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