Loading...
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