Loading...
PC 2006 02 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2006 Acting Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, Dan Keefe, and Debbie Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: ROSSAVIK ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, RSF; AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-01, ARILD ROSSAVIK. Public Present: Name Address nd Mark Kelly 351 2 Street, Excelsior Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone want to start? Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a couple questions. It sounds to me since the last time that we were here, and I was here for the last time that they came through, the City was going to do a study in regards to whether that should, that neighborhood should change and it sounds to me, just I think to restate what you said, the City essentially came back and said, there isn’t enough and maybe you can sort of restate it. Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 Generous: Well in February of 2005 the City Council did affirm the land use for residential large lot for that subdivision. They felt that it was appropriate. One of the things that we look at is providing a full range of housing types. Estate type housing is one of the housing types that we have in our community. There’s not a lot of them and we’re not going to create any new estate type homes so, suburban style development, there are other locations for that. There is land currently guided and vacant that’s guided residential low density. That would be appropriate for a suburban subdivisions. Keefe: Did we do a traffic study along there? I’m trying to remember if that was something that was requested as a part of that. Because I remember there was some question that came out of that meeting as to the level of traffic along there and what would happen if we were to put it into a higher density type of. Generous: Well there wasn’t a study done specifically for that amendment because adding 5 lots is 50 trips a day on average so it wouldn’t have a great impact. Powers Boulevard yes, does have, will be carrying a lot of traffic. Should you add additional traffic to it, that could be an argument that no, you don’t want to. The 2 lots are sufficient. The rest of them come off the cul-de-sac. Keefe: I did see the one e-mail or letter that came in from, it looks like the Bizek or Bizek family where, as I recall from the last meeting a number of the neighbors were opposed to this. Have we had change in their position that we’re aware of or did we receive anything beyond what the Bizek’s have received? Generous: We only had that one letter. I’ve talked to 2 neighbors and they were both, they didn’t want to see the change. They thought it was premature. Keefe: Okay. And then do we have, last question. Do we have instances where we change one lot in a neighborhood like this and not, I mean at least what we typically see are neighborhoods come in with a change. This would be really, I mean it is a large lot but, you know where we would just sort of change a lot in the middle of the neighborhood and not change the others? Generous: Not since I’ve been here and generally we don’t. It’s either an all or nothing proposition. And all the developments that come in for suburban or residential single family have been guided for low density, residential low density. We have a case coming forward that’s actually guided for medium density and they’re requesting a down zoning if you will. Down guiding. Keefe: Thank you. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No questions for staff. McDonald: Debbie? Deborah? 2 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 Zorn: Just have a question of clarification. You indicated that there was some sewer lines that were placed in this area in case there were future redevelopment. Can you just talk to what that redevelopment would be. Would that be if this neighborhood were to collectively say let’s subdivide? Would that qualify or what would qualify as redevelopment? Generous: That would be one if the neighborhood came in and the City determined that it was appropriate to go to a higher density. I believe there’s a lift station right, just across the street from the site. The way the force main to service this. There is a manhole, or actually I think it’s a 8 inch line that’s across under Powers Boulevard at the end of the driveway. The applicant, one of his issues is with the city ordinance says that if you have sewer available you’re supposed to connect. Our ordinance actually says within 150 feet, and we’ve been interpreting that from the building, not from the property line and this is, his house is over 200 feet from that sewer line ending. As a matter of fact the house to the north is almost 200 feet away too so neither of them are in real close proximity. …the property on the east side, down on Lyman does have potential for subdivision. It’s guided for residential low density. It has the big wetland complex in the back of it so we don’t know if, when that would happen but we’re trying to be, have proactive in widening the infrastructure should that ever be necessary. McDonald: I have a question for you concerning the private drive. You said that if we approve this, you want the private drive to go all the way to the south property line. What are the limits on access on a private drive. I thought we were limited to 3 houses. Generous: You can have up to 4 homes accessing via a private street. Yeah, private street requires a variance but. McDonald: Okay. Generous: In the rear of the lot to the south is wider so we anticipate that this lot were to develop at a suburban density, they may split off the northern end of their property and that would be their access. It really narrows down as you go to Oakside Circle, and there’s some, I believe some wetland, or at least lowlands on the street side of that property. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, as you’re coming out of this development you’re going to be making a left hand turn on Powers. At that point is the road divided? Is there a median there or are you able to make a left hand turn? Generous: You can’t make a left directly off, no you have to go down south to Oakside Circle and then there’s. McDonald: Turn around in there and come back to go north on Powers. Generous: Correct. McDonald: I have no further questions. At this point I would ask the applicant to come forward to present their case. 3 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 Mark Kelly: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name’s Mark Kelly. I’m an attorney practicing in the city of Excelsior. Mr. Rossavik is not able to be here. He’s abroad. I’d like to thank Mr. Generous for his comments in his report over the years he’s worked with Mr. Rossavik on this matter, trying to… It’s clear from the presentation that’s been made by staff that this area has always been anticipated by the city to be ultimately redeveloped. While it’s lawful to maintain large lots…changes have happened along this area. Just to the west you approved a subdivision. A substantial one. Just to the south of Lyman Boulevard you have a very large development, 440 units going in. You have the highway being extended. The intersection at Powers Boulevard and Lyman is going to be a very major intersection, drawing traffic heading west and east… Traffic’s coming from the north down Powers Boulevard… It is, while it is true that typically one would rezone an area larger, the request at this time for the comprehensive plan change that will permit the zoning change…reasonable and in fact if you do change the zoning it doesn’t mean the properties are going to be taxed or…impact is going to happen to them. It does mean that they will have the opportunity, the way Mr. Rossavik is suggesting and redefine his property for…that smaller lot subdivisions produce more economical, more affordable housing for people rather than as in this case one house on a very large parcel. That was a norm when I was growing up some years ago in the whole area and the like. I grew up on Christmas Lake Road…used to ride my bicycle out to Chanhassen…but the reality is that that has changed and just to be able to afford housing in the western suburbs means that you’re going to have to have smaller lots and ultimately unfortunately those smaller lots are going to be found on properties that have higher traffic. Some minor arterial, it’s on a collector street… It’s going to have major traffic on it. It already does. The City’s already planned this matter substantially. This area has a right hand turn lane. You can go right-in or right-out and turn around to the south and… The plan of including the extended causeway to accommodate traffic to the south is logical. If you look at that property to the south, that will remain and they can parallel a lot of these services by this common driveway. It’s unfortunate that just like happened back in 1997 there about when the Bizek family was interested in… To date they’re unwilling to discuss the matter. Their property would benefit by being, having the opportunity at some point to be able to be subdivided. It’s not within Mr. Rossavik’s ability to convince them of the economic value of that… Some of the items that have been raised in the report by Mr. Generous, we would…there is some bluff area and some trees, largely on the west side. That is preserved by the plat. It was preserved by the plat when it was presented last time, and there are adequate building pads to accommodate the use of 5 lots as has been prescribed. One of the curiosities of this now…when Mr. Rossavik wanted to consider having this matter divided into a 3 lot subdivision, perhaps make it more preferable, the city staff noted that that would not be acceptable under the rezoning that we’re requesting. That the lot then wouldn’t be in fact small enough, so we went back to a 5 lot subdivision. So the City has the opportunity here to provide an equally valid use for the land. One that the economy and the city does need a mix of more affordable housing for new housing along this area here. The sewer and water was built some years ago. It has never been recovered in terms of investment, which I understand was approximately a quarter of a million dollars. The sewer and water, as you’ve been advised, located right at the northeast corner of the property and despite an application from…the City has refused Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to connect his property to sewer and water. Something everyone here in this group has sewer and water and city services. For whatever reason we don’t understand the City has refused Mr. Rossavik’s… It is entirely possible as a city to look to your comprehensive plan and find what allows you to hang your hat on and say this can’t be… 4 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 Comprehensive plan’s…stated in broad terms…but here, when you consider the fact that the property immediately to the northeast, the northwest, to the north, sewer and water when new subdivisions are approved immediately to the west, they…312/212 redevelopment, 444 houses going into the south, just a short distance away. This is not…reasonable request…the fact that Mr. Rossavik does come back to ask for…we ask your consideration and understand that approving a simple rezoning to match it in with the remaining…is entirely appropriate at this time. I’d welcome any questions from anyone. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, start with you. Deborah? Larson: In the issue about wanting to connect to the sewer and water, what have they told you is the reason why you couldn’t? Mark Kelly: As you heard from Mr. Generous, they’ve interpreted the code as precluding any requirement…given that the purpose of the metropolitan urban services…this was done in 1994. We’re in 2006. Larson: That’s all I have. Keefe: Just one quick question. In regards to the neighbors, I mean it seems like a lot of the neighbors don’t want to rezone. How do you resolve that in terms of? Mark Kelly: Well first of all as a legal standpoint, the fact that any one citizen doesn’t approve of something, it is not a reason in and of itself sufficient to deny an application. Secondly, it’s unfortunate that they may not recognize the benefits that they… Mr. Rossavik in fact opens up opportunities that they may choose to make use of or choose not to make use of at their own leisure. They are not required to change or sell their property…make any, or incur any expenses as a result of rezoning. You’re not going to see increased taxes, anything of that sort. The fact of the matter, the marketplace is not going to reward anybody with additional dollars on the basis that their property might be subdivided in the future. Until you get it subdivided, there’s no additional dollars there that are going to be paid for any one in general, except maybe…result in additional money. McDonald: I have no questions for you at this point. I guess I would, if there are no further questions from the commission, I’m going to open it up to the floor. Anyone that would wish to make comments, this is a public meeting. Thank you very much Mr. Kelly. Steve Buan: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I’m Steve Buan, a resident of, at 8740 Flamingo Drive, which if you can bring this map up here, I’ll point it out. Is this lot right there. Just immediately to the west of the property. Been here before. Some new faces on the Planning Commission. Been here several times. This is the fourth time, or the fifth time. …this last February at City Council. I can’t speak for my neighbors but the general consensus is that the, we have all agreed with what the City has affirmed many times over, that this is, that the large lot designation for these properties down below us is appropriate due to the nature of the landscape in there. The parkland. If you bring up the map here again. Park, city parkland immediately to the west, southwest of the property is designated as a natural 5 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 landscape park. They call it Vista View Park there, and that area is utilized extensively by the urban wildlife that still survives and the parkland across Powers Boulevard, down in here that the City owns is a large wetland complex adjacent to Lake Susan, and sitting in my back yard on my patio, I can see numerous species of wildlife trying to bring back and forth between those properties, utilizing that large lot open space that we’ve provided for them, and to choke that off by cramming in every single, solitary possible housing structure we can is not benefiting the people of Chanhassen with all the unique features that we have out here. And that’s been reaffirmed several times at the Planning Commission and City Council level that that’s an appropriate land use, partially to preserve that nature that the part of Chanhassen that people really like out here. It’s a very landscape up and down of wetlands and everything and to change that character now, once 5, 3.9 acre rezoning, is not really going to serve the community that is Chanhassen. I don’t know, there’s just some things about that this just keeps coming back over and over and over again. You know kind of like this will be my life in Chanhassen to come to the Planning Commission meetings. And I don’t begrudge Mr. Rossavik of trying to maximize the use of his property but I also like the democratic process of living here and having a say in how things happen and for your volunteering on a commission like this to listen to people and try to make the best for everyone so, I just think the City Council did, in fact one of my comments at the last meeting was that the comprehensive plan direct zoning should be reviewed for the entire Hillside Oaks and the Planning Commission recommended that that be done. The City Council looked, took it up. Did it. Reaffirmed the zoning. I think that should be it for quite a long time but I guess that’s all I’ve got to say. McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I had some questions about…on the drawing for Lot 1, the 30 foot setback. Aanenson: For the both, they both meet the 30 foot. Janet Paulsen: Okay, so… Generous: With the northerly lot has to be 30 feet and the Powers Boulevard is also 30 feet. So it doesn’t have a rear per se. Janet Paulsen: I can’t tell… Generous: I don’t know that, we know this for sure is exceeding 30 feet. This may be a little closer but they could shift it. There’s area to do it because there’s a 10 foot on this side. Janet Paulsen: And then Lot 3 on that one…and the report doesn’t show a 30 foot setback… Generous: Yes, I agree. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission? Seeing no one get up, we’ll close the public meeting and we’ll bring the deliberation back to the commissioners and who wants to start? Papke: As I was thinking through this, I live in a very similar neighborhood with large lots and there’s a certain feeling that you get on a large lot neighborhood like this. Feeling of space and so on, and I tried to imagine how I would feel if one of my neighbors decided to put 4 or 5 homes on their lot, and I think I would feel like that would diminish the value of my property and I don’t think I would be very pleased. And so personally I can understand how the neighbors would not really care for this. I think it goes against our principle to have an isolated rezoning and re-use like this. I think this is an all or nothing deal. You know either we decide when we redo the comprehensive plan to change this or we say no again. I don’t think we can do an island like this, so that’s it. Thanks. McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: I wasn’t on the commission last time this came in front of us but I feel that there’s substantial process that this has been though at this point, and feel very confident in the process that has been had up to this point and that there has been some evaluation. That there’s been no change in circumstance so I would have to agree with Kurt and be in favor of the denial. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Pretty much of the same though you know. This stretch of road, I go down it at least 4 times a day, and I know that they’re beautiful large lots and to see an island of small houses amongst the other large lots I think would be really odd. But moreover than that, it’s just not part of the comprehensive plan to have that at this time. I think if everybody was in agreement, neighbors on all sides, if that entire stretch were to change, then I could go with it but at this point I just unfortunately can’t see that with it before it so, I would also be in denial of it. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah, I think one key with this project down there is access, and to take this lot and put access into Powers Boulevard forces the properties on either side to either okay you need to match what I’m doing in my road or, they’re going to come to us and say, now how do we get out of here and we want to do something different or we don’t want to put a lot over there, so I think it kind of ties together again that you need to get, you need to get everybody together down there to get, you know maybe the access ends up all the way over here on Oakside Circle for the entire development, I don’t know but it definitely would raise issues for the remaining property owners on how do they get in and out of there if they want to subdivide. That’s it. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: No further comments. 7 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 McDonald: I guess the only comments I would have is that these are estate lots and I would say that they are estate lots by choice, and that’s the biggest obstacle I see to all of this is that, you know we have heard from all the neighbors before. I was here a year ago and it’s the same letters that are coming in. By choice they wish to remain as an estate lot and at this point it’s the same problems. We would be creating an island of different zoning. We would probably create problems as far as traffic as has been brought up. Access on and off of Powers Boulevard. What happens when the rest of the lots, if they decide to do something, that this really should be more of a coordinated approach to doing things. Make it easier for the city as far as the safety of the citizens within Powers Boulevard. So I would say because of that I would also probably have a problem of voting on this and again, to me it’s still premature. Nothing has really changed since last year. Until the neighbors themselves begin to look at requesting changes of this so that again this could be done in a coordinated effort, I would say is premature. With that, I would ask if there are a motion. Larson: The Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact. B. That the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And C. The Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. McDonald: So seconded. Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential, Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact; that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property; and that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: And I believe with that the public hearings for tonight are completed. We will now move on to approval of the minutes from last week. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 2006 as presented. McDonald: At this point we move on to the presentations. We’ll turn it back to city staff. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – February 21, 2006 Aanenson: Otherwise you can, Chair if you’d like to adjourn the meeting and we’ll just go into open discussion. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 9