CC Minutes 3-13-06
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard
setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a
modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the
following conditions:
1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and
extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done
prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if
completed.
2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a
depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area.
3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or
tearing the roots.
4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the
opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the
slope necessary to create a level floor.
5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area.
6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods.
7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any
possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks.
8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage.
9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to
demonstrate how the site will drain.
10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same
Parcel Identification Number.
11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
ROSSAVIK ADDITION, 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, APPLICANT ARILD
ROSSAVIK: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR
32
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); AND
SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH
VARIANCES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ed Kraft 8711 Flamingo Drive
nd
Mark Kelly 351 2 Street, Excelsior
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. There are a couple actions in your packet. One, the first being the
land use. I’d like to break them out. We have all the motions in there because if you deny the
land use, it negates the possibility of the subdivision, so I’ll break it out into two and if there’s
motion for approval on the land use amendment, then I’ll be happy to go through the subdivision.
Again subject site, Mr. Rossavik did present this item to the Planning Commission on February
21, 2006. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the application. The Planning
Commission felt that the redevelopment of the individual lot would change, without changing the
adjoining lots, would change the character of the neighborhood and the findings that they felt in
the comprehensive plan so again the subject lot is on Powers Boulevard, and I’ll show it to you.
This is a large lot. Oakside Circle so this would be the subject lot right here. It’s hard to see that
color. There is a neighboring lot to the south and to the north that are also large lots that would
be impacted by the potential development of this lot. So if you look at the proposal summary on
page 2 of the staff report, looking at the subdivision itself. There are some requirements but
what I’d like to do is just focus on the land use amendment itself. We’ve given you the
background, how many times this has come. The applicant, it’s his belief that there’s been
substantive changes in the area that would make his different, or changing circumstances. The
staff does not believe that nor does the Planning Commission. But in reviewing land use and the
zoning in the zoning ordinance amendment if there’s an error guiding that needs to be corrected,
changing conditions, then we would bring that property forward. In looking at the challenging
topography in this area, and hopefully with the color you can see, there’s a lot of contours here as
you can see through here. Steep ravines on this property. The backs of these properties which
makes it challenging for development, so that’s one of the issues, and the fact that there’s large
lots on either side that aren’t ready to develop, that the Planning Commission and the staff agree
that the, that would be premature, and those items are also stated on page 4 of the staff report.
I’m not going to read through those but those are the ones that would give the substantive
findings of why we would not support it at this time. Again, if it was to subdivide, future access
has to be provided to the property to the, this property to the south because they do not have
access, we would want to limit the access on a collector street, Powers Boulevard. So taking
those into consideration, again just strictly talking about the land use, the Planning Commission
did recommend that the land use be denied, so I’ll take questions on that at this point and if you
do recommend denial, then it would negate the rezoning and the subdivision itself. The findings
of fact are also in the staff report.
33
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Ms. Aanenson, a couple just
clarifying questions. This is currently zoned residential large lot.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: That’s what it shows in the comprehensive plan. It’s not similar to what we
were talking about earlier this evening, an agricultural piece that is guided to become another.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and I think that’s important to keep in mind and this is a land use
amendment, which you have the most discretion on. The other ones were consistent that you
saw when we were talking about the 2005.
Mayor Furlong: With future guiding.
Kate Aanenson: Future guiding, correct. So this asking for a change in guiding, where you have
the most discretion. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And we have other large lot residential land uses in our city…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and actually the Planning Commission spent a lot of time talking
about that. That there are quite a few other large lot subdivisions that really that the Planning
Commission doesn’t anticipate the character of those neighborhoods changing any time soon.
Even those with significant amount of development around them. As a matter of fact, one being
close to the new Powers Boulevard down on Homestead Lane. That neighborhood down there
too, so they felt like the characters of those neighborhoods, that’s a lifestyle choice some people
have bought into and they want to maintain that character.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point with regard to the
land use? Is the applicant here this evening? Or representative. Good evening.
Mark Kelly: Good evening Your Honor and council members. Mark Kelly. I’m an attorney.
I’m here on behalf of Mr. Rossavik who is out of the country at this time. I’ve certainly heard
the report of staff and Mr. Rossavik has requested that the City Council consider the fact that the
area along Powers Boulevard has changed substantially based on approvals that this council has
made, and past councils made recently. Just to the west you approved a large development. Just
to the south of Lyman Boulevard you approved 440 townhomes on a lot that are going in there.
You have the Highway 312 that’s going in immediately to the south of Powers Boulevard, and
Lyman Boulevard. All of which are changing the character of the area and placing this collector
street into a very high volume street. While that area right now has a few homes along it which
are very large lot, all the surrounding areas to the north are highly developed. Now, you installed
in 1994 under your comprehensive plan at that time you anticipated the need to provide sewer
and water to this area. This is an island that has no sewer and water connection in that
neighborhood. We don’t understand why the sewer and water that was brought forward at that
time in 1994, for which the City paid $260,000…the use of these neighboring properties. In
particular the property near Oakside Circle recently was allowed to re-establish it’s septic system
without being required to connect to city sewer and water as your ordinance 19-4 requires. My
34
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
client has asked that he be allowed to connect and has been told that right now the City would
not allow him to connect because ostensibly his house is less than, is not 150 feet. Within 150
feet of the sewer and water. We understand there’s sewer and water connection stubs at the
corner of Mr. Rossavik’s driveway, as well as down at Oakside Circle. Despite that proximity,
preference was given to a council member and neighbors in that area so that no sewer and water
was required to be connected at that location. These have been conveniences that have denied
Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to convert an area that, it’s a very large lot, into some reasonable
development of 5 lots. Last time this matter was presented in 2004 I believe, the City gave some
consideration and concern regarding the ravine and that in the westerly side lot. All of those
were adequately addressed and confirmed by the City staff as being handled by the drainage
plan. There is no encroachment on steep slopes or bluff nor is there a loss of vegetation or any
other impacts in terms of drainage. This plan, if approved, would provide access to the property
to the south so as that becomes available and those property owners decide they want to develop
their land, they might. As a practical matter, the development of this land by rezoning this does
not deny or impose on any of the neighboring property owners a need to change at this time. The
reality is this is a high density area that’s increasingly being commercialized. Within a year
you’ll have a major intersection here, just about 2 blocks to the south. Mr. Rossavik’s
development will allow access on a cul-de-sac that will service some land to the south. That’s
good planning. Doesn’t require multiple curb cuts. In fact there’s already a right hand turn lane
that’s been established. The City planned this area to have in and out right hand turn lanes when
it redeveloped Powers Boulevard 10 years ago. It is certainly within your discretion to exercise
your decisions as you see fit, but we’re asking for consideration of the fact that change has been
approved and density has been approved by the City over the course of it’s conduct to the north,
to the west, to the south. Nothing can happen to the east because it is wetland, but you did install
sewer and water for the purpose of this area developing. And allowing Mr. Rossavik to install a
handful of single family homes identical to that which you have off of Flamingo Drive, is not
unreasonable. And it doesn’t impose change on anyone. It gives opportunity to others and
perhaps those who own on Oakside Circle will gradually change over. But in the meantime my
client has been faced with a great deal of frustration as well. His neighbor to the south, or to the
north, Mr. Bizek runs a commercial operation out of his garage. The City’s been unwilling to
address that matter and has showed preference to Mr. Bizek’s refusal to approve this project.
This project came close to being approved a few years ago but was withdrawn, but the City
withdrew it’s support when Mr. Bizek decided not to support it. Again Mr. Bizek runs an
unlicensed operation from his home which is to this date the City has refused to do anything
about. For all the reasons that I’ve described, I think the timeliness of this matter is certainly
present and we’d ask that the City reconsider despite the fact that the staff has made it’s
presentation asking that it not be approved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? I guess I have some follow up questions based
upon some of the statements made to staff. First of all there was a statement that Mr. Rossavik
would not be allowed to connect to city utilities. Is that a true statement?
Paul Oehme: No it’s not. There, the sewer off it is right there. I mean right against his property.
He can definitely hook up at any time that he wishes. In fact if his septic system were to fail, I
think that the building officials would require him to hook up at that time.
35
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there was also made mention of another property owner who I
believe the phrase was something to the effect was not required to hook up as ordinance would
require.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, in that case I did talk to the building official who issued that septic system
permit and he did not, that particular property owner did not meet the requirements of city code
19-41. His septic system, his property is more than 150 feet away from that sewer stub off the
cul-de-sac so he did not, he would not be required to hook up at that time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so no special preference was made.
Paul Oehme: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the commercial operation to the property to the
north.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, I can address that. The City did research a number of years ago Mr.
Bizek. It was determined at that time, working with the City Attorney’s office that it was a legal
non-conforming use. We did pursue that and Mr. Rossavik is aware of what our findings were
on that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it has.
Kate Aanenson: It was a non-conforming. There are some non-conforming. At a time there are
some off of Pioneer Trail too. Some contractor’s yards that were permitted under a different
zoning ordinance. Pre-dated zoning ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thank you sir.
Mark Kelly: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other follow up?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to add a couple other questions. Comments just
regarding large lots and kind of reiterating what the Planning Commission felt. I did mention
Homestead Lane. Timberwood is also another large lot subdivision that’s been impacted by
single family lots all the way around. They maintain that character. A very healthy
neighborhood. I think we’ve had one or two systems in there that are on the edge that have
actually hooked on, but again they did not change the character of the neighborhood. Did not
subdivide further. There’s 2 ½ acre minimum and that’s a lifestyle choice that those neighbors
selected. Again, if there’s a possibility to hook up and it’s cost effective, they’re within that and
the sewer’s available, it’s a separate issue from subdividing, that they’re being provided efficient
services that we’d always look at that.
36
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess the overall comment of the amount of development that has
occurred, I guess I’ll go back to I think my earlier question is, has that development occurred
consistent with our comprehensive plan?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is there
anybody that would like to provide public comment on this matter? I know it was heard at the
Planning Commission. Okay, very good. Council discussion. Thoughts, comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, have commented on this in years past that the hang-up that I
have always had, and continue to have on this is that it’s an island. If it’s, you know it’s not the
most northerly lot. It’s not the most southerly lot. It’s pretty much right in the middle, so some
issues and challenges with that. Have voted for in the past, and would consider developments
that make sense for the area as a whole, but to drop a, to drop this in the middle of that is where I
continue to have a problem. Yes there’s been developments to the west and south. Lots of
changes in the area, but as we’ve looked at those, if they make sense as infill developments and
other things going on is the issue that I continue to have with this one. Is that, I don’t see a
compelling reason to make a land use amendment for a 5, or how ever many home development
in the middle of that area. Once these properties can get together and come together and present
a unified plan to develop, or as that development proceeds from the north to the south, or the
south to the north I might feel more compelled to look at that right now. I don’t see a compelling
reason to make a land use amendment for that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I guess I wish Mr. Rossavik would have been here tonight
because I would have asked him why he bought his property. I’m assuming it’s because he
chose that life style of living on a large lot residential area and I’m sure if we asked any of the
neighbors that lived there why’d you buy your property, it was because it was a large lot
residential area. I think it’s a unique part of the city and I don’t think we’ll see a lot more of
those being developed in our city and I think they need to be respected and protected and so I too
am not in favor of changing anything that’s existing there already.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, yeah. Obviously I’ve been on record before about this
project and more importantly about other projects where subdivisions are in the offing, and
historically I try to find ways not to do subdivisions when the city can maintain a look and feel
that a lot of our residents wanted when they moved to Chanhassen. And I’ve been pretty vocal
about the need to maintain a wide variety of housing styles and maintain as much green acres as
we possibly can. I mean our city survey, it’s a resounding yes when you asked the citizens if you
want more green space, less green space…maintain green space, but to Councilman Lundquist’s
point, the island is clearly in this situation probably the most compelling reason not to make an
adjustment. And we’ve got an area to the east that is open and wooded and wetlands. You’ve
37
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
got a park to the west and you’ve got large lots surrounding it, so it just simply doesn’t fit. For
those reasons I would affirm the staff position and deny the request.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar to those expressed. I think that in this
particular case it is a single lot within a currently zoned next to the neighboring lots, as part of
my questions. Though development has occurred, it’s been consistent with the comprehensive
plan generally and so I don’t think even with the Highway 212 being constructed, that was part
of the comprehensive plan so the changes are consistent with what could be expected by all
property owners. And I agree with Councilman Lundquist’s positions both in terms of the island
and in terms of when as a council we should consider changing these, and it takes more than one
property owner. Does it take all of them? The factor probably depends, but it certainly takes
more than one. We had a situation like this up along Lake Lucy Road last year when we were
looking at a street project and extending utilities in that case. I think there were a number of
property owners that would be willing to take the assessments for the utilities if they were
allowed to subdivide, but it was clearly not a consensus among property owners that subdivision
was what that neighborhood wanted and so in the end we did not move forward with the utility
assessments, because it was pretty clear that many of those property owners would not accept the
assessments without that subdivision option and that just wasn’t there yet from the property
owners so, I think we have a very similar situation here. And I see, I don’t see any justification
for not following staff’s recommendation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation on
this matter. Is there other comments or thoughts on this? If not we have, beginning on page…
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move the City Council deny 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.
Roger Knutson: And includes adopting the findings?
Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Based on adopting the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to pick up B and C there? Do we need to do that as
well, since that’s part of the application?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: We’re required to.
Kate Aanenson: You can make it all one motion.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, you’d turn down all three.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to keep going?
Councilman Lundquist: Why not. Mr. Mayor, I’d also move that the City Council deny the
rezoning from A2 to RSF for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council deny the preliminary
38
City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006
plat of the Rossavik Addition creating 5 lots and variance for the use of a private street based on
non-conformance with the zoning of the property.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that combined motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: It’s made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low
Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, adopting the findings of fact. That the City
Council denies 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 City Council denies 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 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Move on to the next item here which is consideration of Halla Greens. We
have a number of people here so I’d like to try to keep our meeting moving at this point.
Kate Aanenson: Take a quick break.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a desire for.
Councilman Lundquist: 5 minutes recess.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’ll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let’s keep it short
though.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD
Public Present:
Name Address
David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road
Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Boulevard
David & Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard
Sandy & Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail
Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road
39