximately a quarter of a million dollars. The sewer and water, as you've been advised, located right at the northeast corner of the property and despite an application from ... the City has refused Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to connect his property to sewer and water. Something everyone here in this group has sewer and water and city services. For whatever reason we don't understand the City has refused Mr. Rossavik's... It is entirely possible as a city to look to your comprehensive plan and find what allows you to hang your hat on and say this can't be... 4 ' ' ` Planning Commission Me*ng — February 21, 2006 • Comprehensive plan's... stated in broad terms ... but here, when you consider the fact that the property immediately to the northeast, the northwest, to the north, sewer and water when new subdivisions are approved immediately to the west, they ... 312/212 redevelopment, 444 houses going into the south, just a short distance away. This is not... reasonable request ... the fact that Mr. Rossavik does come back to ask for ... we ask your consideration and understand that approving a simple rezoning to match it in with the remaining ... is entirely appropriate at this time. I'd welcome any questions from anyone. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, start with you. Deborah? Larson: In the issue about wanting to connect to the sewer and water, what have they told you is the reason why you couldn't? Mark Kelly: As you heard from Mr. Generous, they've interpreted the code as precluding any requirement... given that the purpose of the metropolitan urban services ... this was done in 1994. We're in 2006. Larson: That's all I have. Keefe: Just one quick question. In regards to the neighbors, I mean it seems like a lot of the neighbors don't want to rezone. How do you resolve that in terms of? Mark Kelly: Well first of all as a legal standpoint, the fact that any one citizen doesn't approve of something, it is not a reason in and of itself sufficient to deny an application. Secondly, it's unfortunate that they may not recognize the benefits that they... Mr. Rossavik in fact opens up opportunities that they may choose to make use of or choose not to make use of at their own leisure. They are not required to change or sell their property ... make any, or incur any expenses as a result of rezoning. You're not going to see increased taxes, anything of that sort. The fact of the matter, the marketplace is not going to reward anybody with additional dollars on the basis that their property might be subdivided in the future. Until you get it subdivided, there's no additional dollars there that are going to be paid for any one in general, except maybe ... result in additional money. McDonald: I have no questions for you at this point. I guess I would, if there are no further questions from the commission, I'm going to open it up to the floor. Anyone that would wish to make comments, this is a public meeting. Thank you very much Mr. Kelly. Steve Buan: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Steve Buan, a resident of, at 8740 Flamingo Drive, which if you can bring this map up here, I'll point it out. Is this lot right there. Just immediately to the west of the property. Been here before. Some new faces on the Planning Commission. Been here several times. This is the fourth time, or the fifth time. ...this last February at City Council. I can't speak for my neighbors but the general consensus is that the, we have all agreed with what the City has affirmed many times over, that this is, that the large lot designation for these properties down below us is appropriate due to the nature of the landscape in there. The parkland. If you bring up the map here again. Park, city parkland immediately to the west, southwest of the property is designated as a natural Planning Commission Mee• — February 21, 2006 • • landscape park. They call it Vista View Park there, and that area is utilized extensively by the urban wildlife that still survives and the parkland across Powers Boulevard, down in here that the City owns is a large wetland complex adjacent to Lake Susan, and sitting in my back yard on my patio, I can see numerous species of wildlife trying to bring back and forth between those properties, utilizing that large lot open space that we've provided for them, and to choke that off by cramming in every single, solitary possible housing structure we can is not benefiting the people of Chanhassen with all the unique features that we have out here. And that's been reaffirmed several times at the Planning Commission and City Council level that that's an appropriate land use, partially to preserve that nature that the part of Chanhassen that people really like out here. It's a very landscape up and down of wetlands and everything and to change that character now, once 5, 3.9 acre rezoning, is not really going to serve the community that is Chanhassen. I don't know, there's just some things about that this just keeps coming back over and over and over again. You know kind of like this will be my life in Chanhassen to come to the Planning Commission meetings. And I don't begrudge Mr. Rossavik of trying to maximize the use of his property but I also like the democratic process of living here and having a say in how things happen and for your volunteering on a commission like this to listen to people and try to make the best for everyone so, I just think the City Council did, in fact one of my comments at the last meeting was that the comprehensive plan direct zoning should be reviewed for the entire Hillside Oaks and the Planning Commission recommended that that be done. The City Council looked, took it up. Did it. Reaffirmed the zoning. I think that should be it for quite a long time but I guess that's all I've got to say. McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I had some questions about ... on the drawing for Lot 1, the 30 foot setback. Aanenson: For the both, they both meet the 30 foot. Janet Paulsen: Okay, so... Generous: With the northerly lot has to be 30 feet and the Powers Boulevard is also 30 feet. So it doesn't have a rear per se. Janet Paulsen: I can't tell... Generous: I don't know that, we know this for sure is exceeding 30 feet. This may be a little closer but they could shift it. There's area to do it because there's a 10 foot on this side. Janet Paulsen: And then Lot 3 on that one... and the report doesn't show a 30 foot setback.. Generous: Yes, I agree. ` Planning Commission McTng — February 21, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission? Seeing no one get up, we'll close the public meeting and we'll bring the deliberation back to the commissioners and who wants to start? Papke: As I was thinking through this, I live in a very similar neighborhood with large lots and there's a certain feeling that you get on a large lot neighborhood like this. Feeling of space and so on, and I tried to imagine how I would feel if one of my neighbors decided to put 4 or 5 homes on their lot, and I think I would feel like that would diminish the value of my property and I don't think I would be very pleased. And so personally I can understand how the neighbors would not really care for this. I think it goes against our principle to have an isolated rezoning and re -use like this. I think this is an all or nothing deal. You know either we decide when we redo the comprehensive plan to change this or we say no again. I don't think we can do an island like this, so that's it. Thanks. McDonald: Deborah. Zom: I wasn't on the commission last time this came in front of us but I feel that there's substantial process that this has been though at this point, and feel very confident in the process that has been had up to this point and that there has been some evaluation. That there's been no change in circumstance so I would have to agree with Kurt and be in favor of the denial. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Pretty much of the same though you know. This stretch of road, I go down it at least 4 times a day, and I know that they're beautiful large lots and to see an island of small houses amongst the other large lots I think would be really odd. But moreover than that, it's just not part of the comprehensive plan to have that at this time. I think if everybody was in agreement, neighbors on all sides, if that entire stretch were to change, then I could go with it but at this point I just unfortunately can't see that with it before it so, I would also be in denial of it. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah, I think one key with this project down there is access, and to take this lot and put access into Powers Boulevard forces the properties on either side to either okay you need to match what I'm doing in my road or, they're going to come to us and say, now how do we get out of here and we want to do something different or we don't want to put a lot over there, so I think it kind of ties together again that you need to get, you need to get everybody together down there to get, you know maybe the access ends up all the way over here on Oakside Circle for the entire development, I don't know but it definitely would raise issues for the remaining property owners on how do they get in and out of there if they want to subdivide. That's it. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: No further comments. 7 Planning Commission Meeting — February 21, 2006 • McDonald: I guess the only comments I would have is that these are estate lots and I would say that they are estate lots by choice, and that's the biggest obstacle I see to all of this is that, you know we have heard from all the neighbors before. I was here a year ago and it's the same letters that are coming in. By choice they wish to remain as an estate lot and at this point it's the same problems. We would be creating an island of different zoning. We would probably create problems as far as traffic as has been brought up. Access on and off of Powers Boulevard. What happens when the rest of the lots, if they decide to do something, that this really should be more of a coordinated approach to doing things. Make it easier for the city as far as the safety of the citizens within Powers Boulevard. So I would say because of that I would also probably have a problem of voting on this and again, to me it's still premature. Nothing has really changed since last year. Until the neighbors themselves begin to look at requesting changes of this so that again this could be done in a coordinated effort, I would say is premature. With that, I would ask if there are a motion. Larson: The Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact. B. That the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And C. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. McDonald: So seconded. Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact; that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property; and that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: And I believe with that the public hearings for tonight are completed. We will now move on to approval of the minutes from last week. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 2006 as presented. McDonald: At this point we move on to the presentations. We'll turn it back to city staff. Planning Commission Acing — February 21, 2006 Aanenson: Otherwise you can, Chair if you'd like to adjourn the meeting and we'll just go into open discussion. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim