PC 2003 10 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 7, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Bruce Feik,
and Steve Lillehaug
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen A1-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Justin Miller, Assistant to the City Manager,
and Mak Sweidan, Engineer
APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT, LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN (COLLECTIVELY, THE "MODIFICATIONS AND
PLAN") THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, 469.090 THROUGH
469.1081 AND SECTIONS 469.174 TO 469.179, ALL INCLUSIVE, AS AMENDED.
Justin Miller presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Justin. Questions from staff.
Slagle: Sure, I have a couple. Just a couple Justin. One is can you extend it more than a year?
Miller: We cannot. There's a formula based that, I should say as of now we cannot. TIF laws
have a tendency to change every year but as of now we can only extend for another year.
Slagle: Okay. And then the last question, if I do my math and I apologize for not understanding
TIF districts too well. If the city could recoup roughly 4 million, and I look at this sheet that has
sort of expenditures and so forth, if I look at 2003 and then I go to 4, is there somewhere on there
were I see that something either increases by 4 million or decreases by 4 million?
Miller: Are you talking about the top line that says tax increment? It goes from 4 million down
to 2 million?
Slagle: Yeah, I'm just looking at total revenues and then I go down to total expenditures and I
see numbers from 4 million to 1.6 in 2003 and 2 million I call it and 2 million 9 in 2004. I guess
I just don't see where 4 million either increases something or decreases something. Is that a fair
question? Am I making sense?
Miller: Yeah, let me see if I can answer it and if not, let me know. When we scheduled the debt
service for the debt that we issued with this district, we scheduled it so in 2004 there would be a
spike, assuming that the district would be coming off line we would have taxes from, generated
from the district to pay for it. That's not going to happen. This way we can still recoup all the
increment from this district and be able to pay all the debt that's in 2004, and if you look, the
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
principle for the debt in 2004 is 2.7 million whereas in 2003 it's only $35,000.
reason why the total expenditures go up by so much.
Slagle: Okay. I think I understand it. Thank you.
Miller: Okay.
That's the main
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Yeah, obviously the money has to come from the businesses in the TIF district.
Miller: Right, it does.
Papke: Do they have any right to appeal this or protest or what recourse do they have if they
decide this is not such a good idea?
Miller: One thing, it's kind of a common misunderstanding is even though businesses in a TIF
district, they still do pay taxes. So they're going to be paying the same taxes whether or not it's
in the TIF district or whether it's not. They have the same right to appeal their tax bill as any
other citizen or any other business owner does, which would be first they would come to the city
during the truth, it's not the Truth in Taxation hearings but there is an assessment hearing. And if
that doesn't work, then they go to the County. They can always go to tax court as well and get
their assessments lowered, so by, actually I mean through this process, businesses or any other
entity does not have a say in this modification.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: At the end of '04, the balance of the debt will be zero?
Miller: We hope so. We're pretty sure that by extending this another year that we will be able to
solve the deficit situation.
Feik: I have another quick question though. Really this panel here is really to look at how this
conforms with the city's comprehensive plan.
Miller: That's right.
Feik: In a nutshell, how does extending this an additional year impact the comprehensive plan at
all?
Miller: It doesn't.
Feik: Thank you.
Sacchet: No questions? Steve.
Lillehaug: One real quick one. The $4 million that we spoke of, is that plugged into the
worksheet that you handed out to us, or is this worksheet generated off from if we continue to go
without generating that additional formula?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Miller: If you look at the work sheet, and I think I put a revised one on your desk before you
came in. If you look at the very top line, there's a column called tax increment. Basically that's
the taxes that we'll be able to collect out of the district. If you look at 2003, we expect to be able
to collect $4.1 million. In 2004 we're expecting about 2.6 and the reason that is is because taxes
are paid on I believe it's April 15th and October 15th of each year. Technically our bonds are due
on November 1st of 2003. Traditionally the County doesn't provide us with the taxes, even
though they're paid, until November 15th. So technically we know we're guaranteed the $2
million. We're hoping through negotiations with the County that they will allow us to get that
other $2 million before that. But if not we're still confident with the way it's set up now that
we'll be able to handle the deficit situation.
Lillehaug: Thanks.
Sacchet: TIF, it's a fancy three letter word. Maybe could you explain in one 2 minutes what
actually is the TIF system for those, maybe not everybody's familiar.
Miller: Sure. TIF stands for tax increment financing and basically what it is, if you take a, let's
say you take a vacant parcel in the city and it produces $1,000 in taxes a year. The city, we go
through a process and create what's called a TIF district where any development that occurs on
that property within the next, however long the TIF district lasts, that increment between that
1,000 in taxes and however, let's say we put up a new building and it produces $100,000 in taxes.
That means it produces $99,000 in increment. The increment comes all to the city instead of
being split between the County, the City and the school district. What that $99,000 then can be
used for, can be roads associated with that project. Other infrastructure. It could be helped, if
there's special assessment write downs. Basically it's an economic development tool that helps
create development in areas that might not otherwise.
Sacchet: Thanks Justin. Now, this is not a public hearing, right?
Miller: That's correct. The public hearing will be at the City Council meeting.
Sacchet: So unless there is further questions, do we need any discussion? Anybody to lead a
discussion. If not, I'm willing to take a motion.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission adopts the resolution stating that the
proposed modification to the Chanhassen downtown TIF district is consistent with the City of
Chanhassen comprehensive plan.
Sacchet: We have a motion, is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Resolution #2003-01: Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission adopt
a resolution stating that the proposed modifications to the Chanhassen downtown TIF
district is consistent with the City of Chanhassen's comprehensive plan. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT; REPLAT OF LOTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MORE THAN ONE BUILDING ON A LOT; SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 60,000 SQ. FT. INCLUDING CINEMA
EXPANSION, RETAIL AND OFFICES AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENTS, MARKET STREET STATION, LLP.
Public Present:
Name
J. Schmieg
Glenn Baird
Gary Nystedt
Dan Engelsma
John Uban
Clayton Johnson
Mike Korsh
Jim Lasher
Len Simich
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on
Address
Chanhassen
Chan Cinema
MSS, LLC
Kraus-Anderson
DSU, Inc.
Bloomberg Company
Kraus-Anderson
LSA Design
SW Metro Transit
this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff. Want to start this side?
Lillehaug: How about if I go last.
Sacchet: Yeah, you weren't here last time so it's probably not fair for you to start. Bethany, you
want to start?
Tjornhom: You know I approved it last time so I don't have any questions.
Sacchet: That's good.
Feik: Sure, I've got a few.
Sacchet: Bruce, go ahead.
Feik: First off, tonight we were presented with a new memo from Mak. Do the conditions as
stated in the staff report reflect the new memo?
Sweidan: Yes.
Feik: Thank you. Kate. We talked about additional two more islands on the, just south of the
bank area. Has there been discussion with the applicant on that?
Aanenson: The landscape islands?
Feik: Yes. The two islands that need to be added on the south elevation.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Aanenson: Right. The applicant is still requesting that those not be placed. One of the things
that we did discuss is enhancing this. ! think we talked about that at the Planning Commission
last time that we would help and work with the railroad too, and enhance the look of this. It's in
the road right-of-way but that's where they would like to see that.
Feik: So you're seeing it as a trade off?
Aanenson: Correct, yeah.
Feik: And then the lighting. Help me out again where in our list of recommendations and
conditions we deal with the up lighting on the turret or whatever you call it?
Sacchet: Is there only 29? Is it 29 that deals with lights?
Feik: We just call it the accent lights?
Sacchet: There's no specific about up lights because that's in the ordinance or?
Aanenson: Right, and actually... There's a lot of lighting on, there's lighting on the chasers
which we agree they're in place right now but there's lighting underneath here and here and then
there's this up lighting and we thought maybe some of this, some of the downcast lighting may be
appropriate, down shielded, but the additional of this is what we were talking about.
Feik: So if we wanted to address that tonight we will need to enhance this.
Aanenson: Clarify and make it more specific, correct.
Feik: This recommendation number 29. And, I know you know I had a concern regarding the
buses. You are comfortable, as comfortable as we reasonably can be that the solution set that's
found is.
Aanenson: Right. Again, you know I think the alternative is when we looked at that, that cut
through here. You're kind of again putting that kind of peak turn movement right here where's
also a lot of activity coming in and out of the theater on what may be some peak times, and then
you're also introducing backing of traffic into a travel lane two ways. So I think this was a good
solution where you've got that pick-up area. If you're off the trail, and good sight lines to look
out before you pull out so we think that's a good solution. Again, we're hoping that this advances
sooner and we're hopeful of that. That was a question of what's temporary. That was your other
question. And hoping that it's shorter from the outside.
Feik: And then there would be additional posting of signage on that sidewalk in front of the,
what do we call it, the Frontier building?
Aanenson: Correct, and that was one of the conditions too that it be posted and marked so people
understand that that's a circulation route.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay Bruce. Kurt, any questions?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Papke: I'm not sure if my question was just answered or not but the signage for the retail drop off
area, is there a sign there that specifically says this is a drop off area or is it?
Aanenson: There is a condition talking about signage. That it be clearly marked and I think that
would be appropriate, that that be signed for who should be using that. And I think the applicant
would be agreeable to that. And that is a condition but if we want to clarify that condition, I don't
see which one it is right now but we did talk about that. And the other thing that we wanted to
cue people here is somewhat like we talked about before. How we stripe it so people know that if
you want to be sitting in this area, this would be a travel lane so people...
Papke: You know 10 minute drop off area or something like that.
Aanenson: Right, and this would be the drop off area.
Papke: Okay. That's all I have, thank you.
Sacchet: Okay. Rich.
Slagle: Just a few things. Kate, getting to the bus question. It was, it's good to hear that there
weren't as many maybe buses as once thought or feared. Can you tell me, is it correct that the
buses, when we get into Phase II will still, the plan is to go north through the buildings or
between the buildings to West 78th? And then in Phase III, is it true that the buses will go where
the existing building is?
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: Will that be demolished?
Aanenson: Well this is what we're hoping.
John Uban: This Southwest Metro plan and they won't use the traffic control.
Aanenson: So it's actually over from that existing building. This would be, this is the current,
what we're showing today. This would be the new park and ride.
Slagle: So how would the buses get to the new park and ride?
Aanenson: You still have to come up and around.
Feik: It comes in off the east.
John Uban: Just to clarify. All the buses will now come off of 101, and they come in, in this
drawing and circulate around or through the parking ramp, and so all the bus activity is then in
and out this way. So we don't really need this connection in that fashion.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: But your question, first question was, this is Phase II.
Slagle: Yeah.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Aanenson: Correct. That would come off and make that movement, and that gets everybody
cuing back over towards the 101, then ultimately it's just to the site.
Slagle: And then Phase III, if I'm not mistaken or the Southwest Metro facility has been, monies
have been requested.
Aanenson: Collect.
Slagle: Nothing's for sure.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: Okay. Talked a little bit about the north side of the railroad property. My question
specifically is, is what game plan do we have because, are you suggesting that all of the land is
the railroad's or some this applicant's, or will be this applicant's?
Aanenson: No. It's the railroad's right-of-way but if we can get an easement from the railroad
right-of-way to enhance the landscaping, and that's what we, as a city would work with them to
do. Enhance the, it's better visibility for them and for the city to make it a pleasant view instead
of the weeds and the like.
Slagle: And that's our intent?
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: Okay. What was decided on the circle on the southwest comer where the signage will go.
There was talk I think of parking. Is that still the plan?
Aanenson: Correct. I think their long term plan is if the street gets vacated, making the shape a
little bit different for parking or a different use, depending if they can make it work. But in the
short run, to get this up and running, this provides the parking that they need but long term, that
would probably be reshaped.
Slagle: Okay. Next question is, if you take a look at what I'll call the majority of the parking for
the cinema, athletic facility and so forth. Is it your opinion that there is no need for pedestrian
walkways between the parking spots?
Aanenson: Well that's how it's functioning now and actually the number of seats is not going to
go up so I think again some of that, what we talked about like similar to what we have in some of
the grocery stores. We have striping, kind of a caution. That was the intent of that condition. To
put those kind of visual striping to remind people that there are pedestrians in the walkway.
Slagle: Okay. Let me just see here in my little notes. I think the last thing I've been thinking
about where I can come up with in the city that we have a traffic path for a drive thru, like the one
that we would have here. And I can't.
Aanenson: Chan Bank across the street possibly.
Slagle: The only thing I was thinking is when you go through the Chan Bank you basically exit
onto by the old gas station, you know whatever that is. That little strip mall. I mean I'm talking
maybe it's 7,500 feet and you're on a road. Here we go through the drive thru. We come around
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
the corner. Go through what could be 50 parking spots and then curve around. I know the
applicant asked or had mentioned that they were thinking of just being able to come on Pauly
Drive quicker. Are we just against that?
Aanenson: Well at this point, it's still a public street I think. If we were to look at that, there's
some make sure we don't have too many turn movements bunched in here with the rest of the
circulation. I think that's something that we'd certainly look at. See how it's functioning. I
don't know if Matt wants to comment on.
Slagle: Have any thoughts on that Matt?
Saam: Yeah, just looking at it now. Let me come up there.
Slagle: I mean because this is the snake if you will that I come up with. But if someone wants to
deposit or take their money.
Saam: I guess the only place that to me would look reasonable would be somewhere in here. But
then our spacing isn't the greatest between those two intersections so I think if you're down in
here you're getting too close to this intersection. I guess ! wouldn't have recommended this one
but, so those would be my concerns Rich. They really have to I think redesign it to move this one
back in here somewhere to do something.
Aanenson: I'm pretty confident that's part of the easement issue too. To give a little more
control and redesign of that area.
Slagle: Okay. Well I hope that we can work something out there because I just think that's going
to be.
Aanenson: Yes, it will be going forward to the City Council...
Slagle: Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: Steve, you want to add some questions?
Lillehaug: Yeah, I want to apologize for not being here previously but I have read the meeting
minutes probably twice and I've really dug into this so ! want everyone to know that I'm not just
starting from scratch here when I start with these comments. I do have additional comments. So
number one would be in the report, and Kate touched on this a little bit. You spoke of the parking
study that was performed in the area. But in your report you also speak of a traffic study that was
completed back in 1996. This would be for the subject site. Are they synonymous I guess, one in
the same here? And then let me kind of preface it with my concerns are with traffic out on Trunk
Highway 5 and Market Boulevard. You have a short left turn lane leaving Market Boulevard, and
you likewise have a pretty short left turn coming off 5 north on Market. So I'm not sure if we're
adequately addressing traffic external to this site.
Aanenson: There were two studies done, and Sharmeen can correct me if I'm wrong, but the first
study looked at the traffic movement, and then there was a second study done that looked at an
additional 100,000 square foot building regarding strictly the parking. The first one had just the
additional cinema, which did talk about that there would be some turn movement problems based
on that but this is way underneath the amounts of trips being generated, and that goes back to
what my original comment was. If you looked at how this was functioning before, with the
8
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
bowling, the other uses at that peak time when this, back in the early 90's, it functioned. So we
didn't anticipate, based on this level of development that it should be. It should be functional.
Lillehaug: So it is less intensive?
Aanenson: Correct. Or equal to.
Lillehaug: Or equal to. You say before, you know I've lived here 6 years. I guess I don't know
how long before is, and then I don't know how.
Aanenson: Probably early 90's. Or late 80's, yeah.
Lillehaug: And so what is.
Aanenson: When the bowling and Filly's and all that was fully operational, that whole area
because if you look at the late 90's, except for the cinema coming and redeveloping.
Lillehaug: So then 5 would have been there at that time also?
Aanenson: Yes, yes.
Lillehaug: With the current same configuration.
Aanenson: And Market with those two curb cuts and the hotel and right.
Lillehaug: And it operated at an acceptable level of service then?
Aanenson: Yes. Correct. Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Saam: I'll just add too, if I could Kate, something to that. When we redeveloped the downtown
area, the traffic study looked at the uses that were planned or existing on the sites and like Kate
said, this use isn't intensifying. So they set up those left turn lanes and the traffic flow based on
the uses, so if we're not intensifying the use, I guess we didn't see a problem for that traffic flow.
Lillehaug: What tool do we have after this is fully developed to re-address it if there is a
problem? I guess there probably isn't a took other than.
Aanenson: Well if it's not operational as a safety hazard, I think we certainly have some public
safety issues there, and certainly with Phase II, we'd certainly look at that too. Directional
movement with Phase II.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'm going to hit on walk a little bit on the northwest comer of the parking lot.
Up by that proposed restaurant. If there's a pedestrian that wants to go to the restaurant, or to the
theater and you start out from the northwest, is there a walk cutting through right in. Is that a
walk right there?
Aanenson: Yes, that's a walk and you have to cross, walk in front of...
Lillehaug: But the trees are shown right in the middle of the walkway it looks like.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Aanenson: ...there is a front end that shows.
Lillehaug: So there is a walk route from that northwest corner? Okay.
Aanenson: But you have to cross but there is a walkway.
Lillehaug: Alright, good enough. I have concerns with the driveway. That same area. Yep, and
we were just talking about Pauly Drive, how we didn't want a driveway close to Market
Boulevard or we're going to access off of Pauly Drive, close to Market Boulevard, and likewise !
guess I have the same concern here. If you're entering that driveway up there.
Aanenson: That one? This one?
Lillehaug:
either take
lane going
Off of Market Boulevard. If you're entering there, you have a decision immediately to
a right or go through there. Do we have any concerns that that, where that right turn
to the drive thru is too close to Market Boulevard?
Aanenson: It's pretty close how it's set up now if you go in to go up to the Country Suites.
That's the access, kind of the overflow for the Country Suites. It's pretty close to how it's set up
now. What's different is this building is sitting there but when you come in you can immediately
go to the, I think it' s...
Lillehaug: And I'm talking more about the right going to the drive thru.
Aanenson: Immediately getting to the right lane?
Lillehaug: Yeah, and I realize it's exactly where that existing access for the Country Inn and
Suites is.
Aanenson: Okay, are you talking about that taking a quick right to get to the bank.
Sweidan: Yeah, I think we can add some like signs to show the entrance of that drive thru.
Lillehaug: I mean once the people learn it, it will be okay but I mean if you look at.
Aanenson: ...additional signs because there will be some directional signs and some cuing that
this lane is taking you to the bank.
Lillehaug: Because if you look across the street for example, going the other way in that
driveway, I mean you can't turn off of the main access there until you get a couple hundred feet
beyond. My other question would be, is alignment of that driveway. That same driveway with
the driveway across the street, across Market Boulevard. If it were shown on these plans you
could see that it doesn't line up very well at all, and I realize this is a redevelopment of an
existing site, but does staff feel that this would be an area where we should better align that
driveway?
Aanenson: Across the street where Country Inn and Market is?
Lillehaug: Yeah.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Aanenson: Across the way.
Lillehaug: There's a median also across there and if you look across the driveways don't match
up. They're different widths. One has a median, one doesn't.
Aanenson: Correct. That was a discussion point with the development trying to reduce kind of
the infrastructure redevelopment of all that when the utility easements and all that tie in I think at
this point...
Saam: Yeah, I guess it would be recommended that they line up. I mean we always look for that.
I think in this case, and maybe the applicant will speak to it, in an effort to reduce their economic
impact, I think they're trying to minimize that type of stuff, and I don't know where negotiations
with the city came in on that.
Aanenson: There's also an opportunity to move the other drive too. One of the things I looked
at, what is now Country Inn and Market came in, they have the ability to add on square footage to
that too. When that came in. Right now it's just green space. But if they were to ever expand,
that would be something that could be looked at on the other side too, to tie those two.
Lillehaug: A little bit on the easements then. If Pauly Drive is vacated, there's an existing what I
would call it a public storm and not a private storm sewer. That's what you indicated we would
require an easement to provide for that.
Aanenson: Correct .... take an easement over the, maybe the same width because you stop to have
that to get to the...
Lillehaug: As well as all the existing sanitary and watermain.
Aanenson: Correct. We'd identify all those in the easement description.
Lillehaug: And then we spoke of it earlier about we, this is not a preliminary plat review, but in
the report it does address a final plat. Could you just hit on that a little bit of what our scope is
right now here, and it does not involve a preliminary or a final plat. And then will we have an
opportunity to review a preliminary plat. I see there's a preliminary plat included in here but I
don't see that as a quality preliminary plat level.
Aanenson: Right. If you read the condition of approval on page 24, that reads correctly because
what we're approving is the site plan and the variances. And a conditional use for more than one
building on a lot. The definition of a subdivision, if you're creating a new lot. What this
applicant proposes to do is combine 3 subdivisions. For clarity purposes, the county likes to see a
plat but legally it doesn't meet the definition of a subdivision because they're assembling lots
and, but they are doing oh, plat, you saw that, just so you can see. And the county wants to see it
recorded that way because if they try to close it and it's kind of cumbersome with three separate
lots, but legally it doesn't meet the definition of a subdivision. So if you read the condition on
page 24, how that reads, it doesn't have the word plat in there. So I apologize if it got stuck in
there somewhere else but that motion would be correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then just generally, it appears that we don't have really a complete set of
site plans that we've been reviewing, because what I've had here I got from you last Friday which
was an update.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Aanenson: Right.
Lillehaug: But then engineering staff, they have a brand new grading plan that wasn't part of our
packet that we hadn't received. And I'm wondering does the staff have a full packet here?
Aanenson: Yes we do.
Lillehaug: That we can approve tonight.
Aanenson: Yes, and I believe you got, except for the civils.
Lillehaug: Right, and I have been. It was sanitary, storm and watermain.
Aanenson: Correct. Right, the grading, yes.
Lillehaug: It was still absent a few of the requirements that should have been there.
Aanenson: Right, and those are reflected in the conditions and the one, and that's what
engineering went through and I went through with you tonight. The ones that have been met.
There still are some that haven't been resolved, and again the site plan and the conditional use
would still be recorded through the city. Those would not be executed until all those things are
followed through, so those are still some outstanding issues.
Lillehaug: That would be all I have, thanks Kate.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Really quick, just a very few questions. Just to be real clear about it that
drop off area in front of the dance studio, that's for individuals to drop off. This is not for drop
off for the bus.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Sacchet: Are we real clear about that?
Aanenson: Right, and I think that was a good question that was asked before. That we clearly
cue that. Mark it. Sign it. Whatever we need to do so it's clear who's the user.
Sacchet: At this point we don't have a condition that says no up lights because we think that's a
city ordinance, that's a given? Is that the thinking?
Aanenson: Did you double check that? I thought I had one in here regarding a reduction of.
Sacchet: It just says removal of a portion of accent lights for the cinema. It's 29.
Aanenson: Which one? 29 did you say? Yeah, that would be it. 29, accent light. Correct.
Sacchet: So it just says a portion of.
Aanenson: Correct. If you want to quantify that.
Sacchet: And then one area that I was kind of interested in last time was that exposed cinder
block wall, basically the west wall of the cinema. You mention in your comments that this would
12
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
be possibly mitigated with some murals or landscaping. My issue is there's really not much room
to plant stuff there. Maybe some vines. What kind of consideration have gone into that? If any.
Aanenson: This is the area that we're talking about. And it does have some access here.
Emergency access to get out, and one of the things that staff did talk about is that right now as
part of the bowling, as that fagade comes down, that we'd like to see something. The applicant
has kind of asked to treat that based on the existing markets there because that's how the rest of
the cinema is being treated. Kind of as it's current conditions. They would like to have the
opportunity to do a mural or we talked about, the applicant talked about putting on a trellis and
some vines and actually the staff had even talked about a mural might be something pretty
creative in that area. One of the things that they were trying to do with the landscaping island,
someone asked about the sidewalk. I think Steve might have asked about that sidewalk in front.
That's where they were trying to put the landscaping there to also try to screen some of that wall.
Sacchet: Mural as in painting or mosaic or something like that?
Aanenson: Correct, exactly.
Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all my questions. Thank you very much Kate. With that, if the
applicant wants to come forward. Make any comments to the changes? No? You're all okay?
Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant or are we okay? Now this is not a public
hearing. It was a public hearing last time. However, I want to. You have a question for the
applicant?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Okay Steve.
Lillehaug: And my questions would be, as I'm not quite able to pull out what is proposed and
what is to remain existing as far as, I know there's some conversation on it but as far as walk,
what's going to remain as the existing walk. What's going to be proposed, and then the parking
lot resurfacing. I mean we have a lot of utilities to put in there and I'd hate to see a piecemeal
parking lot put back together with these brand new buildings and you get a brand product because
of that so, if you could comment on...
Sacchet: Maybe you want to come up to the microphone for that please. Appreciate it.
John Uban: Thank you. My name is John Uban, consulting planner, Dahlgren, Shardlow and
Uban working for the partnership for Market Square. The question in particular, first the
sidewalks. This sidewalk is primarily in place and it will be adjusted for the front entrance. So
that generally stays. Part of the sidewalk gets amended where the parking is installed, and the
trail of course is in place, it goes along Market Street. Now the rest of the sidewalk will be new.
This is existing, all of this is existing and then the new fagade will, all of this will be new
sidewalk all around the perimeter of the building and interconnecting sidewalks out. So that's the
general sidewalk situation. With parking, this is a new parking lot. Right now it's gravel and it's
unorganized. There's also a building sitting in there so that will be removed, so this is all new
parking. This road will be straighten out so this area gets reorganized. So we have to straighten
the road through here. This parking exists. And this will stay just as it is. There is, our utility
connection comes through in this area right here so there will be some patching. This is all new
parking up in here, so really what we're doing is using the existing sub-grade where we can, and
adjusting but it will all have a new asphalt coat on the top.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. And then one other question would be, you commented on this at the previous
meeting about providing a temporary connector road going to the east. That that would not be
ideal due to grade changes and a retaining wall. Possible retaining wall needs. Do you still view
that as an extreme cost that that wouldn't be feasible to do as an interim solution?
John Uban: Yes, that's quite a bit of additional cost. I have a drawing here... On this you can
see, this is the eventual plan that the Southwest Metro actually put together how they want to see
the ramp working, and really they want to circulate just on this side. In fact they're not showing
any road connecting through. So that's really the long term solution is the bus is circulating into
the ramp and not a straight through connection here. In that way we will in the future have a
connection through here to augment, really open up the interior like a city block sort of system so
that we have sort of an equal weight on this side and equal weight here with a road coming in
from the north and 78th Street. We think it will sort of break this up and invite people in where
right now this road in isn't that inviting because it doesn't directly connect out to 78th Street. So
we're just adjusting it to make it a better place for people who have businesses and shop and so
forth.
Lillehaug: I think that's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Since you're up there, can I ask you a quick question? Actually just the drawing you
had up there, it peaked my interest. Is actually that Dinner Theater shed would then stay?
John Uban: No. That will come out.
Sacchet: That would still come out.
John Uban: Not in this phase.
Sacchet: In the third phase, like when we're looking at the parking ramp.
John Uban: This will expand.
Sacchet: The other real quick question, actually two questions. We asked staff about how to
mitigate that exposed block wall and they mentioned the idea of possibly a mural or mosaic in
combination with trellis. Is that something that you could see fitting or do you have any reaction
to that?
John Uban: Look it, we were thinking of a steel trellis system and we also have a steel exit
system that we're looking at as well. It's, to make, there's some grade elevation changes between
the exits of the theater and the parking lot, so we're going to use what is, what might look like a
fire escape, metal walk system to really accomplish two different levels right there. And then
with that some grate system on the wall. We haven't designed that yet. We want to make sure
you know that you agree on everything else. That's sort of a detail later. But the actual surfacing
of that block wall, we haven't detailed that yet. We certainly can come up with something to
review with staff. A mural, you know if the city you know has some historic mural or maybe it's
an old sign that says Market Square there or something painted in an old style might be very nice
too.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: A maple leaf.
point, it's also a detail
emphasized a little more.
On the big pylon sign, one of the discussion we had last time at one
point that came up, is that maybe the Southwest Metro could be
Has any consideration been given to that aspect?
John Uban: Consideration but we do not have a new design.
Sacchet: You don't have a new design but it's something you remember.
John Uban: Yes.
Sacchet: You're working on. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you. There are no more
questions from the applicant. Now this is not a public hearing, however if anybody from the
public wants to come forward. Make some brief comments about this project. What's new about
it. This is your chance. Anybody want to address this? No, seeing nobody. Let's move on.
Bring this back for comments of the commission.
Lillehaug: Can I ask more questions of staff if I could?
Sacchet: Sure.
Lillehaug: What is staff's comment on, we talked about it before this meeting about leaving that
existing walk in place? Would there be, is this something that we want to address at this time?
And repave and redo because I mean it's old and it's not in the best shape. I guess just a general
comment, you know is this something we want to look at now?
Sweidan: We can do that. Take a look at it to see what's the situation of it. To see if it does
need to be repaired or like reconstructed, why not. Yeah. But if it doesn't need to, so I think you
know it could be worth a look.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's it, thanks.
Sacchet: That's it? Alright. You're taking a deep breath Bruce, does that mean you want to start
with comments?
Feik: Sure, why not. I've never been shy before.
Sacchet: No, not really.
Feik: It's an improvement. I would like to see I guess, I guess I have to agree to disagree a little
bit but I guess we have to live with the bus traffic it looks like to get this project moving forward.
I'd like to see signage on the, you know no parking signage on the south side of the Frontier
Building on the east side of the cinema building, along the sidewalk. Basically all of the
frontages that the buses would potentially be going. I'd like to see that drop off area with signage
and striped intensively or something along those lines. I'd like to see the up lights removed from
the cinema portion, or any and all up lights. And I guess I'm going to just try keep my comments
specific you know to kind of where we're at and not regurgitate everything here.
Sacchet: That'd be nice.
Feik: Doing my best. And I guess I would really like to see them, I'd like to see item number 30
remain. I'd like the elimination of one of the monument signs so, I really don't think it's
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
necessary so I know the applicant spoke of that 2 weeks ago. That they would really appreciate
having one signages removed, or remain but I would prefer it removed. And that's pretty much
the extent of my comments.
Sacchet: That's about it?
Feik: Yes.
Sacchet: Bethany, do you want to jump in?
Tjornhom: I don't know ifI have much to say I guess. I liked the project last time like I said.
Sacchet: Still like it?
Tjornhom: I still like it. I still like it believe it or not. I'm not going to ask for anything to be
changed but I do think we should keep the up lights on the building. I just think the architecture
is a significant part of the building and why not show it off. It's not a residential space where it's
not going to bother any neighbors. It's just going to accent the whole facility and make it look I
guess complete maybe or you know, it's not going to look like the Las Vegas strip I don't think.
It's just going to accent the architecture. So that's my only comment.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Steve, want to give it a stab?
Lillehaug: I haven't commented on the bus traffic through the parking lot and I think I'm in
agreement with Bruce that it's not ideal and I think everyone knows that. I really think there's
feasible alternate solutions here. I think they can use a temporary access going straight to the east
there. It wouldn't be a high cost. It's not that much pavement that would have to be added. It
would be minimal grading. I don't see it as a significant cost. The other alternative I think that
was discussed previously is have them turn around right in the southeast corner rather than go
through the entire parking lot, and I know the applicant indicated that they would rather not dig
into that parking lot because it is configured to the permanent configuration right now, but I think
that that's another low cost alternative to having that bus traffic go through the parking lot. I
mean this isn't downtown Minneapolis where we see a lot of bus traffic, and the pedestrians
aren't going to be used to these buses. I guess it's something people are going to have to learn
but if you, pedestrians just, you know they're not accustomed to that at this point. In Chanhassen
so. I think it's a great site and a great plan and I think it's going to come together real good. I do
have a comment about the site plans that we're looking at. I've said this before with applicants.
It's not fair to other applicants that bring in complete site plan sets. These are really incomplete
in my mind, and I'm not sure if staff has a full site plan at this point. I know it's all conditioned
out here, but I think applicants, they owe city staff a complete site plan set so they can properly
prepare and not be doing this last second stuff and then we're not fully aware what's going on, so
! mean I really think that we need to be more adamant that we have a complete set of site plans. I
know it might bring on more cost to applicants, but it's going to avoid less confusion. I think it's
going to be clear to us in the long run so there's no any unexpected items that come up. So I just
wanted to voice my opinion on that. Previously we talked about concrete driveway entrances.
There's a condition in here where it hits on that. I think we need, condition number 19. I think
we could add the word new concrete driveway aprons so that that's clear. I think that is
something that we do need to include as a part of this project. They are pretty tore up. I know
there's a new reconstruction project going through there probably next summer but I think this is
something we can include in this project. Abandon utilities, I saw something on abandoned
utilities on the site. I think we need to add a condition and it should be standard city policy that
16
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
all utilities that are to be abandoned must be removed both private and public .... so I would like
to add a condition on that. And I think that is about it. I do have concerns with the traffic on
Highway 5 there. I know there's been a traffic study done. There's been a parking lot study
done. I guess I haven't seen it but I'm not convinced that this is going to be equal or less
intensive and that we're not going to lessen the level of services on some of those turning
movements say along Trunk Highway 5 there. I'm concerned about that.
Sacchet: That's it?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Kurt.
Papke: Quick comment on the Highway 5 access. I used to work for a company 10 years ago
that would hold corporate functions at Filly's with as many as 300 people coming from the
Crosby Office Park to Filly's and we were successful in moving that number of people in there
without any major issues. There's enough ways to get in and out of there that you can deal with
it. The only thing I'll add to what's already been said is, the plans I saw for even through Phase
III still have the legacy bus turn around shown in the plans, and I think at some point in time we
have to deal with that because it's going to be a reminder that we have a half baked mass transit
implementation here. So it's just a reminder there to anybody who drives by that we still have
this old, little turn around there that we haven't coped with and at some point in time we're going
to have to cope with that so that's all, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Rich. No comments? I really only have very few comments. I like the
project a lot. I share concern about the bus route. Most of it that it hasn't been studied when it
came in front of us previously. I think it's been looked at from several angles. At this point I
think it's an improvement having that drop off. Under this current circumstances I'm not sure, I
don't see a better possibility. I mean if there would be a better possibility, that'd be great but I
don't see it. And ultimately there's going to be a good solution once the ramp comes in and it's
going to be really an ideal solution, not just a better solution. And for the interim I think it's
acceptable this way. There's a few details as I expressed last time. I don't have an issue with the
additional monument sign. ! definitely do not like up lights. Not because of, I'm not concerned
this is going to look like Las Vegas but there is a policy that we have city wide that we do not
want up lights. There's a whole national organization called, what is it? Organization called in
favor of dark skies. Something like night skies so we can keep seeing the stars to some extent, so
and I support that so I think no up lights is a reasonable condition because it's a city wide rule. I
would like to suggest the applicant consider maybe putting a little bit of an accent on that west
wall of the cinema. Sounds good to have some trellises and all that, but to consider maybe a
combination with some mural or mosaic, something to give it a little extra accent point because I
think it was kind of a bland place. And it is fairly visible as you drive in. Right now it's
somewhat mitigated with landscaping but as I read this, this is mostly the city's street so at least
half of the year you're going to see that wall...as you drive in so have a combination with some
trellises, vines and maybe put an accent, a mosaic or something like that in there I think would be
a really good move. I think other than that, I don't really have any comments except I like it a lot.
With that, does anybody want to make a motion for this.
Feik: I'll make a motion.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Feik: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Market Street Station LLP for
the site plan review 03-9 with a variance for fenestration on the cinema and the pylon sign,
conditional use permit 2003-5 for more than one building on a lot and rezoning 03-03 from
general business to central business district as shown as the plans dated August 15, 2003, and
September, 2003 based on the findings of the staff report and subject to the following conditions,
1 through 38 as modified by staff. Previous to this meeting, with the following changes. Item 29
shall be replaced with all up lights shall be eliminated from the project. Number 39. No parking
signage shall be added to the south face or the south side of the Frontier building and the east side
of the Cinema building. Item 40. Drop off signage shall be added as well as striping indicating, I
guess just striping period. To the drop off area adjacent to the, what are we calling it? The
Frontier building.
Sacchet: Frontier building. Is that it?
Feik: That's it.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Papke: Second.
Slagle: Point of clarification. Are you sure you want to say all up lights?
Feik: Yes.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Another point of clarification. You did leave in 30.
Feik: 30 was?
Sacchet: The monument sign, removal of one.
Feik: I left in 30. So we remove one monument sign as I've proposed.
Sacchet: You would not consider a friendly amendment to take that out?
Feik: No, I would not.
Sacchet: Okay, that was my first question. The second question, would you consider a friendly
amendment?
Feik: Do we need to second it first?
Sacchet: Did we have a second?
Feik: Oh there was a second? I'm sorry.
Sacchet: I didn't pay attention but I thought we did. Another friendly amendment I'd like to
consider is there will be 41. Applicant will consider a combination of trellis vines and
murals/mosaic on the exposed cinder block wall west of the cinema. Something like that.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Feik: Certainly. That's reasonable.
Sacchet: That's acceptable?
Feik: Yeah.
Sacchet: Acceptance, okay. Appreciate that. Any other?
Lillehaug: Friendly amendments. Too, number 19. If we could add the word new.
Feik: Before I add that, are we talking about both entrances over onto Market Boulevard they
would need to reconstruct how much of those entrances?
Lillehaug: The concrete driveway entrances.
Feik: Which is typically how much? If mean you're the engineer here. How much of this are we
looking at?
Lillehaug: Everything that's shown in concrete there.
Sweidan: What do you mean how much?
Feik: I mean I guess how much, I guess that's an asphalt driveway isn't it? Okay, so it's just the
entry.
Aanenson: It's the apron.
Feik: Engineering, do you have any concerns regarding those?
Sweidan: The aprons, the north one and the south one, we looked at it and we discussed that no,
it's good looking to have add ones instead of the remaining one.
Feik: It's good looking?
Sweidan: Yeah, and they agreed on that that we must have a new aprons in there.
Feik: Okay.
Lillehaug: And then 42, remove all abandoned utilities.
Feik: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, is that it? We have a motion. We have a second. We have friendly amendments.
Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Market Street Station, LLP, for Site Plan Review//03-9 with a variance for fenestration on
the Cinema and the pylon sign, Conditional Use Permit W2003-5 for more than one building
on a lot, and Rezoning #03-03 from General Business to Central Business District as shown
on plans dated August 15, 2003, and September, 2003, based on the findings of the staff
report and subject to the following conditions:
19
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
o
°
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Deleted.
Submit storm sewer and drainage calculations for staff review before site plan approval.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Metropolitan Council's SAC fee
will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permits issuance. All of these charges
are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. The current
2003 sanitary hook up charge is $1,400 per unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876 per
unit, and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit.
On the grading plan:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
Add silt fence Type II around the construction limits.
Show rock construction entrance.
Deleted.
Show a bench mark (mean sea level datum).
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Show existing and proposed property lines.
Deleted.
Deleted.
Deleted.
Deleted.
On the utility plan:
a°
do
Deleted.
Show the location of the proposed water and sanitary services.
Show the existing sanitary and watermain in profile view within the construction
area.
Deleted.
Deleted.
Add the latest version of City of Chanhassen detail plates//1002, 1004, 1006, 2101, 3101,
3102, 5201, 5203, 5206, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300, and 5301.
Submit private easement for the shared storm sewer before building permit issuance.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. Submit haul route for city
approval prior to any hauling.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Construct public utility improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Submit detailed construction plans and specifications for the public utility improvements
and approved before final platting.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval in the amount of
100% of the public improvement cost estimate.
Before building permit issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must
be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed
District, MnDot, etc.
Deleted.
New concrete driveway apron, per City detail plate #5207 is required at all the access
points to the site.
Dedicate on the plat a 35 foot wide drainage utility easement over the public utility lines
located in the main drive aisle.
Deleted.
Deleted.
The applicant may choose from the plant schedule on the landscape plan dated August 15,
2003 only honey locust or red maple as the unifying tree along "main street". Staff
recommends that the applicant choose honey locust as it's unifying tree species.
The applicant shall install two more islands in the parking areas that contain 16 spaces
and 23 spaces that are directly south of the theater and new building.
The applicant shall increase landscape island width to a minimum of 10 feet or install
aeration tubing.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city approval.
Any existing tree shown on the plans will be required to be replaced if it dies,
Street furniture, including benches, planter and bike racks shall be added throughout the
development.
All up lights shall be eliminated from the project.
Removal of one of the monument signs for the bank building along Market Boulevard.
Deleted.
The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
33.
The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
34. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing
structures.
35. Provide an engineered utility plan for review.
36.
The location of property lines, existing and new, will have an impact on the code
requirements for the proposed buildings. The plans as submitted do not have the
information necessary to determine code requirements. Provide a preliminary site plan
indicating the proposed property line configuration so code ramifications can be
determined.
37.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
38.
Provide and construction waiting areas adjacent to the Frontier Building for drop off and
pick up as shown on the plans dated October 1, 2003.
39.
No parking signage shall be added to the south face or the south side of the Frontier
building and the east side of the Cinema building.
40.
Drop off signage shall be added as well as striping to the drop off area adjacent to the
Frontier building.
41.
Applicant will consider a combination of trellis vines and murals/mosaic on the
exposed cinder block wall west of the cinema.
42. Remove all abandoned utilities on the site.
All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Sacchet: Do you want to state why you're opposed?
Slagle: Up lights.
Sacchet: You don't like?
Slagle: I wouldn't have eliminated up lights...
Sacchet: Okay. In summary for council, we support this project. We think it's an excellent plan.
We have concerns about the bus circulation. We believe that this situation has been studied and
an equitable solution has been found for the time being, with eventually a real good solution as
chosen for phases. We have some disagreements among the Planning Commission as to whether
the additional second monument sign should be allowed or not. Some of us think it should be
allowed. We accepted however in the motion that it would not be allowed. We also had some
disagreements about the up lighting. Some of us think that it would be okay. Some of us think it
should not be there. I think that's it in summary about where we're at. Anything anybody want
to add to the summary? Okay.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I add one other thing? This does advance to the City Council next
Monday.
Sacchet: Goes to City Council next Monday, so this is going at a very fast pace so anybody
who's following this through, this is going to be before council next Monday, and I hope there
will be mosaic at that wall. With that, we move onto our next item on the agenda.
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS TO REPLAT 3.63 ACRES INTO 7
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD
AND POWERS BOULEVARD, BURLWOOD ADDITION, EPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Perry Ryan
Rich Rogatz
Russell Kohman
Michael Cuccia
Robert Martinka
Larry Kerber
David Smith
Excelsior
Minneapolis
6730 Powers Boulevard
6722 Powers Boulevard
6650 Powers Boulevard
6420 Powers Boulevard
6724 Powers Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Point of clarification Matt, since you're up there. Those two square bubbles next to
Powers. Where would those have access to?
Saam: Yeah, I believe they come out onto Powers right now. They'll remain just as is.
Sacchet: Okay, that will stay. Okay. So that will be then, those three in a line would all have
driveways onto Powers?
Saam: Say it again?
Sacchet: There'd be like those three houses...will have access to Powers.
Saam: Yep, that will all remain as it is now.
Sacchet: Keep going. Sorry for interrupting you guys.
Saam: That's all I had to add I guess.
Lillehaug: And then point of clarification. Is there a reason why, because of house configuration
that we'd want to maintain that driveway on the one furthest to the left? That house furthest to
the north. Why we wouldn't reconfigure that driveway going to the cul-de-sac.
Saam: Yeah, we don't. That's what we stated previously at the last meeting that it would have to
come out onto the cul-de-sac.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Lillehaug: So why are we reversing it then? Why is staff reversing it, your opinion on that?
Saam: We did some homework. Looked into the development contract for this subdivision,
which is called Golden Glow. It laid out a framework for how these houses will access once the
public street and cul-de-sac come in. It said that this house could remain coming out onto
Powers, and that's the way it is set up. This driveway right now, it accesses right onto Powers.
Lillehaug: So is that house part of the development agreement to the south though?
Saam: Yes. It was platted in the Golden Glow Acres subdivision.
Sacchet: And there was an agreement to that effect.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: That's what we're honoring.
AI-Jaff: And one last thing. What we're doing here is basically planning. This is not to say that
there are property owners that are interested in subdividing. Should they come in and wish to
subdivide, we're basically facilitating that application. We are recommending approval with
conditions and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Sacchet: Questions from staff.
Slagle: I've got a few.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Sharmeen, if you can put that map up again. You mentioned that sort of in the center of
this to the east of the proposed cul-de-sac, the public street. Those two lots on Powers go up a
little bit. Up. Over. You're going, go north. There you go, those two. You said that they have
the potential to sub-develop Subdivide, excuse me. Would that just be in essence another lot for
a total of 2?
A1-Jaff: Right now there is enough area within this parcel for.
Slagle: Four 4?
Al-Jaff: For 2.
Slagle: Two more new ones.
Al~Jaff: For 2 parcels, so there's an existing half. Draw a line here. Take out the garage, add
another house.
Slagle: And would those new parcels, would they access the new street or would they access
Powers?
AI-Jaff: No, they would have to access off of the street. The cul-de-sac.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Slagle: Okay. Next question.
Sacchet: May I just clarify something?
Slagle: Sure.
Sacchet: Did you say 2 lots or 3 lots?
Al-JaR Two.
Sacchet: You said 2. Just want to be clear. Okay. Okay, thank you. Go on Rich.
Slagle: The discussion that, along the lines of the staff recommending the extension into the
Golden Glow subdivision, was that discussed prior to the last meeting? In other words, where
there was discussion between the developer and some of the individual homeowners. If I'm not
mistaken we sort of talked about just the proposal he's recommending today. Was there
discussion of extending it southward before the last meeting? And do you have an opinion as to
consensus of?
A1-Jaff: It's been our recommendation from day one, when we met with the developer that this
entire cul-de-sac be built.
Slagle: Okay.
A1-Jaff: And first submittal that we received showed this. However we didn't have the right-of-
way.
Slagle: Gotch ya. And do, if I remember right, COITeCt me if I'm wrong. When you didn't have
the right-of-way, staff then in essence said okay. We'll recommend or we'll be okay with that
temporary cul-de-sac, as long as we can't get the right-of-way from a resident, is that a fair
statement ?
Al-Jaff: When we first looked at it, Matt do you want to?
Saam: Yeah, yeah. At the last meeting, yep that's basically where we're at the last time. We
were recommending.
Slagle: Okay. No other questions.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Kurt, you want to jump in?
Papke: Just a clarification, just to make sure I understand. Your recommendation number 40.
The entire public street and cul-de-sac must be installed with this project. That's what you're
referring to here with showing all the way out to the end there?
A1-Jaff: All the way out.
Papke: And are you, are you comfortable with this being an ambiguous enough here? The way
this is stated. I mean I could read this and say well, the entire public street and cul-de-sac, as I
presented it, I mean I just have a concern for the way this is stated here that it's open to
interpretation.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
A1-Jaff: Okay.
Papke: If you're comfortable with it, that's okay. I just wanted.
A1-Jaff: We can expand that condition to say into the Golden Glow Acres subdivision.
Papke: Okay. That's all I had, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bruce, do you want to take it from here?
Feik: Sure. I'm going to continue on our cul-de-sac here for just a moment. Currently there are
four residents that access a private road, that accesses to Powers. By extending this cul-de-sac to
the south it would, as you said, we would be facilitating the future development. Without this
additional cul-de-sac going to the south, or moving this cul-de-sac further south, the residents to
the south would not be able to subdivide their properties until such day as that cul-de-sac is put
in. Who is paying for this additional cul-de-sac to go to the south to benefit the property owners
to the south?
Al-Jaff: Matt, do you want to answer it?
Saam: Sure. We are recommending that it go in with this project so the developer would pay for
it at this time.
Feik: Would he be reimbursed?
Saam: Yes, he could be reimbursed. And there's a number of different scenarios that could
happen. One would be, and I talked to the City Attorney on this so I would make sure I get it
right. One would be we could do it as a public project, and that would mean the developer
wouldn't build the cul-de-sac. He would basically build the street up to his property line. Then
the City would, since we already have the right-of-way in the Golden Glow Acres subdivision,
we would do a public project there. Solicit bids. Assessment hearing. All that stuff. The other
option.
Feik: And the assessed properties would be the properties to the south that would benefit from
the new cul-de-sac?
Saam: Yeah, benefiting properties, yeah.
Slagle: Can I dovetail just a quick question?
Feik: Sure.
Slagle: Matt do you have any ballpark as to what it would cost? I mean give or take whatever
percentage but what's it cost to put in a cul-de-sac?
Saam: I haven't even looked at it Rich. I mean it totally depends on soils and you know the
utility lines. Perhaps the applicant or his engineer could speak to it if they ran the numbers but.
Getting back, the other option, and the cheaper, faster, quicker option would be for the cul-de-sac
to be installed with this development. The developer can get his own bids, that sort of thing.
Doesn't have to public bid. Usually gets better prices. And then the city could reimburse them
26
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
for the portion that really he doesn't benefit from. Then it would be up to us to go to the property
owners. Try to negotiate agreements to pay for their benefit. If negotiations would fail, then we
could do it through an assessment. You know legal proceeding, that sort of thing.
Feik: I'm just basically what I hear is the property owners to the south are call it land locked
because you can only have four drives or four dwellings accessing a private drive. We're asking
this developer to spend a fair amount of money to give them access for a benefit that it sounds
like one of the property owners doesn't even want yet potentially. And others might, maybe not.
Seam: Yeah, again. Remember we're trying to follow the plan that was set in place with the
Golden Glow Acres subdivision. That DC says, the development contract excuse me, says that
when the Kerber property develops, basically this street and cul-de-sac will be put in. So if it's
going in with that development it just makes sense that that developer foot the bill, at least to get
it in and then we look at reimbursements after.
Feik: Okay.
A1-Jaff: If I may add. One of the things that we're trying to accomplish by eliminating this
private street is a safety issue.
Feik: But we're not eliminating the driveway. The driveway stays where it's at so the number of
access to Powers is the same. The difference is the number of vehicles coming in and out of that
driveway.
Al-Jeff: That's correct.
Slagle: Wait, say that again.
Feik: The access remains so we have the same number of accesses.
Slagle: Golden Glow...
Sacchet: So can we clarify, I mean instead of what, 4 or 5 buildings going out that driveway onto
Powers it's going to be one building.
Al-Jeff: One, two, three.
Sacchet: Three will not go out.
Al-Jeff: No.
Sacchet: Instead of four it's going to be one.
Feik: But three homes don't generate much traffic, is what I'm saying. But anyway, okay I'll
move on because...
Sacchet: Yeah, move on.
Feik: And then there's something else new in this application which I noticed. An underground
retention system.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Saam: Yep.
Feik: Help me.
Saam: Yeah. I'll admit I'm not an expert on them. I took a couple of classes and maybe the
applicant's engineer can add something but basically what they are is an underground pond in a
big pipe. Because the applicant and this is a perfect case. He doesn't have room to put a pond at
this end. We have a drainage divide.
Feik: ! can't see with your hand which end is which end and.
Saam: We have a drainage divide on the site basically from about here on, all this drainage goes
this way, and then all this drainage goes to the south. From the south part of the site he really
doesn't have room to put a pond with the streets and the lots here and the other existing homes.
So his only solution, or one of the only solutions to meet our water quality standards is to
basically put a pond underground in a piping system where it's stored and released over time.
That's basically what it is.
Feik: Is that like a giant French drain system?
Saam: Maybe. They're using them, they put in, I don't know if you saw one that was going on
the Cub at Highway 7 and 41. They're putting these big pipes, I mean we're talking like 5 foot
diameter corrugated metal pipes underground, and then there's a manhole called a stormceptor
manhole which basically filters the water. To meet our water quality standards. Separates.
Takes grit out. That sort of thing.
Lillehaug: Controls the rate.
Saam: Yeah, well yeah. Underground piping really does that also.
Feik: And then just one last question. There is an existing gravel driveway which goes through
Lot 1, Block 2. That is the condition where it says I believe that should be maintained until the
construction is completed. If I'm not mistaken. Has that been ultimately going to be removed?
Saam: Yes, I believe what you're speaking of is this existing gravel drive right here?
Feik: Yes.
Saam: Yep. That one will ultimately be removed. The only reason we're saying to maintain it is
because other properties outside of this one access through that.
Feik: So that is the item number 33 in the conditions? It says existing gravel drive to the
neighboring parcels shall be maintained until the new street is needed.
Saam: Correct. Correct.
Feik: Okay, so that is referencing that drive?
Saam: Yes, correct.
Feik: That's it for my questions, thank you.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany.
Tjornhom: Well I was going to hit on the underground retention system also. Wondering if it
was the city's suggestion or the developer's suggestion. It seems like it was the developer's. Is
that correct?
Saam: Yeah, I believe it was.
Tjornhom: Okay, I was just wondering if it was an additional expense for them to put in
something they didn't want to put in or.
Saam: No, yeah.
Tjornhom: ...and then who's responsible and that whole thing.
Saam: Sure, the developer's engineer I believe is the one that came up with it first so.
Tjornhom: Okay. And I'm going to, the whole cul-de-sac thing, you know I hate to, people
have properties and they have their own driveways and they own their lights. I want to hear what
they have to say I guess about their potentially having to write a check for something they don't
want or. Anyway, I'm just going to sit back and listen to what they have to say about that.
Sacchet: Good point Bethany. Steve.
Lillehaug: Yep, I have a couple questions. Condition number 15. Temporary easement is needed
for the portion of the cul-de-sac that is outside of the proposed right-of-way. Would that be that
little triangular portion on the west side of the cul-de-sac there?
Saam: No, it's the portion on the east side of the cul-de-sac. This is referencing if you would
choose to approve it the way the applicant has proposed with a temporary cul-de-sac. You'll see,
if you look.
Sacchet: The bubble goes over.
Saam: Yeah, exactly. The bubble is outside of the right-of-way. So we're saying.
Lillehaug: So then we can't have both 15 and 14, or 40. We can't have both 15 and 40.
Saam: Correct, yep. Yes, that'd be correct.
Lillehaug: So with 40 there is that sliver of right-of-way that isn't there on the west, right to the
north of the cul-de-sac. How do we handle that?
Saam: Yeah, maybe we didn't explain that good enough. Staff has learned that the applicant has
met with the neighbor to the west and has obtained an agreement, either in writing or at least
verbally, that that piece of right-of-way will be dedicated. So that's why we're saying we'll then
have the complete right-of-way to build a public street. Let's put it in.
Lillehaug: So there is storm sewer. So there's an elevation divide there. We simply cannot get
the water up to that proposed pond up on the north because of elevations.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Saam: No, correct.
Lillehaug: Can't dig the pond deep enough?
Saam: Correct. And the other thing we looked at is under existing conditions, the water on the
south half of the site goes to the south. The water on the north half goes to the north and west.
Usually we don't like to move it under proposed conditions and dump water somewhere where it
didn't go previously. It's just a good rule to follow.
Lillehaug: I guess I'm like you, I'm not fully educated on the underground retention system, but
before approving it I really think we should be. I have a couple concerns. One is, it's used
around. I mean they've been in use for 10 or 15 years but is the applicant's engineer here?
Saam: Yeah, I believe so.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'll just save the question for him. My concern is with, kind of a rodents. Do
we have a rodents problem in them?
Saam: We're still collecting information. That's a good question. I don't know.
Lillehaug: And then wetland replacement, which is separate from this underground retention
system. I really think that should be designated now. Is there a viable location for this, or am I
reading something out of the report here? Am I missing something?
Al-Jaff: ...located off site.
Lillehaug: Okay, so there is wetland replacement that will be required?
Al-Jarl: That's correct.
Lillehaug: So there is a plan that is feasible to do with.
AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. And staff is comfortable with?
A1-Jaff: Lori, yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. The plans show that the grading plan I think is supposed to also be an erosion
control plan but I don't see any erosion control on there. That's not a question, sorry. That ends
my questions.
Sacchet: Okay. I don't have too many questions, but I do have some though. I'm really curious
to hear from the residents and the applicant a little more about this cul-de-sac picture. If, in
staff's opinion the proposal the applicant made with that temporary cul-de-sac, who would drive
back into that cul-de-sac? Is there, do we know?
Saam: I didn't understand the question.
Sacchet: The way the applicant proposed currently with that temporary cul-de-sac basically at the
property line to the south, what's the point of going down there because all the houses that access
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
it access it at the curve to the north where it makes that L shape and goes into Powers. Is there
anybody accessing? Is there anybody driving down there?
A1-Jaff: So we're back to the original plan.
Sacchet: With what they're proposing. ! mean it's going to be an applicant question but I'm just
curious whether staff has an idea.
Saam: I'm failing to understand the question Commissioner Sacchet.
Sacchet: Alright. You see the temporary cul-de-sac.
Saam: Yeah, right here.
Sacchet: Okay, now drive towards Powers. Stop. Go back into the L. Into the curve. Curve.
Nobody has a driveway accessing further back than there.
Saam: Yeah, there's a home here.
Sacchet: Right.
Saam: That will come.
Sacchet: And they're limiting...and the curve is even accessing further ahead. So why would we
want to drive south there?
Saam: So your question is why would we want to put this cul-de-sac all the way in?
Sacchet: Yeah, what's the point in cutting those trees?
Saam: Because in the future this cul-de-sac's going to go in so these properties have the option to
develop, because right now there's 4 houses accessing off that private street.
Sacchet: I understand that part.
Saam: Nobody else can come off that.
Sacchet: I'm very clear but at this point with this temporary cul-de-sac, none of these properties
to the south would actually access the temporary cul-de-sac.
Saam: Correct. Yeah, they continue to come out this way.
Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question thank you. Then trees. Trees. I have a hard time
understanding that when this came in front of us last time we had proposed tree preservation of 5
percent.
Aanenson: Can I just go back to your other question?
Sacchet: Yes, please.
Aanenson: I want to make sure everybody understands this.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: Yeah, this is definitely an issue.
Aanenson: When you look at if you stop it here we end up with the same situation we have here,
because if he doesn't build this, then we don't have right-of-way...and we're back to the same
scenario we have over here, which wasn't what staff didn't recommend. Now we have two
places that there's a gap. Either we take escrow and hold it, 10-15 years or get the street now and
what we've learned is to do it now when you've got that developer.
Sacchet: Right.
Aanenson: Or our original recommendation is to only do this part of it and wait until all the
parties are ready to go.
Sacchet: Yeah understand, that's why staff's position is to not just do the temporary cul-de-sac
but the real cul-de-sac.
Aanenson: Right. Or to take it to the end of the property because you've got the developer here
to build to that property. Otherwise you end up with the same situation here with not a completed
street.
Sacchet: So that would be a reason why to build it down there even if nobody's going to drive
down there?
Aanenson: Right...I just want to make sure we're clear on that.
Sacchet: Yeah, that helps.
Saam: You realize Chairman Sacchet that if this full cul-de-sac is built, this house will access off
it.
Sacchet: Yeah, I understand what's happening.
Saam: Then these two will come off the private street and then get onto the public.
Sacchet: Yeah, I understand. I'm very clear about that. And I'd like to hear the applicant's story
about that too.
Rich Ragatz: Yeah, I can clarify.
Sacchet: Yeah, you'll be up in a minute.
Rich Ragatz: Oh okay.
Sacchet: Let's finish the staff questions first before we get to you. It's not going to take much
more. Tree preservation, we'll come back to that point. It says, the way I read it, 2-3 weeks ago
it said 5 percent is going to be preserved. Now they're putting this additional whole street, will
cut a ton of more trees and we say we're preserving 15 percent. I don't understand how we figure
that the preserve goes up rather than down. Seems backwards.
AI-Jaff: The total number.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: You have a baseline. Actually I do have the other report from last time. Maybe I can
help you verify this. Because what I see struck through as 5, oh it was struck through last time
too.
A1-Jaff: It was struck through last time.
Sacchet: So why would it still be 15 percent when we're cutting a whole other street into it?
A1-Jaff: We did not include the portion that had the right-of-way. They had shown that area as
an outlot if you recall.
Sacchet:
question.
graded.
So we already took those trees out in the calculations last time? Okay, that answers my
Thank you very much. Now related point. At this point those lots are not custom
Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay, but that could possibly help with the tree preservation if they custom grade,
right?
AI-Jaff: That's one of the things that the applicant...
Sacchet: That's a possibility. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you very much. Rich, you
have another question?
Slagle: Yeah, one more I think. Just so I'm clear on this, as best I can on this background. The
City Council in the mid 90's, against staffs recommendation, agreed to the Golden Glow
subdivision. Allowed a private drive, street. And as part of that agreement put conditions on the
land to the north, if you will, that if it ever developed here's what needs to happen. Okay. Now,
sounds like there was in that, and I've never seen the papers on Golden Glow but is it correct to
say that when and if that street would be sent to the south, that they would be assessed for the cul-
de-sac.
Al-Jaff: The way it read was the existing Ravis home is exempt from assessment for the building
of the street.
Slagle: Okay, so just one parcel.
Saam: Yep, only one of them was exempt. All the other ones that were platted were left up to be
assessed if they received a benefit.
Slagle: Okay. The reason I'm asking to fellow commissioners is because we are sort of being
told you have to work with this plan, because I'll be honest with you, this plan if presented on it's
onset right now wouldn't fly. So what I'm trying to say is, I'm going to listen with an open mind
and give the objective to the plan, but I also realizing too that we need to be helping folks if we
can on this, okay. Just want to make sure.
Sacchet: We'll get to comments. You get a chance to express all these things. If we're done
with questions of staff I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward. See what you want to add to
this picture and I'm sure we have a few questions for you too.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Lillehaug: One quick question for staff. Final platting.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Is there preliminary or final plat with this or am I just missing something?
Saam: Preliminary plat.
Lillehaug: This is a preliminary plat. What am I missing? I need to gather my thoughts. Go on.
Sacchet: Alright. No questions?
Lillehaug: No.
Sacchet: Alright, that was an easy one to answer. Go ahead please. Do you want to give your
name and address.
Rich Ragatz: Rich Ragatz, Epic Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota. First of all I wanted to
clarify over here. If you stop the cul-de-sac short here, it would not allow this property,
Martinka's property to subdivide. That's why it needs to be extended.
Sacchet: Or for that matter the big lot on the other side too, right?
Rich Ragatz: Yes, correct.
Sacchet: Okay.
Rich Ragatz: Okay.
Sacchet: May I just clarify? Are there plans for those to subdivide at this point?
Rich Ragatz: Right here?
Sacchet: Either of the two.
Rich Ragatz: I can't speak for Martinka but yes, this area right here I would like to subdivide and
we actually came forward a while back a couple times ago and we decided not to go with the plan
because we didn't have the required agreements with the adjacent owners. But I'd like to ask you
now if we could maybe put forth a plan that talks about this area in conjunction. Otherwise we'll
be back here in about a month with another plan for that area.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm afraid you will have to come back with that.
Rich Ragatz: You know and it will just save everybody, what's that?
Sacchet: I'm afraid you would have to come back.
Rich Ragatz: Okay. I was just thinking it'd save everybody a lot of time.
Sacchet: I wish we could be that flexible but.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Rich Ragatz: Okay.
Slagle: Well point of clarification. It sounds like he's asking to come back with a fuller proposal.
Sacchet: No, I understand you'd like just right now to tell us it's going to be two lots and have
that done, is that?
Rich Ragatz: Yeah, well looking at the time of year I'd like to try and get into the ground with at
least one model home and if I were to table it, you know it's probably a next year deal so that's
where my thoughts are. Move forward with...
Sacchet: So you want to move forward with what we have.
Rich Ragatz: And I'll come back you know.
Sacchet: Okay, please go ahead.
Rich Ragatz: Okay. Well I guess it kind of brings me to this area over here, the southern part of
the site that this all kind of comes together. We've had a lot of meetings with the Christensen and
Martinka to work out the relinquishing of the easement. Taking the access away from Powers
and onto the public street. Also getting the right-of-way to bring the cul-de-sac all the way
through. And based on that, I would like to try, well I don't know if I should talk about it now or
when I come back but what I'm proposing to do is build the whole road all the way through and
we have an issue here with the property owner south of the parcel. Who benefits and who pays?
You know there's, if this is subdivided right here in 2 or 3 lots, you have 2 potential lots here.
Two potential lots here. Three here and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So if I get 2 lots, I have 4 lots that benefit.
If I get 3 lots here, I get 5 that benefit. Say there's 5 lots total. I'd be 36 percent of the benefit of
having that road in there and I'd be paying for all of it. I don't see, I don't think that's fair so.
Sacchet: Could I just jump in and maybe ask staff to clarify how that's being handled in other
places, because I'm sure we've run into this type of situation before in the city where a developer
comes in, builds a road and then at some unspecified future date, maybe bigger number of lots
benefit from what the builder did. How do we deal with that?
Saam: Yeah, it's what I referred to earlier. Commissioner Feik's question on how we pay for
that bubble. What we would like to see happen is the developer front the money to build it now
and then the city reimburse him through assessment process or negotiated agreements with the
benefiting property owners.
Sacchet: Now you're talking about the cul-de-sac. He's actually talking about the road just
going to the south property line.
Rich Ragatz: No, the road and the cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: Both together, okay.
Saam: He's willing to build the entire thing.
Sacchet: So you're talking about the cul-de-sac and the road combined?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Rich Ragatz: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, just want to be clear.
Rich Ragatz: Yeah and I guess what I, I wish I could have the whole plan in front of you so we
could talk about this but what I'm proposing here is, I'm trying to solve a problem that's been a
problem since 1995 on who benefits and who pays, and really if you look at it, it hinders the
Kerber site because I have to bring in a road that ends up the lots on this southern part here. This
lot has triple frontage here, here and here. These two lots would have double frontage, and I have
to extend it out beyond that and it doesn't really do me any good. It just you know, it helps the
neighborhood to the south. So what I'm here to talk about is, I'm willing to go ahead. Put the
whole thing in and I'd be willing to pay for the whole cost of the road and the cul-de-sac so that
these people south of the Kerber parcel and Martinka parcel aren't on the hook for this because I
know that they'd fight to the bitter end not to pay for this. They don't really benefit. It's just a
problem that came about since the 1995 discussions. But as part of that I'd like to be able to get a
lot variance when I come back to you in a month on the southern parcel. Instead of getting 2 lots,
get 3 lots. That will help defray the increased infrastructure cost.
Sacchet: That's creative.
Rich Ragatz: Well there's some other reasons that I'll go through why that should happen. I've
also moved the street onto, entirely onto Kerber's parcel. My parcel that I'm developing, which
will help save some of the mature trees on the western part of the site we hope. And if the street
was moved over and shared equitably between the benefiting parties, we'd actually end up with
conforming lots. And if we have, end up with 3 lots on the southern part of the site, the homes
that would be built on there would easily fit. All the lots would be at least 90 feet minimum.
Sacchet: How many square feet would those lots be, just for curiosity?
Rich Ragatz: I have a plan here that I can show you.
Sacchet: Not that it's in front of us but you peaked my curiosity. I like creativity. 13,000 a lot?
Okay, thanks.
Rich Ragatz: All of them are a little over like 13,800 approximately so.
Sacchet: Please continue. We don't want to derail here.
Rich Ragatz: Okay. And I think that I'm meeting the spirit of the zoning code by doing this. All
the lots, if I do get 9 lots would average 16,584 square feet. And this also is exactly the Option E
that was adopted back in 1995 showing 9 lots. And I do plan on custom grading the site so that
we can save more trees. And that's all I have currently, but I hope that when I come back in a
month that you'll work with me on it.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Any questions from the applicant? Bruce.
Feik: Would you just repeat what you had mentioned? You would be willing to, let me repeat
what I heard and you can tell me if I'm wrong I guess would be a better way. At this point you
would be willing to absorb all the costs associated with extending the road south to what was
originally going to be the Golden Glow Court cul-de-sac. Including the cul-de-sac, at your
36
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
expense. No expense to the neighbors to the south, either now or in the future. That's what I
heard.
Rich Ragatz: That's what you heard and I'm just asking for a break when it comes to asking for 3
lots that don't conform but are pretty close to having the 15,000.
Feik: I just want to make sure I heard you correctly.
Rich Ragatz: Yeah. I'm willing to do that. I hope you're willing to work with me in the future.
Slagle: Let me ask, if I may a question because it gets back to my original question of trying to
understand with this potential next step. If you would not be perhaps more protected if this was
tabled or wrapped with your new step. What I'm getting at is we're hearing some verbal
commitment. I don't know if there's a written agreement between yourselves and the
landowners. I would be hesitant to be voting on things based upon things I'm hearing versus
getting it all in writing to protect yourself and also to protect the land owners to the south. So I
just throw that out as a thought.
Rich Ragatz: It is in writing.
Aanenson: Can I just comment on that. You do not have the subdivision in front of you tonight.
You can't bind a decision based on something you don't have, there's no negotiation which goes
directly to your point. You'd have to have that in front of you to negotiate that.
Slagle: But I'm not, and I'm not saying that.
Aanenson: I'm just saying to be able to bind it to a future decision.
Slagle: Correct, exactly.
Aanenson: I mean if it was all in front of you and you wanted to make that recommendation to
City Council, but we think it makes sense to give small lots if he's willing to do this, we would
recommend that the City Council endorse that and that be structured in an agreement because
those 3 lots are not a part of this application.
Rich Ragatz: Well I understand that but 1 want to get this out in the public because you know,
unfortunately I only can come forward with the 7 lots currently so if I come back then I want you
to know that I'm willing to go this extra step, you know.
Slagle: And I think that's admirable and I appreciate it. I just want to make sure you understand
that if I say to myself okay, he has committed and ! don't know if it's in writing. Committed to
the landowners of the south that you'll incur the cost of extending the road, to me that' s what I' m
voting on tonight and in a month or two months or three months, something comes to me, it
might not pass and I'm just saying that might happen.
Rich Ragatz: Yeah, I understand that but I think when they come up and talk to you, the only
group that really wants this cul-de-sac to go all the way through is the city. The neighbors don't
want it but it was kind of created in 1995 and so we're dealing with that.
Sacchet: I'm sure we'll hear from them.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Rich Ragatz: Yeah, okay.
Sacchet: Okay, any other questions?
Lillehaug: Any comments to rodents?
Rich Ragatz: I'm not aware of any problems. Perry could comment on that but they're used a lot
and they're actually used pretty significantly down in Bloomington.
Lillehaug: In residential neighborhoods? I know they're used on commercial sites with a lot
more intensive storm sewer runoff.
Rich Ragatz: I don't know, I can't comment. Maybe Perry can.
Lillehaug: And if you have anything to add.
Sacchet: Underground pond sounds pretty intriguing.
Perry Ryan: Perry Ryan with Ryan Engineering. Address is Excelsior. We have used them a lot,
more so in commercial applications. A lot of McDonald sites that we've used them on. You
have no different problems with rodents than you would have on a standard catch basin. You've
got standard catch basins going into, it doesn't matter if it's a 12 inch pipe or an 8 inch pipe, you
still have storm sewers throughout the city and the residential areas that are that exact same size
SO.
Lillehaug: Is there more stagnant water though sitting in.
Perry Ryan: No real difference between this pipe system and a standard storm sewer.
Sacchet: How does it work, can you give us a little bit of an idea. Like in a minute or two. Not a
dissertation about it please but.
Perry Ryan: Well it's the same concept that you've got, if you understand how a pond works and
that you've got a certain amount of storage which is called dead storage, which is always there
which the sediments come out. But with this pipe system is really the live storage and so what it
does is you've got the rush of rain water coming in, and it holds that rain water and it only lets it
exit at a certain rate. Well if you're exiting at a lower rate than what it's coming in at, you're
gaining volume and so this pipe network really holds that volume.
Sacchet: What happens when it fills up?
Perry Ryan: Well it's designed the same way that pond is so the answer to that is the same
answer as what happens when a pond fills up. 100 year storm it overflows or there's those things.
We did propose this just to clarify, we did propose to put this system in. We really did it because
it's the only resort we have to accommodate that option E plan. There was really no room left.
The topography doesn't allow for a standard pond. We really think that the drainage really
doesn't warrant it to be honest, but we're trying to accommodate something.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Lillehaug: I guess I'd be more comfortable if we had a residential example so.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Perry Ryan: Rich did mention one. We did one, same watershed district. Bob Obermeyer with
Barr Engineering approved one in, the development's called Lee Woods in Bloomington. It's on
Lee Road just south of 494. It's a 5 lot development. Very similar.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? And you mentioned that you would do custom
grade lots, all the lots.
Rich Ragatz: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all the questions we have for you. Now we did have a public
hearing about this last time, so technically this is not a public hearing but I know we'd like to hear
from the residents and I have the sense that some of you would really like to say something. So
this is your chance. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us
know what you have to say. Maybe try to keep yourself within reasonable length but we
definitely want to hear from you. And please talk into the microphone if I may ask.
Russ Kohman: I'll cut it short if I can. You've got this.
Sacchet: And the name and address.
Russ Kohman: Russ Kohman. I've got the first lot here. And if you look at this one here, this
one here comes up more here with the road. And Infanger, his lot is more or less landlocked. He
cannot divide...for him to get into his lot because the house sits right on the lot line. His
driveway drives right up into his garage right off my watermain. Right in back and I'm not
planning on selling my back lot.
Sacchet: Not at this time obviously, yeah.
Russ Kohman: Well, as far as I know.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much for your comments. Anybody else want to come forward?
Mike Cuccia: Forgive my nervousness. I'm not used to talking in front of people...
Sacchet: That's alright. Your name and address. We don't bite.
Mike Cuccia: Mike Cuccia. If you could show this on here again. This little square represents
my home. And so I'm here today and so is Dave and Julia Smith, lives in this home here. These
3 folks and Russ here. None of us need, want the circle to go in. We have, the city has stated that
we benefit from a circle going in front of these homes, and I don't see the benefit. We have a
perfectly good road. We paid for it when we moved in. It's got a perfect safety rating. And it's
quiet back there. We like it obviously. In their research they didn't take into account that since
1995 a bunch of us have now moved in and now we should have some say in what happens with
this particular little plot of land.
Sacchet: So just to clarify. You're saying that you moved in after that '95 timeframe? Okay,
just to clarify.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Mike Cuccia: In '99.
Sacchet: Okay. And were you aware of that cul-de-sac dedication or?
Mike Cuccia: We were told that someday they may consider putting a cul-de-sac in. We were
never told that we were up to be assessed.
Sacchet: Yeah, nobody likes to be assessed but you were aware that there was a, basically a plan
in place or.
Mike Cuccia: Yep. We knew that that could be a proposal, but never a done deal.
Sacchet: Okay, alright. Keep going.
Mike Cuccia: And actually if you look at the plan itself too, again who really does benefit from
this circle? Certainly we don't. We have a road. These folks, same thing. They have a road in
and out there. One thing that we were concerned about is with putting a circle in and removing
this road. Now there could be a build-up of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 homes all letting out on Powers
Boulevard right here. l don't know about you but when I want to go to work in the morning, !
don't want to wait behind 6 other cars to get onto busy Powers Boulevard. So I just don't see the,
another point here is, Russ here is not interested in subdividing and he would have to in order for
the Infanger property here to do that and access this circle. There's really no need for this. At the
same time, Mr. Ragatz is kind enough to consider us in his proposal. He has asked that he be
allowed to subdivide these into 3 lots rather than 2, and that's fine if he'd like to do that and I
think that's a pretty reasonable effort on his part to do the funding for that circle rather than
deciding to assess these homeowners for something that we don't want.
Sacchet: So to clarify, if you wouldn't be assessed you wouldn't have a resistance towards that?
I mean did you see an advantage of going out of a road instead of a private road.
Mike Cuccia: I would not prefer it. I'm the only home that looks out onto this circle from their
picture window. I would prefer to look at the trees.
Sacchet: Yeah, I would too.
Mike Cuccia: ...the deer when they trot through but yeah. Still in reasonably, I know that life
goes on. Someday Russ may decide to move on, whatever. I would say now would be the best
time to allow Mr. Ragatz what he wants by the funding of that circle rather than assess people
who do not want the thing to begin with, and would not benefit from it. Actually from the
original in '95 proposal, they say...our property value actually could be lowered by 20 percent
just by putting a circle in front of my home. So not only would I be getting assessed for the
circle...we're getting double dinged.
Sacchet: Appreciate your point.
Lillehaug: Can I ask you a question quick like, just so I'm clear on your position is you support
the applicant in fully constructing that cul-de-sac.
Mike Cuccia: I'm okay with that. I would not prefer it because I obviously enjoy the quiet back
there but to keep the city from moving in later and deciding to assess us, yes I'm willing to give.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: That'd be worst. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come
forward to address this item in front of us? Hopefully shed some light on some additional aspects
here. Please state your name and address for the record.
Bob Martinka: Bob Martinka, 6650 Powers. Thank you for the opportunity, especially since this
is not a hearing and I'll try to respect that by being brief. But at the same time I do please ask you
to hear me out. I would wish actually to convey support for the 8 lot proposal as shown, with or
without the cul-de-sac, and I'd like to explain what I mean by with or without it. The September
26th meeting the Planning Commission kind of sent the developer back to the drawing board.
Said hey, we don't like what we see. Meet with the folks who border the area and see what you
can come back with. We met 3 times. We came up with a 7 point agreement. Last night, or
rather yesterday afternoon I was hand delivered 2 additional points to that agreement which ! was
able to place in the hands of our neighbors affected by it. It was about 9:00 last night. One of the
reasons I was late was there was a small medical emergency that I needed to attend to. I need to
point out what I really feel is an error that's been reported and repeated this evening. The
agreement was developed as an integral whole to be accepted or rejected in it's entirety. Of
course we're open to reasonable discussions about any one of the items. But that's how it was
presented. And there was, you know indeed on page 10 of the report you have in front of you, the
statement since the applicant has signed an agreement with adjacent land owners to dedicate the
right-of-way, there's no reason that the full street should not be built in the I believe September
27th document. Well, let me clarify that. It's true that Christensen and Martinka offered to give
up their easements as we had in earlier plans submitted back quite a ways. Don't know if you
ever saw those. We agreed on a plan that would develop the entire area, and we agreed to the
construction of the cul-de-sac. If and when at such a time there was a petition by Kohman and
Infanger to subdivide their property and in the developer's words here, with the extension,
connection and development being spurred by such subdivision of those land owners. That
provision was we felt in the spirit of the 1995 language and the provisions for the Golden Glow
Acres. So there was not a blank check of access. It was part of a larger agreement with a bunch
of other stuff in there that I won't you know talk about now. One of the key factors all along has
been my property lines. Respect for my property lines. You know the first plan included an
encroachment of 210 feet by 6.5 feet on the east, nearly 1,500 feet and a triangle 25 feet on one
end and so on. Well, Mr. Ragatz, the developer has made a strong initiatives to attempt to
address that and to pull that back and he has done so in the plan that we've presented to you this
evening, which has our support. It still requires 364 feet of my property, a triangle and I'm kind
of in the middle of all this. But we're willing to go along with that again if and when at such a
time there was a petition to subdivide. Last night we received an amendment, modification, and
addition to the 7 point agreement. And it reflected a statement on page 6 I believe of the report
you have in front of you and this is what brings me to the point of with or without the cul-de-sac.
Because that item provides basically that develop the whole thing now or else you're limited to a
4 lot proposal. Well, that's a tough spot to be in. It's kind of like you know the holding hostage
bit and ! don't mean to make that in an accusatory sense but more of a descriptive one. And I
found myself in a very, very tight spot because that would remove, prohibit the opportunity for a
Bob Christensen, my neighbor to the north, to subdivide, which he really wants to do, and he's as
good a neighbor as you could want to have, and there's no way I can carry that burden of being
the sole factor that prohibits him from carrying out his plan, which he's ready to do as soon as
possible. Because it applies equally to the owner or the future owner of our properties, and we
have no plan but we sure would like the ability. Okay. Last night the addition was, you know
either, we were reminded either develop at all or 4 lots, so that was never the developer's
proposal I don't believe. What you are presented with tonight was our best collective long
suffering response to your request to come back, but last night the, he said hey Bob. I'm willing
to pay and remove that burden from 3 or 4 folks to the south. Wow, well I was, and it's all my
41
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
decision. Because l've got the land they need to get across so I consulted with each of them and
they said do your own thing. So I'm caught between these guys maybe getting it paid for now,
and not getting it paid for 3, 4, 5, 10 years from now, or the neighbor in front Bob Christensen not
being able to develop to the north. So what do I do? I agreed. I agreed.
Slagle: In writing?
Bob Martinka: Yes. I agreed to that.
Sacchet: Can you specify what you agreed to?
Bob Martinka: I'm sorry?
Sacchet: You agreed to the whole thing going in, is that what you're saying?
Bob Martinka: I agreed to the whole thing going in, with access to 364 feet on my property.
Sacchet: That's that triangle.
Bob Martinka: That's that triangle. That's a reduced triangle. It started out as 25 foot on one
end and so on.
Sacchet: Yeah, we heard that.
Bob Martinka: Mr. Ragatz, in working with the city triggered by the road being narrowed by 2 or
3 feet which has a cumulative effect to squeeze this thing together. However his proposal, which
was not part of our agreement, we are in agreement now and I believe that the proposal tonight
meets all or most of 100 percent of the conditions, 50 or so set down in the report as a condition
for that approval, which staff has recommended. The expansion of the 2 lots to 3 lots, which Mr.
Ragatz and I discussed just, well it was laid on me a few hours ago... It could be done only if it
reverts back to July 7th, encroachment on my property. The same 210 strip, 6 ¥2 feet wide over
here. Now I realize that there are, the argument can be made, the presentation can be made that,
yes sir.
Slagle: Go back and do that again. I didn't understand that last point.
Bob Martinka: You can get from 2 lots to 3 lots only by...
Sacchet: Pulling it back further...
Bob Martinka: So I was working to move the line this way, and they did it.
Sacchet: Without a variance though. Because they're asking for a potential variance. When they
go into the 3 lots. They would have to...
Bob Martinka: Unless you give them a variance, leave the roads where they are and give them a
variance for being a few feet short.
Sacchet: Yeah, and I think that's their intent.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Bob Martinka: Yeah, and I think it was also part of 1995's schematic by the way, the way I read
it.
Sacchet: Well if I may ask you sir not to get lost in the, in the history and all and also I mean
really the agreement's between you guys is between you. That's not for us to get.
Bob Martinka: Except it's a moving target and it keeps changing. I want to make sure we're all
talking about the same thing.
Sacchet: Well basically what we're talking about is the proposal in front of us. Okay. Basically
staff studied the situation and expressed, and that's what we're taking comments to, so if I could
ask you to limit your comments to that specific.
Aanenson: I was just going to clarify.
Bob Martinka: Okay but let me close.
Aanenson: Let me just add one, the bottom line is, whatever their agreements, before the lending
gets signed, he's an interested party. He has to agree to that. If it doesn't, that part of the plat
dies so I mean the check and balances, he has the right to sign off. He has to sign off as an
interested party on the plat. So if it doesn't match what their agreement is, that's when it gets
resolved.
Sacchet: Yes.
Bob Martinka: We're trying to be positive, to be open, to be reasonable and constructive and
we're willing to sit down and talk about anything. The business of returning to square one, which
is where we started in July 7th and have gone through a half dozen drawings, is a major burden for
me. We are carrying an undue excessive burden for this whole project because we're caught in
the middle. Our agreement is with, the agreement of Mr. Christensen and the results of a week's
work is the plan presented here tonight with or without the cul-de-sac, which is you know, all my
friends back here they said hey. Do your thing. Do what you feel is best. Returning to 3 lots and
to the old property line encroachment was laid on me just this afternoon about 3-4 hours ago.
Sacchet: That's not part of the discussion tonight.
Bob Martinka: I'm sorry?
Sacchet: That's not part of our discussion tonight.
Bob Martinka: Okay, but it was introduced. It was introduced.
Sacchet: I don't think anybody's mentioned going back to a previous property line and we also
made it very clear that the subdivision of that one lot is not in front of us right now. However, the
applicant, the developer made the suggestion that there could be a trade off but we're not
negotiating here. We're looking at the proposal in front of us.
Bob Martinka: That's fair enough. I'd be happy to deal with that proposal only. We support that
in context with all 9 points in the agreement that we drew out. They don't, neither of them stand
alone and you have all of them in front of you.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: We're not looking at the agreement, it's for you guys. We're looking at the proposal
staff in front of us, and just to summarize what I hear you say is, that you are willing to support
the, what's in front of us here with or without the Golden Glow circle in it. You however
expressed a concern if it means that more of your property has to be dedicated, that you have an
issue with that, and that's between you guys to work out. Is that an accurate summary?
Bob Martinka: Well that's right. We're supporting this plan as presented with the lines included.
Sacchet: Your property lines...
Bob Martinka: Yes. Illustrated in this plan.
Sacchet: Okay. Appreciate it very much. Thank you for expressing your view on this. Is there
anybody else who'd like to comment on this? Yes there is. Please state your name and address
for the record and let us know what your view is of this issue. You might want to show us where
you live and give us your name.
David Smith: David Smith right here. And obviously it all comes down to the cul-de-sac and I
just, I think with the exception of maybe 2 people in the room, nobody else wants it. And they
talk about the people who benefit here and here, which apparently they're never going to be
subdivided. Russ says he never will. And the Infanger's aren't even here to represent that they
want this, and even if they did subdivide they're going to have to access through my easement
and this easement here which in the declaration of easement from '95 doesn't involve these two
houses at all. So that would be a legal battle.
Sacchet: So you're not in favor of the circle then?
David Smith: No. Nobody is.
Sacchet: We have an interesting, we had several statements from neighbors that say well they'd
rather do it now and not have to pay for it then do it later and have to pay for it.
David Smith: Well I think it's honorable of Mr. Ragatz to say if it has to go in, he'll do it if you
guys bend for his 3 lots or whatever but ! just don't see you know, basically it comes down to
they're talking, these 2 lots would benefit. These 2 lots aren't going to subdivide. And then the
safety issue of going out to Powers. I guess I'd like to hear some specifics. I've never seen an
accident there. I've never even been close to an accident there.
Sacchet: Matt, could you maybe from an engineering, city engineering viewpoint give us a view
of why, are there advantages going out on a public street versus the private street? I mean that is
definitely an integral piece here.
Saam: Sure. Yeah, the public street in this case will be lined up or as close as we can get it to the
existing street across Powers Boulevard on the other side of the street. So for turning movements
onto Powers Boulevard into and out of the development, that's a better situation. We have wider
clear zones with the public street. If you go out there now and look at the existing private street
that this residence, house accesses off of, the clear zone isn't as wide as it will be with a public
street.
Sacchet: Visibility basically.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Saam: Visibility, correct. So from those two standpoints, I mean we believe, and engineering
thumb rule it's always better to have an access...
David Smith: Well is there going to be a berm or anything? Is there going to be any berms or...
Sacchet: Yes, there will be berms.
Saam: Yes, but they'll be set back. They won't be...
David Smith: I thought it was clear where you pull out of there. You can see, this is going to line
up with Shenandoah which to me almost seems like more of an issue.
Lillehaug: Matt, could you speak on access control also, as far as limiting access control.
Saam: Yeah, that was the other issue I was going to bring up. As part of the development one of
the conditions is we close out these multiple driveways on the developer's property. So we'll be
basically combining them into access point. Basically limiting the number of points where
accidents could occur, and that's...
David Smith: But isn't there any history of this being an unsafe.
Saam: I don't have that information.
Sacchet: It's a collector road, correct?
Saam: Powers, yes.
David Smith: We're funneling more people out over here which lines up with Shenandoah which
I believe, is that a private street? I don't know.
Sacchet: As contradictory as it might sound, actually lining it up with an opposite street is a
benefit in a higher traffic situation, and it's definitely traffic is not going to decrease on Powers.
David Smith: Well what about visibility if there's going to be a berm or some sort of
shrubberies?
Saam: The berms will be set back. There's a ditch out there. The ditch won't be filled in. The
berms will be set back. Cars will pull out past the berming.
David Smith: How about a right turn lane coming in this way?
Sacchet: Potentially there could be turn lanes.
David Smith: ...but that might not be up for debate tonight or whatever.
Sacchet: That's probably more an issue when traffic increases. Is that an issue now?
Saam: Well the County did not bring that up in our discussion.
David Smith: I just don't, ! think with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 people in the room, that's
the only people who would want this. I don't think the developer wants it. We don't want it.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
These 2 people don't want it, and I think the safety issue was just kind of thrown in there at the
end just to kind of make it sound like we have to have this cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: Now let me ask a question though, considering this was part of the plans that were made
some 8 years ago or what by the city when probably none or only 1 or 2 of us were around here.
You'd rather not do it now and do it later and pay for it?
David Smith: Why would we do it later if nobody needs it or wants it? Why are we so gung ho
on having this cul-de-sac if nobody wants it?
Slagle: Can I make a point?
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: ...Mr. Chair. Two things. One is, 1 think never is a long word for parcels so I would just
throw out at some point your neighbors to the east, ownership might change. Something happens.
And if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong Sharmeen, I do believe both lots have
easements to access that private drive. There would be no legal.
AI-Jaff: There are utilities that were stubbed. I found a memo that said In£anger would need
access. Would need to negotiate access to the private street. Now that doesn't mean that
negotiations can't happen.
Slagle: Sure, understand. Okay.
David Smith: But wouldn't you think Infanger's would be here if they had any interest?
Sacchet: Well it's not necessarily an Infanger issue. I mean it's a city planning issue most of all.
It's an issue of what was agreed upon by the then owners of the land when this was discussed and
accepted.
David Smith: Who's responsibility was that to let us know on the...
Sacchet: The seller. The previous owner.
Slagle: Developer.
Sacchet: The developer, yeah. I mean.
David Smith: I knew about it. I'm not saying I didn't know about this.
Sacchet: Okay, so you did know about it? Okay, okay. Okay. I mean we're not trying to ram
something onto you that you don't want. But on the other hand we're building on an agreement
that has been on previously.
David Smith: It's not just that I don't want it, it's that nobody wants it. So I mean the developer,
nobody wants it and I don't see any real major purpose in it.
Sacchet: It's part of the development pattern that was accepted and agreed upon when that
particular part where you actually live in was subdivided. If that would come in front of us right
now...that would not go through. It'd be labeled premature because we don't want to end up in
46
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
situations like what we're in right now and our concern is that we don't want to perpetuate that
type of disconnect. Because if we cut this back, we're going to be in the same situation some 5
years, 10 years from now when some of these people that are there now, maybe are not there any
more and somebody comes in and wants to subdivide. Then we go through this all over again so
you've got to see that aspect in ali fairness. We're not at comments but I feel it's important for
you to know that.
David Smith: Okay.
Lillehaug: And we have to have a cul-de-sac there. I mean there's really no question about that.
That somewhere along them we have to have a cul-de-sac so where's the most logical place to put
the cul-de-sac?
David Smith: Well one plan had a temporary...
Slagle: And I hope everybody understands why you need a cul-de-sac.
David Smith: But we talk about benefiting landowners, and who's going to pay for it and these
two landowners don't benefit. And then somebody somewhere along the line pointed out that we
would benefit from it, and I just don't understand how me and Kevin would ever benefit from it,
or Mike. How would that benefit us?
Papke: You want me to explain it?
Sacchet: Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: One point of something to consider when, you know we all sell our homes at some point
in time in our lives and it may come to the point where you decide to sell, and if you're trying to
sell your property, if you can tell your potential buyer that your property is subdividable, okay.
All of a sudden the value of it could go up substantially because now that person that's buying
your property has two lots to sell, okay so you can't just think about the aesthetics and you right
now but some day and that's kind of where the city is going. Quite often the patterns have shown
that over a long period of time these sorts of things, as properties turn over, these sorts of things
occur naturally because.
David Smith: ...and your point is in '95 that's why this may have been written in there?
Papke: Correct.
David Smith: I understand it.
Slagle: I think every parcel, if I'm not mistaken, has changed ownership since '95 in that
southern.
A1-Jaff: With the exception of Infanger, Kohman and Kerber.
Slagle: But the main properties, the main one that he.
Al~Jaff: Correct.
Slagle: The one that sort of started the whole process, they're gone.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Al-Jaff: That's correct. Ravis.
David Smith: Well that was his plan.
Sacchet: That's the trouble. And we're stuck holding the bag. Thank you for your comments. I
appreciate your comments. Anybody else want to address this? We do want to move forward but
I don't want to cut anybody off. Is that it? Nobody else? Alright, let's bring it back to
commission for comments or any further clarifications. Who's inclined to start comments on this
one?
Lillehaug: I can. I'll try to make mine brief. As Chairman Sacchet said, I think we need to do
now what we can to avoid this problem from happening later on, so logically where's the best
place to put this cul-de-sac? In my opinion it's in that reserved right-of-way for the ultimate
situation furthest to the south. That is my opinion. I don't think providing a temporary, you see
temporary cul-de-sac's but I don't think that's the answer. I would like to see the ultimate
situation constructed right now. All the right-of-way, it appears to be that it's agreeable to be
dedicated here and I think that's done of the key factors here. I would like staff to verify that we
do have a full width right-of-way on the Martinka property, just to verify and making that part of
the conditions of this. One of the important things here is, I'll speak for myself as I don't think
I'm here to horse trade you know as far as subdividing into 3 lots compared to 2. The first thing
is we need to follow the guidelines that we have in front of us and we need to see a hardship. I
don't think we can find a hardship to put 3 lots there. That's my opinion and I think we have to
follow those guidelines. And I think, the other thing I'd like to say is we have to, now we have to
plan for the possibility of subdividing those properties like we previously said here so I think I do
support this proposal as it's set forth.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Bethany.
Tjornhom: I support the proposal also and I think it was very generous of the developer to offer
to pay for the cul-de-sac that the residents didn't want and I'm glad that they don't have that
burden put upon them. To pay for something that they also don't feel they need. So I want to
commend you for doing that and for everybody kind of keeping a stiff upper lip and doing the
right thing, even though they don't really understand it. And I guess that's about all I have to say.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce.
Feik: Ah yes. First I have a question for staff. Assuming for just a moment that we stop this cul-
de-sac at the temporary cul-de-sac. For just a moment. There is no limit on the number of
residences that could access this road is there?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Feik: So I mean feasibly, I know you're not talking about it but Martinka and Carlson, somebody
could assemble those two lots which I'm looking at this plan are quite large, and probably pull, I
count them, 4, 5, almost 6 lots out of assemblage of those two.
Aanenson: Martinka's property?
Feik: Martinka and Carlson. If you assembled the two, Christensen, excuse me. Martinka and
Christensen, is you assembled those two, you could probably do.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
A1-Jaff: You get 4.
Feik: Four for sure if you put another little cul-de-sac in there you could maybe get 5. Anyways,
so there's no limit on the amount of units that can access this road. My concern is, the residents
to the south don't benefit from the extension of this cul-de-sac. The applicant has graciously I
think said that he would put it in for the benefit, whether they believe it's a benefit or not. But to
the benefit of the parties to the south. They don't seem to want it. I don't see a need for pushing
it forward. I think quite frankly in my own mind, if in the future these property owners in the
south wanted to develop, they should pay for the cul-de-sac. They should pay for all the utilities
and everything else south of that, that they're going to benefit, or their heirs or the next party. I
do feel for the applicant as it relates to having to take the road and push it over to the east and
really skinny up I guess is Lot 1, Block 2. I think personally I would maybe be inclined to like to
see 3 lots personally. So with that being said, I guess I favored as it was presented by the
applicant in the plans where there's a temporary cul-de-sac versus extending all the way down to
Golden Glow Court.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks Bruce. Kurt.
Papke: I think as a Planning Commission we have to take the long term perspective on this one
and even though some of the residents today don't feel real supportive of taking this cul-de-sac all
the way down to the end, ! think we have to make sure we don't create a headache for a Planning
Commission 10 years when someone decides to sell and subdivide down the road and we have a
bigger headache to cope with so I, my philosophy is to kind of take the pain now and get it done
and get the cul-de-sac in and alleviate the future pain so that's my perspective.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Rich.
Slagle: Just a few thoughts. I'm looking back as to the different options that were discussed and
talked about in the mid 90's. As some have discussed tonight, I don't think the way the
development is planned for the Golden Glow development, as it sits there today would have been
approved. I know I would have been 100 percent against the way it was designed. And I say that
only because I want fellow commissioners to understand that since that was part of the approval,
and decided on, voted on, and we have been instructed for the last two meetings that that's what
we have to follow, then I want to take that and say okay, then we're going to follow that
agreement, and that agreement called for a cul-de-sac. Going south. And whether or not one can
argue that residents should have known that they would be incurred those costs, bottom line is if
that was to have been done properly you would not have had a private drive onto Powers. It
would have gone north, whether to Lake Lucy or cut off as we're looking at tonight, and so I'm
very supportive of the fact the developer will pay for that. I want to make sure that he
understands that this vote tonight is, my vote is based upon that along with what we have in front
of us, has nothing to do with what we might see in a month or two months from now. And I
would be against a temporary cul-de-sac even though it results in some tree loss, because that's
just the way this thing was decided and we should stick to it, or I'd be more than happy to suggest
tabling this or coming up with another plan to be quite hones with you because I don't like the
plan as it is but if we have to vote on it, it should be a full cul-de-sac.
Lillehaug: Do you have a suggestion for another plan?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Slagle: You know my plan, not that I won't waste much time, is I would have taken a long cul-
de-sac all the way to Lake Lucy. And I would have had those 4 lots on the northeast corner their
back yards. I mean the front yards would have been.
Lillehaug: It's double frontage and that's not ideal.
Slagle: Yeah. I like it better though. All the way to Lake Lucy.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. My comments, I guess I made my opinion somewhat known before. I
very strongly believe that when we make agreements we have to live up to them. It's one of the
most fundamental things about people getting along in some accepted ways to do what we agree
to do. Now the problem we have here is we have an agreement in place that was done where we
were not part of it, but nevertheless in a city environment we very often run into this type of
situation. As a matter of fact all our codes, most of our codes were agreements that were made
before we were part of it. And so by being part of a city, we agree to live by these codes and try
to fulfill them. Now if we buy into a neighborhood and there are certain agreements made by
being in that neighborhood, by association we inherit those agreements. So I do believe we have
to build on the agreement that's in place, which is, and it's not just an idea. I mean the land is
dedicated for that cul-de-sac to go in. And I don't think it's going to get any better then the
current developer actually footing the cost of that. Now with all respect and appreciating your
generosity in this, I think I've seen other developments going in the city when actually somebody
goes in and does a development that some of the infrastructure has to be put in place even if it's
not totally just on the developed area. So it's actually not out of context I believe how this is
handling other situations in the city that this would be done by the current developer. And if need
be, that something could be put in place as our engineer Matt explained. That there might be
some assessment or some reversement at some point when the rest of the area benefits from it.
But I think it's very commendable that you're willing to just do it and be done with it. But I
struggle with the aspect, I don't think legally or ethically we can make a commitment to say well,
if you do that then when you come back we give you special favors. ! mean we cannot formally
connect that. That's just not possible. I do like your idea that you want to make it custom lots. I
would like to see that as a condition. And other than that I think I support this the way it is in
front of us. I didn't think so at first when I read this. I do not think the temporary cul-de-sac
makes sense, at least in the current configuration. I mean why have, how long is that piece of
road from the curve down? A couple hundred feet, and a temporary cul-de-sac that nobody uses.
Then may get subdivided. Maybe the upper third gets used a little bit. Just to preserve the right-
of-way to go to that effort to me seems not smart. I mean if we go to that extent, let's do the
whole thing, be done with it. And we will not have that way the same mess in front of us 5, 10
years from now when the situation changes and more activity's going to happen to the south. So
that's my opinion, my comments. With that, I'd like to have a motion.
Slagle: One point of clarification.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Is staff's opinion that condition number 40, if I'm not mistaken, is that sufficient and
specific enough that that extends the cul-de-sac into Golden Glow?
A1-Jaff: We are adding the words, into the Golden Glow Acres subdivision.
Slagle: As part of 40?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
AI-Jaff: Right-of-way, correct.
Slagle: Into, okay.
Sacchet: Including the cul-de-sac or something like that?
Aanenson: The right-of-way.
Slagle: And then I have one last point of clarification before we vote on this. Sharmeen, you
mentioned that the parcel, if we can see the map again, the parcel that was, the folks aren't here.
The most southern lot or parcel on Powers.
A1-Jaff: Infanger's.
Slagle: They're not here tonight. And that their, if they wanted to subdivide they would have to
negotiate.
A1-Jaff: Access.
Slagle: Access.
AI-Jaff: Onto the private street.
Slagle: Okay. And I'm just asking, is that something that can be addressed here?
Al-Jaff: We don't have a proposal for that parcel.
Slagle: Okay. I'm only asking because we're voting on you know, thinking of allowing access
and we might not even have the ability to have access.
Aanenson: That's between two parties, which we're not a part of so...
Slagle: Okay, fair enough. That's it.
Sacchet: Alright. Are we ready for a motion?
Slagle: I can make a motion.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: I'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for subdivision 03-12 for Burlwood Addition for 7 lots and 2 outlots with
variances to allow a private street and a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on the plans received
September 29, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 48 with an addition on 40 that
states that the entire public street and cul-de-sac must be installed with this project into the
Golden Glow subdivision.
Aanenson: I would say right-of-way.
Slagle: Right-of-way. Golden Glow right-of-way and we deleted 26. And then also 15. 15 was
deleted. Okay. And then I can't add my own amendment can I? Can I?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: Yeah, you're still.
Slagle: Okay. Then 1 would like to add a 49 and that would be. That the applicant has agreed to
pay all costs associated with the extension of the cul-de-sac into the Golden Glow right-of-way.
That' s it.
Sacchet: That's it? Alright. Do we have a second to this?
Lillehaug: Second with a friendly amendment.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Condition number 15. Subject to obtaining the needed full width right-of-way on the
Martinka property.
Sacchet: Again?
Slagle: Number 157 Or50?
Lillehaug: 50. 5-0.
Sacchet: And what is it?
Lillehaug: Adding a condition that this approval is subject to obtaining and verifying that the full
width right-of-way is there on the Martinka property.
Sacchet: Full width meaning?
Lillehaug: The full width needed for the standard road width.
Sacchet: For the standard roadway with the alignment.
Lillehaug: Roadway right-of-way.
Sacchet: Is that clear enough?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, alright. Is that acceptable?
Slagle: Yes.
Bob Martinka: Mr. Chair, I've got a point of clarification on the vote?
Sacchet: Not right now. Let's go through the process.
Aanenson: Sharmeen can meet with him afterwards.
Sacchet: Staff can meet with you afterwards.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Feik: You're talking about the triangle?
Slagle: Yes.
Lillehaug: Only the triangle, which is in front of us tonight. It has nothing to do with shifting the
alignment.
Sacchet: Right, with the property line just to make sure it has the proper width. Okay. Okay?
Any other friendly amendments? I have one. That'd be 51. All lots will be custom graded.
Slagle: Accepted.
Sacchet: Okay. Is that it?
Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Subdivision #03-12 for Burlwood Addition for 7 lots and two
outlots with variances to allow a private street and a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on the
plans received September 29, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a minimum of 51 trees to be
planted.
A minimum of three deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each
lot.
3. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1-4 and
6, Block 1 prior to any grading.
5. All transplanted evergreens must be warranted for two growing seasons.
6. A revised landscape plan must be submitted to the city before final approval.
In lieu of any public improvements, a park dedication charge of $19,200 will be
applicable at the time of platting.
8. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat.
9. On the grading plan:
Add a rock construction entrance per City Detail Plate No. 5301.
Revise the grading on the east side of Lot 6, Block 1 to prevent trapping water
near the house pads.
Show new ditch grades in the areas where driveways will be removed.
Show the proposed contours for the berms along Powers Boulevard.
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Add a benchmark to the plan.
10. On the utility plan:
53
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Show all proposed and existing utility easements.
Show all existing utilities and services in the area. Also, call out the pipe type,
manhole numbers, and rim/invert elevations for all existing and proposed utilities.
Add street lights at the intersection of Powers and the new street.
All of the existing driveway entrances to the property from Powers Boulevard must be
removed during construction.
A driveway culvert is required under the proposed street entrance to the site. A Carver
County permit will also be required.
An outlet control structure is required for the proposed pond per City Detail Plat No.
3109. Also, install a storm sewer line from the pond outlet to Lake Lucy Road and west,
approximately 350 feet to an existing storm sewer line in Mulberry Circle.
Revise all slopes that exceed 3:1 or install a retaining wall,
Deleted.
All final construction plans must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
Any work outside of the subject property or right-of-way will require temporary
easements.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is
required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval.
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site; however, additional
information is still needed. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise the
calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for
staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event.
Draintile will be required in back of the curb on the public street.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
The basement elevations of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 must be a minimum of three feet
above the HWL of the proposed pond.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Private easements are required for the existing and proposed services to neighboring
parcels that are outside of the right-of-way.
A 30 foot wide private driveway easement is required for the private drive which serves
Lots 1-4, Block 1. In addition, the driveway must be constructed to a 7 ton design. The
developer will be required to provide inspection reports verifying this.
Deleted.
Vacate the existing public utility easement in the area of the new street.
Additional information and detail must be added to the plans to show how the stormwater
from the temporary cul-de-sac will be handled.
A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond.
A watermain and sanitary sewer lateral connection charge will be due for Lot 6, Block 1
at the time of building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection charge for water and
sewer is $4,513 each. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met
Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance.
All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council.
The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440 per unit, the water hookup charge is
$1,876 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,275 per unit.
A financial security must be supplied to the City to cover the cost of the future street
extension and removal of the existing private street to the south.
Additional right-of-way will need to be platted to achieve a total of 40 feet from the
center line of Lake Lucy Road.
The existing gravel driveway to the neighboring parcels must be maintained until the new
street is graded in and curb is installed.
A storm sewer stub must be extended to the south to handle drainage from the future cul-
de-sac, just south of the site.
The damaged portion of the existing storm line that goes through Lot 1, Block 2 must be
replaced and connected with the proposed street storm sewer.
The proposed watermain must be extended to the south property line for future looping
purposes.
Sanitary and water services shall be extended to the west property line for future
development of the neighboring parcels.
The developer is required to pave the portion of the existing neighbor's driveways that are
within the subject property as per city ordinance. A private driveway easement will also
be required for the shared portion of the driveway. In addition, any shared portion of the
driveway must be constructed to a 7 ton design. The developer is required to provide
inspection reports verifying this.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
A minimum 20 foot wide public drainage and utility easement is required over the
existing ditch/drainage way on the Martinka property.
The entire public street and cul-de-sac must be installed with this project into the Golden
Glow Acres right-of-way.
Building official conditions:
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
Demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing any structures.
The homes located at 6648 and 6650 Powers Boulevard will require address
changes as they will be accessed from a different street.
Fire Marshal conditions:
ao
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Excel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes.
This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn
around dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Exception: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet
where 1) the buildings are equipped throughout with an approved automatic
sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or
903.3.1.3 of the Fire Code.
Block I and 2, Streets will be required to have street names. Submit names to
Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval.
No burning permits will be issued for trees/shrubs disposal. Any trees removed
must be removed or chipped on site.
Three additional fire hydrants will be required: one at the intersection of Lake
Lucy and the driveway serving Block 1, one at the end of Block 1, Lot 4 near the
emergency turn-around, and the third one must be installed near the temporary
turn around proposed for Block 2. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal and City
Engineer for exact location of required fire hydrants.
Approval of subdivision 03-12 shall be contingent upon approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit #03-1.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall have an approved wetland replacement
plan prior to wetland impacts occurring.
The applicant shall work with staff and downstream property owners to address storm
water issues in this area prior to the development of Lot 1, Block 2 and the extension of
the proposed street to Golden Glow Court.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
46.
Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $4,906 and
the water quantity fees are approximately $12,139. AT this time, the estimated total
SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $17,045.00.
47.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval.
48. Outlots A and B shall be deeded to the City to facilitate flexibility in future road
alignment.
49.
The applicant has agreed to pay all costs associated with the extension of the cul-de-
sac into the Golden Glow right-of-way.
50.
this approval is subject to obtaining and verifying that the full width right-of-way
needed for a standard roadway is on the Martinka property.
51. All lots shall be custom graded.
All voted in favor, except Feik who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Sacchet: Do you want to explain why you nay?
Feik: Yes. I'm very in favor of the development as a whole. I don't think the applicant should
have to pay for the extension of the cul-de-sac to the south.
Sacchet: Okay. Now keep in mind this is only a recommendation. It goes to City Council in 2
weeks or 3 weeks.
Aanenson: Correct. It will be November 27~.
Sacchet: November 27th.
Aanenson: October.
Sacchet: October 27m. Now in summary for council, we struggled with this application based on
the agreement that was given 8 years ago for the development of that area where this southern
most part was developed and subdivided. I think we have pretty clear agreement amongst the
commission here that if this came to us now we would consider it premature. We believe this
created a hardship, a problem for what the situation is now and our effort is to mitigate that this
type of situation is not further perpetuated. We do believe that, at least most of us I should say,
believe that there is a relatively generous situation in front of us. That the current developer
proposes to pay for the whole construction of that southerly cul-de-sac. And therefore, at least
some of the neighbors to the south, are okay with it. However, neighbors to the south made very
clear that they don't necessarily care for that cul-de-sac but they'd rather have it come in now and
don't have to pay for it than have it come back at an unspecified time in the future, 5-10 years
from now then have to pay for it. So that way it seems like most of the neighbors to the south
seem to be okay with it. Other than that, are any other comments to make to summarize?
Lillehaug: I do have one. I just want to clarify that our votes did not include voting on breaking
it up into 3 lots versus 2 lots.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
Sacchet: That needs to be clarified, yes and I think we made that clear in our comments before.
We're not in the position to be able to make a contingency like that. How this is further going to
be subdivided is going to have to be dealt with when that comes in front of us at that time.
Aanenson: There was a wetland alteration motion.
Sacchet: Oh we have a wetland alteration, yes. We want another motion here please on page 18.
Aanenson: Correct. 20.
Sacchet: I'm looking at the wrong version here.
A1-Jaff: Page 20.
Sacchet: Page 20. Can I have another motion please?
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #03-1 as shown in the plans dated received August 15, 2003 with the following
conditions, 1 through 3.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Sacchet: Point of clarification of staff. Is that still the accurate plan, August 15th for this?
Al-Jaff: As far as the wetland alteration it is the same.
Sacchet: It is the same, okay. We have a motion. We have a second.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #03-1 as shown in the plans dated received August 15, 2003 with
the following conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall have an approved wetland replacement
plan prior to wetland impacts occurring.
2. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval.
3. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #03-1 shall be contingent upon approval of
Subdivision #03-12.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. This will go to City Council in a couple of weeks, and we wish
you luck.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - October 7, 2003
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 16, 2003 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
59