1 Rezone 1916 Crestview CircleCITYOF
~90 CiO, Ce, re;' Drive, PO Box 147
Cha,hasse,, Mimmota 55317
:
~ Pho,e 612.937.1900
! Ge,eralFax 612. Y37.5739
13~gi, eeri,g Fa.r 612.937.9152
h~blic S,,.feO, ~.~' 612.934.2524
II:~.b u.u ,w. ci. cha,hasse,. ,m. ,s
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commissioners
FROM:
Julie Hoium, Planner I
DATE:
January 16, 2001
Rezoning of 1916 CresWiew Circle
UPDATE
On January 2, 2001, the Planning Commission tabled a request to rezone the
property at 1916 Crestview Circle from Rural Residential (RR) to Residential
Single Family (RSF) until more information could be provided on the site
characteristics. In addition, staff was directed to provide additional information
on the possibility of a future subdivision of this site.
The purpose of this memo is to present the information as requested. The
rezoning is scheduled tbr the January 22nd City Council meeting.
STAFF FINDINGS
The property is currently zoned RR. It is approximately 41,270 square feet or. 95
acres in size. The topography of the site slopes from a high of elevation 1018 at
the front (western) property line to a low of 994 at the southeastern property line
Upon preliminary inspection there appears to be a small portion of a larger
wetland basin in the southeast comer of the property. There is also a drainage
way in the northwest comer of the property that flows southeast into the wetland.
A 24 inch drainage pipe located underneath Galpin Boulevard feeds this drainage
channel.
While researching the site characteristics, staff considered three different
scenarios that could be applied to this property. The 3 scenarios include:
1. Rezone the property to RSF, and construct one single family home
2. Rezone the property to RSF and subdivide the property
3. Leave property zoned as RR and grant variances to make the property
buildable
The following paragraphs give a description of each scenario along with an
explaination of the resulting outcome.
he Citl, of Cha,hasse,. A x~'owinz communit3, with dean lakes, qua/&, schools, a cham~in~ downtown, thriving, businesses, and beautiful oarks. A ~reat /)/ace to live, work. and
January 16, 2001
Page 2
REZONED TO RSF & BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME
Rezoning this property to Residential Single Family (RSF) would bring the
zoning into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. If this property were
rezoned to Residential Single Family (RSF) and the property owner decided to
build one single family home, staff would still have some control in how and
where the home would be built. The property owner would be required to submit
site plans and specifications as required under Section 7-19 of the city ordinance
(Attachment 1). A wetland delineation would be required to show the exact
wetland boundary. A storm water plan would also be required. A 0-20 foot
buffer with a minimum average width of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback would have
to be maintained from any wetland. In addition, any proposal cannot alter
drainage patterns off site. As stated in Section 7-20 (Attachment 1), the city could
deny a building permit if the dwelling is on ground too low for adequate surface
water drainage. The permit can also be denied if it appears that the construction
would cause a change in the existing drainage of surface water.
REZONED TO RSF & PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED
If this property were rezoned to RSF, the property owner could apply to subdivide
this parcel into two separate parcels. Some of the same standards and regulations
that applied to the previous scenario would apply to this scenario. The owner
would be required to submit site plans and specifications. A wetland delineation
would be required along with a storm water plan to show that existing drainage
patterns would be maintained. As stated above, a 0-20 foot buffer with a
minimum average width of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback must be maintained from
a wetland.
In this situation, additional requirements would be applied. The city could require
an easement be dedicated over the drainage way that runs from the northwest
comer to the wetland. This would allow the city to access the drainage way for
emergency or maintenance purposes. As stated in Section 18-76 (Attachment 2),
the easement would have to be sufficient width to provide proper maintenance
and protection. The owner would not be allowed to build over this easement. If
the owner wanted to reroute the drainage channel so that it followed the property
boundary instead of traveling through the property, they would have to hire an
engineer to design the channel. Storm water calculations would also be required.
This can be a very expensive course of action.
The city would also require the applicant to pay SWMP fees to cover water
quality and water quantity related maintenance and improvements. A tree survey
would be required and would have to be prepared by a registered landscape
architect or forester. As required by the ordinance, a minimum amount of canopy
January 16, 2001
Page 3
coverage must be maintained on site. The homes would be required to hook up to
the city's water and sanitary sewer systems. The only place to hook up to the
sewer system is along Crestview Circle, however based on the elevations in the
area this would require an ejector pump to be installed in the new home.
As stated in the previous section, the city could deny a permit if it appears that the
surface water drainage would be adversely affected. The applicant would also
have to meet all required setbacks from the property lines, and the wetland.
Based on the preliminary inspection by staff, it appears that it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to subdivide the property and meet all the setbacks and
additional criteria. Attached is a map (Attachment 3) that shows there is very
little room on this site to divide the property. A 50 foot setback would have to be
maintained from the wetland. A drainage channel would have to be maintained
on the western portion of the property.
Access to this property would most likely be along County Road 117 (Galpin
Blvd.), which is under Carver County jurisdiction. The only way to subdivide this
lot would be via a private drive or a flag lot. If the property was divided there
does not appear to be a 60 x 60 foot building pad on the western half of the
property. It is the opinion of staff at this time that the property cannot be
subdivided.
LEAVE AS RR & GRANT A VARIANCE
Should this property be left as Rural Residential the owner would not be allowed
to subdivide. To make this a buildable lot, the city would have to grant variances
from the RR lot requirements and setbacks. Some of these include a variance
from the minimum lot area, lot frontage, and driveway separation. As with the
two previous scenarios, the owner would have to provide a site plan and
specifications to show storm water drainage. A wetland delineation would also be
required. The city could also deny any permit if the ground is too low for
adequate drainage or a change in existing drainage occurred.
If this property was left as zoned as RR, there are some additional factors that
should be noted. One is that if the owner met the setbacks (front, rear and side)
after the initial variances were granted, no additional variances would be needed
in the future. Two, in a RR district agricultural uses are allowed, meaning the
property owner could build a barn or raise livestock or poultry. Three, in RR
districts accessory structures could be as large as 30% of any rear yard. Finally,
height limitations do not apply to barns, silos, or farm buildings, which are
allowed in RR districts.
January 16, 2001
Page 4
ADDITIONAL POINTS OF INTEREST
In the immediate vicinity of this parcel there are several lots zoned as RSF that
are as large or larger than this lot. These lots, as shown on Attachment 4, could
be subdivided if all the ordinance requirements were met. The map (Attachment
4) also shows two lots on the north side of Crestview Circle. These lots are the
result of a subdivision that occurred in 1993. Rezoning this parcel to RSF
therefore would not create a unique circumstance that would provide an
oppo~mnity for one large lot to be further subdivided.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's conclusion that this property could not be subdivided. Considering the
physical features on this property there is not enough room to create two lots that
meet all the ordinance requirements and provide for two 60 x 60 foot building
pads. Even if this property were rezoned to RSF, a site plan and wetland
delineation would be required before any building permit could be approved.
Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the folloWing
motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning (#2000-3) of
Mr. Walton's property located at 1916 Crestview Circle, from Rural Residential,
RR to Residential Single Family, RSF."
ATTACHMENT
1. Section 7-19 & 7-20 of the city ordinance
2. Section 18-76 of the city ordinance
3. Site map
4. Map of subdividable RSF lots
5. Elevation map
g:\plan\jh\projects\rezone\waltonmemo.doc
§ 7-18
ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance, Section 7-19, Building Plans and Specifications
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 7-18. Fees.
(a) The fees to be paid to the city for building permits and inspections shall be as
established by resolution. The value of construction shall be determined by the building
official.
(b) Upon return of a building permit to the city by the holder thereof, with proof
satisfactory to the building official that no construction was undertaken pursuant hereto, he
shall refund to the holder the building permit fee pa.id by him, except that twenty (20) percent
of the fee paid or twenty-five dollars ($25.00), whichever is greater, shall be retained by the
city. A similar refund shall be made of any plan-checking fee pa/d except that no refund shall
be made if the city has caused the plans to be checked.
(c) In addition to the permit fee required by subsection (a), above, the applicant shall pay
a surcharge to be remitted to the Minnesota Department of Administration as required by
Minnesota Statutes 1990, § 16B.70.
(Ord. No. 23-B, § 5, 2-23-81; Ord. No. 84, § 2, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 167, § 4, 4-27-92)
Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications.
The building official may require that plans and specifications, required under Section
302(b) of the Unifc~rm Building Code, include a survey of the lot upon which the proposed
building or construction is to be done, prepared and attested by a registered surveyor. An
ori~inM si~ature is required on the certificate of survey. The survey shM1 provide the
following information unless other~wise approved by the administrative authority:
(1)_ Scale of drawing mud north arrow;
(2) Legal description of property;_
(3) Dimensions and beating of front, rear, and side property lines;-
(4) Front, rear, and side yard setback dimensions of all proposed structures;
(5)
Location of all existing structures on the property, including but not limited to
sanitary and storm manholes, hydrants, catch basins, power poles, phone boxes,
fences, and any encroachments;
(6)
Outside dimensions of proposed structure(s) including decks, porches, retaining wails
(include elevations at bottom of footing and top of wall), stoops, stairs, cantilevers,
fireplaces, bay and bow windows, egress window wells;
(7)
Location of a benchmark stake established by the surveyor at the front setback line
within twenty (20) feet of the proposed structure. Maintenance of the benchmark
stake once established by the surveyor shall be the responsibility of the permit
applicant;
(8) Location of stakes established by the surveyor on side property lines at:
a. Front setback line.
b. Front building line.
Supp. No. 8 386
BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 7-21
c. Rear building line.
The maintenance of these stakes once established by the surveyor shall be the
responsibility of the permit applicant;
(9) Location of first floor elevation of buildings on adjacent lots. Vacant adjacent lots shall
be labelled as such;
(10) Location of all easements of record;
(11) E.,dsting and proposed elevations at the following locations;
a. Each lot comer.
b. Top of curb or centerline of street at each lot line extension.
c. Center of proposed driveway at curb.
d. Grade at corners of proposed structure.
e. Lowest floor level, top of block, garage slab.
(12) Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows;
(13) Erosion control and grading plan if required by Chapter 20 or development contract;
(14) Wetland boumdaries with ordinary high water level and 100-year flood elevation if
applicable;
(15) Drix'eway grade (minimum--0.50~, ma.-dmum--10%;
(16) .MI trees in excess of six (6) inches in diameter (diameter measured at four (4) feet
above grade).
(Ord. No. 23-B, § 6.01, 2-23-S1; Ord. No. 167, § 5, 4-27-92)
Cross references--Report of enlargement of establishment selling nonintoxicatkng malt
liquor at time of application for building permit, § 10-36; report of alteration to alcoholic
beverage establishment to be made at time of application for buildin~ permit, § 10-87.
Sec. 7-20. Denial of permit,
The building official shall deny a permit for construction or enlargement of a dwelling on
ground which is too low for adequate drainage of surface waters. He shall also deny a permit
for construction or enlargement of any building when it appears that the proposed elevations
of the lot for which the permit is to be issued, in relation to the established or proposed grades
of adjoining or nearby streets, will probably cause a change in the e.,aisting drainage of surface
waters which will result in substantial hazard or inconvenience to persons residing in the city
or traveling on its streets.
(Ord. No. 23-B, § 6.02, 2-23-81)
Sec. '7-21. Certificate of occupancy.
No building or structure except group .U occupancies shall be used or occupied, until the
building official has issued a certificate of occupancy.
(Ord. No. 118, ~ 1, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 237, § 2, 4-10-95)
Supp. No. 8 387
ATTACHMENT 2
Ordinance, Section 18-76, Easements
SUBDIVISION § 18-77
storm water improvement which has been oversized to serve property outside the subdivision.
The charge for lots oversized due to individual onsite sewage disposal and water Systems will
be reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half acre lot. An additional charge will
then be imposed if the lot is further subdivided less a credit for the charge previously paid. The
charge shall be paid in cash before the subdivision is approved by the city unless the city and
subdivider agree that the charge may be assessed against the property. Property being
subdivided shall be exempt from the water qualit~ and water quantity connection charges
imposed by this section if the charges were paid or assessed in conjunction with a previous
subdivision of the property and if the property is not being zoned to a classification with a
higher charge.
(c) Within the Bluff Creek Overlay (BCO) District, meet the additional purpose, intent and
standards of the BCO District.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 6.8, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 225, § 1, 10-24-94; Ord. No. 286, § 2, 12-14-98)
Secs. 18-64--18-75. Reserved.
ARTICLE IV. EASEMENTS, DEDICATION OF LAND OR CASH CONTRIBUTION
FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 18-76. Easements.
(a) All easements shall be dedicated by appropriate language on the final plat in accordance
with this section.
(b) Easements at least ten (10) feet wide along all street right-of-way lines, five (5) feet
along both sides of rear and side lot lines, shall be provided for utilities where necessary. If
appropriate, easements of lesser or greater width may be required by the city. All utility
easements shall have continuity of alignment from block to block.
(c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerline of any water course or
drainage channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to
provide for storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of twenty-four (24) hours'
duration. Where necessary, drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided.
Such easements for drainage purposes shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in width.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 7, 2-25-85)
Sec. 18-77. Dedication of land or contribution in cash for public purposes.
in every plat or subdivision the developer may be required to dedicate to the public streets,
easements for sewers, electric, gas, water facilities, storm water drainage, holding ponds and
similar utilities and improvements.
(Ord. No. 33-D, § 8, 2-25-85; Ord. No. 85, § 1, 3-14-88)
Supp. No.' 11 1014.5
SITE MAP
ATTACHMENT 3
Site Map
/
LE'3END
Drainage Pipe
Drainage Chanr, el
Wetland Buffer
io%
%'1 !
ATTACHMENT 4
Map of RSF zoned property large enough to subdivide
'Vleiod.~ F ill
V~'. 65th St.
~r
Crest~
Lots that have been subdivided
Lots that can be subdivided
N
CITY OF
PC DATE: Jan. 2, 2001
CC DATE: Jan. 22, 2001
REVIEW DEADLINE: 01/30/01
CASE #: REZ 2000-03
Bv: JH
STAFF REPON i
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of property from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential
(RSF).
-.
LOCATION:
1916 Crestview Circle
APPLICANT:
Tory Gene Walton
1961 Crestview Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
ACREAGE:
RR, Rural Residential '
Residential-Low Density
.947 acres, 41271.547 square feet
DENSITY: NA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural
Residential District, to RSF, Single Family Residential.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezoning, PUD's, and amendments to
PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and
amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
.~oOd
Lake LucY
Walton Rezoning
January 2, 2001
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant would like to be able to build on this property. Under the current zoning, Rural
Residential (RR), a minimum lot size of 2½ acres is required. The existing lot is non-conforming with
the RR district regulations. The applicant is requesting to rezone this property to Residential Single
Family, RSF, which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. This property is guided for
Residential-Low Density. Rezoning of the property to RSF is consistent with the comprehensive plan
land use designation. The applicant owns the. parcel directly to the north of this property, which is part
of the single family residential subdivision known as Rolling Hills. To the south of this property is a
RR, rural residential large lot subdivision, Lake Lucy Highlands that was subdivided in 1985.
As required by the 1995 amendment to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, land use and zoning must
be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposal to rezone Mr. Walton's residential property to
Residential Single Family, RSF, from Rural Residential, RR, reinforces a pattern of development that is
consistent with the comprehensive plan,
BACKGROUND
This parcel was platted in 1967. In 1972, this property was zoned RI-A, Agricultural Residential, that
requires a minimum lot size of 2½ acres. By 1986, the zoning changed to RSF, Single Family
Residential. This zoning continued through 1990. On the zoning map revised in 1994 this property is
covered by the boundary line separating the RSF, Single Family Residential district from a RR, Rural
Residential district (see Attachment 4). It is thought that at this time the zoning was inadvertently
changed to RR, Rural Residential. However, staff is unable to ascertain when the zoning changed. An
error was made at some point in the zoning of this property. Staff wants to follow the appropriate
process to make certain the zoning is in compliance with the ordinance.
REZONING
Rezoning of the property from RR to RSF is consistent with the City's adopted comprehensive plan land
use designation of Residential-Low Density and would be compatible with the property to the north.
The rezoning would also bring the lot into compliance with the single family district regulations.
DISCUSSION
This property has been guided for Residential-Low Density since the adoption of the 1990
Comprehensive plan. At one time this parcel was zoned as RSF, but for unknown reasons, was changed
to RR on the zoning maps. The 2020 Land Use Plan depicts this property as Residential-Low Density.
Approval of the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Single Family Residential will bring
the zoning and use into compliance with the land use plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
Walton Rezoning
January 2, 2001
Page 3
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning (#2000-3) of Mr. Walton's property
located at 1916 Crestview Circle, from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF."
ATTACHMENT
1. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
2. 1986 Zoning Map
3. 1990 Zoning Maps
4. Zoning Map, Revised 1994
Walton Rezoning
January 2, 2001
Page 4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Tory Walton
Rezoning
On January 2, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of Tory Walton for rezoning property from Rural Residential, RR,
to Single Family Residential, RSF. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
lo
The property is currently zoned Rural Residential, RR.
The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential-Low Density.
The legal description of the property is Registered Land Survey No 31
described as follows: All that part of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast
quarter(SW ¼ of the NE ¼) of Section 3, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the
5th Principle Meridian lying Southerly of the plat of the Lot 4, Block 1, Rolling Hills,
thence Southerly on the Southerly extension of the East line of said Lot 4 to the South
line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence continuing southerly
along said extension a distance of 115.00 feet; thence westerly parallel with the South
line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter a distance of 230.00 feet;
thence Northwesterly along a line, which if extended would intersect the most
Westerly comer of said Lot 4, to the south line of said Southwest quarter of the
Northeast quarter and the actual point of beginning of line to be described; thence
Walton Rezoning
January 2, 2001
Page 5
continuing along the extension of the last described line to its intersection with the
most westerly comer of said Lot 4 and there terminating.
,
a)
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible
adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings
regarding them are:
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
b)
The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
area.
c)
The proposed use conforms with all performance standards-contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
d)
e)
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
,
The planning report #2000-3 dated danuaty 2, 2001, prepared by dulie Hoiurn is
incorporated herein.
Walton Rezoning
January 2, 2001
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this ! 6nd day of January, 200!.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
g: lplanlj'h lprojeetslrezone hvalton rezone, doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
OiTY OF CHANHASSEN
R~P. EIVED
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Day time)
Tory Gwne Walton
1961CrPs~view Or,
mx~,}lsior ~[N 55331
952-889-6207
OWNER: Tory Genc Walton
ADDRESS: 1961C~¢~rv~¢w Cr.
MN 55331
Excelsior
952-470-6398
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
X Rezoning
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
__ Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review* X
Notification Sign
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SPR/VAC/VARNVAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ .500.00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
=ROJECT NAME Walton Rezonin~
LOCATION 1916 Crestview Cr. Excelsior }fN 55~31
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAnd survey ¢/31 t-r~c,t-'.~ A ,t. ~
1.02
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING RRF
REQUESTED ZONING RSF
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
YES ~ NO
Residential' low density
Residential' ]ow d~n.q~y
Applicant wo,,~ l~ke-a'bility to build on property.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be-accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
~all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
~the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
.copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
'this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
i will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
Understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
iauthorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
~xtension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
!extensions are approved by the app~lic/a)nt.
IIII
Signature o[~~~~
Signature of Fee Owner
Application Received on
Date
Fee Paid
Date
Receipt No. -7~ ~ .~'~
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
* * ADDRESS CORRECTION * *
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Rezone Property from RR APPLICANT: Tory Walton
to RSF
LOCATION: 1916 Crestview Circle
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
Tory Walton, is requesting rezoning of property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family
Residential for property located at 1916 Crestview Circle.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public headng is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. Dudng the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public headng through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public heating is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Fdday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Julie at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public heating has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 21, 2000.
,Smooth Feed SheetsTM
l.~e template for 5160®
ISTEN A STRUYK
[1 CRESTVIEW CIR
CELSIOR MN 55331
WILLIAM C & JUDITH J ASHENBACH
2041 65TH ST W
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
SHAWN & CHERRI ENGSTROM
1950 CRESTVIEW CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
)RIS LILLIAN NIKOLAI
70 GALPIN BLVD
iCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES M & DEBRA I RONNING
6640 GALPIN BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
STEVEN & SHARON T HERRON
1941 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
~UCE A & JEAN A MATTSON
20 CRESTVIEW DR
2CELSIOR MN 55331
NANCY K MANCINO
6620 GALPIN BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
CLARENCE E & LIEVA H SCHMIDT
1930 CRESTVIEW CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
rUL S TUNGSETH
31 CRESTVIEW DR
[CELSIOR MN
55331
JEFFERY W & BARBARA A PESHEK
6480 WHITE DOVE DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MARY TRIPPLER
1931 CRESTVIEW CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
MOTHY P EIDEM
50 CRESTVIEW DR
I, CELSIOR MN 55331
RANDAL J & JOAN M MEYER
6470 WHITE DOVE DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KRISTEN A STRUYK /
1941 CRESTVIEW~.Ia~
E~ MN 55331
'rECK 0 & MARLIESE JOHNSON
11 GALPIN BLVD
iCELSIOR MN 55331
DUANE D & KAREN K MALMSTROM
6460 WHITE DOVE DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
55331
EVEN W & WENDY LAM BURESH
51 GALPIN BLVD
:CELSIOR MN 55331
ERIK A & cHRISTINE M TAMMEARU
6450 WHITE DOVE DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
PETER R & BARBARA MEYER
6441 GALPIN BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
RISTIAN P & ELIZABETH PREUS
LAKE I~.UCY LN
iCELSIOR MN 55331
dOTHY J & DEBRA R HAGELE
65TH ST W
iCELSIOR MN 55331
GALPIN BLVD
CELSIOR MN 55331
RICHARD J & SALLY A OESTREICH
6440 WHITE DOVE DR
'" EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES E & AMBER F BULLINGTON
6430 WHITE DOVE DR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
TORY G WALTON &
CAMILLE S RAICHE
1961 CRESTVIEW CIR
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
DUSTiN A & KELLY A BRAKEMEIER
7386 KOCHIA LN
VICTORIA MN 55386
PATRICIA HELENE HAUGEN
1960 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
KENNETH W & NANCY C EATO
1950 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
GENE D DEWEESE &
JULIE A THORNDYCRAFT
1940 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
JAMES H & ALICE M BERQUAM
1930 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
FHOMAS S KASPRZAK
1920 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
lAY P & JAMIE S KARLOVICH
1910 WHITETAIL RIDGE CT
EXCELSIOR MN 553..31
1990 Zoning Map
PREPARED BY: / ,~/ -"'
CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING DEPT. '"-J ., /_,"m
REVISED JAN.,1990 -'--~
'ID R ' .... ~
LEGEND
AGRICUbTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT
RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
NIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
;, 1
A2
R8
BN
CBD
BG
OI
lOP
PUD
NE
RD
MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
OFFICE & INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT LAKES
RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES
~LAK~
i [
I,