CC Minutes 2-14-05
o . ()~
City Council Meeting - February 14,2005
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table the rezoning and
preliminary plat request for Yoberry Farms, Planning Case 04-43 until the February 28,
2005 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Taking a look at the clock, we'll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Let's make it about 5 minutes.
REVIEW LAND USE OF HILLSIDE OAKS SUBDIVISION AND POTENTIAL LAND
USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW
DENSITY ~ LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD
AND LYMAN BOULEVARD. CITY OF CHANHASSEN. PLANNING CASE 05-06.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steve Buan
Arild Rossavik
Dana Muller
8740 Flamingo Drive
8800 Powers Boulevard
8880 Sunset Trail
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, before she gets started I'm just going to recuse myself on the
possibility of a conflict here so sit this one out.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Alright. This application is before you. You have seen it a couple times
before. Under this circumstance the applicant, or one of the subject property owners went to the
Planning Commission and asked them, based on some evidence that they believe had
circumstantially changed in the area, to re-examine the land use in this area, specifically the
Hillside Oaks neighborhood. The subject site includes this property here and the two lots across
the street. The Planning Commission back in September when this applicant approached the
Planning Commission did ask for an application to get on the agenda, which they can do.
Presented their case to the Planning Commission and at that time asked the Planning
Commission to direct the staff to re-examine the Hillside Oaks development. Again that includes
the two lots that are on the east side of Powers, which are guided low density and then the large
lots. So with that the staff again, you had seen this previously with an application attached to it
so this is just really to examine the validity of the existing land use. Had something
circumstantial changed to re-examine those existing assumptions. So again the Planning
Commission has the powers to, under the comprehensive plan examine that so directed the staff
to review it. So on page 4 was kind of our analysis of the area. Again the area has been
developed into large lots, 2.2 to 3.96 acres as shown in the area. The existing topography is very
steep. Partially wooded along the western side and adjacent to the city park on the southwestern.
I think that's really what led the staff's recommendation to leave that existing zoning in place, or
50
City Council Meeting - February 14,2005
land use in place based on the fact that there's some topography issues and we did layout some
schematics which are attached. Existing Hillside Circle is the lots, existing homes on the other
lots. Again you can see the park and the very steep ravine so looking at to further subdivide, it
really needs to be assembled and at this time the Planning Commission recommended against
changing the land use. At that time.. . the fact that no additional properties or applications were
included with that, so the Planning Commission at their hearing on January 18th, when they
reviewed this, voted 4 to 2 to leave the existing land use. Again we are the applicant because
the, one of the property owners asked to have the Planning Commission re-examine it but
technically the City is the applicant on this so I wanted to clarify that. So.
Mayor Furlong: So are you going to speak again when we ask for the applicant?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 1'm going to argue against myself here. So with that we are
recommending supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation and that is leave the land
use in place, and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions. For staff.
Councilman Labatt: No sir.
Mayor Furlong: No? None. Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: One. Kate, were there, were the City to receive say, let's see 1,2,3,4,
5, 6, 7, 8, about 9 properties in there. Or say 5 of the 9 to come forward or something like that,
would the staff's view at that time change or?
Kate Aanenson: Well that is kind of one ofthe criteria but I think the other criteria is you know,
we need to work together on this property because of the topography. It may lead to something
besides maybe clustering some of the units or different housing type based on the topography.
So you know to have one person go, how that works with the rest of the surrounding area. The
ordinance does say that you have to change the land use. We've got large lots. That's a life style
choice. That's one of the things the Planning Commission also reaffirmed. You, as a council
kind of reaffirmed that when you looked at Lake Lucy Road. Left that large lot. That's a life
style choice that people can have. It is functioning today that way and, but the code,
comprehensive plan as you indicated Councilman Lundquist, it does say that if the neighbors
come in and say there's something substantially, but we have one neighbor at this point so that's
some of the factual reason that the Planning Commission also said probably premature.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? For staff. If not, I won't ask for the
applicant to speak, but I did mention earlier this evening that in light of visitor presentations and
looking at our agenda items, I did offer that we would take some public comment at this time as
well so if there's somebody that would like to make some public comment on this. Again I'll
preface it by saying that we did see the Planning Commission minutes so we do have the, all the
51
City Council Meeting - February 14,2005
verbatim discussion that took place at the Planning Commission on this matter as well as the
public heating so, with that sir if you'd like to come forward. Good evening.
Arild Rossavik: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Arild Rossavik, 8800
Powers Boulevard. I'm owner of the lot, Block 1, Lot 2 as you may know. This one here. You
can amplify maybe this area here. Okay. This is a map here. Just briefly point to it. On this side
here we have Hillside Oaks Block 2 which is zoned or guided RSF. On this side here we have
Copper Hills with 9 houses, or 9 blocks or 9 lots which is also guided for RSF. On the top on
here we have PUD or RSF. On this side down here we have high density coming up. There are
1,400 housing units. 700,000 units of office space. Which is planned. Now we have an addition
to that, we have Powers Boulevard being extended down here to meet new 212. That traffic will
start in 2 months, so even before I could come back with an application for whatever I think, that
traffic here would go up to 15,000 cars a day. That's from the actually from the city. It will
increase to 27,000 cars a day if the collector road in this area has not been built. That collector is
not at this point in time funded. So there is a dramatic change in the whole area.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me sir, just for the benefit of the recorder, if you could speak into the
microphone and if we could give them a microphone. That's better.
Arild Rossavik: There's a dramatic change in the whole area here. Powers Boulevard will be
extended down to 212. Construction is expected to take 3 years. At the same time 14,000
housing units, 700,000 office space and new public school in close in the vicinity of Powers and
Lyman Boulevard. Lyman will be expanded to 4 lanes so there will be a traffic light on Powers
and Lyman. On the current plans 1'11 show you the different conflict. You have 3 different land
use guidance... Powers and Lyman will be construction zone for years to come. First it will be
3 years just for bringing it down. In addition to that you're out I would say probably 10 years at
least. You'll be li ving in a construction zone. There's no question about that. So the impact on
me, on the neighbors would be dramatic and permanently. And in my case, if we go to another
thing here. I'll just be brief about this thing here. There's another thing here. The City put
water, sewer or water in from this designation 10 years ago. This has been standing... This is a
tax assessment sheet for that and the tax assessment sheet basically says if it has been assessed, it
was $16,300 a year or something like that and that comes up to $160,000 a year. If you times
that by 10 years, it comes out 10 years. The projection, the guidance for the water and sewer was
brought in which I'll point to here. It sits right here. There's a lift station, the stub into my
driveway. The stub into the neighbor. That and Simpson down there was an RSF guidance.
There's no question about that. It actually shows that. If I guess to make that the cost of not
collecting taxes for this year here, we'll estimate about $700,076.00 if potential development was
taking place. If you also add the cost of the lift station at $250,000 for 10 years ago, probably
come up to $400,000. You estimate a million dollars lost in tax revenue for the city. And of
course the city can do what they want to do. Hillside Oaks is fragmented in 3 pieces. It's the.
northern piece, which I belong to. There's a southbound piece with the cul-de-sac which I don't
belong to, and then ybu have the piece on Lyman Boulevard there so it's 3 fragmented pieces. 2
of the pieces is A2 and one piece is RSF. If I can get this here. If we look atmy driveway here,
Lot 1. Or sony, this is Block 1, Lot 2 and 1. If you see on the border line or the property line
goes all the way here so this property could, my property can easily facilitate a cul-de-sac or turn
around. Today we don't have any turn around so I pick-up, trash pick-up is down on the Powers
52
City Council Meeting - February 14,2005
Boulevard itself. School pick-up is the same thing. And mailbox pick-up is the same thing. So
yes, delivery trucks, if they're large enough they cannot turn around. Basically have to back up
and against the traffic on Powers Boulevard here. I have myself been out guiding traffic out
there. Flag stop traffic on Powers Boulevard. This is going to increase now. It's not as safe, and
we don't have any turn around for fire trucks. Fire trucks will do the same thing if they should
come down there. So at minimum I feel that because of inconsistency here, you have invested in
the water and sewer here and not rezoning is kind of a condemning the whole water and sewer.
We have to use, well we're all on septic and septic and well so these are not being available to us
without re-guiding of the area. On the present guidance we cannot access water sewer at feasible
cost. But in either way I have asked the city council to at least consider re-guiding my property
for Lot 2, which was recommended by the staff in '92,2003. 2003 before all this issue came up
with the traffic coming down. . . so at least I can facilitate and my property can facilitate a turn
around.. .come down so this issue can be resolved. Present I have just, that would be another
issue but I have a zoning request coming up later. .. .my property to two more lots actually. 1've
got 4 right this down there but that would finance basically the cost of putting a turn around for
propelties and I can't see you'd do any damage to any property. And since it's already
fragmented, more fragmentation could be okay but that's up to the council to decide. If you have
any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions of Mr. Rossavik? Very good, thank you. Is there anybody else
that wishes to speak on this matter? Address the council.
Steve Buan: Hello. My name is Steve Buan. I live at 8740 Flamingo Drive. Just would like to
say, thank you for the opportunity to address the council on this. I know you don't have to do
that. There was a public hearing earlier. And I'd just like to say that I agree with the staff that
the land use is appropriate as other, as the comprehensive plan and other groups, that the city has
commissioned to look at land use in the city. They determined it should stay that way and just to
just over ride that without a look at that 20 acres as a whole and not just 3 and 4 acres at a time,
would not, I don't believe be very prudent for a number of reasons. And so I think that the
staff's done their homework on this the last, it's been going on for about 5-6 years now so I think
the homework's been done on it and unless the group all comes together, several of the lots down
there and it comes up with a comprehensive plan for the 20 acres on the, it would be on the west
side of Powers for developing. There's a lot of uniqueness in that area with the ravines, the
topography, the wildlife, everything and the park. The decision to not develop the park that's
immediately adjacent to this property to the west, the city made a conscience decision not to
develop that. It was at one time going to have lighted tennis courts for Lake Susan Hills
development and they took that away and decided to leave that as a natural park area so I believe
there's something encumbent on the city to look at the abutting properties to that, to the east to
ensure that that goes together in that as a natural park and that there'd be a nice segway into
future development down in that 20 acres. It can be done but it really can't be done 3 and 4 acres
at a time so I'd just like to say I agree with staff and I certainly hope the council would follow
the staff recommendation on this one, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council
on this matter? Seeing no one 1'll complete the public comment period then and bring it back to
53
City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005
council at this point to see if there are any follow-up questions for staff at this time. Councilman
Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Kate. Spot zoning. Would this be considered spot zoning?
Kate Aanenson: Well my opinion that spot zoning would be one lot and really if you're just
going to rezone one, that would kind of fall into that criteria because as the gentleman who just
spoke indicated, really to get the lot yield, similarly we talked about on the last subdivision, you
have to assemble lots to really make it work and what we're saying, as I indicated on that. You
know looking at this open space it's labeled park but it's really open space. And possibly some
bluffs. Really to look at the best utility that probably should be combined. I guess that's kind of
what we were saying too. Maybe we do some density transfer and push things around and that,
that's what the neighbor was saying too. To kind of look at it in a holistic manner.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Any comments or
discussion?
Councilman Labatt: I mean I would concur with staff and Mr. Buan. It's just if we're going to
do it, do it all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts?
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur. As I read through the Planning Commission meeting
minutes and saw on the public comment, the rest of the low owners there are along the same
lines. It just doesn't make sense to blanket them with the whole thing, as this application is for,
nor to change the spot zoning with just that one lot so 1'm in favor of affirming the staff's
recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree with Councilman Lundquist.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. You know just to address a couple issues. This is something
that the City Council dealt with most recently I think just under 2 years ago. And while the
applicant is different, you know some of the proposed reasonings are very familiar. I think you
know just to address them with regard to the utilization of the utilities that are put in there, I view
those as a sum cost. 1'm not going to sit here and double or question the decision that was made
at the time with regard to the issue of lost tax revenue by not rezoning this and building more
properties. I think there the clear answer is, I mean that could be an argument in any zoned area
throughout the city and what we try to do with our comprehensive plan is balance land uses
knowing that on balance we'll have a, the tax capacity to provide the services that our residents
look for. Traffic issue was raised. I think the only difference between now and 2 years ago is
that we're 2 years closer to what we're expecting. I mean the, and perhaps it's a little more
certain but I look at this and I don't see any changes. You know the final question here was,
looking at the land uses around the intersection, 1'm sure there are other examples of this but the
one intersection I can think of is Highway 5 and Galpin. We've got business neighborhood in
54
City Council Meeting - February 14, 2005
the nOltheast corner there. Neighborhood business zoning on the northeast. I think we, didn't
we put in commercial or office industrial in the northwest there. We've got a school and public,
our Chanhassen Rec Center is in the southeast and we've got medium density residential in
southwest, so I mean that's just one example and I think that works fine. I don't think when
you're dealing with major roads like this, they provide a natural barrier. It's not like the issue we
were just dealing with before earlier on our agenda items so I look at this, and as much as I
appreciate Mr. Rossavik's passion, excuse me, I don't see any changes in facts and
circumstances between the last time we addressed this and I don't see any compelling reason to
change the land use. I concur with the others. We should have, you know staff has looked at
this again. Planning Commission's looked at this again and I think everything seems to be just
fine the way it is. I don't see any compelling reason to change. So any other thoughts or
discussion on this? If not, is there a motion.
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, 1'd move that we affirm the land use designation of residential large
lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks Addition as in the staff report.
Roger Knutson: And does that include adopting the Planning Commission findings as the
council's findings?
Councilman Labatt: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman LabaU moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
affirms the Land Use Map designation of Residential-Large Lot for Block 1, Hillside Oaks
Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Councilman Peterson did not vote due to a possible conflict of interest.
PRELIMINARY PLA T APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.19 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH V ARlANCES~ LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
INTERSECTION OF MURRAY HILL ROAD AND MELODY HILL ROAD. JOHN
HENRY ADDITION~ ERNEST PIVEC AND TIM MCGUIRE~ PLANNING CASE NO.
05-05.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Oil Kreidberg
6444 Murray Hill Road
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located at the intersection of Melody Hill and
Munay Hill. There's an existing house on the subject site. Now we need to back out. Existing
55