5 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMIKqION
REG~ MEETING
MAY 6, 2003
Chairman Sncehet called the meeting to order at 7'~0 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Peik and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak and Cn~ Claybaugh
STAFF PR~gENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Developrmnt Director, Bob Gonemm, Senior
PUBLIC PRE~ENT FOR .$,LL ITEMS:
~anet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
CON~mER Itl~QUi~-~T FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RF.,SIDENTIAL
LARGE LOT TO ~ENTIAL LOW DENSITY, REZQNING FROM
AGRICULTUl~L I~-.qTATE D~~*F, A2 TO SINGl-g- FAMII.y ~EI~I~
AND SIJ'BD~ION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, gmJ.gmE OAK~ INTO 5 LOTS WITH A
VARIANCE FQR THE I,~E QF A PRIVATE 0'TRF-,ET LQCATED AT 8800
nOUL .VA m, AXm.n RO AVnC CmCLE.
Nnme Address
George Bizek
Greg Kahler
Arild Rossavik
Mark Kelly
Kristi Buan
Jayme Lee
8750 Powers Boulevard
8742 Flamingo Drive
8800 Powers Boulevard
351 2'a Street, Excelsior
8740 Flamingo Drive
1380 Oakside Circle
Bob Generons presented the stnff report on this item.
Sacchet: Steve, do you want to start? Questions.
Lillehaug: Maybe Bruce.
Sacchet: Brace, want to start?
Feik: I apologize to fellow commissioners and the applicant, I was not here for the first hearing
of this a month or so ago. I do have a couple of quick questions. On page 5 is the oddAtional trees
requested for the berm, were those included in the table above? In the staff report there was a
request for some additional berming on Lots 1 and 2. To be planted with conifers I believe.
Evergreens. I was wondering, that last paragraph on page 5. Additional 15 feel
Generous: They're not in the table here but they did show up in the grading plan.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Feik: The trees showed up in the grading plan?
Genewus: Yes. That's one of the conditions that they provide a separate landscaping plan.
Feik: So we would need to include those trees in the tree calc's7
Generous: Yes.
Feik: Which has not done so far, okay. Also, the drainage behind Lots 3 and 5 in particular,
we've seen some other applications in the last year where we have required a fair amount of level
land behind the house pad to allow it to be more usable. To allow the future owners to decks and
what not. In fact I recall there was one application where we went round and round a bit to make
sure that there was adequate land behind the house. There does not seem to be that here. Isthere
any concern from staff regarding that7 And are we being cc~istent7
Saarm Yeah, ~ houses are proposed to be tuck under type houses on 3 and 5. You're ~
with those. They're houses that fit well into hills. Where the garage is, you walk in lower in the
garage and then you go upstairs.
Feik: Right. But you would still assume that you would be able to walk out the back door on the
upper level and utilize the back yard.
Saam: At some point you should be able to walk out the back yard maybe to a small deck or
patio type area. As far as having a large usable back yard, in this case I think we may be doing
on the style of the house. How deep it is. If it's maybe not as deep as this building pad shows, if
it's not 60 by 60. Maybe it's only 40 feet deep, then you have a larger back yard area to work
with. But I guess to require it in this case, in my opinion I think it might be more deuitmntal to
the envirommnt in terms of grading, sloping that sort of thing. C-'mating steeper slopes.
Feilc And you believe we're being consiste~ generally in your application of that7
Saam: I think so. I mean every case is different too, but I see your point. We did make a
condition on this same point on the lots on Powers Boulevard tune so I mean we are bei_'ng
consistent but again with the type of land that you have and the existing slopes, ! mean I think we
have to work with what we have.
Feik: And then drainage. Particularly between Lots 3 and 4. The water runoff coming from that
bluff area. You're comfortable that the water, the nmoff will miss the new pads?
Saam: I'm confident that with the house grading, that the builder will be able to rrmke it miss the
pads to create swales along the lot lines, yes.
Feik: Okay. Those are my questions for now.
Sacchex: Steve, do you have any questions of staff?
Lillehaug: I have really one quick one and that would be on the conditions. Condition number
20. Does this need to be a condition7 The applicant seems to have ~d_d_ressed this and they're
showing a minimum, over 30 foot setback so do we need this condition?
Pl~ning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Generous: You do because that's a side property line and the normal setback would be 10 feet
and so they could go right up to the easement.
Lillehaug: That's all I had, thanks.
Sacchet: Rich, any questions7
Slagle: lust a couple. Lot 5, Matt if I can ask again. Based upon the graph that we saw, or the
graph earlier with the bluff, it looked like what I would call the southwest comer of the house on
5 would be fight at the edge. Is that safe to say7 That was th~ color. I mean how many feet do
you think, say what a typical house would go ttmze, how many feet would you have to the bluff
from the southwest come~
Generous: It's a 30 foot setbacL
Slagle: Okay. And are th~ fight at the setback with the comer of the house?
Saam: According to this plan they are.
Slagle: Okay, so I mean if we, if there was a deck or any extra.on it wouldn't be allowed,
correct?
Saam: Well it wouldn't be allowed this way. It would have to go out that way.
Slagle: And how are they doing on the setback, side setb~k to the north?
Generous: That's a 10 foot.
Slagle: Are they at it right now7
Generous: Yes.
Slagle: So really, I mean there's not a lot of wiggle room if you will on Lot 5.
Saam: Not on that lot, no. You're constrained to probably just a few different house types.
$1agle: Okay. Okay, that's it for now.
Sacchet: A couple more questions. Page 8 of the staff report. It talks about grading and it says
that the easement for the northern ravine be extended through Lot 3 to the private street. I'm not
quite sure where that is and what the pm'pose of that is.
Saam: It's concerning this lot right here, Lot 3. The easements, I'm looking for, oh. The
existing ravine is in this area and with their proposed grading, the ravine or swale will come down
like this. Their easement ends right here. So we're saying extend the easement down into this
area to cover where the drainage is actually going to be.
Sacchet: Okay. The access to the ~ to the north, we're saying that on page 10 of the
report there will be a street access stubbed to the edge of the ~ and that the driveway to the
property to the north would connect to that stub. Is that elevation grading wise feasible?
Phmning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Saam: I have met with the property owner to the north and in his opinion, due to ttam~ is an
existing boulder wall in this area and so with that future stub street going nca~ right here, he
doesn't think it will work to connect the driveway in the~. I guess I tend to agree with that now
so the driveway will have to slide to the east here in order to connect with the existing one. In the
future when this site develops however, the street will be extended in this area.
Sacchet: So the more immediate futm-e, if this goes through, the driveway would come down to
the bottom like the c-nuance there?
Saam: Yeah, we'd like to have it as far to the west as we can, just so when people come around
the corner, you know they don't get him coming out right into them. But I don't believe it will
work in the stub street area.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Quick quesfiom Lot 1 and 2 are labeled as walkout Doesn't walkout
imply the house would be on the slope so you could walk out from the lower level? I don't see
this as, is there enough slope?
Sacchet: It seems from the elevation part, it seems more like a look out slope than a walkout Is
there enough for making a walkout?
Saam: Yeah, they've got a 9 foot base~t and they'll be walking out at that 906 elevation on
Lot 1 and 901 on Lot 2.
Sacchet: The preservation easement, just to be clear. I mean condition number 2 it sta~, how
the ~eservation easement should flow and it looks like we shifted the lines d the preservation
easement a little bit to include more than is on the plat that's submitted, is that correct?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: On Lot 3 specifically.
Generous: That should correspond with those numbers.
Sacchet: Because if you look at Lot 3, 80 feet east from the, on the south line of Lot 3, 80 feet
east of the westerly property line to 180 feet east of the westerly property line on the north line,
that would be at a quite a big angle. On the plat it' s, at least on the one Fm looking at, it' s drawn
as pretty much fight angle. So I wanted to clari~ that. Like what I'm looking at is what's the
preliminary plat. That's what I'm looking aL On l~V~xfinary plat it's kind of a fight angle line
going across Lot 3. But if you go from 80 feet to 180 feet it would not be a right angle at all.
Saarn: I'm not sure about the preliminary plat but it is cxma~ on the grading plan.
Sacchet: Okay, so it's not at a right angle, it's at a slope?
Saam: It's perpendicular running north/south.
Sacche~: Can you zoom in on it please Nann so we can see it?
Saarm So this point here is 80 feet from this poinL
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: We're looking from that side, okay. That was my mistake. I was meaizuring from the
wrong side. That's why I'm confused.
Saam: Then on top is 180 feet.
Sacchex: And the final question, well that's for the applicant That's all my questions, thanks.
Now this is not a public hearing but we'll take commen~ because I think there are people here
that do want to comment first. However, ffthe applicant wants to address the commission, please
come forward. State your-ame and address for the record please.
Mark Kelly: Mark Kelly on behalf of the applicant, Arild Rossavik and we're satisfied with the
report of the staff and are accepting of their re~mmended conditions. Any questi~ that we can
answer for you?
Sacchet: Questions of the applicant? Rich, Bruce, Steve?
Lillehaug: Sum. Addressing the driveway going to the north. Do you intend on reconstructing
that to an acceptable grade, slope with, as part of this development?
Mark Kelly: Is the question are we obligated to rebuild the neighbor's driveway?
Lillehaug: More than obligated, does the applicant plan on doing it.
Mark Kelly: Well it hasn't been discussed. How the applicant's driveway dove tails with the
proposed Power Circle is a point of discussion that staff has already indicated in tea'ms of where it
should come in. And until that point is determined we don't know what grading changes would
have to be made. Certainly them is going to be probably some soils available that could be made
available to the property owner on the north for grading p~. Clearly the, where the street's
going to come in and where his driveway now sits are going to change. Simply because there's a
combined entrance at this time.
Feik: May I follow up on that? So you're comfortable that the ultimate solution will be that your
client, or the applicant that you're representing will bear the finandal burden to reim~ tha~
driveway? Is that wha~ you're stating or not?
Mark Kelly: Well the question is whether or not we have a fman~ obligation, and to what
extent. It's one thing to make an accommndation to crea~ an adequate grade and entrance point
at a point to be determined along Powers Circle there. It's another matter, the question is how far
do we need to go beyond that and I don't know what you might have in m/nd. It hasn't been
FeUc Okay.
Sacchet: Is that it Bruce?
Neik: I guess so.
Sacchet: I have a detail question. One of the conditions says that the existing well and septic site
will be protected during construction and pmt~ly abandoned in accordance with city code. Do
we know what the timefran~ is for that?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Mark Kelly: Perhaps staff has. I expect it would be within a year. As soon as the sewer service
is available, the linkage, then the transition can be rrmde.
Sacchet: For both water and septic?
Mark Kelly: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all the questions we have, th~k you, Now as I m~ntiont/, this is not a
public heating. However, I assume some people are here to comment about this so if you want to
please come forward. State your name and ~d_dress for the record and please try to keep your
comments to new information that has not been brought forward before when we had the hearings
about this item.
6eorge Bizek: Hello. My name is 6eorge Bizek. I've been a homeowner at 8750 Powers
Boulevard for 17 ½ years. I printed up some of the issues I have that I really feel this will be a
detriment to my ~ and detriment to future development of my property and I'd like to give
you each a copy.
Sacchet: Sure, please.
George Bizelc I hope to highlight on these at thi~ point. I thank you for giving me the time to
speak. I hope I can touch on a few of these to show that this is a detdment to my tn'opetty. A
usage hazard and would i .mpact my pwperty in a negative manner. The driveway as it sits now is
very steep. In winter conditions and the grade, with the grade of this driveway, it's a challenge to
make it up in the winter time the way it is. Even if the driveway is brought down to a flat, on the
bottom of the hill, being able to stop at the bottom of the hill or slow it down enough to make the
comer or speed up enough to make the hill: is a major issue. I mean it's straight now. It works
now and it barely works now. I can't tell you the number of times I've pulled people out of the
ditch off the side of my driveway. I have 4 wheel drive. It's not me that I'm concerned. It's
people that come over to my house and people ttmt see me, it's a hazard. To be able to have to
mm at the bottom of that hill is a hazaxxl, and the only way that's going to be different is if we
develop this together mad put the cul4e-sac on both properties so it can head straight up the hill.
After talking to Matt, where the Imaposed development for my property would be for funn~
development, this would even ~und that issue even more. If you look at it there's a big hill
behind my house. I spent a lot of money grading that hill back, trying to get some drainage
around my house, which is going to be the same issue to that lot adjoining my property. I went
through it 20 years ago. But where they show that road going into it, it's going to be a detfimem
because if I have to make a driveway for the existing house and the existing ~ all the way
around the house, I'm going to lose a lot of land in developimm just to get a driveway to the
existing house. Let's see. I just feel both of those issues are negative i ,mpact to my house and a
detriment to the property, and I don't understand when I built ~ the County told us there
would never be another curb cut. Now he's moving it all over to his property for his
developtnent, I don't ~ It should be, it's munml oxrb cut right now. It should be both
of our's to develop together to make this an 8 acre project. I mean you're looking at an 8 acre
neighborhood with only a majority of one wanting this project. I am inmrested in developing thi~
property. This is an issue with me. I haven't asked, it's just a little tm'ematum for me fight now at
this time. I have no report with Mr. Rossavik as far as what's going on hem at all We do not
talk. We haven't taIked in years. We used to have some report here but due to som~ unfortunate
incidents there is no report here. There has not been a report here for, since the start of this.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: Mr. Bizek, would it be alright if we ask some of ~ questions to staff that you bring
up here? Real quick.
George Bizek: Sure.'
Sacchet: I think that'd be worthwhile. Do you have an extra copy for slaff? Your first question,
can the City guarantee that this is not going to be ~t? We can't guarantee anything. I
mean we could argue that there is an advantage that the whole cul-de-sac is on the other lot, and
you don't have to use any of your land to get that in place. But in terms of guarantees, I me, an
there is no gual-ant~ in this game. Now the new drive is going to be difficult. I think we talked
about that already. Now the change of address, with the driveway being not fully changed in the
cul-de-sac, would that still require a change of address?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: It would. The answer is yes, okay. So that would still be an aspect. The sewer and
water hookup between $10,000 and $15,000. Obviously once the sewer and water is close
enough, is it, I think the water hookup is not required but sewer is, right? And sewer hookup, I
think it's more like $2,000. It's not like $10,000 to $15,000, is it?
George Bizelc I'm talking the actual cost of the whole project to hookup.
Sacchet: Oh to actually, with the pipe and every, okay. That's 10,000-15,000. ~ thank
you. The aspect of this being the only curb cut on Powers. We're not planning to increase the
curb cuts, are we?
Aanenson: No.
SaccheI: I mean this is still going to be considered one ctu'b cut.
George Bizek: Right but it would be to benefit his project.
Sacchet: Because it's all in his land.
Aanenson: The first...they come in was split between the two pwperty owners. At that time
they decided, one applicant decided to pull out so in order for Mr. Rossavik to go forward he had
to put it all on his side. That was the direction, so he did come in the first time.
Sacchet: Originally was that way.
Aanenson: And the two property owners couldn't work together so that's why it ended up on this
side...
Sacchet: In terms of traffic hazard, has there been a consideration? I know whetimr that's a
question for you Matt. One of the concerns is the, Mr. Bizek calls it a traffic hazard with the
grade and turning and trying to U-turn and so on and so forth.
Saam: I'm a little comfused with U-tums on Lyman in order to go north on Powers. Can you just
explain that to me Mr. Bizek?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
George Bizek: Because of the divided median in the road. You cam only turn right and head
towards Chaska.
Saam: Okay, so you're saying when you...
George Bizelc That's what I do and that's Mr. Rossavik does right now is a U-mm around the
median when he gets down to the comer. And it's safer to do it whe~ there's no tm'n lane than to
try to make that U-mm on Powers because you can't get your nose out far enough without
somebody ahnost it off to make that U-turn. That's why I do it th~ way.
Sacchet: It's probably not a directly related issue.
Saam: Yeah, both of the rcm_ds are county roads. Obviously as you know Powers was upgrs_d~ a
number of years ago. The median was put in. I don't know that we can really address that with
this development. I mean it would take going to the County to see about opening up the median
and I don't believe they would go for that so.
Sacchet: Well I think you made it clear you're opposed to this. Do you have anything more to
add Mr. Bizek?
George Bizek: Yeah, I lost my place a second. All these issues could be tskell ca~ of if this was
done together. If this was developed together. All the issues I have could be taken care of if it
was developed together. I don't know why, I still think it was brought up, you know correct me
if I'm wrong but it was brought up at the last meeting that a msjori~ had to agree to this and
there's only one person agreeing to this. We're a neighborhood of 8 acres with only 2 neighbors
and there's only one to agree with him and I'm the one directly i ,mpacted by this development~
Lillehaug: Kate, could you respond to the majority of the landowners and delta'mining if it's
premature for the rezoning findings because I think we did address that in the last meeting.
Aane~on: Right. It's a legislative action. What we put in the comprehensive plan, if the
neighbors come forward saying we want to change the zoning, that's so~nething to take into
consideration. It's a legislative decision. Ulfirrmt¢ly the Planning Commission and the City
Council will make that decision. It can't be...to the neighbors to you know, you have to define
your findings. Go through that process to see if it makes sense.
Sacchet: Anything else Mr. Bizek?
George Bizelc Well the first proposal, if you look at the, if you just look at the very basics of it,
it really looks like this proposal will leave my land somewhat landloclmd because it's limiting
what can be done with my ~ in the futm~. Everything else is multi zoned around me and
his will be, and here I am sitting there, it's just, it's not a good idea. I mean I can't believe that
it's gotten this far but if this is done together it'd be an asset to the city, to everybody else that it
could be done with more lots. It could be done with more lots on his Nroperty, but I don't know.
I don't know. I just find the proposed application pre~ttm~ and I find it unacc~pt~le to me. It
needs to be voted down and if this passes the only recourse I'll have is legal action as adverse
condemnation of my property. Thank you.
Lillehaug: Could I ask you a question quickly?
George Bizek: You bet.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Lillehaug: What could be done different with this od-de-sac that wouldn't have any negative
impacts on your property as far as for the redevelopment of it7
George Bizelc It needs to be on both of our ~. The driveway up to my house could be
straight into the cul-de-sac and now have to make a turn. The road, it would give me more
accessibility to put a road in for developing my property to the nont~ I guess that's basically.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else wants to add comments to this particular proposal? Please
come forward. State your name and address for the record please.
Jayme Lee: My name's Jayme Lee at 1380 Oakside Circle. Next door neighbor. I just walked in
here so I haven't gotten to see the latest plan but the previous plan that was proposed had a road
going up to my ~ line and then I think you may have made a different choice but the, I
wanted to bring up a couple of things that I think are of concern and one of them is the inability to
turn left in and out of this driveway. If we have a number of people living them, then we're going
to have people doing a lot of U-turning. They'll have to go up if they want to go north, they'll
have to go south first, turn U-turning to go no~h, and same so I don't know ff the latest plan
~ddressed this or not but, but it also occurred to me, similar to the last comment that if this is
approved, then that kind of ruins it for me also. What would I do with mine? If I wanted to
subdivide and well a couple of lots on my ~, what access would I have and so I was
thinking that actually if this would go through ttz~ I would have pmfen~ the road going up to
my property because then I could perhaps access it from my side as well too, for maybe those two
lots. But I thought of a better idea and it seems to me that what we really need to do is break
through this barrier here so that we can have a left hand access in and out and probably have,
really we need to think of this all as one piece rath~ thsn individual pieces so like a better idea
would be to have the road going in maybe from my line. You know insw. ad of on this side, have
it on this side and then have the barrier broken out here and then people could turn left hand
across here. And then eve~'ybody could access it maybe from this way. He could access it here
and these people could access it and only go out from there. So I just, instead of just having this
one piece done by itself, I think we really need to consi~ a better idea with all of them togetlmr.
Sacchet: Does staff want to co~t about the access to this property?
Saam: I guess on the access, yeah. I looked at that This is kind of the whole area, of course the
subject site is shaded. I think Mr. Lee lives right he~ to the south. Prom staff's viewpoint, just
looking at what made sense to us, or to me was to take a street off of the existing Oakside Circle
to develop this area. Similar to this plat, you bring maybe a sm~ in here or up in here with a
bubble and split it off them. I don't do this for a living so maybe that's not the best one but you
get the idea. That's kind of what I saw happening. There is sewer and water right here at
Oakside Circle so when people are ready to develop, just e0aend it there and go.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Anything more Mr. Lee?
Jayme Lee: Just that, you know ff this was approved, then again I would feel like I would need to
have access for these two on my property and I would then prefer to have access to that road
iuste~! of cutting across my pmtmrty. But it seems to me if this must happen, that it would be a
better idea to put your little cul-de-sac right here and break tlmaugh this barrier. Have a left hand
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
access through here and then everybody could access it, and over hm~ they could all end up
going out through here.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward. If nobody
else wants to address this, I'll bring it back to commission. Comments from commissioners.
Who wants to be the first?
Slagle: I can start.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Fellow commissioners, I believe two thin~. One is, regardless of how I will vote on this,
communication that we've heard tonight seems to me from a common sense standpoint there
should be folks talking. You've got three landowners, two of which are suggea~lg that they
could be left out. However this ends up happening I would hope that ~ become more dialogue
amongst the landowners. Sort of an interesting situation. But nonetheless, here's how I feel. I
feel that this development is premature. I believe that the number of lots that are there, although
we did suggest in our summary to staff that 5 lots were what we were looking for. I don't think
that we specifically voted if you will. I believed at the time 5 lots were mo many. It's a
transitional area. I think that it is not in ~g with the land use change that is being asked for
so I will just share with you that I will not vote for this proposal.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feilc I cannot support the application as put forth. I've got some other concerns. I was, I'm
fairly disillusioned with the resImaxse to the applicant regarding the driveway to the north. The
response I wanted to hear was I'll pay all reasonable costs, period. Not worry about you know a
couple bucks here or there. The only curb cut that's there is being modified to the detriment of
the applicant to the noRh, and quite frankly my opinion is, any and all costs associated with
moving of that driveway would be bom by this applicant. All reasonable costs, l~n~neering, you
name it so I really wanted to hear that. I didn't. I have concern regarding Lot 5, whether or not
it's really buildable in the long run. I've got some concerns with the bluff and the grading and
some of those drainage issues. And again I think the n~ighbors to both the north and the south
expressed themselves very well regarding the nature of this and I tend to agree. I think it's
premaun~ as drawn so I will not support this.
Sacchct: Steve.
Lillehaug: I would like to ~dd to that. In my opinion the applicant ach_ rally did well in ~
all of our conditions, concerns for this project that we stated, I think it was two weeks ago. My
main concern was the bluff and I think that was addressed well. I'm a lil~le disappointed at the
public hearing two weeks ago that this access to the parcels to the north and to the south weren't
addressed at that time. I don't recall any major problems with having access. Two of those
problems as far as a roadway that connected to each of the properties. So I'm kind of
disappointed that that's being brought up now and I feel for the applicant in this case because
everything that we did say last week is fairly well addressed in these plans, but ~ owners
to the south and north do have a point that this may be detrimental as far as providing an access to
those properties so. So I agree with fellow commissioners that it may be premaRm~ at this time.
Sacchet: Well I don't have too much to add. I want to underline the point you just made Steve
that I think the applicant did an excellent job addressing the concerns we brought up the last time.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
I could go either way with this based on the staff report I think the staff report is very well put
together. The issue we struggled with last time was we considered this really in conjunction with
the property to the north, so we had two property owners and we were struggl~g with the
concept, what's a majority of two? Since we have that element in the comprehensive plan, really
one that we like to see a majority of neighbors to make a change in zoning and so forth, but at this
point we have three. At least three. I mean the neighbor to the south is also coming in, and a
majority of three is definitely not one. So I think this is a tricky thing. Now I did get comments
also from Alison Binckowiak, commissioner. Planning Commissioner that was unable to be here
tonight and she felt very strongly as well that this is pre~utu~. Considering how much effort the
applicant has put into this, I'm tom which way to go so with that, I'm ready to make a motion.
Feik.- I'll make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the land
use map amen~ from residential large lot residential low density for Lot 2, Block 1, I-Iill~ide
Oaks.
Sacchet: Do you want to do them all? One at a time?
Neik: I can do them all. Ialsoreconnnend.
Shgle: Do we want them one at a time?
Sacchet: Do we need them one at a time Kate or can we lurr~, them into one motion?
Aanenson: Basically by the land use amendment you've killed the rest.
Sacchet: We don't need, okay.
Aanenson: You should make the motion on the rest of them- Put it all in one, that's fine.
Feilc Additionally I move that the Planning Commission deny approval of the rezoning from A2,
Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Res~ for Lot 2, Block 1, Wdlside Oaks.
Additionally the Planning Commigsion recommends denial of the preliminary plat of Subdivision
~Y'/-1 to create five lots with a variance for the use of private street fur Powers Cixcle Addition
subject to, Powers Circle period.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Single: Second.
Feik moved, Slagie seconded that the Planning Commt~ion reemnmeml d_~mlal of the Land
Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Realdenflal Low Density for Lot 2,
Block 1, HilMde Oaks. All voted in favor, except Sacehet who abstained, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3-0-1.
Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning C_~mmission recommend denial of the
rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate Dish/ct to RSF, Single Family Residenfl~ for Lot 2,
Block 1, Hillside Oaks. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3-0-1.
Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commiaion recommend denial of the
preliminary plat of Subdivision 97-12 creating five lots with a variance for the use of a
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
private street for the Powers Cirde Addifiom All voted in favor, except Sacchet who
abstained, and the moron carried with a vote of 3-0-1.
Sacchet: My reason for abstaining, I think I made this clear.
Slagle: So 3 to 0 with an abstention.
Sacchet: 3 to 0 with 1 abstain. That item will go, well this goes to council right? It goes to
council on May 27"'.
Feik: Kate, if for any reason that date is changed, would it be possible to get special notice to the
landowners to the north and the south? Thank you.
Sacchet: Do the commissioners want to make any comments in ~ of summarizing issues for
council consideration? Please go ahead Rick
Slagle: I think we'd be advised not to say much.
Feik: I think our comments were brief at the end and I thinl~ that summarizes at least my opinion.
Sacchet: I'm fine with that. Steve, you okay with that? Alright. With that we go onto our public
hearings.
PUBLIC m~.~.RINQ:
CONSm A l r. qU T ma AN n, muu t;s mr nT TO mu O
I/XCF.~ or 1,ooo (~]BIC YARD~ ON PRQPERTY ZONED ~, ~i]NOl.i~. FAMILy
RF_~IDENTIAL AND I.,Q(~ATED AT 1916 ~ CIRCI.R~ BRIAN CARNEY.
Name Address
Rita Pappas
Troy Pappas
Mark lohnson
Vicky Sherman
Charlie Hicks
Mike Spiess & Kari Traphagan
Brian Carney
576 Deer Ridge Lane, Maplewood
1961 Cmstview Circle
6621 Galpin Boulevard
1941 Crestview Circle
1941 Cmstview Ciwle
470 Flying Cloud Ddve
6566 Shadow Lane
Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff.
Feilc I've got one. I thought the staff report was nice and brief and to the point, thank you. My
only question is the proximity of the driveway to training walls. And are you comfortable that
the retaining walls are far enough away for that driveway to be safe, safely used?
Saam: So you're concerned Commissioner Feik, it would be like cars driving off of that and
going down into the creek?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Feik: Yes.
Saam: I don't know that per ~ c ty cod~ we have any require~x~ents which state a retaining wall
shah be this much away from a driveway. A good idea might be to condition maybe some type of
guardrail fencing, that type of thing along the edge of the driveway.
Feik: You know my thought is, you know winter time, snow drifting, drivers are hard to see. It's
Saam: Sure. Because of the slopes on the site, there isn't a lot of room to put a flat area in here.
If we would do that then it would require more fill and grading out farther. Pilling the creek
more. So I guess it's a bit of a trade-off if you want to get a flat area along side of the driveway.
Otherwise you could put in like a guardrail. But that is a good point to, so when people are
walking too, I mean if you're thin,rig about parking cars here and walking up to the house, you
don't want to slip off a cliff so I guess I would suggest a guardrail.
Feik: Even if it was more of an ornamenlzl fence. Just delineate where the retaining wall.
Saam: Yep. Yep. No, that would be a good condition to miti'"'""~ thac
Feilc Thank you.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I have a few questions. One would be on page 3. You say a wetland buffer from 0 to
20 feet in width. Can you explain why we go from 0 to 20 feet and not a standard width? I'm not
following that I guess. Who do I direct this to?
Al4aff: We allow an average with wetlands.
Lillehaug: So we can have a 0 foot buffer from the wetland?
Al4aff: Correct. And it depends on tbe type of wetland and in this case it' s an average of l0.
Lillehaug: Okay. Easy enough. We're loolcing at quite a few feet of fill in here. Over 20 feet of
fill. Does the city have any specific compaction ~, etc? Materials that they can use as
fill that we will, that we should attach to thi~? It's on private ~ but boy, I thinic we should
look out for the welfare of this twope~ owner.
Saam: Sure, that's a good point. Compaction requiren~nts, I don't believe we have any. If it
was a city street of course we do have ~on requi~xz~nts in our engineering specs. Oh, the
fill. Yeah, it should be clean fill. You might want to add that condition that the fill material be
clean, not full of debris or...
Lillehaug: ...types of fill that would be acceptable but according to code we can't allow any
specific compaction requirements.
Saam: I guess I would have to resea~h that but I don't believe there is a compaction requirement
on private driveways in the city.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. We have a culvert spanning from the north to the south. I think it needs to be
at somewhat of a steep grade, maybe 10 percent grade~ Or 10 percent slope. Would you agree
that we probably need to apply some rip rap at the lower end of that apron to help prevent erosion
and direct the water back into the existing swale?
Saam: Yes. Yep, agreed.
Lillehaug: That was easy. I've got a couple more here. Tree i .mpacts. Unless I misagxt it, we
really don't specifically ~d_dress any tree i .mpacts. How, are we just overlooking that or how do
we handle that in this case?
Al-Jaffi. What we have done is required the, if you look at condition number 18. We are
requiring the applicant to add 5 trees and 20 shrubs on the site. In this case if you will notice
we're requiring a one inch diameter on the trees. And it's mainly to stabilize the slopes.
lJllehaug: As far as clearing and grubbing the existing trees, don't they have a minimum canopy
requirement?
A1-Jaff: It's not a subdivision.
Lillehaug: Okay. I have a few more here.
Sacchet: Go ahem.
Lillehaug: Condition number 16, we refer to maintain a gravel consmLefion access to the site.
Do we want to put, require a rock entrance?
Saarm Yeah, I think that's what we mean in that condition.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'm getting close he~. And then in condition 17(c). It says if city sewer is not
available to the ~. Do we know if it's in that me.a? I mean shouldn't we make it a
requirement if it's there? I'm sure we know if we have adjacent sewer there.
Saam: Yeah, it doesn't exist direct in front of the lot. It's within the ama. R would be up to the
applicants to extend that himseff and Kate, I don't know if there's anything else to add with the
large lots around there. If they would all have to come in together. I guess the way I undewstaM
it, the applicant want, if the applicant wants a sewer he just, he's got to extend it him~lf.
Lillehaug: So we can't require it at this time?
Saam No we can't require it.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then as far as, this is my last one. The County road, this driveway is
sitting right at the top of the vertical curve, plus ar minus. Poor sight distance on either side.
Very narrow shoulder. Do you think that it would be pertinent to require, you hit on it in here
about limiting the traffic contwl or hours of operation that they can put grading out there. Do you
think with, being a county mad, I th~nk it's posted at 40 miles an hour possibly. There's really no
area for trucks to back up, except on the road to begin with initially. Do you think it'd be
necessary to restrict traffic to certain time. s, not in rash hour inifi'"'"'"'"'"~ly fight up front because I think
we can foresee this.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Saam: We certainly could. I guess the way I was going to address that was when he submits a
haul route and traffic control plan. At that ~ then we'd review that and then say you know if
we need flag people out there or limit the hours of operation at that time. We can ~y tack
that on here if you'd want to.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's all.
Aanenson: Can I just add a couple things. Just to bring some clarity. I'm not sure you
understand. This was a lot of record so as far as the availability of sewer or not, the nexus would
be the subdivision so if they can provide it that way. But because it is an inteaim use, you do
have the ability to attach reasonable conditions. To mitigate those. So if you want to gad the
compaction, because it is aa interim use, you can do that We didn't do the tree canopy. Again
that's a coverage, but we attached a condition to mitigaie that by putting the landscaping in, so
again if you feel like we've missed someth~g like compaction, you certainly, because of the
interim use, put those in. You feel gives you the comfort for the mitigation.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Rich.
Slagle: Just a quick question. Matt, how many, from your estimation, ballpark, lots are like this
in the city where we are actually putting a culvert to handle what I'll call a small creek, to get to a
parcel of land to build a house.
Saam: You always ask the easiest questions. As far as the number of lots.
Slagle: I mean is it a handful? I just have to say.
Saam: I haven't seen myself a lot like this, I'll say that. I don't know how many exist. So
again, what was the question?
Slagle: That was the question. I'll leave it at that
Sacchet: I do have a couple of questions. Like the issue was brought up about safety, in terms of
the truck traffic. Now when I went to look at this, just before the meeting, I parked just where the
driveway would be to have a good view, and frankly to get back to the other side of C-alpin going
south, I had to do one of these deep breaths and hope nobody comes because this is fight on the
way the curve is of the hill. You do not see the cars coning. I know it's a county road.
Saam: Yeah, I think when this received the prior approval, it's mentioned in the staff ~ back
in 2000, we talked about access to the site and I think it was maybe this body that reco~
it come off of Crestview Circle. Staff also recommended that to the applicant, that he mielnpt to
obtain easement fights to come from possibly this lot to the narth, or maybe this one. Through
Crestview Circle. To my knowledge he didn't receive those fights. Maybe you could ask him
that but I do agree that this is not the best access situation for this lot. However I think we're
constrained. I don't believe we can require him to come off of Cmstview.
Sacchet: I was actually on the Planning Commission when this was subdivided, but I don't recall,
I believe it was subdivided from the ~ to the north. Is that accmate?
Aanenson: No, it wasn't subdivided. It was just rezoned.
Sacchet: It was just rezoned.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Aanenson: Just to be clear, it's an interim use. You can't deny an interim use. You eau only
attach conditions to mitigate it. He has a right to get access to the prope~. Of course our first
choice was Crestview Circle, but we can't force somebody to sell him an easement.
Sacchet: So it was a rezoning like about 2-3 years ago and not a subdivision?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's why we couldn't add the condition that it should be coming from
Crestview, because I remember there was some reason why we couldn't do that Now, tell me
about this interim use. You say it's for a specific time, so it's for one year to actually have that
filled or is it just to bring the fill in and then it's there. I mean I'm a little confused about it.
Saam: Yeah, to do the grading operatiom. Basically what he's showing on this plan.
Sacchex: But once it's there it doesn't n__~d_ a conditional use permit anymore. It just needs a
conditional use to actually bring the dirt there and once the dirt is ~, it's there.
Sacchex: Okay. Just want to be real clear about that. And okay. So that's to be annually
reviewed. There's no need to review it annually. I mean this is going to be done hopefully
within one year. If it's two years it has to be reviewed annually. That's really the framework of
the review then?
Saam: I would think it would be done this year, yes. This coming consuucfion season.
Sacchet: Now in the findings, the standards. The interim use permit standards. We're looking
at, that's compatible with the comprehensive plan. We are looking that it is not changing the
character of the area. This is not enough to change to conflict with that part of the compre~ve
plan?
Aanenson: How else you going to get access to the ~?
Sacchex: We have to give him access?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Because it's a lot of record.
Aanenson: Right. Right, and just to clarify again, when he came in he had a choice of a variance,
or to make it a buildable lot, to give the variance, or to reffxme it. At that choice the rezoning was
given the choice, and to try to seek approval for the other access, which wasn't achieved, but it is
a lot of record.
Sacchet: Okay. We don't know at this point how much of the existing canopy will be lost. That
has not been calculated, has it? Because it's not part of this type of proceeding. Alright. I
believe that's my questions. Thanks. First the applicant If the applicant wants to come forward
and make a presentation, please do so. State your name and sddress for the record please.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Brian Carney: Good evening. I'm Brian Carney. I'm the owner of the lot, and also I will be
doing the work on the lot. So there is no customer that I'm doing this for. I'm doing it for myself
md I am the land owner. And I have approached the neighbors in that area to see if I cau get
some sort of a access through their land and nobody was very excited about it so I basically got
denied that. And this wasn't my first choice to gain access to this piece of laud but it turned out
to be my only choice. And a little note on the stream that runs through is basically just an eroded
path that has been, you know eroded over the years from runoff from the street and I think there's
a little, there's some water percolating out of the grotmd that trickles through this crevice. I don't
know if it's an official sucam or what you'd call it but it's nothing more than a slow moving
stream that's just worked it's way through the land to the lowest part of the area there. So I guess
it has to be dealt with and I have to have a way for that water to run through, but the long and
short of it is, this is the only way I can gain access to this piece of land.
Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant?
Brian Carney: And I did, excuse me. I did.
Sacchet: Sure, go ahead.
Brian Carney: I talked to the County and abiding by their niles as far as the grade up next to the
county road, you know as far as to maintain a good view and a fairly flat sm'fa~ because of the
entrance onto the road. And as far as the guardrail, I guess if that's something I have to do, I have
to do it but it's not an expense I really wanted to incur.
Feik: Would you be amenable to something more cosmetic that would just show the motorist
where the.
Brian Carney: Probably maybe some trees I think would, I mean since I have to put trees them
anyway, I could line both sides of the driveway with saplings or whatever.
Sacchet: Other questions Steve?
IJllehaug: Yep. Retaining walls. More so the south retaining wall The elevations that you have
called out here, the two walls are 4 feet each. Well it's a tiered wall. Do you see yourself getting
an engineered wall for that wall7
Brian Carney: I specifically kept them at a cem~ height so I wouldn't have to get engining,
and these retaining walls are not to hold the driveway in place, but it's to make it so I don't have
to bring so much material in, for one thing. And also because of my lot lines, ff I was to maintain
that 3: l slope on both sides of the driveway I'd be into the neighbors yards, so that's mostly the
reason why I have the retaining walls them is to limit the amount of fill and how far it spreads
out.
Lillehaug: There's an arc in the retaining wall ~ and it goes to the north. Is that kind of put
in there to minimize the 1,950 square feet of wetland fill because the maximmn is 2,000 square
feet7 Is that arc put in there to kind of keep under thac
Brian Carney: I'm not sum. I guess I would have to ask the surveyor and the engineer that drew
this up.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: Rich, any questions? You said you're doing this for yourself but it's not that you're
planning to live there. You're just doing the work yourseLf?
Brian Carney: Well first of all I've got to make it a bulldable, accessible piece of land. And I
may build on it for myself. I may build it on spec and I may just sell the lot. I don't know yet.
Sacchet: How about the, I mean how do you feel about the safety, driving out of that point? I
mean it's, to n~ it's a re, al c. onc. em just having expea'ienced it myseff. Not sosing any c. ars coming
because it goes fight down into invisibility.
Brian Carney: Well in the winter time when you plow a driveway you usually push the snow to
the side so it builds up and you have something to basically an edge along the driveway to look
at. I mean it's clearly marked as a driveway in the ~ after it's plowed.
Sacchet: So you don't think it's a major concern then?
Slagie: I think he's thinking about the driveway. You're talking about Powers. Galpim
Sacchet: Coming onW Galpin. Not the driveway. I me, an actually coming, I mean if you want to
go south from Galpin, you come out the driveway, you have no way of telling whether a car is
coming. Your sight distance is vexy, vgry limited. Consi~ they comg lilm at 40, if thgy're
speed limit and 50 if they're not.
Brian Carney: Well if the weather isn't good then obviously they need to us~ bette~ judgrmmt, so
do the people pulling out, but I don't see a big concern with that. Pulling out onto Galpin from
that area. I mean I know a lot of the driveways in that whole area the~ are severely sloped when
they come up to the road and don't have a flat surface to sit on but thig one will. As long as it's
clear and you know not 6 inches of snow, where someone can't get traction to get out onto the
road, I mean that would definitely be a concern, but I guess when the weather gets like that,
everybody slows down, or is supposed to. But there's always going to be some concern about
going out onto the road.
Sacchet: And you got nowhere with the neighbum trying to get.
Brian Carney: No. I even tried the people next door, even had their house for sale. I tried to buy
it so I could give myseff access but that didn't work out either.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all the questions I have, thank you ve~'y much. Did you want to zdd
anything else?
Brian Carney: No, that's it.
Sacchet: Thank you. Now this is a public heating. If anybody wants to address this issue, please
come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you think.
Anybody? Any takers? Yep.
Troy Pappas: Hello. My natm's Troy Pappas and I own the pmpet~ that is adjacent the whole
way running along Crestview.
Sacchet: To the north of it?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Troy Pappas: Yep, to the north of it. I just have a few concerns. Fve never met the gentleman
that owns it so I don't know what his concern about not coming up Cmstview, but it has
Crestview address when I moved inw the property in March_ We were assuming that whoever
owned it would be corning to us to ask us for a variance to come in off of ~ew and never
seen anybody. Never heard anybody, ~ all of a sudden this came about so I've done a lot of
walking around the area. I saw the snow melt and I saw the water concerns, and my main
concern with it, there is water flow through there. That 24 inch culvert, not going to cut it. It's
going to back up tl~ wal~ right onto my ~. I have about 5,000 square fe~t of wetland,
because when they marked it out, it seemed to get wide right at my property, right at the property
line and then they marked it out. So I was just very e.z~mmed about the wetlands up front. I
know they didn't really call it a wetland but them is definitely water flowing through the~.
Staff's bubbling up through the ground, but it comes off the hill up onto Ridg~view, and ~
all the way down after the snow melts. And rains. And atter this recent rain, it's now flowing
again and it will flow for quite a long time. Retaining wall's right on my property. It's, I don't
know, I'm just concerned with the slope ~em on that edge of the property, I don't know if some
of you reviewed the site but it's straight down and a 4 foot retaining wall, 2-3 feet fight off the
~ edge and that's going to stop all the water. That's just going to stop everything right
there. I'm not going to do anything with my ~ up there. I just want to leave it the way it
is, and I want you to understand that I'm not trying to hold up the building of it, I just want to
make sure that the driveway coming in is safe also. To the property, to the drainage and all that
Sacchet: If I may just clarify. You say you would consider giving an access from.
Troy Pappas: Options are open.
Sacchet: And you said this has not even been discussed with you? Just want to be real clear
about that.
Troy Pappas: Yes.
Aanenson: He just moved in on the site.
Troy Pappas: In March.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright-
Troy Pappas: Well you'd think that somebody with a Crestview address was you know, I mean
the previous owner really didn't give us a lot of inf~on on it so I mean I'm kind of new to it.
l saw the sign come up and started investigating, looking into it. Fve walked the track for the
footprint for the house. I don't have any trouble with it. The~'s a few frees but there's not a
problem with where everything sets in it. I just, this driveway, it's not what I would perceive as a
driveway to a dwelling without another option. I'd talk to Brian, sit down and talk to him and
decide. Right now I have a snowmobile trailer, a dump truck and a boat that all can park in that
access off of Crestview so I know it's accessible. I drive in and out of there constantly on that
part of my land. One concern I had was, all of a sudden 2 days ago there was more dirt showing
up there. I was wondering if staff had given him approval to just continue to dump dirt there or is
this something that just happens. Somebody drove by and dumped dirt there.
Saam: Yeah. There has been some filling going on. We're aware of that. Today we were out
there. Saw it and noticed there wasn't erosion control up so we did call Mr. Carney to have that
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
up by Thursday morning. Property owners are allowed to fill up to 50 cubic yards on their lot
without any permits. However, you've got to have the erosion control, especially when you're
adjacent to a creek like he is so that was our concern today. We did tell him not to bring in any
more fill until it gets approval far this because we believe he's at about the 50 cubic yards
threshold.
Troy Pappas: And then just culvert size. I really would like that to be reviewed. A few different
people looking at it to make sure that we're od_ ~Fmte. 24 inches far that much of a flow that's
going through there fight now. I ~ to my culvert guy and he was saying somewhere around
48 inch would be what they would recomme~L Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to oddress the commission on this, please
come forward.
Charlie Hicks: Gentlemen, my name is Charlie Hicks and I live at 1941 Crestview Circle. My
~'s contiguous and it's to the west of Mr. Camey's ~. We moved in summer last
year. I want to talk about two issues as to why I don't think this is a great idea. One is traffic,
and the other one is foliage. Trees. Natnre. Now, Mr. Carney possibly had called me. Fve
never gotten a call regarding an easement at all, and the discussion would have been moot
anyway. Also with regards to the traffic, I used to live in Greenwo~ for 13-14 years, right on
Minnetonka Boulevard, and I thought Minnetonlm was busy. Galpin's a freeway. 40 miles an
hour, that's been courteous. 45-50. I walk my dog, a very ADD Springer Spaniel, up and down
that street and I can tell you it's 45 ar 50. And as you know genfl~ you've been them, that's
a huge swing you have to take, whether you're going down it ar whether you're coming up it.
Winter, s~, fall, it doesn't matter. And the other point is, I look over this ~. It's
gorgeous. Trees. Slew grass. The whole 9 yards and I just don't think this is a very good ~
Thanks far your time.
Sacchet: Yeah, comment Rich.
Slagle: You are west of the tn'otxa'ty?
Charlie Hicks: I'm directly west. 1941.
Slagle: Across Galpin?
Charlie Hicks: Pardon me, east. Thank you.
Sacchet: So just to clarify, are you the house that is offset from the circle a little bit.
Charlie Hicks: Yes.
Aanenson: Can you point to it?
Sacchet: Yeah, if you can identify it, that would help.
Charlie Hicks: Where is, I don't quite know where I am. I don't have my glasses on either. I
have two lots. This one right here. I also have this one, and I'm the one with the driveway that
comes right down here and then accesses the cul-de-sac so to speak right there.
Sacchet: We got it. Thank you very much.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Charlie Hicks: Yep, thank you.
Sacchet: Apprecia~ your comments. Anybody else want to s~ddress the commission, please
come forward.
Brian Carney: First of all I'd like to say I didn't know that that house was sold. I was working
with the previous homeowner. We couldn't come to tenm. He wasn't interested in working with
me. I wasn't under the i ,repression that it was even sold, and there was a new owner, or there was
any possibility of an eccess through there. The other gentleman that was just up here, has got a
very long driveway that goes up there and the way the lots peak at that cul-de-sac, I didn't think it
was even viable to approach him on that so, I'm certainly open to other ideas but.
Single: I've got a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: If I may. If you're open to it, would you be open to tabling this until you have discussion
with the gentleman two ago, the new resident? Because it seems to me that if you could work
something off of ~ew Circle, that would be in everybody's best interest, assuminE it's a fair
for both parties. Because I'm just tellinE you, I nm that hill a lot ~ that is a, you are reaching
the level of an interesting lot to build on.
Brian Carney: Oh, there's no question. But for someone to say you know, it's not a good idea
to make thig a buildable lot.
Slagle: See and I didn't go there.
Brian Carney: I know but I'm just sayin~ that I think that's.
Slagle: I'm with you but would yon be open to the idea of havinE some discussion?
Brian Carney: I would.
S gle: okay.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Aanenson: Just a point of clafifi~ We did come off Crestview. You have two homes off of
one drive which is now a variance.
Slagle: I understand.
Aanenson: Okay. I just wanted to make sure so we'd have to start a~...
Slagle: I'm with you.
Audience: No, that's not correct.
Sacchet: Depending on how we connect iL I mean if it would come off the same driveway it'd
be a variance but I mean if it'd be with the pwinaly owner to the north, it could also be drawn
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
into the circle. I mean we don't know. We don't know at this point, okay. Okay, anything else
you'd like to add to this?
Brian Carney: I guess not, no.
Sacchet: Okay. Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward. Seeing nobody.
Oh, there's somebody.
Nancy Mancino: My name is Nancy Mancino and I live at 6620 Cralpin Boulevard and I also live
at the top of that curve. Thathill. I have for 20 years. And it cemdnly has changed. Thereisa
lot of traffic there. I would just like to give my two cents and say I think it would be great if
something could be worked out on Crestview just for the fumm homeowner that lives there.
Obviously they can put the driveway in and it is legal, etc, but I can just say that it is a very, very
hard place to get in and out anymore so if that could be worked out. Also, we have a private
drive with two houses on it and it's worked well for over 20 years.
Sacchec Thank you. Unless ~ere's somebody else who wants to address this issue, I will close
the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Comments of the commission. Anybody
feel an inkling to starL
Feik: Well the applicant is willing to take this back for a short period of time to at least try to
have some discussions with the neighbor to the north, I think that would be beneficial for all
parties. Clearly we cannot deny him ultirrmt~ly access to his lot so it is going to be built on. I
apologize for your loss of view but it's going to happen. Wbett~ it is thia gentleman or the next
gentleman or someone in the fuuue so. If we could get a win/win on the deal, and the applicant is
willing to do that, I think that'd be great.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve.
Lillehaug: I agree. If something can be w~cl off of Crestview Circle, and we table this and we
come back here, I think we need to address what's in front of us also ~ so if that's not worked
out I would like for you to address some of the comments that we've also been speaking of. So if
we come back here again we can go in one direction or another and not waste any time.
Brian Carney: If I can't work anything out with the neighbors, how soon can I get.
Sacchet: Yeah, what's the timeline Kate?
Aanenson: I think that' s a good question. I was going to ask that too because l thin~ in good
faith we have to put some time~. The 60 day, which is on your's, is June 3~. So they could
meet the next Planning Commission would be the 20~ of May. So if they could meet by then. At
least have some agreement or disagreement, some direction, if that's enough time for the
applicant.
Sacchet: Could we possibly ask for an extension if we need more time? It looks like we may be
able to settle it within the timeframe, but the alternative would be to get an extension, correct?
Aanenson: Here's the, we'd have to respond on thia application because it does require a
variance. You'H have two driveways coming across one lot, whether it's a flag lot or whether it'
a common driveway. So then we start another process over and in good faith I think we'd like to,
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
you know if they could at least start having dialogues in the next two weeks, I think we can k~p
you apprised of that and see what direction it's going and then, if that's clear to both parties.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Lillehaug: Can I finish with mine.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: And then looking at this plan here, I think we need to look at this driveway a little
closer. When we get towards where the house paid is, and ! guess at this point we're not
approving grades on a driveway, but it needs to be addressed right now. When you get closer to
that house pad, you get an area where you have a 20 percent driveway. 20 percent grade on the
driveway, that's my quick calculations so it needs to be ~ddressed I think in this grading plan. So
if we do go this route, and I hope we don't because it's a very bad location to have a driveway
period. That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich.
Slagle: lust like that I would ask that both parties or multiple parties, whoever is involved in
discussions keep an open mind and are fair in their dialogue and along with Commissioner
Lillehaug I would suggest that the grading and also I would be, when this comes back, if it is not
worked out for Crestview I would be open to suggestions from fellow cxmamissioners and the
ones who are with us at that point, that there be more plantings along both sides of that driveway.
I don't think 5 trees and 20 shrubs are going to handle it, ~y if there is the water that we
hear there is at that location.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. I don't have too much to add. I mean it is a buildable lot of record. It
can be built. We have to give access to the lot. I mean it's not an option, and ff thexe is no
alternative, it's going to have to come from Galpin as undesirable from some viewpoints. It is
ceztainly very undesirable for me. I think it's a real safety issue. I think it's envimnm~tally a
real cletrizmnt, but we couldn't prevent it However, in view that the~ is a willingness of the
neighbors to consider access from Crestview which would be so much more pre~le than from
Galpin, I think it makes sense that we table this and be, ask that the applicant would explore those
options which I think would be also to everybody's benefit, including your's. So with that I'd
like to have a motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission tables the application for the Interim Use
Permit 003-1.
Feik: Second.
LiHehaug moved, Felk seconded that the Planning Commission table Interim Use Permit
#03-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Planning Cornmi~sion Meeting - May 6, 2003
PUBLIC I~ARING:
cossm A gvot r FOR LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RF.$IDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY TQ PUBLI~-PUBLIC. REZONING FROM RSF, SINGLE
CoI mONAL USE USE oF PROP TY AS A CEMETERY,
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 381 WF~T 78TM STREET
CONSISTING OF 5 ACRES~ SANDERS~ HA~ER~ BERC~LY~ INC_~ AND ST.
mmER?'S CA tQLIC ST.
Name Address
Fr. Lawrence Blake
Bill Sanders
Jack & Paula Afldns
8201 Main Street
365 ~ Kello~gg, St. Paul
220 West 78" Street
Sharmeen .M-Jaff presented the staff repoFt on this iran.
Sacchet: Questions of staff. Do you want to start Rich?
Slagle: Sure. Just a couple Sharmeem Along West 78m Street, is there, and I was trying to
determine by the plans, is there any, what I will call barrier along the, what you would call the
northern edge of the cemetery? Meaning a rock wall. Anything that would run the length of the
cemetery so that people living across the sueet, I mean not that we all shouldn't look at ~
plots but I mean is there anything that's hiding what I will call all the head stones, tomb stones?
Al-Jaff: We talked with the applicant, and when the archimct comes up here, they will be able to
address this further. We talked about posts with continuous hedges along West 78m Street and
they will be able to address that in detail.
Slagle: Okay. Second question is, and I apologize if this is there bm I don't remember seeing it
Is the pedestrian bridge there that crosses the railroad tracks?
Al4aff: No. This is something that we have fi'equenfly discussed, and they're willing to provide
Slagle: Then this would connect to the bridge that goes across?
Slagle: Okay, that's all I need.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Sure. Rezoning question first. We added condition number 2. Does that mean we
need to break that area up and have a different parcel identity for that specific parcel since it's
zoned differently, or is it that way?
Al-Jaff: There are other properties witmn the city where you have ~xed uses and you actually
do have different zones. However in this case what we're recommending is a shifting of ~
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
lines where the cemetery itseff sits. We're combining all of those properties under a single PID
number. You do have 3 separate parcels out there.
Lillehaug: Okay. Good enougl~ Acee~ off of West 78m Street. In the staff repc~ you indicated
that obviously you don't anticipate heavy traffic frequently but there are the occasions where
there will be heavy traffic, and is it a good assumption that it wouldn't be typical to plan anything
into right mm lanes, additional parking for thi, special case? I would probably think not, but I do
want to address it.
Saam: Yeah, I' m assnming you mean like a funeral procession, the occasional one.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Saam: Two things that we thought of was, a lot of times police officers lead those, escort them.
You know they all come through with their headlights om And then the parking, as I would
envision it, they would pull in to thc cen~ery and maybe pull around to.
Lillehaug: Because there is no parking on West 78z Street, I think on both sides is all signed.
Lillehaug: And I realize there' s an existing cemetery them so it's an existing condifiom
Saarn: Yeah. What we envision was the procession would pull in here and you maybe pull up to
this point. Everybody stops inside the site. You get out, you go to the burial site and have your
whatever, and then they pull out that way. So I didn't see the need for like a parking lot per se,
and not on West 78~ Street either. It's an MSA road. We typically don't allow parking on those.
Lillehaug: But we would on the occasion I assume? Possibly.
Saam: Special circumstances, sure.
Aanenson: It happens on the city cenctepj on Galpin. Same situation.
Lillehaug: That's good enough I think. And then one more question, since we are planning
commissioners. Stressing the planning. Do we really want a bridge crossing a railroad tracL and
then a pathway through the cemetery? Do we want to show that on these plans? I mean I don't
see where we're looking at this now.
Aanenson: I think you can let the architect go through the plans and revisions that he has. It's
really a public space and that's the exciting part of making it not just for the church but opening it
up to the community and that goes back to Rich's question and the visual part. Making thai a
nice future, upgrading it. And that goes back to the site plan review Sharmeen did... You're
gong to see diffexent heights and different head stones and different types of sculptme as there is
in there fight now. So it's going to be eclectic and different types of things, and again we'll let
Lillehaug: The City I assume would fund this pedestrian bridge, would that he ~7
Aanenson: Ultimately, you have ISTEA funds or something, ceuainly. What we're trying to
secure is the access.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: A couple. One would be pedestrian access. Well Fll wait and speak to that later I think
after I hear the architect's presentatiom Shanmea, assuming this does go forward, in condition
number 4. The applicant may want to consider installation of water. Either yes or no. If we want
to stick with the may, I would suggest that we pull that condition in it's entirety, or we say they
will. But as a sort of a, I don't know how you feel about that. Do you want to express any more
on the irrigation?
AI-Jaff: We believe that you will ultimately need to care for the site and you will need to water it
SO.
Feilc Shall.
Sacchet: Shall.
Feik: I'll save the rest of my questions for latex, thank you.
Sacchet: Quick couple questions from staff. I'm confused about the trees. I'm looking at the
drawing, the grading plan and it indic, ams the fat bubbles as trees removed and the light bubbles
as trees to be maintained. But then I see these grading ~ which I assume are our grading to
take place, and trees all around them. So I don't see how they could possibly be grading and the
trees next to the grading line that is a new grading line are still there. Could you please help me
out with that
Al-laff: They don't intend to, where you have existing trees, they don't intend to sell those plots
as bur/al grounds and they intend not to grade these areas.
Sacchet: The grading plan doesn't back that up. Maybe I' m not .reading this correctly.
Aanenson: That's on the, are you looking at the existing cemelx~?
Sacchet: No, I'm looking at the new part. I mean the fat grading lines are the new grading lines,
I assume. That's usually how it is. And there are light colored circles all over the place on those
fat grading lines that I read as new grading. Maybe we can address that with the applicant. I
mean it might be an applicant question in all fairness. Want to go that mute?
Aanenson: Yeah, I t. bink it'd probably be helpf~ for them
Sacchet: Okay. We'll ask the applicant that question. Staff makes the finding that the applicant
will replace lost canopy. There is no planting plan per se at this point, or is there?
AIJaff: There is replacement that you see on the application. They worked very closely with the
City Forester to come up with this reft, station plan.
Aanenson: This is the replacement plan.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: That is the plan, okay. Okay, that's all my questions. If the applicant wants to come
forward and make a presentation, please do so. State your name and address for the record
please.
Bill Sanders: I'm Bill Sanders. I'm President of the firm of Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, landscape
architects, and we're the master planners for the project, gr~th me tonight is Father Larry Blake
from St. Hubert's and unfortunately Father has to leave right away. Apologize for that but he has
a commitment so.
Sacchet: Are you leaving fight now7
Father Blake: I am, yes.
Sacchet: B_~_-q_use I have one question that I think is a question for you, if I may quickly ask that
question.
Father Blal~: Sure.
Sacchet: Now being from Eum~ one thing kind of startles me. You're selling these plots and
then they're for eternity the same person. In Eumtm, you recycle the burial plots. You bury
somebody and 40 years later somebody else is buried there. And I just want to clarify because
personally I got very curious. Are ~ people ac~_ rally buying this plot to put a rock there and
they're ttsm~ for, not quite time eternity but, or are they being recycled?
Father Blake: Well hopefully they're not there for eternity... What they ac~_ rally purchase is the
right for burial. The church continues to maintain, the parish continues to maintain in perpetuity
the ~ and we are required by State law, as well as our own church law, to have funds of
record to maintain this property always. And so a family or an individual purchases the right to
be buried in a particular plot. And that can be transfen~ but it's really not a deed to that space.
It's simply the right of burial.
Sacchet: Okay. So ~n is grandma died and the grand daughter dies, then grandpa, they may he
buried in the same place, so there is a recycling comtxmeut to this?
Father Blake: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright That answers my question, thank you. Not to make fun of it, but I think
it's a practical aspecC
Slagle: I have sort of kidding question but they'll appreciate it. Our neighbors are the
Westerhouses. Is like a fifth of thig dedicamd to the We. merhouse family? The way things are
going.
Father Blake: We have in our plan here, our master plan, what we call family plots. And their
name doesn't appear here but I'll approach them about it.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Sorry to interrupt your presentation.
Bill Sanders: Thank you. Well, St. Hubert's cemetery has been part of the community for over
100 years. It's really part of the history of this area, and the existing cemetery has reached full
development at this time. Not full development, but full sales. They really don't have any
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
inventory of graves remaining. They would like to continue to see St. Hubert's cemetery be a
part of the community for the next foresee__able fiimm, and so this expansion is very i ,nE~onant to
them I think that as I go through this, and I'll try to be brief but we really have done a lot to
make this land pan of the community and part of the neighborh~ so I'll go through it very
briefly. This is the existing cemetery here, and a lot of that ~, I think all the way up to
this point, has been developed as upright monuments and that is what is most visibly apparent
there but in the area from here on over they have started the policy of developing these as flush
markers so that this really is more of a landscape area. And that is what they would continue with
throughout the development of the lemaind~r of the ~, with the exception of certain
family monuments, we have developed along certain key areas of this plan. Along major
walkways, certain estate lots, which would be family burial areas which would be allowed a
single family marker within those. We also are offering here a variety of burial types. Most of
the burials are U'aditionsl, in-ground burials but them is a very much an increase demand for
cremation burial, and so some of the fe, aUire areas that you see, this central garden space hem,
would be all devoted to ~on burials. It would be developed as a garden space, with both in-
ground cremation burials and columbarium burials so. Columbaxium are the walls that have the
niches there for cremation sites. So that darken space would be developed for that and that really
for some access for the public trail through the cemetea'y because the destination for the trail
really works better corning directly to the north rather than following the trail along the railroad
tracks and over. So that seemed to be a very atuacfive thing. The attitudes towards cemeteries
are changing and we, the church was open to a more open public policy here that would allow the
development of a formal trail through the site and we really developed that as part of the design
feature of the site. Cemeteries do have a lot of history to thera They also are vexy park ~ike,
~ially with the development of the flush markers that this would be an mmmfive site for
people to use for public use. The central courtyard would have benc~ and landscaping and, we
also anticipate in the future the placement of certain pieces of public art. Sculpture or statues,
possibly just landscaping, but certain featme areas would be part of that. The feature areas that
you see here, and in the center and then over on the approach from the east would be a part of
that. We intentionally are creating thi~ garden over here too as part of the entrance into the
downtown area. It's an entrance to the cermtery but it's also an entrance to the downtown~ The
drive that we have, this is the existing driveway hem that has thi~ stone, old stone wall
construction. That would be an entrance then the driveway would meander through the site and
come out opposite thi~ street over here. Along West 78'~ Street we have a few column sm~mes,
these would probably be a stone columns that would be very traditional in design. We are not
proposing fencing along there at thi~ time. We'd ~ to have the ~ be vexy open and inviting to
the neighborhood. We have areas of hedging throughout that area, and then there's some very
nice boulevard trees along that site and we'H be supplemeoting those trees as well The colored
trees that we have on the plan are, we're thinking more along the line of flowering trees and then
the other u'ees would be yearly plantings that would reinfcxce the design of the cemetery. I think
with that maybe I'll stop and answer any questions that you have.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions of the applicant. Rich.
Slagle: Quick question. One is the drive through the cemetery one way?
Bill Sanders: Well it's 22 feet wide and so it can function as a two way drive. We do anticipate
that for funeral processions that they would come in in one direction and out the other. So it
functions one way for funerals. And depen&g on where that funeral is, if the funeral is over
here, they would come in this entrance and so that they allow for the stacking of cars behind the
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
hearse. They would come in obviously the opposite way if the fimeml was over on this side. So
the point being that, to allow stacking of all of the cars behind the.
Aanenson: In anticipation you could also do, when it's being directed, two next to each other.
There' s enough there...to stack them in_
Bill Sanders: There is enough width, that's correct
Slagle: Second question. Where in ~ve would the road, and I forgot what it is that you
would take to get to Chapel I-Fall, where is that in relationship to the current entrance? Is it timber
west or is, oh is that it right there? Oh, is that Frontier? Okay, I see.
Bill Sanders: So it's on the far western side.
Slagle: Okay. So just a quick question for staff. Any issues with uaffic left/fight causing a
problem?
Saam: No. The one enuance is lined up with, is that Erie l thinL No, we don't foresee any.
Slagle: I wouldn't see any.
Aan~n: It's be off peak hours for the most part.
Saam: Yeah, that' s another thing to keep in mind. It won't be like daily rush hour.
Slagle: Hopefully not. Third question, lighting within, along the paths. I mean assuming we're
encouraging people to go for strolls and what not, I trust there will be adequate lighting.
Bill Sanders: I had not anticipated lighting. I don't know what your policies are in terms of
parks, if you do light trails.
Aane~n: There is street lighting. That is a good question. I think if we did do the bridge going
across, that'd be something we'd look in, coming across the bridge to make sure there's security
lighting but we certainly not intend to have high fighting but security lighting.
Slagle: No, bm decorative lamp posts. Maybe both sides of the bridge rather than light the whole
Aanenson: Right. Correct. I think at the time the bridge would come through, there is street
lighting because we don't want to over light the neighborhood but you're ~ for security, I
think we would look at that.
Slagle: Yeah. I wouldn't want to...someone going for a stroll Last question. One of the things
as a planning commissioner that I have hoped for is, an attempt to define the entrances to our city.
And one of the things I would ask you as the applicant or on behalf of the applicant, would you
be open to at the eastern side of your cememry, in that wedge shape up there, of allowing the city
to have some type of a little easement to put a sign. City sign. Would we be open to that? Kate,
I haven't asked you that but, it seems like it would be a beaufifid welcome to Chanhassen.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think certainly we'd want to make it consistent with the architectme...
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Slagle: Yeah. But it's something.
Bill Sanders: Yeah, I haven't talked to the church about it but they've been very open towards
working with the city on it. I'm sure that they would be.
Slagle: I'll leave that up to you guys.
Aanenson: Sum, to follow through.
Slagle: That's it.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feilc Yes. Would you please go a little bit mine in depth into the compauq~_lity of the pedestrian
sidewalk, the bridge going through thi~ site. I'm having a hard time getting my arms around how
compatible it just might be, in that I'm picturing Rollerbladers and skat~ boarders and trail users,
and the normal users of the pedestrian as it goes over 5. Coming through here and how you see
that really working in benefit of the applicant.
Bill Sanders: We have talked about that at some length~ There is a co, met of course when
there's a funeral going on and so we would anficipam that at the bridge, either one end or the
other, we would close that at the time of the funeral and provide an all~rnative mute for them. So
if it's closed on this side, the trail users can continue on the south side of the railroad. If we close
it at this point we would allow them to have another mute through so that there's no dimuption of
any of the funeral ceremonies. But in, at other times, you know we think that it can work. It does
work in some other cemeteries and there's a debate about it of course but I think that there's some
public benefit here to it, and so we'd like to give it a try.
Feik: Are you concerned regarding young people assembling so to speak for their 6 pack behind
thc trees kind of a thing? The kids going over to the skate park, I'll call it alternative uses that
might be employed by Chanhassen's youth in the wee hours.
Bill Sanders: I think if that situation develops we will have to reconsider how this is used so.
Feilc Well that's where I'm getting to. ff we're going to be paying for a bridge over this, I
would b~te to have the city pay a significant amount of money for a bridge only to have it be your
desire or the applicant's desire to have it closed. The bridge isn't going to be cheap. I mean I
guess on behaff of the applicant, are you committed long term that this is going to work7
Bill Sanders: We are committed, yes. To that, yes.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, the bridge is a separate decision, making. What we're doing is
providing the city the option to make.
Feilc Well I understand that. I understand that but my point is, the city opts to exercise and put
the bridge in and 3 years from now we determine, you ~ine and your applicant, your client
determines that really it's not being utilized as anticipated and they would like that closed.
Bill Sanders: That's a very fair question and you know, the church is commi~ to that, to
making that work. I think there may have to be rules put in place and we'll have to discuss
enforcement of that, but they are committed to that.
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Feik: Good, thank you.
Sacchet: Steve.
Liilehaug: No questions.
Sacchet: I have just a quick few questions. I mean I believe if it would be a problem, it probably
would be there with or without the bridge. About the tree preseawatiom I have thi~ question I
posed to staff. I was kind of disoriented by seeing the light bubbles as preserved and the da~k
ones as cut, but then see the grading lines going straight tln'ough all the little bubbles. Could you
help me out with that please.
Bill Sanders: Yeah, the trees that we marked for removal is a worst case scenario. What we
intend to do is work with the trees to try to save all of those that we can. I think that we can save
more than what we indicated there and that's what our goal is. There are a fair number of box
elder trees through that area. We probably will eventually come tin, ugh and make replacermnts
Sacchet: It doesn't really address my question though. My question is the heavy grading lines
are the new grading lines, correct?
Bill Sanders: That's correct
Sacchet: And let's for instance look to the west of the central point. You have two grading lines.
Two new grading lines in there, and basically all the trees are with the ~ circles, meaning
they are being preserved. And I have a hard time reconciling how you could be altering the
grading and preserve the trees. Thaffs the part I don't get
Bill Sanders: Yeah. The grades that we have to alter there are very minor. Them is some
grading that has to be done for the drive. We will minimize that grading as we can, and work
around those trees, so we are showing you know we didn't make those fine adjustments on the
plan but we will in the field.
Sacchet: So basically you're thinking that the grading is ~ enough that you can actually
accommodate the trees.
Bill Sanders: Yeal~
Sacchet: That's a good answer.
Bill Sanders: We'll take care in the field to modify the grading even more to avoid damage to the
Ixe~.
Sacchet: Then I had another quick question. What's a rain garden?
Bill Sanders: A rain garden is really a landscaped wet area. You dig out an area that will
accommodate storm water. F'tll that area with perennials, plants and things that will do good
within that wet environment, and so it's an attractive way to deal with storm water ponding. And
if the, it really treats it as a garden rather than as a dig a hole and put water in it. We think that it
will compliment the site that way and with the rather minor increase in runoff that we would have
here, we think that it's a workable plan.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: One last thing. The screening from 78m Street, like you mentioned ~ are colnrrms.
There's some hedges. Them, so there's some screen_ lng but it wouldn't be really, how much
screening would that really provide?
Bill Sanders: Yeah it's probably about, I would say about 50 percent or better. Our thinking is
that it might be better not to completely screen this but to maim it more visible for some of the
reasons that you brought up. That you know this is a going to be a public area.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much.
Bill Sanders: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come up and sd_dress the commission,
please do so. State your name and address for the record please.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen at 7305 Laredo Drive. I haven't read the report, I apologize. Is the
driving force behind the new bridge the city's recommendstion or the ci~'s ~? I see it as an
expensive project and using the current approach isn't satisfactory you're saying because kids
have to cross the railroad tracks?
Aanenson: That' s correct All we're doing is preserving the fight in the future, if ~'s ISTEA
funding available that we've applied for that, but we're preserve in perpetuity the oppommity to
have a safe crossing and a bridge. Kids are crossing the tracks now.
Jen'y Paulsen: Could you keep the old crossing as a back-up in case there is a problem with ska~
boarders going through here or something like tha~
Aanenson: The old crossing that's at Great Plains or the.
Genius: West 79~
Jerry Paulsen: Yeah, presently it crosses just north of Amoco and.
Aanenson: Oh, that stays.
Jerry Paulsen: So there's still an alternate mute?
Aanenson: Yes.
Jerry Paulsen: To save money if we have w.
Aanenson: Yep.
Jerry Paulsen: Where would the money come from?
Aanenson: ISTEA funding. The federal government. It's an oppommity to apply for
enhancements for pedestrian or, it's what we got the money for the pedeslrhm bridge that's across
Highway 5 right now.
Jerry Paulsen: Either way we're paying for it.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else wants to come forw~
Jack Atkins: Yeah, my name's Jack Atkins. I live at 220 West 78~ Street. On the corner of Erie
and West 78~ so we'll be directly across from here, and my wife, if she'll let me speak for her,
we're both in favor of this. We're not concerned about fencing. We like the klea that you can see
intoih We'renotconcemedaboutpartie~scc~/ngacrossonthepedesuianbfidge. R'dbemom
likely that teenagers might drive in looking for a dark place but skate boarders don't cawff coolers
with them so that's not really a concern of our's so wanted to ~ddress those points. One thing I
was a little unclear about. When they afl. lily widened West 78m Street many years ago,
because the houses were so close to West 78m Street, they wok a dispropc~enate amount of their
existing easement on the south side of the road, of West 78~ and conseque~ly when the city
upgraded that road, there wasn't enough room to put the sidewalks in and the sueet lights so that
sidewalk ends ~. Are we going to have a continuous sidewalk atoning along the ~ line
~? Do you understand what my point is?
Sacchet: Sidewalk on the south side.
Jack Atkins: On the south side it ends at the church property line and then m-starts again on the
other side of this pwperty.
Aanenson: So there wouldn't be a sidewalk on West 78~. It would be integral You'd have to
come through this. The sidewalk is on the other side, but I undersm~d what your point is.
lack Atkins: So there will part of this plan is for the city, I believe the...
Aanenson: There would not be a sidewalk on West 78~. It would be, you'd have to come
Sacchet: That's not a sidewalk? That line on there.
Jack Atidns: There's supposed to be a sidewalk along here. On the.
Feilc It looks like it.
Bill Sanders: If I, we did draw in a sidewalk anticipating that there would be a public sidewalk
there so.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
iIack Atldns: The issue there was, the city couldn't put the sidewalk there because they didn't
own the land and I want to make sure if we get the sidewalk in them, I think there's one ~
fully shielded shoe box type street light that didn't get put in there as well so. I can live with one
more. Those are my only comments, thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else wants to address this issue, please come forward. Seeing
nobody, I'm closing the heating. Bring it back to commissioners. Steve, do you want to start?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Lillehaug: I will buzz through these real quick. My comments. One would be on the bridge. I
realize the bridge is a separate issue, but it's in my mind it's not entirely at this point. Like staff
said, the city's preserving the right regardless of if I want it or not, I guess it's good to preserve
the fight, but I do want to voice my opposition to putting a bridge in this location and make the
applicant aware of that. I'm sure there's other residents out them that would agree with myself
that we don't want a bridge here. So I just want to make the applicant aware that the city is
preserving the rights, but it's not a definite on putting that bridge there. Other than that, I'll be
adding a condition to ensure that the applicant shall submit stoma water and runoff computations
staff to ensure that the existing runoff rates are ~ and not increased. That's the only
comments I have, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Bruce.
Feik: My concern was adequately ~ by the representative of the app~t regarding the
bridge and the use of the bridge. Hopefully all will work out just right. I was gl~ to hear that the
neighbors across the street acumlly want a project to go forward. It's kind of nice to see. We
don't always see thaL
Jack Atkins: I should point out them, that Jerry Schlenk's got a flower garden om there for years
and people walk down from the Dinner Theater, they've been treating that as public space for 25
years.
Feik: In condition, assuming this goes forward I would want to change the lan~m~o~ in condition
4 from may to shall. I would like to also add a condition regarding that sidewalk as long as it's
drawn, I want it in there. That is going to be, if that' s going to be in there. And that' s the extent
of my comments, thank you.
Sacchet: Rich?
Slagle: Just a couple. Point of clarification. Apologize for having to step out. Where is the
sidewalk we're refe~Ting m7
Sacchet: Along 78a. It's this thing here. All along.
Slagle: Okay. So is that planned?
Aanenson: Correct
Slagle: Great Thank you. I think it's w~ I absolutely think it's w~ and as nmch
as I respect my fellow commissioner on the bridge, I think that that's absolutely a necessity. I
know it's separate in a sense from this, but folks. We've got way too many cars driving around
Chanhassen and not enough people walking. Anything we can do to get north and south together,
I'm for it so I think it's great.
Sacchet: I don't really have much to add. I think it's a very clean proposal. Fm staying away
from the bridge discussion~ I have my share on the bridge discussion of the other bridge so,
curious to see how this one turns out. And just to be clear, it's not that you build a bridge at thi~
point. We are establishing the possibility that we could build a bridge at some point. Some
people may start using the other bridge if we have another bridge there, like if you build it they
will come. It didn't work with one, but maybe it does with two.
Plaoning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Feik: So if we put enough of them together they'll use it.
Slagle: Let me throw out, in all fairness of the bridge. What happem though Mr. Chairman is,
currently the bridge and the sidewalk takes you down by the car wash, but you really detour to get
up.
Sacchet: Right, it doesn't connect.
Aanenson: And children cross on the tracks.
Sacchet: Good point, so I'm ready to get a motiom Anybody want to maim a motion?
Peik: Sure. I'll make a motion. It looks like we've got a couple of them ~
Sacchet: Let's do one at a time.
Feik: We have Planning Commission recommm~ approval of the land use plan amendment
number 03-1 from residential, medium density to public/semi-public con~ upon
metropolitan council review and approval of the amen~t~
Sacchet: Second please?
$1agle: Second.
F~k moved, ~ ~onded that the Planning Commi~ion ~momme. m~ approval of the
mntingent on Metropolitan Coundl review and approval of the amendme~ All voted in
f~vor and ~he motion carried mmnimously with a vot~ of 4 to 0.
Feik: I n~co~ that the Planning Commission, or move that the Plmming Commi~mion
recommends approval of the rezoning ~03-1 of the prolmrty from single tinnily residential RSF to
OI, ~ Industrial to Agricultmal Esta~ District, A2 with the following conditions 1 and 2 as
stated earlier which is I believe the zoning of the church site will remain office industrial. Did I
get that correct S~?
Lillehaug: Office Institutional?
Feik: Excuse me, thank you. Institutional.
Aanenson: OI, yeah.
Slagle: Second.
Feik moved, Slagle ~onded tlmt the Phmning Co_rotation ~mmmml~ approval of the
Rezoning ~3-1 of the property from Single Family ~ ~ to OI, O~ee
In~tutional, to Agricultural Egta~e District, A2, with the following eondition~:
1. Approval of the rezoning is contingent upon approval of the land use plan amendment,
conditional use permit and site plan.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - M~y 6, 2/)03
2. Zoning of the church portion of the site shall remain Office Institutional
Ail voted In favor and the motion earrled mm~mm~ly with a vote of 4 to 0.
Feilc I move that the Planning Commi.~sion recommend approval of the conditional use permit
~3-1 to permit the use of the property for a cemeta~ subject to the following conditions
1,2. 1 and2.
Sacchet: Second?
Slagle: Second.
Felk move~ Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~don re~mnmm~ ~pprov~l of the
Conditiomd U~ Permit g20(B-1, to l~rmit the u~ of the property for ~ cemetery, subject to
the followtn~ ~ondition,:
1. The applicant enters into a conditional use permit agreement with the city.
2. Approval of the Conditional Use Pem~t is conting~t upon approval of the land use
amendment and rezoning.
All voted in f~vor and the motion em-tied unantmmudy with a vote of 4 to 0.
Feik: I move that the Planning Commission r~commmd approval of Site Plan g2003-3, pla~
prepared by Sanders, Wacker, Bergly, dated April 4, 2003, subject to the following c~nditions 1
through 16 with the following changes. Number 4. The third w~cl may shall be replac~ with
shall.
Sacchet: Four& Fourth word. Shall consider. Actually.
Feilc.. The applicant shall install.
Sacchet: Shall install.
Feik: It would have to be shall install water service f~r in'igation of the site. Number 17. That
the sidewalk is shown on the plan be included as shown,
Sacchet: We know what you mea~
Feil~ And I'm sure there's a friendly amendment to my right.
Sacchet: Can we get a second first?
Lillehaug: Secood.
Sacchet: And an amendme~
Lillehaug: And a friendly ame~L Number 18. The applicant shall submit storm water and
runoff computations to include the rain ga~len ueatment and storage capacities to the staff to
ensure existing runoff rates are maintained and not increased.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: Is that acceptable?
Feik: Acceptable~
Lillehaug: And number 19.
Sacchet: And number 19.
Lillehang: I would just like to add the word potential to pedesui~n bridge by other.
Sacchet: Which is which condition7
Lillehaug: That would be a separate condition. Number 19.
Feilc Okay.
Sacchet: Potential pedestrian bridge, okay. Acceptable?
Feii~ Acceptable.
Sacchet: Any more?
Slagle: I had one. Do we, it's more of a question at thim point but do we want to have anything
about lighting? I mean here we have this s_ma that we are, even though it's a ~ we're sort
of allowing that it's public, you know free open space and yet we're going to have paths. We're
going to have sidewalks and we're not going to have any lighting?
Aanenson: I think the neighbors brought up the point that there is street lighting, except the one
missing on West 78~', and that.
Slagle: On which side?
Aanenson: South side, correct. ~ and I think by that a potential bridge does take place,
then we would address the lighting for the rest of it with th~
Slagle: I'm with you on the bridge but picture West 78~. You live there. We have some
commons areas. Some s~. All I'm saying is that you could have decorative lamp posts as
an example that would not be shooting light to the neighborhood that would provide I think some
sense of security in thim fairly large area.
Lillehaug: Is that typical in a cemetery?
Aanenson: I was going to say, I don't think it's typical
Slagle: Well but this isn't a typical cemetery.
Feilu This is public space now, to some degree.
Aanenson: Well I think a lot of cemeteries are adjacent to a major collector, if you drive
throughout the Twin Cities area. I'll let the expert address that but I think we, the main concern
is along West 78m, and I think we need to add an additional shoebox lighting fixture there to
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
address that. But internally, I mean you've got a sidewall Do we want to encourage people,
unless once we put the potential crossing in, to cut through there at night. That may discourage.
Slagle: Well I'm not even talking night. I'm talking evening. You know I'm talking, think of
Lakewood as an example, not that this is a Lakewtx~ ~. You know I don't know, maybe
someone knows if Lakewood has lights.
Feik: It has fights.
Slagle: I'm going to say what we're trying to do is to encourage people, and I agree with that, to
me this. What would be the cost of having 2, 3, 4.
Bill Sanders: If I could address that a bit. In a lot of ways this is kind of a larger city policy but I
know like with many parks, the policy is not to light because then you really invite people into
the space after hours when the park is closed. Now, I don't know if this would fall under that
category. I tbinit the church would be willing to do what is consistent with your city policy. If
you light the rest of the trail then this would logically be lit as well but it may be something that
we want to talk more about with the city staff.
Aanenson: And I think the neighbors have some issues with ~a_aifional lighting in that area.
Jack Atkins: We have concerns about lights.
Aanenson: Too much lighting yeah, so I think that's something we can talk between now and
council.
Sacchet: So we would not make an additional condition to that. Okay. We have a motion. We
have a second.
Feik moved, Lillelmug seconded that the Planning Commission reeo~ approval of
Site Plan #20/~3, plans prepared by Sanders, Waeker, Bergly, dated April 4, 2003, sub~[eet
to the following conditions:
I. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and pwvide the
2. Building Official conditions:
a. The owner and/~r ~ represen~ve shall meet with the Building Inspections
Division to determine permit requirements.
3. A maximum graded slope of 3:1 is allowed. Revise the ~ plan in the south central
portion of the site to comply or install a retaining wall.
4. The applicant shall install water service for irrigation of the site.
5. All plans must be signed by a registered professional engineer.
6. The grading plan shall be revised as follows:
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
1
bi
Add Type I silt fence along the north ~ line of the site and Type Il silt
fence along the east and south property limits.
Show all existing site features, i.e. house, driveways, street lights and sidewalk
along West 78m Street, utilities within West 78m Street
Add the benchmark used for the site survey to the plans.
Revise the legend to define all of the diff~nt line types, i.e. utilities, existing and
Add a rock construction enmmce per City Detail Plate ~301.
Show pedestrian ram~ at all necessary locations per City Detail Plate ~i215.
Add the following City Detail Plates: 5203, 5300, 5310, 5311 & 5312~
Show the location of the existing house on the '~dsting Conditions" plan.
All disturbed areas as a result of consuuc~on activities shall be immedi~ely restored with
seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accord~ce with the City's Best Manage~t Practice Handboo~
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatm'y agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Con~l Agency, and comply with their
conditions of approval.
10.
All of the existing curb cut accesses shall be removed and ~ with sod, sidewalk,
and curb.
11.
Concrete driveway aprons are required at the two proposed access points for the new
driveway. The driveway aprons shall be constructed per City Detail Plate ~i207.
12. Removal of the existing single family home will require a permit.
13.
Approval of the Site Plan permit is eonfin~o~a~t upon approval of the land use amendment,
conditional use permit and rezoning.
14.
Phase I of the expansion shall incb~e the constmu~on of the internal roadway, and
landscaping along the roadway and West 78m Street
15. All parcels shall be combined under a single Parcel Identification Number.
16.
Ground water testing shall be done to determine high water table and sprin~ located
site.
17. The sidewalk is shown on the plan be included as shown.
18.
The applicant shall submit storm water and runoff computations to include the rain
garden treatment and storage capacities to the staff to ensure existing runoff rotes
All voted in favor and the motion carried nnanhnflusly with a vote of 4 to 0.
Sacchet: This goes to council on the 27~. Thank you very much.
CFhe Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
co~sm~ ~ R~Q~ FOR ~~ON ~OV~ ~ ~~ ~0
~ ON ~T 1, B~~ 1, ~~R~ BU~ P~
~ p~ ~~ ~R A ~ ~. ~-r. ~xv~A~ ~ ~~ ~. ~r.)
O~~ W~EHQU~ ON 4.45
D~IO~~ ~~T~:O AT ~2 WAT~:R ~W~ ~C~ J~F ~D~~
Public Present:
Nnme Address
Peter Kordonowy
Jeff Berends
Bonnie Huller
810 Ramsey Avenue, Carver
3610 County Road 101, Wayzata
2965 Water Tower Place
Bob Generous presented the staff r~port on this item.
Sacchec Questions of staff, do you want to start Rich?
Slagle: None.
Sacchet: None. Steve?
Lillehaug: Bruce, you want to go first?
Sacchet: Alright, Bruce go first.
Feik.' I've got a few. Knowing that the material detail on page 6 looks like it's going to change,
maybe my questions are relevant but when I added all these dements up, they only ~Oded up to
90 percent. Unless I missed something so. When you, this is going to have to be re-nm, is it not
Bob? Before it goes to council. This whole section regarding the matefiah and the percentages.
Generous: Yes.
Aauenson: Yes.
Feilc Okay. Double check my math but I only got up to 90 percent.
Sacchet: And you're the accountant.
Feilc Which is scary. There's some language in here on page 8 regarding screening of the
mechanical pad. I did not see that in the conditions. Bob, is that in there or did I miss it again?
Generous: I don't believe I...it's a code requirement.
Feik: I know but it should have been a condition, should it not7
Generous: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 21303
Feilc Okay. Sorry about this. I didn't ~ to go first. I have anoth~ question on.
Lillehaug: Want me to start?
Generous: Excuse me Bruce. Actually under condition 12 of the site plan, it doesn't say a
screen...but it says it has to be screened.
Generous: That was the intent of that.
Feik: Well I was just assuming the mechanical equipmem was rooftop.
Generous: But it can also be ground level equipment.
Feik: Okay. The discussion on the four options to address the change of matefiah. This was,
you had four, it starts at the bottom of page, where is it at? Bottom of page 6 1 believe. One
option would incorporate a second, third. Ends with the fomth on page 7. Is that paragraph now
moot? With the change in the south facrade.
Generous: That would just incorporate the one about the fonesqration. We still need to resolve
that.
Sacchet: Would you want to point out those two sides where that applies, just so we're all clear
please.
Feik: The south and east elevations?
Sacchet: F.,ut and west.
Feilc Not the west because that's the dock side.
Saccbet: Yeah, it's the east and north.
Generous: What we're looking at is, this is the east elevation. And then the north, part of the
north elevation just to break that up. The building elevations.
Sacchet: Yes, that would help us. Thanks Kate. It's at the end. At the back of the pack. At least
in mine it was.
C-enemus: Okay, this top elevation is the east elevation. As you can see there's a lot of
articulation towards the street side, but the rest of this is just a straight wall. They did continue
this line in there, and we were suggesting something to break this up. And we let their architect
come up with some ideas. As they did on the front elevation, that worked out well and we think
we can work that out. On this side it will be screened. They do have articulation with the doom
so we... The front has a lot of articulation and then it was this area on the north elevation that we
wanted something to break up, just visually break that up.
Feik: This is sort of tangentially related. With the split of this lot, ultimately Water Tower Place
I believe was going to hook up to 41.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003-
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: In the future. When they do 41, are they going to have to knock that hill down to g~t the
grades to match?
Generous: Yes.
Feilc And so we need to pay particular attention to the next building to the west of this as it
relates to the western elevation.
Feik: That's my questions for now, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks. Steve, you ready?
IAllehaug: Yep. I guess I didn't realize that Water Tower Place was going to connect up with 41
of grade change.
Aanenson: h's about 17 feet it will change when 41 is dropped.
Lillehaug: Okay, so in the meantime, I don't know when that's going to happem
Aanenson: We don't either.
Lillehaug: Do we need anything for the cul-de-sac?
Saccbet: To clarify, you just said 41 will be lowered.
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: At least 14 feet or more.
Lillehaug: So if it's not, I mean then we have our public street which is the etd-de-sac that's
outside of the fight-of-way. Do we have a problem with that?
Aanenson: No. It will just stay that way until such time.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then with access, temporary access to Lot 2. If a truck pulls in them,
how's that truck going to turn around? I think in the fuixu~ it'd probably go to the north of the
building on Lot 1 and then back around and down on Water Tower Place, but what happens in the
interim? Does anybody know? And then with that, a cross access easement, does that include
trucks to totally drive around the circtmfference of their building I would hope.
Generous: I know long term we were looking at that. With the expansion of the building on Lot
2. We think that's the only way they'll be able to do that, is go around it.
Lillehaug: So they'd have to have an easement all the way around thek building for trucks.
Feik: An easement around the building on Lot 17
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 200~
Lillehaug: Yep. That's what I'm seeing.
Sacchet: Are we saying turn around?
Lillehaug: Yep. Is that a correct assumption?
Sacchet: Probably a question for the applicant.
Jeff Berends: Yes that's correct
Lillehaug: Okay. Interim: I'!1 ask that to the applicant too. Condition number 1 on page 12~ The
development of the lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park development design
standards. That's, is that very vague or is there something specific we need to get at?
Lillehaug: Okay, next question. Condition numhe~ 10 on page 13. Is this 20 foot easement
shown correctly on the plat and we just want it ~_ddM to the other site plans7
Saam: Yeah, we want to see it on the grading, utilityplan~ If not then it needs to be on the final
plat...construction plans.
Lillehaug: Okay. On that same page, condition number 14. I go back to page 5 and I look at the
last two paragraphs. I guess we're looking at full trail fees but thru we give them the option of
having a competitive bid for these trails in lieu of paying trail fees, or am I just not re~ding the
full thing here?
Generous: Well that was that discussion on the trail system when those two lots developed. The
developer will build those trails. They'll pay the fees in and then we'll rgi_'mburse them for that
improvement so each lot is actually paying the trail fees now.
Lillehaug: Okay, so we're not giving them the option?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: Okay. Part B on that same page. Condition number 1. It says supply the ~mrity
required by the site plan agreement. We do we want to put a specific total amount in them?
Generous: We don't know that yet
Aanenson: Typically we ask them to give us the landscaping escrow or any of the public so they
supply that. It' s 110 percent so we ask them to give that as part of the site plan.
Generous: And they'll provide boulevard ~on and...so we have a general number but until
they get their engineer to do all those plans, we don't know for sure.
Lillehaug: Okay. Two more and I'm done. Page number 15, condition number 16. Is this
something that should have been submitted at this time or when will this take place? I mean does
it take place before the council?
Generous: No, part of the building permit review we make those determinations.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Aanenson: That should be clarified maybe to say for building permit occupancy. That's what
that's relating to.
Liilchaug: Okay.
Feik: Which one?
Lillehaug: Number 16 on page 15.
Aanensom What type of occupancy so for building code, this type of constm~om I think that's
a good point that was needing to be clarified a tittle bit what it's relating to.
Lillehaug: Okay. Boy that's it. Thanks.
Sacchet: Fantastic. Thank you Steve. Adding a few more questions. W'~h the expansion, the
possible expausion~ That takes some parking lots away and it adds a few more, but with it being
bigger, is there still enough parking?
Generous: Yes. We did that calculation.
Sacchet: Okay. You showed us this. Oh, with we say we want additic~ud landscaping. We want
them to meet the landscaping requirement, right? Is them enough room? Is them enough green
space to actually put ~ things in?
Generous: Well with some shifting, we believe that some evergreens should go on the north
elevation to help screen that wall.
Saochet: So the answer is yes or maybe?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Because that's very importaut Because if it would be msybe I would be, I would have
to conclude that the lot is too small. Okay. And to go back once more how these trucks come in
and out, I guess that's au applicant question. Okay, that's my questions. With that, if the
applicant wants to come forward. Make a presentation please. State your name and address for
the record, and we'll listen.
Jeff Berends: Jeff Berends with Steiner Ccostruction. Unfortuna~ly I'm taking Fred Richter's
position so please keep your comments to yourself at this moment With regards to the
conditional that the staff has put forth, we're more than happy to work with staff to accommodate.
all the recommendations. With regards to item number 2, B number 2. We believe we've
addressed the unbroken expanses by irnplemen~g a 12 by 14 drive up door, and a manned door
along with main~ the rock face block and the continuous band around the whole building
with the anticipation of this 8,000 square foot expansion to the north, we believe that we'll be
able to articulate a~ that time, as well as impl~ precise location of some ~ trees
in that location will help suffice the condition at this time.
Feik: You're talking about the north elevation, not the east elevation with the manned door?
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Jeff Berends: Correct. The east elevation we're willing to work with staff and the architect to
acco~ any irt.re, lementafion to suffice that The only reason I brought up the north was
because of the expansion part of it.
Slagle: Can you walk us through, if I can ask Mr. Chairma~
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Slagle: The truck mute.
Jeff Berends: I can, yes. Basically, getting back to I believe Steve you brought up a question
regarding the sale of Lot 2. We'll have a condition requiring the future owner of that property for
the use of my client's truck mfffic to use around this building. As you can see, when they come
in from Water Tower Place, they'll be backing into the sawtooths and then we've accommodated
the use of a turn around location in the interim prior to the building to the west being built.
They'll be able to adequately turn around at that time.
Sacchet: So ~ is enough room?
JeffBerends: I'm sorry.
Sacchet: So there is enough room in that at this point?
Jeff Berends: There's enough room for a 70 foot semi truck to make a U-turn in essence.
Slagle: And would that be the case if your expansion to the north was there as well with parking
spaces?
Jeff Berends: Once the expansion happens to the north it is our belief that he will not expand to
the north until this building is builC
Slagle: Okay, I'm with you but let's assume for a second it didn't happen that way. Would you
be able as a trucker, would we want someone to be turning up there if there was the expansion?
In other words to the staff more, would we be willing to sort of put a clause in there saying they
cannot expand to the north until?
Aanenson: You could put that in there but I don't think we'd let it ~ anyways because he
couldn't make the mm movement. But if you feel more comfortable putting it in, that's fine.
Slagle: No, Pm-..
Jeff Berends: I think at that particul~ time, if in filet this lot was still for sale and there was no
building on it, if the client wanted to pursue this expansion and fek a need at the time to do this, I
would venture to say that he may go into purc~ some pcxtion of that land.
Slagle: And that's what I'm leaning towards is what would be the scenario if we had that?
Lillehaug: Temporary turn around maybe.
Jeff Berends: Exactly.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Aanenson: And that's the beauty of the PUD. You have the underlying one property owner
who's controlling all that so.
Slagle: Okay, so with the new building, show me how that would work?
left Berends: So once the second building gets constructed, the truck traffic instead of a U-turn
in the north lot here, they would actually work around and out back into the cul-de-sac.
Slagle: And then would they enter the cul-de-sac fight there on the western side or would mey
continue in the front of the building? And exit what I'll call the main entrance. Does that make
sense?
Aanenson: And that's to cover the curb cut.
left Beronds: Yeah, it will come to the ~ cut, which will at this locatiom
Aanenson: They can't come off the cul-de-sac. They have to come back to ttmir ctu~ cut.
Slagle: It'd be an interesting.
Aanenson: Well ultirrmte-ly if the street was connected, you wouldn't want that additional cut
Slagle: No, I agree with the connection.
Aanenson: Yeah, so I don't think we want...
Slagle: But I guess I'm just saying that will be an interesting entrance and exit when you've got
CSI'S.
Jeff Beronds: We've actually kind of got that same situation across the street, if you're familiar
with All About Lights building. Backed up with Arboretum 3.
Feik But they've got a very large truck dock area that the tracks can actually turn mxmnd
left Berends: No. No. Our trucks, the Steiner Development building, they're to leave that site
they have to make a counter clockwise rotation around that building from the truck docks. To
make the exit. They cannot make a U-turn in that.
Feik: Counter clockwise. So it's going past l~kmco's?
left Beronds: Correct.
Feik: Do you mind, can I ask a question?
Slagle: Yeah, I'm done.
Feik My concern is, well back up just a little bit. The nature oftbe user of this building, can you
explain a little bit and how much truck traffic we're expecting ~y.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
JeffBemnds: I think I'll let the client address that a little bit better ~an what I could probably do.
Lillehaug: Are we in the questions yet fully? Are you done giving your presentation?
Feik.' Well let me lead you a little bit where I'm going, because my concern is, is this truck
access, once this road, Water Tower Place hooks up to 41, this lot to the west h~ a much more
retail appeal to it than it does currently. It's going to have sight lines for signage and all sorts of
other things, and my question is leading, do we want that truck ~ to drive in front of those
retail buildings? Ultimately.
Jeff Podergois: As far as truck traffic, we get semi deliveries probably twice a month. Maybe 3
times a month. It's not a lot. And UPS every day. And we don't have retail. We sell through
the internee Maybe one ~ of our business is walk-in so.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Slagle: So, if I can ask, are you an agency?
Jeff Podergois: No, we manufacture...sell through the internet.
Sacchet: Are we still at applicant pmsemafion? Just to remind us aH.
Jeff Berends: Gelling back to what I originally stated, so we've proposed that this current
elevation, the north elevation be approved as noted and that the future expansion, when that ting
would come, be contingent upon meeting your requirements at that time. Thank you.
Sacchet: Any more questions for applicant?
Lillehaug: I do have some.
Sacchet: Please~
Lillehaug: I want to hit a little more on this truck access. So we're going to go around the north
of the building to the south, and then they have to cut back to the east through that vehicle
parking lot.
Jeff Berends: C_xm'ecc
Lillehaug: And then provide, I mean I don't.
Lillehaug: I don't think the truck turning movements would fit, get a truck through there. I guess
staff should probably verify that but is that typical to have an agreeme~ for trucks to make this
route? I mean if I'm the owner of Lot 1 and have a truck go through my parking lot aH the way
around, that's some pretty hefty truck traffic going through there. I guess is that typical in what
you've seen?
Jeff Berends: We did it across the street. Now granted the type of building, like you had
mentioned, this new building will be more retail oriented. Obviously addressing the PUD which
is going to require a lot of store front signage, things like that. But we did address that situation
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
with the route of the traffic going completely around the building and actually right in front of it
as well.
Lillehaug: Okay. What is your, what is the plan for mechanical equitnnent, trash enclosures? Do
we have a plan for that? Is it going to be rough mounted?
Jeff Berends: Mechanical equipment will be rough mounted. The trash enclosure at this
particular time the tenant is going to be storing inside his building until they have pick-up.
Lillehaug: And then your equipment on the roof, will that be fully screened? Fully 100 percent.
Jeff Berends: I believe it's a 4 foot, is the requirement Bob? Is that what7
Generous: We have mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
~eff Berends: CorrecC The same height requiteme~ that we did with the building across the
street and at Parker Hannifin is what we designed the height of the pamper on this one.
Feik: So it's screened only by the parapet?
Jeff Berends: ColvecC
Lillehaug: Okay. I got I think one here more. Signs, do you have any plans for signs at this
point?
Jeff Berends: Not at this moment- As far as a monumeot sign you're asking?
Lillehaug: Any type of sign.
Jeff Berends: He's, you can see in the elevation, the front elevation, the new ones, you can see
the vinyl lettering.
Lillehaug: Do you anticipate needing a variance f~ a sign?
Jeff Berends: Not at this point. I believe that there is in the PUD it does state that each building
does have the require, you have a use for one monument sign per building, and.
Lillehaug: Okay, and then I have a specific question and it's pem~uing to a recommendation and
a condition number 8 on page 12. It's talking about assessments and it's giving an option I think
here. Is that correct? Are you giving them an option to do here?
Neik: Number 8?
Lillehaug: Yeah, item num_l~r 8. Is there a certain one of ~ I mean is there one option you'd
be leaning more towards than the other?
Jeff Berends: You're ~idng myself~
Lillehaug: Yep.
48
Serf Berends: Typically I think we've done is we've assessed the SAC and WAC, assessed those
on all of our previous buildings and we anticipate being able to do that on this one as well.
Lillehaug: Okay. So you don't have, so that's fine them Okay. That's it, thanks.
Sacchet: That' s it for questions. Thank you very much. This is a public hem'ing. Anybody want
to come forward, make a comment about it, this is your time. And seeing nobody, we'll bring it
back to commission. Comments from commissioners. Who wants to staxt?
Lillehaug: I will real quick. My concerns are with the truck access. I guess I don't think it's an
ideal situation, but I guess it's been done in the past. I would have concerns over tearing up the
parking lot for this other lot over here. And how is he com~ for that? I mean truck traffic
will rip a parking lot up if it's not designed with concrete or designed properly so I have concerns
with that. And also in the ultirr~te confignmfion where they're not going to have access directly
to the end of that cul-de-sac, I don't think there's going to be a curb cut there so that u'uck is
going to have to make movements again to that main driveway and I think it's going to be pretty
difficult for trucks to get the correct turning movements in there. So I would like staff just to
verify that. That it does meet what we typically what to see them and turning movements are
okay. Other than that, I would just want to stress that we do want to provide complete screening
of the electrical equipment, mechanical equipment, etc. That's really all my comments here,
thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks St~ve. Bruce.
Feik Yeah, I'm going to start with a follow-up question to Kate af~ the applicant has spola~
In condition number 2 on page 13, that's B(2). Work with staff on the ~dditional articulation on
the east and n~ side, or Bob, as the case may be. Are you comfortable on the n~d~n
elevation that we're okay? The applicant clearly believes we're okay on the northern elevation
where we're at.
Aanenson: The fear is always that they never expand.
Aanenson: So in the past what we've clone on those, and I think that's what I heard them say is
that they'd be willing to put some landscaping there. That may be something you could spade
and move, but at a minimum you have some screening on that visual perspective.
Feilc Are you comfo~ble that you can have this worked out with the developer prior to the date
going to City Council? And then the same goes for item numb~ 4 thc~ regarding the
landscaping. Are you absolutely comfortable you're going to have those two worked out before
Generous: Fred was worldng hard to meet our ordinances. He did mention that to me.
Feik: And then reaction to the plan, I have some serious concerns regarding truck traffic. Both
now and particularly in the future, based upon the use of this next building. I'm really not sure if
this becomes a more of a retail type use than either the All About Lights with the paint store and
the kitchen store down the block, and we shop All About Lights a fair amount There is a lot of
49
Planning Commission Meeting- May 6, 2003
pedestrian traffic back and forth across there. And I'm pr~y concerned with bringing full sized
rigs back through in front of what might be much more retail than maybe we're anticipating.
Aanenson: Righ~ I guess our comfort level was raised just as he indicated, two semi's a month.
~t's pret no,ual for that, I guess that's...
Feik: Well, let me pose this. If there is not adequate egress for ~ trucks in the fimire, we
would not need to approve the expansion plan.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Aanenson: Absolutely. And I think that goes to Rich's point which is he wanted to cover that...
Feik: So word of caution then to the, to ~. If you go out and put a ton of retail up front
into this other building.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify that because when you say retail, this is a PUD. We've couched
that to say office showroom.
Feik: Alright. I'm not going to mince words. If we think that there's going to be a ton of
pedestrian and foot traffic in the fixmt, I'm going to have a hard time in the futm~ Mr. Applicant
who's going to live here, ever approving the expansion of this building. Bringing truck traffic in
front of what I would consider, I know you don't like the phrase, retail So I'm going to have a
Sacchet: Thank you for your comments.
Feik: You bet.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: I would concur with those conunents. I think what I would like to have us consider is
some verbiage that says, for the proposed building on Lot 2, certainly the te~npc~ry situation
would be fine. You know Kate, I don't know how you do it.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think it's good to put on the recc~ so I think that's good you put a condition
in there. That expansion couldn't occur unless adequate.
Slagle: Expansion does not ensure or truck right-of-way is not ensured for furore expansion, or.
Aanenson: How about expansion may not be permism'ble if adequate Iruck-
Feik: Well they'll never be back in for application on an expansion.
Sacchet: Expansion of building will be contingent on truck tra~c...
Slagle: I don't want to, but I'm not, I'm not talking about future expansion of Lot 2 and maybe.
Aanenson: No, I'm talking about the 8,000 square foot on this lot.
5O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Sacchet: On this same building.
Slagle: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah, on this building. They may not be allowed to expand if they can't adequate
address the circulation on the...
Slagle: And just so I'm clear, they, by saying that, they being the developers of the bull~ to
the west, that could change their plans for the building. Smaller pertmps, whatever.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: That's it?
SLag]e: Yep.
Sacchec Thanks Rich. I really don't have anything to add. I mean I do think the truck situation
is a potential concera. For two uucks a month, is it that big a conccra? But I...in a way to
express it, I think we do.
S]agle: Can I clarification?
Sacchet: Yes you can.
Slag]e: Just so everybody's clear. Where I'm coming from on thc trucking is not so much the
existing applicant. It's that future building, so ~ you see ~ warehouse space and you see
adock behind each of those, that's where I'm talking from.
Sacchet: Thank you have a lot of trucks.
Slagle: Then you have a lot of trucks.
Fci]c Well not to mention the current tenant occupant might change.
Fcik: Thc usc could change dmmaficaUy.
Sacchct: Alright. We're done with comments. Are we getting a motion? Acuudly we get two
motions. Anybody want to make a motion A?
F¢ik: I move that thg ~ Commission reco~ approval of thg pre~ plat for
Arboretum Business Park 5~ Addition creating two lots, plans prepared by Schoell and Madsca
lnc dated April 4, 2003, subject to thc following conditions 1 through 14.
Sacchct: Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
51
Planning Commission Meeting- May 6, 2003
Sacchet: We have two seconds. Fantastic. Any friendly amendment? No?
Felk moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commladon t~llmend8 approval of the
preliminary plat for Arboretum Business Park ~ Addition creating two lots, plans
prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc~, dated April 4, 2003, subject to the following
conditions:
,
The development of the lots must comply with the ~ Business Park
Development Design Standards.
.
Prior to final plat approval, a tnofessional civil engineer regisum~ in the Sta~ of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
,
The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24
hour storm event with a drainage area map.
,
The interior lot storm sewer will require private easements to be dedicated where the
sewer ct~ses from one lot to another.
,
Staff rec~ds that Type H silt fence be used. The applicant should be aware that any
off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate ~ owner. Silt fence
shall be removed upon completion of construction and re-vegetation of the site.
,
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
7. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1006, 2101, 3101, 5201, 5300 and 5214.
.
The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water and street
i .mprovements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $47,616.22~ This
remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area bazis or
paid at the time of final platting. In addition, the sanilm~ sewer and water hookup charge
is $1,400 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for the ~ The hookup
charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new
lots. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the
parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
,
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including bm not
limited to the Watershed District.
10.
On the plan sheets show the 20 foot private drainage and utility easement for the storm
sewer.
11. On the otility plan:
a)
b)
Add note "Any connection to existing utility ~ must be core drilled."
Revise CB I to CBMH 1.
12. On the grading plan:
a) Revise MO1 to CBMH 1
52
Planning Commission Meeting- May 6, 2003
b)
c)
d)
Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
Revise construction entrance note fi'om 35 feet to 75 feet minhnum.
Revise the berm side slope to 3:1 maximum.
13.
Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the lots.
14.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance for all lots in the Arboretum
Business Park 5~' Addition at the time of final plat recording.
All voted in favor and the motion carried ummimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Sacchet: Motion for recomn~ndation B please.
Feik: Sure. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan g2003-4,
plans ~ by Steiner Con--on Services dated April 4, 2003 for a 20,000 square foot one
swry office warehouse building on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 5~' Addition, subject
to the following conditions I through 18. And then I know there's going to be some friendly
amen~ts, particularly as it relates to number 16. And so I think we'll have to work through
those so Fll start with that.
Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Slagle: Second.
Sacchet: Friendly amen~ts?
Feik: Did you work out 16 Steve?
Lillehaug: Yeah, let me do an easy one. 12 first Pick up where I read here but whether located
on the roof, and then cross out or ~or of the building. And then cross out, or on the ground
adjacent to it, shall be screened from public view. And that's all the modifications to that one. Is
that okay?
Feilc Works for me.
Sacchet: You don't want them on the ground, you don't want them on the exterior, you want
them on the roof?
Lillehaug: Unless they're on the roof now so let' s go with it.
Feilc No, but there is mechanical equipment on the ground level. R needs to be screened. Yeah,
that n_~ed___s to be screened.
Lillehaug: Then I withdraw that one.
Sacchet: We leave as is? Leave as is. 12 is as is.
Lillehaug: 16. Kate, are you able to help me out on this to say what I want to say?
53
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
Aanenson: Yeah. I think to clarify would say, detailed occupancy, I don't know what that retail
is. It says detailed occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until con.leto, I would say
building plans are submitted, because that's what that's mfen'ing to.
Lillehaug: Verbatinx Is that acceptable?
Feik: Acceptable.
Lillehaug: Alright, that's all I have.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: On the trucking, future expansion for Lot 1, excuse me Lot 2 is, I don't know. Kate.
Aanenson: Yeah, turn movements.
Sacchet: Furore expansion of Lot 2 building is contingent om
Slagle: On adequate trucL
Aanenson: Circulation?
Sacchec Flow?
Feik: Sure, circulatiom
Slagle: Do we want to do anything for Fred, or not? Alright.
Sacchec Amendment number 20, next time we don't put them at the end of the agenda.
Generous: Well there was another item after this.
Slagle: He always gets the end.
Sacchet: Are we done with friendly ameodments?
Lillehang: I won't add my amea~dment to close that median on Coulter this time so, I'll hold back
on that one.
Sacchec Okay. We have a motion- We have a second. We have two seconds as a rrm__tter_ of fact.
Ii'elk moved~ Slagle seeonded that the Pllmning Commi~udon l~:~mlme, ndls approval of SRe
Plan ~ plans prepared by Steiner Construction Services dated April 4, 2003, for a
20,000 square foot, one story office warehouse building on Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park b'ta Addition~ sub, leer to the following eondiitons:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and supply the security
required by it.
2. The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the eastern and
northern building elevations.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
.
1
,
1
Si
1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The south elevation of the building is required to incorpora~ an additional 176 square feet
on fenestration.
The applicant shall work with the city to revise the landscape plan so that it meets
minimum requirements prior to final approval.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street hunps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV ami transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefightem. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
The builder must comply with water service hstallafion policy for commercial and
industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Instalhtion Policy
#34-1993.
The building must comply with the Chanhas~n l~re Depm~zn~nt/Flre Prevention Division
regarding maximum allowable size of doimstie water on a combination water/~kl~
supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Nire Depm~x~t~tre Prevention Division Policy
#36-1994.
The builder must comply with the Chaahagsen Fire DepattmenffF'~ Prevention Division
regarding premise identification. Pummm to Chimhassen Fire I)epamme~tre
Prevention Division Policy g29-1992.
The building must comply with C~aanhassen Fire Depam~mt/Fire Prevention Division
regarding notes to be incl~d_,~! on all site plans. Pursuant to Cha~aas~n Fire
Depamnent/Fire Prevention Division Policy ~1991.
The hydrants as shown on the plan are acceptable. However, if buil~ is expanded in
the furore an additional fire hydrant may be required. The owner may want to consider
for exact location.
Submit to Fire Marshal type of business that will be moving into the building, Le. office/
warehouse, storage and other infcammtion necessa~.
shall be screened from the public view and with rrmte~ri_'al.~ identical to or strongly similar
to building material or by heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter.
The building is required to have an auW~c fire extinguishing system.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
Three (3) accessible parking spaces must be provided.
DetailM occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete building plans are
submitted.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - May 6, 2003
17.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
18.
Type H silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading
will require an ease~nt from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be
removed upon completion of ~on and re-vegetation of the site.
19.
Future expansion of Lot 2 is contingent upon proof of adequate truck circulation on
the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
APPROYAL OF MINUTe: Commissioner Feik noted the verbatim and summary minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated April 15, 2003.
Chairman ~t adjournai the meeting at 10:25 pan.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
56
t
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI~ON
RF~ULAR MEETING
JUNE 3, 2003
Chairnmn Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS P~: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Kurt Papke, Bethany
Tjomhom, Brace Feik, and Steven Lillehaug
STAFF PRF, b~NT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner;, Angie Auseth, Plannec, and Matt Saam,
Assistant City En~neer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR .~I.I. ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
oA~s 0~
Chairman Sacchet administered the Oath of Office to Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke.
P~LIC ~G:
co,storm ~, ~_~_s? FQg A co~mm0~-L u$~. ~ rQR o~-~.O~
WITHIN TI:W. BLUFF CR_ K'~K OyI~I.AY DISTRI~'r FOR TI:W. (~ONSTRUCTION OF
~.~ ~oomQ~ ro ~ UOM~ OS PRQP~rY zomm ~ ~alUC0-LrWC~ ~_~r~rr~
Angle Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Let's start, no questions? No questions?
Feilc Just one.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Feik: Do you have any concern regarding thi~ as it rela~ to the AUAR that's being done
simultaneously? Do you have any concerns?
Auseth: Bob could.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, it should have no i .m!~ct on that because it continues an existing use of
the property for a single family home. At some time in the future this area may redevelop, then
that's a separate process.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Is that it Bruce?
Feik: That's it.
Planning Commission Meeting - lune 3, 2003
Sacchet: No questions? I do have a couple of questions. To kind of tie on with your question
Bruce. Currently this is guided in the 2020 Land Use Plan for parks, open space or office
industrial. Now that does not in any way limit what happem on this tmapet~ at this time?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: It does not?
Generous: On~y the zoning iii limitin~ in this illgtan~.
Sacchex: So, okay. So there is no conflict between those two things?
Generous: Long term maybe but then the second he develops. The applicant actually has a
separate application to re. zone the property but we're not.
Sacchet: That's a separate thing?
Generous: Yes, that will be coming later.
Sacchet: Okay. Then I have a few more specific questions. On page 4 in the grading pa~ I
don't know whether that's somethin~ for you Matt, it talks about potential damage to the septic
tanks, piping and drain field. Is that concern stn~cie~ly mitigated through the conditions or is
that still a concern? Fm trying to unde~a~ where we are with that.
Saam: I think this point was brought o~t more as a FYi to the applicant to be aware dining
constngtion to watch for the piping. It is shown on the survey so it should be, the spplicamt
should be well aware of where special care needs to be taken. Don't be running over the pipes
with heavy equipment, that sort of thing.
Sacchex: So that'd be more an applicant question in that sense. It' s not really a requirement from
the city, a liability or a condition?
Saarn: No. No.
Sacchet: Okay. That's I think all the questions I have for staff. The other one's an applicant.
Thank you. With that, if the applicant wants to come forward and address the _commission, please
do so and state your name and address for the record please.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Hello, Eric Theship-Rosales. 9201 Audubon Road.
Sacchex: Welcome.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Thank you. Questions?
Sacchex: Okay, questiom. Do you want to start with questions? Do we have questions for the
applicant?
Slagle: I don't have any.
Claybaugh: I'd just like to dove tail the question or the comment that you made regarding the
zoning. Is there a zoning proposal coming on this piece of~ in the fumm for re. zoning7
Planning Commission Meeting - Sune 3, 2003
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well my plan is to, if we could go to the video on the. What I was hoping
to do is to run my business out of this shed and to be able to do that, try to split the zoning thi~
way. Zone this for a business, office industrial and keep thi~ A2 or residential or whatever the
city might p~.
Claybaugh: I guess my follow up question to that then would be, is any of the business going's
on, administrative elements of your business taking place in your primary residence that you're
looking to expand?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. In '99 1 guess it was I set up a home business in my base~ and I
have a small office space there with my phone.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have Chair.
Sacchet: Any questions Kurt? Bethany?
Tjornhom'- I have a clarification question I guess. When I look at the plans I see a ~ new
addition, and then I see a breezeway and then it says existing ~ and I'm sorry, I didn't go
out to look to see, what is the existing amcun~? Is that a house?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. It was built in 1940. It's apNmximately 20 feet wide and 24 feet
long.
Tjornhom: So what will happen to that? Will that be remodeled or what will happen to thai
structure?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well ideally we'd use it for a while. Use it for the construction phase of
the new home and then either completely remodel it or bulldoze it or make it smaller in order to
make the driveway wider. Put a garage there. Lots of different options. It was made out of old
barn board and it's seen it's better days.
Tjomhom: Okay, that's all the questions I have.
Feik: No questions.
Lillehaug: None.
Sacchet: So you're not sure yet what you're going to do with the old slmctnm basically?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No I'm not.
Sacchet: Okay. I do have a few questions for you too, that kind of tie into what the framework
is. Like I was kind of maybe curious when he pointed to the drawing on the table. You built, I
remember you came in what, was it 2 years ago or 3 years or what, for the permit to make this
bigger shed behind the structure where you now you plan to build between that shed and the old
house, right? Do I have my orientation correct?
Eric Theship-Rosales: I don't want to build.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Sacchet: Well the new part. The addition to the dwelling. It's like in a space somewhere
between the expanded shed and the old house, isn't itl Do I got that straight? Maybe I didn't get
that straight.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Why don't we go back to the drawing.
Saeehet: Yeah, why don't you show us on the drawing. So where your finger is is where you
come in from Audubon, fight?
Slagle: No, Audubon's to the your left.
Sacchet: Audubon's here.
Sacchet: Okay. So tha's good. I get my orientation straight. So the new shed that you added is
Eric Theship-Rosales: This here, yeah.
Sacchet: Thatone, yes. Okay. So what is the bouse to the north? Tbe~totl=north.
P. zic Tbeship-Rosales: Okay, I'll just give you a quick nm down here. The original stmcug=
built in 1940.
Sacchet: Now you move up to the stuff we're adding, right?
Sacchet: And then you go a littl~ fimtmr and there's another square up tt=~. Another rectangle.
That one. What is that?
Kric Tbeship-Rosales: That's the leech field for the septic system-
Sac=bet: That's the septic, okay. Well th= answers my questions really clearly. Okay, that's
good. So you don't foresee that you have to tou~h that septic area nmch, do you?
Kric Theship-Rosales: No. I think sewer and water will come some day and maybe that land can
be used for a garden or something.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you very much.
Eric Theship-Rosales: I have a bunch of clarification questions myseff. I don't know.
Sacchet: Well this is your mm. That's why you're up here.
Eric Tbeship-Rosales: Okay. Maybe this has been made moot by comments from this gentleman
but I took some measurements today about the location of the tanks, etc. This is north and this is
south. We have 37 feet 7 inches to this corner, which is the corner in question on the first pad
coming from the house this is the existing residence north face. The line comes out into this tank
and, while I made this measurement just to clarify, it's not going to be quite 10 feet to the
proposed foundation line. Code requires 10 feet. It's going to be somewhere in the 8 foot range.
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 2003
Sacchet: Did staff look at that?
Eric Theship-Rosales: This would be new information f~r them. They have approxirr~te
Sacchet: Is staff going to be playing into the conditional use permit part for discussion? Or will
that be an issue with the building permit?
G-enemus: That's a building permit issue.
Sacchet: I would so isn't iL
Generous: There's a separation requirement.
Sacchet: So at this point that should not be an issue. That's an aslx~ that you're going to have
to look at when you come for building permit.
Eric Theship-Rosales: I guess what I wanted to do today was maybe mak~ sure that if I had to
actually move the plan towards Audubon Road, in other words build this building a couple feet
over, we should cover that today and make sure the setbacks are comx~ This is 82.2 feet plus
another 20 feet to the curb:
Sacchet: Yeah, that's an issue you would want to work with staff I would expect. Is that ~?
Saam: Yes. I just wanted to point out if I could Mr. Chair.
Sacchet: Please, go ahead.
Saam: Condition number 2 does stsc, and I think this is what he's refelTing to is that the s6ptic
tank must be 10 feet from the addition. Is that what you're gettin~ at?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yeah, that's code I understand.
Saam: So and that I do believe is a building permit requireinent.
Claybaugh: Requirement yes. That would be fully enforced so.
Eric Theship-Rosales: So lx~ntafively speaking I should move the design~
Claybaugh: Either that or you're going to end up relocatin~ that tank so you're going to have to
have that 10 foot separation. That isn't allythin~ for debate.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Make sure I knew that. ~ conditions I wasn't clear om Number 4.
The applicant shall enter into a conditional use agreement with the city. What's that likely to be?
Sacchet: Can you explain that please.
Generous: Yes. It's a docmuent that's recorded at Carver County saying that the City approves
your development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the conditions that are
approved by the Planning Commi.ssion and City Cotmcil.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Eric Theship-Rosa/es: Okay. So it's a repeat on this. It's not a new condition.
Generous: No.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Item number 5. The application for building permit shall incl-de a haul
route for removal of excavated material from the si~ There will be perhaps 20 yards excavated.
Sacchet: It's a standard r~luiremenc It doesn't apply when there's like small numbe~. I mean.
Saam; I don't think it will be a big issue but we just want to put it out there just in case there's
more than 20 cubic yards. It doesn't sound like this should be a concern though.
Sacchet: h's a standard condition that we put on there if somebody has a lot of earth to move,
that it can be regulated.
Eric Theship-Rosa/es: Okay, well maybe this isn't the proper time to ask but I should ask the
building department but when it comes to removing that rr~terial, we have a berm blocking the
traffic noise to the residence that was installed when Audubon Road was widened. I just wonder
if we could add that to the top of that?
Sacchet: That's a question you can discuss with staff. I don't think this should be too much of an
issue, but that's not what we're deciding here.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Okay. Then one other thing I have circled here just to make sure I'm not
missing anything. Erosion conlml shall meet the City's Best Manageme~ Practices. The
applicant shall submit an erosion control plan with the building permit application. Is that likely
to be expensive?
Sacchet: Everything ~ money. You want to address that at all Matt please.
Saam: It will probably entail just installation of silt fence.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Above ground? I uude~umd there's a below ground silt fence on some.
Saam: Well most of it' s above ground. It gets buried so it catches the dirt off the hill. It's meant
to keep your dirt and sediment on your sil~. We can address that at building _permit too. We can
dash that on the plan even for you and show you where it's supposed to go and everything.
Sacchet: Again that's a standard requirement
Lillehaug: $2.50 a foot.
Eric Tbeship-Rosales: That's the kind of thing a guy with a shovel could do, fight?
Saam: Oh yeah.
Sacchet: Pretty much.
Thanks Steve. Anything else?
That would be it, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Well this is a public ~afing. If anybody wants to come
forward and address this item, this is your time to do so. Is there any takers? Doesn't look like
anybody's moving so I assume nobody wants to address this iten~ I close the public hearing and
bring it back to commissioners. Do you want to start Bethany? Comments. Discussio~
Concerns.
Tjornhom'. Nothing.
Sacchet: You're fine with it?
Feik: No concerns.
Sacchet: No concerns? Steve.
Lillehaug: No comments.
Sacchet: No comments. How about you Kurt?
Papke: Just one. I guess I am a little sensitive to the commem$ of the neighbors. Are we sending
any kind of a signal here in approving this that the addition is far bigger and probably of higher
value than the original suucuge. Are we sending any signals here or cons~ otwselves in the
furore for rezoning this as parkland by taking this action tonight?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Can you address that please Bob.
Generous: It would make it more expensive if the Ci~ or anyone were to try to purchase it. I
think the intent of the parks and open spaces, preserve the sloped area and the Ixeed area on the
back side of this property. So more in the Bluff Creek, close to the, beh_ ind it is that big wetland
complex, the stuff adjacent to that. But this is just in, it was a wider area than we anticipated
actually preserving.
Sacchet: So you don't see much of a conflict with that?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: That's the gist of what you're saying?
Generous: Correct
Sacchet: Okay. That's all I have, thank you. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah. I guess my comments would be directed to staff. It's similar to what.Kurt had
commented on and ~ specifically to the second paragraph on page 3 under the heading of
bac~und where staff identified both the, that the pmpe~'s guided for the 2020 land use plan
for parks and open space, office industrial. And then it goes on to reference that it is currently
conducting the AUAR study of 650 acres which includes the subject site. The repcn~ didn't really
bring home specifically beyond just the mention of that, of what bearing that had on this
applicant. You know if there's anything at this point I should have brought it up during questions
Planning Commission Meeting -June 3, 2003
to staff. I apologize for that but, I'm trying to make that connection. What was staff trying to tell
us. Is there anything beyond just the mention, making us aware of it.
Generous: Be aware of that and as a part of that we may look at this area. Maybe it's more
appropriate that it be an office institutional type use or zoning rather than an industrial office
park. We don't know that yet and that's part of what we hope the environmeutal study will give
us some direction. Are there runoff issues7 Traffic issues that are going to happen. That would
need to be addressed. It's too early now, we don't know.
Claybaugh: Okay. What was, they're also, if ttsm~ was background on the original variance to
make that a buildable lot, what the commission and council is thinking with respect to the 2020
land study and how that was going to be rezoned in the future when they approved the variance
for non-conforming lot. So if you build I believe it was 1.66 acres, I would have been curious on
some level to know what the thought process was at that time. To me they certainly made a
commitment at that point to take it down a different path. That's what makes the reference to the
Sacchet: It's a good comment Rich. No contains. Yeah, my comment is somewhat along the
same line what Craig brought up. At thi~ point we don't know exactly what's going to happen in
the immediate surrounding. Obviously, what is that, n~ area is the primary zone so that
would be preserved. But other than that we don't really know, is it going to be office industrial?
Is it going to be medium density, high density to the south? And I think I just want to point it out
because it's a little bit of a risk for the applicant in te~ms of what's going to be mound there.
Exactly how well this blends in. I mean there's an advantage of going in before it's all settled,
but there's also a disadvantage so I just want to point that ouc it's not up to me. I don't thint it's
up to the Planning Commission to resolve that but I do want to point that out. Other than trust I
don't see much of an issue with ~ and I would welcome a motion~
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recomuamds approval of conditional use
permit g2001-5, number 2 to permit c. onsm~on of a 1,4335 square foot addition subject to the
following conditions numbers 1 thro~ 9.
Sacchet: There is a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Sacchet: Any friendly amendmeots? I do have one. Condition number 7. I think there's
something missing in there. The existing driveway shall act as the construction entrance. All
tracking of dirt or debris from the site onto the public roadway shall be removed daily. Upon
verbal. I think it should say or upon verbal notice. That's if that doesn't take place then if it
doesn't take place, then a verbal notice, the City shall clear dirt or debris using contractor or the
city forces and equipment charged to ~ owner. With my not being a native speak~ it
seemed like it could benefit for making this a separate distinct thing, so that's my friendly
amendn~nt. Is that acceptable Steve?
Lillehaug: Sure.
Papke: I have one.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead.
Planning Commi.~sion Meeting - Sune 3, 2003
Papke: On point number 1. It says the system must be increased to accomm~nta the addition of
two bedrooms. That kind of presupposes that that will be necessary. I pmpo~ that we insert the
words if necessary before to acco~te.
Sacchet: Accommodate if necessary the addition. How would we define if necessary?
Papke: If required.
Sacchet: It's not the bedroom that requires the sewage. It's the people that potentially, so how do
we control that?
Papke: The way this condition is written, it must be increased and I don't think: there's no data
presented here that says it's insufficiently sized, to my knowledge. Unless I missed something.
Lillehaug: But it is saying that there's an increase to the ~. They're adding two
Feik: But it doesn't say that the field is large enough.
Papke: Right There's no, I don't know whether there's an engineering analysis of the drain field
and septic system.
Sacchet: Let's see if staff can address thi~ first. Is this, would you want to od_dress that please
Matt?
Saam: This is actually a building permit, or buil~ official issue. This wasn't a condition from
engineering but I do agree that, I think it's worded a little ambiguous. I believe the meaning is
after inspection if ncces~ it may be needed to be ~
Sacchet: That would...if necessary.
Lillehaug: I accept that.
Sacchet: Accepted, okay. Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have two friendly
amendments.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommemts approval of
Conditional Use Permit/r2001-5/r2 to permit construction of a 1,4~ square foot addition,
subject to the following conditions:
l,
The on-site sewage ~t system must be inspected to determine if it is in compliance
with City Code and the size of the system must be increased after lnspe~on ff
necessary to a~om~ate th~ addition of two bedrooms. The compliance report must be
received, and the penait to increase the size of the system must be issued, before the
building permit for the addition can be issued.
,
The septic tank must be a ~ of ten (1 O) feet from the addition. This site as well as
the existing site must be protected from damage during the construction of the building.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
3. A building permit must be obtained before be~nning constmcfiom
4. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit ageement with the city.
5. The application for building permit shall include a haul route for removal of excavated
material from the site.
6. Erosion control shall meet the City's Best Manageme~ Practice~. The applicant shall
submit an erosion control plan with the building permit applicatiom
7. The existing driveway shall act as the construction entrance. All tracldng of dirt or ~
from the site onto the public roadway shall be removed daily or upon verbal notice, the
City shall clear the dirt or debris using a contractor or city forces and equipment and
charge the pmpe owner.
8. All disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched within 2 weeks of grading work stopping,
except in the case of temporary delays longer than 2 weeks, in which case the applicant
may submit an altema~ for te~nporary stabilization of the site for cc~lsiderafion by the
City Engineer and Water Reso~ Coordinator.
9. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be allowed on Stmdays or
legal holidays.
All voted in favor and the motion carried ummimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
cossm~.R A u t Fr FOR AN INTERIM USE P]~aMIT TO BRING IN FILL IN
~CK~ OF 1,0fi0 CUBIC YARI~ FQR TH~ ~N~"rRI, It~'IIQN QF PAI~KING LO~3
ON PRQPERTY Z0N~a} OI~ QF~ICE I~'FITU'IION~ AND LO~TKD AT 6241
Public Present:
]~nme
Start Lim
Tom Berge
Sam and Nancy Mancino
5801 Duluth Street., Minneapolis 55422
lVl'inn~ SchooLs, 5621 Highway 101
6620 Galpin Boulevard
Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Any questions from staff?
Lillehaug: Do you have a method that you're going to implement to regulate or control mosquito
problems?
Saam: You can maybe ask the applicant. I guess as staff we didn't see that as a huge problem.
In talking with the school, it sounds like they do do some spraying but there's a fine balance
between doing too much~ You have some parents who are concerned with too many cherrficals
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
around the area where their children are at so it's a fine line there. As ! said, from a staff's
viewpoint we want the pond there for water quality purposes so I don't really see it as an issue.
Lillehaug: Do we do any other control measmv, s anywhere else throughout the city?
Saam: No, not that I know of.
Lillehaug: What amount of material do you anticip~ being excess on the site? I can direct that
to the applicant too.
Saam: Yeah. They gave me the nnmher of 8,000 cubic yanls. They did say that was a high
estimate. They believe it will be less than that.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have, thanks.
Papke: Question on the fence. A 4 foot tall fence is probably tall enough to keep a bicycle from
tumbling down the hill but it's not going to keep a 12 year old out of the pond. Any concerns or
issues with the height of that fence?
Saam: I guess I looked at it with our Parks Director who regulates trails all over the city. I-Ks
recommendation was a 4 foot high fence. I just went with thar To me that seems high enough.
Certainly if you wanted to you could incrvase it as a condition, but I guess we're, as staff we're
fine with the 4 foot high fence.
Saccbet: Could you point out which, where exactly that fence would be because it's just a
stretch. I mean they can walk around it~
Saam: Yeah. Let me just go back to the old grading plan, and the pond will pretty much stay the
same. Here we have the pond. The trail is riEht here. The slope goes down so we were goinE to
have the fence put in along this side. Maybe curve it around there like that. There are some
existing tennis courts here and I believe they do, yes, have their own fence.
Papke: So there's no intent to use the fence to keep the kids out of the tx~?
Saan~ What do you mean by out? I guess it's meant as a safety hazard. If somebody would fall
and want to roll down the hill.
Papke: But we're not trying to prevent the kids from heading into the pond?
Saam: No. No.
Papke: Okay. So it will serve the purpose of safety but it's obviously not going to be effective.
Saam: Yeah, it's not meant to be a barrier type surrounding the pond.
Papke: Okay.
Claybaugh: Nothing new to add.
Sacchet: Rich.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Slagle: Just a few questions. Getting back to the fence. I mean in your opim'on is it over kill that
you would consider putting a fence around a pond that's located on a school ~?
Saam: I guess my opinion, yeah. Just because we don't do it everywhere else or on other public
properties. Churches that sort of thing. Can maybe get the school's opinion on it and their
engineer, but in my opinion yeah. I don't see a need for it.
Slagle: Do we have ponds in areas that close to school within the city?
Saam: Well Bluff Creek is an elementary school I know there's either a pond or creek right by
there that we don't have a fence around. That's the only one that comes to mind right now.
Slagle: The trail going north to Melody I-Fall Road. Lane. There's also a, for lack of a better term
a trail that cuts over to the water tower. To sort of a, you cross the fields if you will.
Saarm It's not a paved trail I believe.
Slagle: No.
Sacchet: It's an opening.
Slagle: Yeah it's opening. My question is, is the~ as long as we're going to be doing trail~, is
there an interest in cutting a trail over to that versus having the kids walk across soccer fields or
snow covered fields or what not?
Saam: I think it's a good point and one maybe we should pose to the applicant so.
Slagle: So that wasn't brought up in your discussions with them?
Saam: No. No.
Slagle: Okay. And then lastly, the handout we got today, can you briefly tell me from the
number of parking spots and I guess just a general overview, what changed?
Saam: Sure. The major change.
Slagle: I mean you've got the one.
Saam: I'll show you the whole one and then I'll show you the new one at the end. Basically the,
well the turnaro~'s gone. The bus turnaround are~ There's some parkin~ up in here with thi~
bubble being cut out is down here, and thin area on thi~ side is now it's own drive aisle for the
buses.
Slagle: And the applicant knows, at least according to the plan was to, the reason th~ we're
avoiding this was because it would potentially have some i ,re?act on the stand of trees to the east.
Saam: Correct.
Slagle: We're avoiding that?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Saam: No. I believe, again you can ask the applicant the exact count but there will be a few roms
taken out in that grove.
Slagle: Okay. So basically we just got, you just got this recently too.
Saau~ Yesterday, yeah.
Slagle: Alright. I'll wait
Sacchet: Is that it?
Slagle: Yep.
Sacchet: I do have a few questions too Matt trn-st of aH, the i .mpervious is about the same
between the revised one and the one we got?
Saanr Yeah. I mean percentage points.
Sacchet: Not big difference?
Saam: No.
Sacchet: In terms of trees. It says staff ~ on page 10 says the proposal will result in the
removal of some existing trees. Do we have any indication of how many? How big? How much
trees?
Saam: Yeah, you know I discussed this with our City Forester and her concxn'm or maybe
jurisdiction had to do with the tree plantings in tim median area. I asked her about the trees
coming down here, if there's any requirement to replace and, but the basic answer is because it's
not a subdivision. Because they're not changing or inerea~ng really the use, it's just like if you
put on a house addition, maybe you have to cut a tree down. That's the way she looked at it. So
and her feelings we didn't have to require any replacement of those lxees there just to redo the
parking lot.
Sacchet: So it's not something we can get involved with basically is what you're saying?
Saam: That's the opinion I got, yeah. And I did provide her with this new plan to show her that
additional trees were coming down and she didn't have any ~dditional conditions.
Sacchec Alright. Thank you for this. That's all the questions. That is our staff report so at this
point I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and make a presentation if you so wish. State
your name and address for the record please.
Tom Berge: My name is Tom Berge and I'm Director of Finance and ~ons for Minnetonlm
Schools. And in terms of the project, the reason that we have this as a proposal is the traffic
con&dons at West Middle School are such that we have bus 'parking and parent drop off
overlapping. There is congestion. I don't know if you've been up there during dismissal or in the
early morning hours but there's usually cars jockeying for position around the buses. The kids
are trying to get out of the cars to get into school and it's really creamxi a very congested
con&don. During even hours when we have school activities there's a lack of adequate parking
and that's creating some congestion as well. And with the proposal we'll be able to, as you've
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
seen, separate the parent and bus traffic. And when I looked at the revised plans that have been
developed to address the angle parking issue, I think it act1_ ,Ally makes for a better flow of traffic
because the buses won't be back tracking against the area where kids will be crossing to get into
the parking lot to be picked up by their parents. So I think it's a better layout all the way around.
And in terms of additional parking, we're looking at expanding daytime parking by
approximately 30 cars and evening parking will be more than that because cars would be able to
park where the buses are parking for their loading and unl~ so we're looking at a significant
increase in the capacity of that area for evening events. As we looked at the, and I looked at the
drawings for the pond and the fence, I think the fence is a good idea. I think we'll probably
administratively talk about the height of the fence. Four feet might be just a tad low. I think
that's one thing we need to take a look aL In ~ of mosquito control, we try to control those,
that issue but really it's a very sort of balance between how much you go after it and the issue of
using chemicals and so forth so, unless there are othe~ complaints we probably wouldn't
aggressively go after that issue. In terms of the tree issue, we are adding a number of ~
around the perimeter of that parking lot that currently aren't there. I think I took a quick cou~ as
I saw it on the screen, probably around 18-20 trees around that perimeter area and right now in
that center circle drive I think there'8 4 trees so the~'$ additional trees that are being added even
though the new drive may take out some trees just to provide that exiL With that I'll turn it back
to you for questions. Our engineer from Inspec is hem, Stan Lim and if you have technical
questions I guess I'd turn it over to him_ Policy questions I think I can answer that on behalf of
the school district.
Sacchct: Thank you. Questions from thc applicant
Slagle: I have just a couple, if yon can take a second sir and address the, what I'll call the
informal trail to the east that connects to the little path or roadway where the water tower, h
there a plan to connect as you have a trail going north? Would you cut off and go to the east?
Tom Berge: Currently we don't have a plan to install a trail by that opening by the water tower.
That hasn't come up as an issue.
Sacchet: ff I may jump in. Maybe staff could clarify w~ that is really a real trail or wbet~
it's just an access to the water tower where there happens to be an opening in the fence that
people go through? Do we know what the status is of that particular?
Santo: ~t's not a real trail on any map or any city trail, no. Kids just use ic
Sacchet: Okay.
Saa~ They come up our gravel drive for the water Wwer I thinL..
Sacchet: There's basically to the water tower and then the school left an opening in the fence and
people go through it but it's not a formal connection in any form~
Santo: That's my understanding of it.
Tom Berge: That's accurate.
Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that, okay. Go on Rich.
14
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 2003
$1agle: Thank you. The other question I have is with respect to the parking lot. The proposal we
received today. It looks like, from what I can see, you've got the trail corning from the north.
Cutting down. I don't know if there's a map that we can pull up of the newest. We've got a
sidewalk or a trail going down right there, and then it cuts over. Is there other means within the
parking lot of a sidewalk? And what I'm getting at is, you've got parents, kids coming in for
functions within the school or heading to the north east to the fields and I'm just trying to get an
idea of what the patterns of walking would be in a traffic area.
Tom Berge: Stun, maybe you can come up and point out the sidewalk layout on this,
Stun Lira: My name is Stun Lira from Inspec. I'm the engineer working on this project Could
you clarify the question?
Slagle: If you could just take your pen and show me in that parking lot where the sidewalks are.
Stan Lin~ The sidewalks are on this whole side if you, this is a sidewalk right here and down,
and then this is a big open walk for the crossing~ and there's another sidewalk over here. So if
you park over here and parents would drop off, can basically le~, so their kids can basically come
across the sidewalk down the middle here. Hem's the front door of the building. The~ is another
sidewalk over here too, right here. The other side is just a landscape.
Slagle: Is it running on the north, east and west type?
Stun Lira: This path goes aH the way to the north and then it would go up here and then, we
haven't it striped it yet but...crosswalk in here and it would take you...
Slagle: Okay, if I can~ lust go down to where you go up. Right there and then do you have an
east/west sidewalk on the north side of the parking lot?
Stan Lira: No. Because ~ really isn't any, I guess the building's here so we wouldn't want to
keep all the sidewalk where people...
Slagle: Okay, Fm just wondering if people are coming to park to go w the fields as well.
Stun Lira: I think there's only what two baseball fields out ~am~. Do people, I guess I'm not sure
the reason for it.
Tom Berge: Baseball fields, softball fields.
Stun Lira: I guess you park in here you could, you know get to thi~. If you park over here, ttg
sidewalk will be here and walk north into there are some _tennis courts. That way or to get to the
ballfields over ~ but there im't a sidewalk...
Slagle: No, no, just on the very north side of it Right there. And the reason I ask that is because
again you've got people coming to the school. I think you're well suited for that but you've got
soccer fields, softball fields, tennis courts, track. And so I was wondering if that was a
consideration?
Stan Lira'. I guess the soccer fields are down to the south here. The athletic track on the south
end off to the right. Up here I guess. Sou~ corner. This would serve the tennis courts right
15
Planning Commission Meeting -June 3, 2003
here. I guess to answer your question, you know the reason, we'd rather have green space
between the parking lot and the drive.
Slagle: That's ic
Satchel: Craig?
Claybaugh: Nothing to add.
Papke: What do we exix~ the maximum depth, water depth of the pond to be after a heavy rain?
Stan Lim: The pond, the permanent bottom of the pond is going to be about 8 feet deep. And the
pond is designed with some safety in mind as most NURP ponds. The first foot of water is going
to be a 10 to 1 slope so you'd have to walk 10 feet before the water gets to be a foot deep. And
then from then on it's going to be about another 7-8 feet deep. There's going to be another 2 feet
of..., what we call it. That would take care of all the peak rain~ in case you've got a big ~
That water will fluctuate up and down within 2 feet. As the rain subsides it will go down to the
normal water level again. So the normal water level would be at the top of the 10 to 1 slope and
that's fairly fiat I guess. And that's a safety feature of most NURP ponds you see out there.
Papke: So you don't have any concerns with the kids taking a dip in the pond at some point in
time?
Stan Lira: You know I've talked to Matt about that and most cities don't put fences as a rule for
the NURP ponds. You know we see in public parks and places like that. I've wrestled with that
question myself but I asked the advice of the City of St. Paul, Eagan, the watershed districts even
and they said as a rule they don't put in fences.
Papke: That's all I have, thanks.
Tjomhom: I had one question about the pond again. Everyone's wan'led about the pond. Fm
wondering, is it going to or could it be used, is it designed for educalti~ purposes also?
Stan Lira: Yeah. Typically on a pond like this, a NURP pond, the first few feet of water, that
would be seeded with some sort of a native grasses and typically the schools or most public
places, they don't mow all the way up to the water edge so that stuff will just basically grow long
and natural. You've seen it in most ponds before so I guess you could use it as a nature thing.
Tjornhom'. So will it be easily accessible to the children? To get down to.
Stan Lira: What I've heard from most engineers and most public entities like the watershed
districts and stuff, as a rule they tell you not to mow all the way up to the water's edge so that the
tall grasses in itself is a deterrent to the kids going in there. I mean it will take a couple years
before the grasses are growing long enough but we're talking about seeding with native grasses
that will be more, that are more water born type vegetafiom So and give it 2-3 years it will grow
tall enough that I'm guessing 6-7 feet tall that you really don't want to walk into anyway.
Sac, chex: Bruce.
Feilc Yes. You had mentioned that one of the goals was to separate the bus traffic from the drop
off traffic. Will the bus lane then be, have signage on it for buses only during school hours or, I
16
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 2003
quite frankly don't see how the division works. I still cars coming right down by the buses and
dropping kids off.
Start Lira: First of all, during drop off and pick up there will be, it will be supervised by school
staff, as it is now Pm sure. And we do have sigl~s planned for, you know as they come in, school
buses only. So, but it will be supervised. What we've learned in the past is, if you give people
one shared entrance between buses and cars, everybody will try to go in there. If there's a distinct
separation, people will most likely go into the respective paths which is what we were trying to
achieve here.
Feilc Okay, thank you. That's it.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: My comment again, or question would be the yardage that you anticipate being in
excess to the site, is it approxirrmtely 8,000 yards?
Stan Lira: Yeah, that's the combination of most of it is coming from the pond and the other one,
the remaining yardage is coming from the extra sub-cut that we had to do for the bus loop. Well
for all tbe blacktop out there .... our engineer recommended we put in about 12 inches of extra
sand below the parking lot and an extra 24 inches below the bus areas and the main drive just
because they have a lot of clay, bad soils out there.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: No question from my end. Thank you very much.
Stan Lim: I've got just one question.
Sacchet: Yeah, if you want to add anything, go aiwa.
Stau Linc As far as the letter of credit from the school, being it's a public entity, a school district,
do you still require that letter of credit c~?
Saam: I guess as far as I know. I can double check that.
Start Lim: Okay.
Saam: I can check on that.
Sacchet: Thank you for your pmsenlafion. Now this is a public heafi~. I ~ the public
hearing if anybody wants to address this item, please come forward and state your name and
address for the record please.
Sam Mancino: Hi there. I'm Sam Mancino. My wife Nancy and we live adjaceat to the school.
This is the school and that's us right tlx~. From what we unde~tand of the plan it looks pretty
good. I understand the need for redirecting the traffic and the parking lot, particularly the thing
that interested us was the controlling of the water runoff so we have a couple of questions that
we'd like to talk through and see if we can get some help on this. In the past there has been no
water control per se and everything along that southern border drops onto our property and enxles
our property and is creating a real problem- We've talked to the school about it a couple of times
17
Planning Commission Meeting -June 3, 2003
before. They have made a little change. Put in a drain, you know one of those things you can
buy at Home Depot, the drain tile thing, and that's actually making it worse So as, as long as
we're now talking about you know their only draining the northern section of that parking lot, and
that's going to all drop into what is an 8 foot NURP pond, and it fluctuates 2 feet in heavy rains.
You can imagine the runoff that comes off the somhem part where the whole ballfield is on the
top part. All flows onto our pwpa~. In a heavy rain it gets pretty substantial. So we'd like to
see some study on that to be able to ask the school board to be able to control thac It's starting to
wreck some havoc.
Nancy Mancino: Yeah, there's about a 12 to 15 foot difference between our property on the
sout3ea~ border of the school pwperty which is their soccer fields and we noticed in the last 5
years the erosion, the slope in certain areas, I don't know, sloping and erosion happening and then
they did try to cxaxeet it by putting in a long piece of drain tile that actually now comes into our
prope~. So it's gotten worst not better so we'd love to be able to have the city address that with
us and with the school district and see how we can remedy that.
Sam Mancino: I assume that when the school was built, we've only been here for 20 years or so
but we think that when the school was built, that whole field was raised to make it level which
created quite a height diffemafial between our pmtnavj and that's the part that's creating the
problem.
Nancy Mancino: And there's no retaining wall or anything so there is a fence ~ but there is
nothing that keeps the water from coming onto our property.
Sam Mancino: So if you can help us.
Sacchex: May I just clarify. So if I understand it ccaxectly, and I want to be really clear about
this, there is a drain tile there but it actually.
Sam Mancino: A single one.
Sacchet: It actually empties into your pwperty?
Sam Mancino: Yes it does.
Sacchet: That's what I wanted clear, okay.
Nancy Mancino: And that's just been added in the last couple years bec__ause we said that we
were having problems. We went over to the school so.
Sacchex: Okay.
Sam Mancino: $o a couple of other quick questions that we had, and I don't know how to resolve
this. You guys know how to do all tha~ One thing had to do with hours. 7:00 til, what was it,
6:00 work days seems workable to us but on Saturdays, could that be ameaded to 9:00 to 5:00?
We've heard every construction on all of the developments around us and it is something with
your windows open on a Sunday to Saturday when you're trying to sleep in at 6:30 or 7:00 in the
morning a big Cat fires up or a Matsu or something like that. Can we push that back to about
9:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays? The other question was, what is the estimated completion date? I
didn't really see that in any of the documentation. I would assume by the end of summer but I
don't know that for sure.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Sacchet: Do we know? I believe the staff report said that the intent was to finish it before school
starts.
Tom Berge: August 15~'.
Sacchet: August 15a', okay.
Sam Mancino: And then the last piece is a nuisance thinE that has to do with th~ ~ that's
dumped over the fence from the school. There's a ~ fence there adjacent to the southern
boundary where the big field is, and when we walk back in our woods there, we found potato chip
bags. We find pop cans. We find people have taken whole dumped cans and thrown it over the
fence. Tires, etc, etc. And particularly with the increase of capacity for evening events and
things that ale going to be happening, we'd li~ to see the school take a little bit more
responsibility in cleaning up the...I don't know how they monitor that, if on a daily basis but I
was thinking on a quarterly basis go through and police that and clean it up a little bit,
Nancy Mancino: Yeah, but we just have a new garbage can the~ so we'd love some help on that
too.
Sam Mancino: So those are our qnestiom. Otherwise it looks good to us.
Nancy Mancino: And we've love to have them included in the conditions of approval.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Nancy Mancino: Any questions for us?
Sacchet: Actually I have a question to staff about what was presented. Is them a possibility to
connect that drain tile on the, I guess it would be the south, the eastern part of the south line. Is
there a way to connect that into this drainage system that's being built?
Saam~ No, I don't believe so.
Sacchet: Not really.
Saam: But the area that the Mancino's are ~ of is well to the south of thi~ ~on
area.
Sacchet: It' s opposite basically.
Saar~ Yeah. I do however think that city staff deals with drainage problems in the city every
day. We could sure come out and meet with yourselves and maybe the school to try to come up
with a solution to this. In my mind though it's separate from this consuucfion. But we'd
certainly as a city be willing to help correct that drainage problem in any way we can. And I
would think the school would be too.
Nancy Mancino: Appreciate it.
Sam Mancino: Thank you.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - ~une 3, 2003
Nancy Mancino: Thank you very much.
Sacchet: Thank you. Well this is a public heau/ng. Does anybody want to come forward and
address this item? This is your turn to do so. Seeing nobody, I close the public heating and bring
it back to the commission. Who wants to start with thi~ one?
Lillehaug: I can.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: One thing I would like to do is be a little more proactive in dealing with this potential
8,000 yards of excess material. That's going to be plus 500 trucks leaving this site, As well as all
the grading on that site. Rather than, staff spoke of dust control in hem but I think we should be
proactive and mandate water usage to control the dust because there's going to be dust. A lot of
grading. A lot of trucks. There will be dust. And the other thing is with that many truck~, again
we should be proactive. 41's a pretty busy highway and during rush hour it's real busy, so we
should really, I guess I'd like tn maybe revise or add to condition 13 and limit any hauling to non
rush hour periods. And then when we get to a condition I can ela~ on that closer. Other than
that, I agree with staff that it would be good tn take care of t~is drainage issue to the south. It
would be good to take care of t~i~ right now while they're consm~g this, so I would hope that
the school and the city can work with the Mancino's on thi~ and take care of thi~ during thig
construction. But like staff said, I don't think it's really part of thig project. I think that's all I
have, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bruce, you want to jump in?
Feik: Yeah. I generally suplx~ Matt I have a question thougl~ In the hours of operations
during our last woridng session we ~ddressed houm of operation, and I thought them was a
difference in Saturdays. Different hours between Satmdays and work days.
Saam: Yeah. We're in a little Cat~h-22. We're revising the code currently. We want to get the
Saturday hours to say 9:00 to 5:00 but c~y in the code they say 7:00 to 6:00, Monday
through Saturday. With a private development, when we have a DC, a development contract, we
limit those to just Monday to Friday 7:00 to 6:00 and then Satuntays 9:00 to 5:00. We want to
get that into the code. We haven't made that change as of yet, so that's why the conditions reflect
what the code says. If you would want to change that, I guess I would be in support of that as
what we're going for.
Feilc 9:00 to 5:00 would be consistent with what the new code is going to be, is that correct?
Saam: With what we're proposing it to be, com~ Yep.
Feilc Yeah, proposed. Okay. That was it, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay. Bethany. Kurt. Bruce?
Feik: I'm down hgm.
Sacch~: Yeah I figured...
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Claybaugh: There's only two left Me and Rich so. I would just like to add to the excellent
points that Steve trade with respect to being proactive. One of the concerns that I had that I
didn't hear addressed was just in terms of what the sheer amount of haul material corning out of
there, that the drive down to 41 be swept on a regular basis and silt controlled. Because there's
going to be a lot coming off of those trucks and it's all going to get washed down onto 41, so
incorporate that as well. I would be in favor of supporth~ the 9:00 to 5:00 on Saturday. I
remember pan of our code compliance review and just wanted to note that I could ceminly
empathize with the Mancino situation. Unfommately with respea to the drainage issues and the
garbage over the fence, those aren't things that we can address in this particular forum or venue.
We'd like to encourage obviously the school district, people involve to take a good close look at
that and work in good faith. And reilmate what's been said already with respect to having the
equipment on site. Now would be the opponuni~c time to address that issue so that's all my
comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich. No comments. I don't have too much extra to add_ We he. md the
concern about the mosquito control. I think that's in the hands of the school. I don't think we
need to get involved with that. In terms of the request from the Mancino's, I think the erosion is a
significant issue and makes perfect sense to address it while there is equipment out there, so I
could support something like work, applicant work with staff to address that issue and then
basically look to the responsibility of the applicant to work that issue. Since we are in the process
of revising the conditional use permit code to reflect that Samxxtay will be 9:130 to 5:130, it would
be consistent in my opinion that we put that in at this point. And I think your ~ Steve
about the non rush hour and the dust control is certainly appropriate, eonsidmSng the cousiderable
amount of hauling that's going to have to take place. The garbage over the fence, I think that I
would see that as an issue between the school and the neighbors. That really doesn't play into the
application in front of us. That's my conamnt. With that, I would be willing to take a motion.
Feilc I'll make a motion.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce.
Peik: Planning Commission approves Interim Use Pennit.
Saccbet: We need to say Planning Commission mcammends apffwvai.
Feik: Recouunend approval.
Sacchet: Is that correct? We're not approving. We're reca~ approvaL Alright.
Feik: Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #03-2 with the
following conditions 1 through 7, 9 through 21 with number 13 modified to indicate that hours of
operation shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p_m_ on
Saturdays. And you worked out some !an~m~ over here so I'll let you deal with that later.
Lillehaug: And then add additionally.
Feik: I think we need to.
Sacchet: We need a second first. Did you second7
Lillehaug: I second it.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Sacchet: You did?
Lillehaug: I do now.
Sacchet: Alright. So we have friendly ~_a_ditions?
Lillehaug: Sure. A friendly addition to 13. Additionally trucks hauling m~t~ to and from the
site shall be limited to non rush hour traffic times from the periods of 6:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30
to 6:00 p.m., or revised as such from the city.
Feilc Okay.
Sacchet: Is that accepted?
Feik: Absolutely.
Sacchet: Any other ones?
Lillehaug: Another friendly amendment. Water shall be used for dust control.
Fei Okay.
Saam: Steve what was the second, if I could inten'apc What was the second hour period? You
said 6:00 to 8:30 and.
Lillehaug: 6:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. Would you concur that those are typical
hours? Maybe before I add them you could.
Sacchet: Would we be able to do something like applicant work with staff? Because do we need
to be that specific? I see that is.
Lillehaug: They are ~ specific rush hour times. That's a busy road.
Sacchet: But then if the applicant work with stuff they could, I mean I personally think we doll't
need to be specifying the hours at this point= Those are more detail than we need right now.
Ciaybaugh: Typically pretty standard hours that are specified.
Sacchet: That's ~ standard, okay.
Claybaugh: Civil engineering firms for construction projects but again we can hear f~m the
applicant if that's appropriate at this stag~ or.
Sacchet: Well let's try to go through our process.
Lillehaug: Let me add to thaL And/or approved by the City and County. I think it is a County
road. Is it a county road?
Sam~ State. State highway.
Planning Commission Meeting- June 3, 2003
Lillehaug: It's a State highway.
Saam: Yeah, and we didn't, I guess we didn't mention that. We haven't received comments so
they will still apply though because it's a state road so.
Sacchet: So it's really a State issue in terms of that part?
Saam: I think it's a combination of the City and the State.
Lillehaug: The State may i ,repose those restrictions. I guess.
Sacchet: You'd like to have the specifics?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Okay. And you accepted that?
Feik: I accept the specifics actually yes.
Sacchet: Any other?
Claybaugh: Yes, I had a friendly ~t, I just wanted the drive down to 41 monitored and
swept as required to mitigate silt washing down onw 41.
Feilc The drive lane, or the driveway.
Claybaugh: Yeah, the street sweeping of the driveway down to 41 as part of the truck haul.mute
down to 41.
Feiic Require to keep the din.
Claybaugh: It needs to be monitored for excess soils and silts so all that comes off the truck as
they're hauling down to 41 doesn't get washed down onto 41 in terms of silt.
Feik: Fll accept that,
Sacchet: Accepted? Any other ones? I would like to add one, applicant shall work with staff to
address the erosion problem to the south on the eastern haft of the ~. Is that acceptable?
Feilc Matt, what's the distance between the parking and the erosion problem to the south? This
is a significant distance away. Can we ~ly link these or not?
Saam: I guess in my opinion, like I said, I think it's a separate issue that the staff can work with
the residents on. But this is up.
Feilc It's hundreds of yards, is it not?
Saam: Excuse me?
Feilc It's hundreds of yards. It's a long way.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Sacchet: It's a whole soccer field. So we'd better address it separately, is that what we're
saying?
Saarn~ In my opinion, yeah~
Slagle: We can just assume too, if I can throw out.
Sacchet: Please.
Slagle: I'm sure the school district will work with the neighbor~.
Saan~ And F 11 ~y mention it as the city staff and we can contact the Mancino's.
Sacchet: I think that's acc_~ptable.
Feilc Should we withdraw the amen~ or?
Sacchet: Well you didn't accept it. That tak~ care of that. Alright, we have a motion. We have
a second. A couple fxiendly amen~ts.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seeonded that the Planning Commb~ion recommends approval of
Interim Use Permit ~3-2, subject to the following ~onditions:
1. The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
interim use permit. The applicant must also pay the City an administration fee of $296
prior to the City signing the permit
2. Storm sewer sizin~ calculations will have to be provided for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
evenL
3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul mute for review and approval
will be required for the other ~.
within two weeks of si~e grading.
6. A rock construction entrance must be installed at the be~nning of the driveway
construction.
7. Add a four foot high chain link fence to the west side of the proposed bitnminous path
along the entire length of the pond.
8. Deleted.
9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watershed
District and MnDot, if applicable.
Planning Cornmi.~sion Meeting - 1tme 3, 2003
10.
The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a
professional engineer upon completion of excavation m verify the grading plan has been
11.
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re-spread on the site as soon as
the excavation is completed. Top soiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented
immediately following the completion of excavaI~l areas.
12.
Noise levels stemming from the ~on are not to exceed MPCA and EPA regulations.
If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such t~ts shall be paid for by the
applicant
13.
Hours of operation m'e limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p~a. Monday through Friday, 9:00
a,m. to S:00 p,m. Saturday, and prohibited on national holidays. Tme~ hauling
material to ami from the site ~ be limited to non ruah hour traffic times perto~
of 6:00 to 8:30 a.m, and 3:30 to 6:00 p,m,, or revised as ~eh from the City R,,~_ ~
working in conjunction with the State.
14.
The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck
hauling and construction activities.
15.
Use the City's standard outlet control stnguu~ for the pond outlet, as per City Det~ Plate
#3109. Also, add the other following Detail Plates to the plans: 5300 & 5301.
16. Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed pond.
17.
Show the proposed grading for the new bituminous path for the e~tire distance to Melody
Hill Road.
18.
Revise the drive aide widths of the eastern parking lot to be 26 feet in width, as per city
code.
19. Building Official conditions:
b,
The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
Provide plato and details of the accessible parking space signage for review.
A plumbing permit must be obtained before be~nning work on the site utilities.
The applicant shall verify the hawthorns planted on the south side of the parking lot have
adequate growing space and protection if planted within the sidewalk.
21. The applicant shall make the ~ inside width of all landscape islands 10 feet.
22. Water shall be used for dust control
The driveway shall be monitored and swept as required to mitigate silt washing
down onto Highway 41.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 3, 2003
Sacchet: This will go to City Council on the 9~ of lune, is that cxm'ect? And if anybody wants to
appeal, that can be done too. So I thank you very much.
APPROVAL OF MINUTF~: Commissioner Lillehaug noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated May 20, 2003 as amended by Chairman Sacchet on pages 18 and 32.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director