PC Minutes 1-18-05
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISOIN AND POTENTIAL LAND
USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW
DENSITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS
BOULEVARD AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-06.
Public Present:
Name Address
Keith Buesgens 1300 Oakside Circle
Dana Muller 8550 Sunset Trail
George & Jackie Bizek 8750 Powers Blvd.
Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Boulevard
Arild Rossavik 8800 Powers Boulevard
John Hill 1360 Oakside Circle
Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive
Margaret Tran 1330 Lyman Boulevard
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: One question just up front before I pass it my fellow commissioners. The
neighborhood to the west, just north of Lyman, is that large lot or single family?
Generous: That’s residential low density, so RSF would be appropriate.
Sacchet: That whole Sunset Trail area is RSF?
Papke: But the lots are what size?
Generous: Oh, they’re larger than 2 ½ acres.
Sacchet: So that could be considered too. Alright with that, questions from staff.
Papke: Okay, I’ll start. I have two questions. First of all could you clarify the proposed zoning
just to the south of this area on the other side of Lyman that’s part of the AUAR.
Generous: Yes. Make sure the zoning’s not in place. It’s currently zoned A2 which is
agricultural estate. It’s guided in the comprehensive plan for low and/or medium density
residential development, so it could be density ranges of 1.2 up to 8 units per acre.
Papke: Okay. Second question. In the staff report, first paragraph of background. The last
sentence asks or states, however as part of the original plat it was envisioned that when urban
services become available this property would redevelop but with larger lots, 1 acre or larger.
What evidence do we have of that? How do we know? Is this folklore? Is this a plat? I mean
what does envision mean?
41
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Generous: Well it came from as part of the discussion of the property. There was some talk
about when we get urban services down here, we should maybe at that time allow them to go to
more dense development, but in this instance they’re still looking at something above an acre or
more with these lots.
Sacchet: If I may interject. Do we have the zoning between, up to 4 units like RSF and large
lot? We do not, do we?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: But we’re talking about one here, so how does that fit together? Do you see what I’m
saying?
Generous: Yes. We wouldn’t, until the city adopted it’s comprehensive plan and made that 1.2
to 4 unit per acre density, you could have under RSF, you could have an acre and a half lot.
There’s nothing in the ordinance that would strictly prohibit it. However the comprehensive
plan, because of the net density requirements would preclude that.
Sacchet: Okay. Sorry for interrupting Kurt.
Papke: That’s all I have.
Sacchet: Dan, you want to jump in?
Keefe: Yeah, just one quick question. It looks like maybe it was Mr. Rossavik who polled the
neighbors in regards to what their thoughts were. Did the City talk to any of the neighbors and
sort of concur with the thoughts there in regards to rezoning this or?
Generous: Only indirectly. Mr. Rossavik has presented that information to us. We know 2 that
have said no, but no one’s done it formally.
Keefe: Yeah, alright. Good enough.
Slagle: I just have a quick question. Bob, would it, again from a, I don’t want to say common
sense standpoint but you decide how I say this but if one is traveling southbound on Powers 8
years from now, and you have the apartments. You have townhomes. You have sort of a gap of
Lake Susan Hill houses, as they start to go up that road. What road is that on the west side?
Help me out. Goes up into the development. By Flamingo and.
Generous: Lake Susan.
Slagle: Okay. And then you have these large lots, then you hit Lyman which will be a very busy
intersection, and then potentially we could have medium density units.
Generous: Yeah, townhomes.
42
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Slagle: So I’m just again, trying to think of the consistency as you see the landscape of the city
in this area. It seems to me, and I’ll go back to the very first time we had this, the question about
if everybody was open to developing their land, would the city be as, would the city take the
same position it is now? I know it’s hypothetical but I mean it’s a real question.
Generous: Ultimately that’s up to council. From the staff standpoint we do believe there is one
area within this development that is more re-developable than the rest. And so it may.
Slagle: And which one is that Bob?
Generous: Well it’s that central, north central. It’s this north central area to Lot 4
approximately. The eastern part of it. Once you get a third of the way through that lot, then you
start running into more topographic issues and the wooded areas start to come out. And so, but
the rest of this is more open. It’s been planted trees that go in there and so it makes some sense
that you could look at that as a fairly easy to redevelop.
Slagle: Okay, and then let me follow up by, with your comments by asking then if that is the
area that you would deem at least most plausible to develop or redevelop, is it staff’s opinion that
collectively the owners would need to agree or can individual landowners.
Sacchet: That’s a tough one.
Slagle: Yeah, well that’s why I’m asking staff.
Generous: For the southern two to work, you would collectively, Lots 3 and 4. Lot 2 could
come in by itself and provide, we’ve seen examples where he’s provided access for the abutting
property and extended a private street down and that would work on his property. Now that,
since all this started that now requires a variance process to have a private street rather than a
public street.
Slagle: I guess let me ask it in a different way. Has staff’s position changed with respect to
being able to redevelop one of those lots without the other lots acting upon the same plan, if you
will?
Generous: We’d still like them to work together so.
Slagle: Okay, fair enough.
Generous: We think it works best that way. Most efficient.
Sacchet: Okay, Steve. No questions? I do have a few questions. Just in terms of the time line.
It says that in 1980 this area was part of the planned residential area to the north. How much of
that was actually included in that? Do we know?
Generous: This whole thing.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Sacchet: The whole thing.
Generous: It was part of it originally and then they didn’t go any further and then because of
property ownership and the change.
Sacchet: Okay. So, because I want to make sure I understand this because the way I read this
history line is that it was approved for rezoning but the rezoning was never filed. What was it
approved to rezone to?
Generous: Part of the planned residential development for.
Sacchet: Which means single family like to the north?
Generous: Yeah, very typical to the…
Sacchet: Like the north, okay. That’s what I want to be clear about. And then in 1991 it went
back to large lot. Alright. Then my other question, I’m struggling with this one. On page 6
there is a statement that basically as a traffic calming feature we want large lot. That’s the first
time I hear that as a strategy to keep traffic low is to keep the number of residents of low. It
actually makes a lot of sense. I’m surprised that this shows up for the first time here all of a
sudden.
Slagle: We haven’t used that arguments in other developments.
Sacchet: Yeah, we’ve heard them the other way around. Like the more traffic, the more it calms
it down because they can’t go fast because it’s clogged up. Now here we have it’s the other way
around. The less people that live there, the less traffic, but there’s already a lot of traffic so we
don’t want to add more. It seems a little funny. I guess that wasn’t a question. Sorry for that.
With that, do we have an applicant? Yes we do. Would you please give us your part of the story
in expedient way please. Wait a second. Hold it. The City is the applicant, so I’ve got to ask
you to sit down again because I have to open, well the applicant already spoke. Yeah, the
applicant already spoke. So the City is actually, now I have a question. This is a significant
question. What is the City applying for?
Generous: We’re reviewing the land use designation of the property to see if the existing land
use is appropriate. Or should we make a land use amendment to residential low density
consistent with the two properties to the north and west of this.
Lillehaug: Could I have a clarification?
Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Can you tell them why you’re doing this? Because the Planning Commission
directed.
44
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Generous: Directed us to make the study. Hopefully we can preclude, we’ll find out is it
appropriate. Have things changed enough since this was designated large lot in ’91 that we think
a land use change is appropriate.
Sacchet: Okay, because I want to be very clear about that because it’d be kind of funny if the
City would apply for low density, for single family residential and then recommend basically
against it. You see what I’m saying?
Generous: Hopefully that wasn’t precluded as part of the study.
Sacchet: Sure, I understand. Yeah, you explained it well.
Keefe: Based upon how you kind of stated it, as to whether anything has changed to make, you
know go from large lot to low density. And you’re recommending no change at this point. What
would sort of trigger a change in your mind in regards to timing? In regards to timing and/or?
Generous: Well it could be community need. Do we see a need for different housing types?
That would be something. Definitely the provision of sewer and water might be one. Do we
want to utilize that things have been made available but are not being used. And you know
going from, before this was a 2 lane roadway and now it’s a 4 lane roadway. Does that make a
difference? Should we put you know, another issue you can say, no. Low density’s not
appropriate. Maybe this should be high density or medium density too.
Sacchet: Well, moving on with the fun we have here. I’d like to open the public hearing and
invite any resident that wants to come forward and address this issue, to please do so now. State
your name and address for the record.
Arild Rossavik: Gentlemen, commission members. My name is Arild Rossavik, 8800 Powers
Boulevard. The water and sewer was brought down here for 10 years ago and just to, if I can
focus in. This was the tax projection that came with this in here. Is it upside down? But this is
cast 17… This is cast 17. City project 93-29. Estimate assessment of property ownership. This
is related to Hillside Oaks, Block 1 then water sewer was brought down there. And we go down
assessing units here. So Lot 1, Lot 2 and such and such all the way to Lot 7. And existing units
is 7 units. And potential future units 32. That’s what the city projected could be totally units
under RSF. So in this I’m just indicating, this indicates RSF guidance. December of ’95 I got
this letter here from the city and I presume the rest of the property owners got the same letter,
and basically it comes down to the bottom line because water sewer’s been made available to us,
that my property, your property is proposed for special assessment. Based on this thing I stated
well you know, these two figures here. This is RSF zoning. This is water and sewer’s coming
down here and that puts sewer in my driveway here. So yeah…so this is 10 years ago so the
markings here. This was water sewer’s available in a joint driveway with my neighbor here. So
I will just show that. And the lift station’s that on the other side of the street. And as the
Generous said, it’s standing in use for 10 years. At a cost of $250,000. Now with 6% interest,
it’s more than $400,000. As a matter of fact the City has to come down and fill water into the lift
station to, so it doesn’t run dry. So we’re not using the lift station is basically condemning the
whole investment improvement. September ’97, got another letter from the City which is in
45
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
conjunction with the first one, and they say the City has elected not to assess the trunk charges to
your property at this time. That property will be assessed at the time you do make the
connection. They don’t give any reason. It was RSF or large lot or anything like that. They just
say the City has elected without no more explanation. So needless to say, no assessment charges
have been made. Hillside Oaks, just to show that, is 4 fractions. It is Oakside Circle which is the
southbound part. It’s Lyman Boulevard which, one of the lots faces Lyman Boulevard and then
we have the eastern part which is, what he said. It’s RSF guidance for it and we have my
guidance here where my property is which is Lot 2 and Mr. Bizek’s Lot 1. As you can see, the
driveway here doesn’t allow any turn around’s. So we have the problem here, trash is being
picked up on the street every Thursday the truck, pick up truck stops in the street there and on
th
December the 16 last month, a car came down Powers Boulevard, crossed over the mid section
here. Went over and just by the lift station, front to front collision. This was not caused by
anything like that but what I’m pointing out to, delivery trucks come to either my property or Mr.
Bizek’s property, who has a commercial business there. They have to back either in or out.
Sacchet: Just to clarify Mr. Rossavik, on this photo it looks like two driveways come together at
a pretty open angle so a truck couldn’t go back into the other driveway and out on the road?
Arild Rossavik: Yes.
Sacchet: But I guess either of the neighbors is very much in favor of that.
Arild Rossavik: Yes, so and I own most of the property. I have this 4 acre property I own there.
My property can facilitate a turn around, no problem. It’s big enough for that and I’ve drafted a
proposal to the City for that, and my last proposal, my eleventh proposal, my eleventh revision,
the $30,000 I spent so far.
Sacchet: You kept count.
Arild Rossavik: Yes. Assessed on it. We’re down to 2 more extra houses on my property and
including too a cul-de-sac to the south. A turn around so we can facilitate that lane there too. I
have talked to my neighbors, let me see and okay, you can focus on here. I’m not quite sure
where Mr. Bizek is, but I guess you can hear from him yourself. A couple of years ago he was
trying to sell his property. He entertained but it was subject to rezoning and he wasn’t sure
about…
Sacchet: Let him talk for himself.
Arild Rossavik: Yeah, so either way I talked to…and I’m not sure if he’s here, just today so he
is interested in facilitating another house on his property. And I talked to Keith Buesgens on
corner lot there today and he said he was in favor of our said guidance for his property and the
two properties over here, on this side here, well you have a written statement for they support
that. They are already RSF and they would like to stay like that because they have plans around
that area. So with that said, I think that’s it. And also by giving, I think it was.
Sacchet: You know you can come back more than once if you need to think.
46
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Arild Rossavik: But with that said, I think there’s a majority right now in 5…and actually that
property owner Brenda Hill there, they have no objection. They’d like to keep their place as it is
but they have no objection. I showed my plan to her and she has no objection to it. It’s only 2
more houses coming into my side. And so I have found in 2003 the city staff came up with a
recommendation. City staff recommends approval of the land use amendment from residential
large lot residential to low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks. That was my lot. This was
2 years ago and that was actually for 5 lots. Now we’re down to 3 lots. There’s no cul-de-sac
involved anymore. That was the cul-de-sac was the issue…caused all kind of problems last time.
The cul-de-sac is out. It doesn’t pose any conflict. And the Planning Commission recommends
approval of rezoning from A2 to RSF. That was the city staff’s recommendation since that.
Since that time, what has happened is basically we got AUAR 2005. We got and we have
coming down there, 1,500 new housing units. 700,000 square foot office space. A public
school. And of course the connection to new 212. They’re going to start thinking on the new
212, this picture here. Yes, here picture here. That hill there, they’re going to start digging in in
a couple, say 90 days. That hill will, and Powers Boulevard’s going to be turned around to a
construction zone. There’s going to be a stop light in this intersection here. Lyman Boulevard’s
going to be increased to 4 lanes. Powers Boulevard, it’s kind of a four fraction pieces right now
within large lot zoning doesn’t make any sense. There is residential zoning proposed all around
it. And this is kind of coming in the middle of 5 I would say actually in traffic wise actually. He
has said 15,000 cars a day. It’s 20, that’s subject to the, a collector road being built. They
haven’t funded that one yet and we don’t know who’s going to fund it. If the collector road is
not being built, the proposal as far as I understand is 27,000 cars a day. On, down on Powers
Boulevard and that’s significant change. It doesn’t fit the character of the large lots which is
kind of a state property that’s included, except maybe that lot was maybe one of the lots that fits
the stand… My lot, my neighbors lot that facing Powers Boulevard, and we’re going to have all
this traffic. And land use guidance change will allow me to put…if something had to come up
my own pocket. The city will not build a sound wall to shield me from that noise. So I will just
ask this Planning Commission to find the most and least for my property and the other owners
will have to speak for themselves and since the Planning Commission, the city staff recommends
what 2 years ago. Now my lot can be a transition place and we will solve the traffic issue but we
can have a turn around so we don’t have any accidents coming down on Powers Boulevard and
we can open up for the city a sewer investment so that certainly now can be facilitated. If not,
it’s a taxpayer pay for that thing.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Arild Rossavik: Thank you for your time.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comments. I’d like to invite anybody else who wants to address this
item to come forward at this time. Tell us what you think about this situation. What, how it
affects you. What you recommend. State your name and address for the record please.
George Bizek: Hello. My name is George Bizek. I’m at 8750 Powers Boulevard.
Sacchet: So you’re the northern most lot, Lot 1?
47
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
George Bizek: Right. Yeah, we have the joining driveway at the bottom. This is the fourth time
been in front of you with this rezoning and regards to his petition to the city to rezone this. I’m
against it. That cul-de-sac that he’s got on there would be a detriment to my property and
developing my property. What was found, one of the members here asked what needs to change
for this and it was decided at all 3 meetings that this has to be done with more than one property
owner. It’s kind of a unique piece of property. He keeps referring to the road and how
dangerous the road is. We do have a turn lane in front of our house. The garbage truck that has
to pick up our trash has a full lane to get off the road with. You’re dumping more traffic onto a
road that now, to go to Chanhassen we have to go down and make a U turn and if you ever tried
to go down to Lyman Boulevard and Powers and make a U turn at Lyman, you cannot see
around those corners, so we make the U turn whether it’s no turn lane to make a U turn because I
feel it’s a safer. I don’t know some day I’ll probably get a ticket for doing it but that’s the way I
do it because I feel it’s safer and he wants to dump more traffic onto this road to have to do that.
In regards to these people on this list, I strongly suggest that you talk to all these people because
the only, one of the two strong supports I talked to today and she signed off that she did not sign
this. She did not agree to it and I have her signature right next to where she supposedly was on
the list and I think some of these people that he’s got on here that have no objection, they’re here
to speak for themselves. And I thank you for your time.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Please
come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Let us know what you have
to say.
George Bizek: Do you want a copy of this?
Sacchet: You can give it to staff if you want. Please, good evening.
John Hill: Thank you. My name’s John Hill. My wife. I live at 1360 Oakside Circle.
Sacchet: You want to, this is what lot number?
John Hill: Lot 4, Block 1. My wife Brenda and I live there. And in your packet it states that we
do not object to rezoning and I don’t know where that information came from but we do not
support and never have supported rezoning of our area. Mr. Rossavik did talk to my wife last
fall, but she said, at that time she said she would consider allowing 2 homes to be built but
nothing was ever, but she needed to talk to her husband first, and nothing was ever mentioned in
that conversation about rezoning.
Sacchet: So you’re vetoed.
John Hill: Well she’s not in favor of it either. And what drew us here 10 years ago was the
elbow room and the openness of that area and we do object to the rezoning and support the staff
position of leaving the zoning as it is. Thank you.
48
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Sacchet: Thank you for letting us know. Anybody else want to speak up to this item? Please
come forward. And if you want to state your name and address please.
Margaret Tran: My name is Margaret Tran and my husband and I own the Lot 6. My husband
asked me to come tonight to represent us and just to tell you that we are not in favor of any
change. We want our lot size. We built back in ’86, back when there was just, what was it, a
gravel road in front of our house and we’ve never wanted to change and at this point, because we
have such a large wooded lot, we feel that if we rezoned it to smaller, that it would just decrease
the value of the homes in the area and this zoning that he’s proposing is just going to benefit his
property at the risk of the surrounding properties and that’s my view. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you for your comment. Anybody else wants to talk to this item?
Arild Rossavik: Just a comment. I did show Brenda Hill and she said actually, she didn’t have
any problem with me rezoning. It should be no problem. I never heard back from the husband
or then after that so yeah, I gave them a copy of the suggestion they have already got all the
copies which is gone to you for the process of this is. Like I said, I don’t see Jamie is my
neighbor to the south but he, I talked to his wife today and take my word for it, they seemed to
be, they should be here today but I did talk to Mr. Buesgens. He called me as a matter of fact.
He would like to have RSF zoning on his property, and either way, the concern of Tran here, she
is, this is the property of Tran. They’re facing Lyman Boulevard so it’s a fraction up there. Mr.
Tran also, the city can correct me if I’m wrong but he has a commercial business there.
Sacchet: Arild, excuse me. I would strongly recommend you speak for yourself and that
everybody, if everybody speaks for themselves, everybody will be covered and property
represented. If we start talking for each other we’re getting nowhere.
Arild Rossavik: Okay. That’s the only comment. And if Mr. Bizek, we can probably
accommodate, we can move the cul-de-sac to accommodate him but he just has to come and ask
and I will facilitate anything he wants to have so… I’m not against it so, but I can facilitate the
whole cul-de-sac or turn around on my property. If he wants to participate in this, then we can
share it…
Sacchet: …at the overall zoning. I mean, and I would.
Arild Rossavik: Rezoning issues.
Sacchet: But it’s a different issue in front of us. I mean if you have a proposal, I would strongly
recommend you work it out between you before you come in front of the city with it. But that’s
not the issue in front of us right now. Is there anybody else wants to address this item? Please.
Keith Buesgens: Yeah, I’m Keith Buesgens. I live at Lot 7, 1300 Oakside Circle. I bought this
lot back in ’85 and I bought it for the size and for the room and so forth. Currently I have no
interest in subdividing. That’s not to say 15 years down the road I might when I’m 60. It’s a
possibility. 42. Not interested right now. But I think like you say, the approach on this has just
49
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
been, hasn’t been correct. I think that, like you say, it’s got to go from within and then come to
the city and it’s been quite the opposite on that so, but that’s basically my feeling on it right now.
Sacchet: Thank you for comments. Anybody else? Yes.
Steve Buan: Yeah, I’m Steve Buan. I actually live on Flamingo Drive, 8740. I love the
property and my comment is, is that if something looking at this 20 acres, there ought to be a
comprehensive plan of how the whole 20 acres is going to develop, not piecemeal. 3 acres here,
2 acres there. It adds to the aesthetics of the entire area, not just the 20 acres. There are extreme
safety issues with so many accesses to Powers Boulevard within a quarter mile and the speed of
Powers Boulevard and the amount of truck traffic and things that are coming. I’m sensitive to
the issues of the property owner’s right down there of what that’s going to do, but I’m also
sensitive to the safety of me pulling out from Lake Susan Hills Drive onto Powers with another
street potentially coming in there. I think that should not happen. They have driveways now. I
would be completely against a street there. There should be one street and whether it’s at where
Oakside Circle is now or somewhere else, up the line, halfway between, that’s for somebody else
to decide but there’s a lot of issues that are not going to be solved by just blanket changing the
whole thing over to residential single family in 2005 and then having 2 acres here, 4 acres here
and then having a bunch of arguments about each of those so I think there ought to be a larger
more comprehensive idea of what the whole 20 acres is going to do before we jump the ship and
go down to the low density zoning. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? Seeing nobody, so I’ll close the public
hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for discussion and comments. Who wants to start?
Looks like you’re ready Steve.
Lillehaug: I’ll start. I’m going to start right off by saying my position, I do not support a re-
guiding and it was based on what we discussed back in what was it, 1993 for two main reasons.
The land use amendment is premature without redeveloping the entire area, and without having
those other landowners on board. We discussed previously back in ’93 what’s the percentage?
Well I don’t know but right now we don’t have that percentage. One or two out of 7, it’s not it.
The other reason, the land use amendment creates an island. If the land use amendment went
through, it does create an island of low density a large development lot and it’s simply put, we
shouldn’t do that. And one other thing I want to kind of throw out to commissioners. We
directed staff to do this, but nothing’s changed. Nothing has changed since we, since Mr.
Rossavik brought this to us previously so going forward here, I think we need to be real critical
on when we direct staff to re-look at land use changes because in my mind this, it’s good to go
through this exercise but we just did it a little while ago. So recent there hasn’t been enough
changes and we shouldn’t be wasting staff’s time to re-look at this when we know that a decision
was just made on this.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Jerry, do you want to make a comment?
McDonald: Well I’ve got, yeah some comments and some questions. The issue of, about the lift
station being brought up as a reason for doing this because it’s under utilized. What was the plan
there as far as that lift station? Is that to take care of future development across Lyman?
50
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Generous: No. It would just be for this area.
McDonald: Okay, so it’s only designated for this area. There’s no future benefit build into it
then?
Generous: Correct.
McDonald: And with the capacity it has, it would support the smaller lots? As far as adding to
the area.
Generous: Yes, it would have accommodated, based on the assessment roll that they could have
subdivided at a RSF density.
McDonald: Okay, so it has a future capacity if the land as a whole is rezoned to something else?
Generous: Yes.
McDonald: Then the other question I’ve got is, okay. A lot’s…Lyman Boulevard and the future
use of that and everything and future plans. Going to 4 lanes and everything. If that begins to
happen, what happens to these south lots? I mean what happens to those as far as encroachment
of road, berms. What kind of problems do we end up with there that we have to solve as far as
dividing up these lots at higher density?
Generous: Well that’s only if you do a land use amendment. As it is they wouldn’t further
subdivide.
McDonald: Okay, well I’m, I guess that’s all.
Sacchet: Okay, Rich.
Slagle: The only question I have to staff is, if, again I’m throwing out a hypothetical but if we
had 4 or 5 of these land owners in front of us suggesting that they wanted to develop their land,
I’m not sure that we would feel the same. I think part of the issue is there’s some acrimony
amongst the folks here and if I can comment to Commissioner Lillehaug’s point that nothing’s
changed. I would say the fact that Lyman and southward is going to change dramatically. And
again as I mentioned, you’re going to have this pocket of 7, 8, 10, whatever it ends up being,
large lots surrounded by traffic and development. I mean it’s just going to happen. And so I
think, I don’t want to say anything more. I just think that I just raise that as something to
consider.
Sacchet: So something did change is what you’re saying.
Slagle: I think so. I think so.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Dan.
51
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Keefe: Sure. I think the area is definitely going to change. I think it’s going to change
dramatically but sort of where I come down on this is, at least I’m looking at the list that Mr.
Rossavik sent in and given the people who spoke up, I’m not finding anybody on that side of the
street who supports it other than he did. You know you’ve got 3 different times for plans for
rezoning. I’ve got 2003, objected. I’ve got the 2 that had no objection, are now objecting. I just,
other than him I don’t see any other support so I think at this time you know, I think at some time
in the future it would make some sense because I think big change is coming to this area but I
don’t know that now is the time.
Sacchet: Kurt. Thanks Dan.
Papke: The only thing I would add is, Mr. Rossavik has gone to some considerable expense
already to move his agenda forward and city staff and now Planning Commission has spent a fair
amount of time on this. What I’d like to do is make sure that we come out of this with some sort
of crisp criteria so that Mr. Rossavik doesn’t incur further expense, and staff doesn’t spend
further time on this until it’s quite clear that this has a reasonably high probability of moving
forward. So if we can, I don’t know how we formulate that or what action we can take make that
happen, but I think that’s in the best interest of everyone involved.
Sacchet: Well my comments are a little different. I’d really like to stick with the matter in front
of us, which is the aspect of rezoning. Changing the land use designation. I really want to stick
with that because that’s the issue in front of us. And I’d like to take a different position
altogether. I think this large lot right now is a spot zoning. I would like staff to look at, if we
have this large lot also, the two lots on the east side of Powers, and the Sunset Trail
neighborhood to be also large lot, then we have actually a reasonable block of large lot and we,
and I think it can be justified in terms of what I consider good planning. Alternatively, it’s a
tricky thing to deal with, but that’s where I stand with it. I’d like to direct staff, like one of the
options staff made was to direct staff to review Block 2 for land use amendment to residential
large lot. I would go one step further and also include the Sunset Trail area. Because currently
the Sunset Trail neighborhood, I think they are large lot and that, and it would be consistent with
the sense that there is parkland and wetland around it, and it would be a large enough block that
it would make sense, this designation at that point. Otherwise I consider this large lot thing a
spot zoning. That’s the position I take.
Slagle: Mr. Chair if I can add, 100 percent in support of that. I concur. I think that we are being
a little bit inconsistent with how we’ve approached this. I don’t know the reasons for it but I’d
like to know. Again to Mr. Papke’s comment, what do we need to get to?
Sacchet: Let me ask one more question. What’s west from Sunset Trail before it gets to the
wetland? To the Bluff Creek area. Because it’s.
Generous: Residential low density but they’re large parcels right now.
Sacchet: So I would say that also needs to be included in that consideration. All the way over to
the Bluff Creek wetland or what that’s called.
52
Planning Commission Meeting – January 18, 2005
Slagle: Basically south of the park. Up in Lake Susan Hill.
Sacchet: That’s I think would make it a consistent sizeable block of land use, of guidance to
really have hand and feet, as I call it. Kurt.
Papke: May I make a comment? Yeah, I’m somewhat concerned that if we open that Pandora’s
Box, the people who are currently zoned residential single family, we would be taking away their
ability to develop if we were to rezone that and.
Sacchet: That’s right.
Papke: …see some opposition to that.
Sacchet: And then these people would have to come speak up. I’m not saying we can do it. I’m
saying we need to study it.
Papke: I just think we need to be, you know, we all need to conscience of what we’re
precipitating by making that call. Right now it seems pretty straight forward that there is not
public support among the local residents to change this zoning, but I would guess that there
would be some opposition to, for those other property owners to limit their freedom.
Sacchet: I would expect so too actually. Any other comments? Discussion. Somebody want to
venture a motion please.
Lillehaug: I’ll make a motion as staff recommends, the Planning Commission affirms the land
use map designation of Residential-Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Papke: Second.
Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission affirms the land use map
designation of Residential-Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition. All voted in
favor, except Slagle and Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20-615 TO AMEND SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOT WIDTH REQUIRMENTS.
Public Present:
Name Address
th
Dennis Wolt 4291 West 200 Street, Jordan
Michael Callies 937 Shumway Street, Shakopee
53