PC Minutes 01-15-2013Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 15 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 13.2 ACRES
OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RSF-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R4-
MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE
TH
INTERSECTION OF WEST 86 STREET AND TIGUA LANE. APPLICANT: JOHN
KNOBLAUCH. OWNER: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2013-02.
Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Before you is a request
for a concept planned unit development. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It is located southwest of the
thth
intersection of 86 Street. West 86 Street and Tigua Lane. Just briefly, this site was part of the parcel
located south of Highway 212 and with the construction of Highway 212 it was segmented into two
pieces. The 13 acres to the north and the remainder, I believe there were 60 acres to the south which were
developed by another developer as single family detached homes. So the remaining piece, the 13 acres
that is before you today, it is currently zoned, it’s currently guided Residential Low Density which allows
for 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The westerly half of the site is currently zoned Single Family Residential
which permits attached as well as detached single family homes. The easterly portion is Mixed Low
Density which allows for townhomes. Some of the characteristics of this site include a complex of
different bodies of wetlands all along the northerly portion, the westerly portion, as well as a few along
the east side of the site. Highway 212, a four lane highway is located south of the subject site. The site
falls within the Shoreland Overlay District of Rice Marsh Lake. That entire area that is within 1,000 feet
of the ordinary high water mark of a lake is considered shoreland and it falls under specific regulations
that any development would have to adhere to. The buildable area on the site. What we attempted to do
was just look at the location of the wetlands and just highlight the buildable area on the site solely based
on the setback from the edge of the wetlands and what you see shaded in pink, that becomes the buildable
area of the site. What the applicant is proposing to do is build single family homes. If we look at, and
this plan was submitted by the applicant. The typical home that they intend to build will be 60 feet in
depth and will require 52 feet in width. When we have these homes on the proposed lots, some of the
house pads will encroach into required setbacks. Some of the homes don’t meet width requirements for
the shoreland ordinance. So there are sections that will need to be addressed. They just don’t meet the
regulations that are required in the wetland as well as the Shoreland Overlay District. To be able to
accommodate the type of product that the applicant is requesting, one of the things that the City could
entertain is re-guiding this site to medium density. It would be dual guiding it to low density as well as
medium density. When we guide it to medium density one of the things that the planned unit
development ordinance will allow us to do is really work with the site. There is no minimum lot area.
There is no minimum lot width. That will allow us to look at the features of the site and position homes
so that they are respectful and conscientious of how can we develop without impacting the natural
features of the site. We are recommending that the Planning Commission provide us with feedback. We
have raised some issues within the staff report that are still of concern. The current plan that the applicant
is, has submitted does not meet the intent of a planned unit development. We believe that it is doable. It
just requires some additional work by the applicant.
Aanenson: I’d like to just add a couple more comments. Can you go back to the slide? In looking at this
project and the shoreland district, we’ve gotten feedback from the DNR that it does not meet the intent of
the shoreland district so, because we believe that the single family housing product and meeting the goals
of the number of units that the applicant wanted, somewhere around 16, staying at that 4 units an acre,
which is low density by the City ordinance, we believe that it can fit on this site and meet the ordinance
requirements, not only for the City’s ordinance but for the shoreland regs and not filling any wetlands and
avoidance and meeting all that. We do believe the PUD is the right tool for the fact that in order to get
th
access to this site coming off of West 86 Street, to go through, to get that access you are going to impact
roads, no matter what product you were to put on that site. The only way to service that via sewer would
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
have to come off that way so to narrow that road to less impact as we just talked about in the last
application, we believe that the PUD is the right tool. The problem with the low density is it doesn’t fit
within the shoreland regs. That flexibility that we have in place so the reason we were recommending the
dual guiding is that if this application wasn’t to go forward and the council wanted to revisit some other
application, that would give them the leeway. Again because this is concept we’re just looking for
direction and what we’re telling you is that we don’t believe that under the low density that this
application could go forward under that. There’s, it just doesn’t fit under the current regs but we believe
getting to the 4 units an acre, keeping the 50% open space under the medium density would make some
sense so with that, with some of the conditions that we put in the staff report, we would recommend kind
of moving in that direction so with that, that’s kind of our position and we’re looking for some direction
from you and then also from the City Council on that so, I think Sharmeen did a good job kind of
explaining the issues that we have so, be happy to answer any questions you have on that.
Aller: Even if we were to do or look at moving toward the…PUD with the medium density, we would
still have to meet the shoreland requirements, right?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Aller: ...overlay that has to be met.
Aanenson: Absolutely. The difference is with, the way our shoreland ordinance is written, it’s very
prescriptive as far as lot size under that low density. The medium density allows greater flexibility. It’s
similar to what we did up on, up on the 2005 MUSA area. We have some of those lot sizes are different
so it would still accommodate the single family home. We’d keep the buffers and the setbacks in the
preservation area but allows for a smaller lot. It would meet the goals of trying to provide a single family
lot so it doesn’t have to be a 15,000 lot. It might be a 11,000 or a 12,000 square foot lot. Similar to what
Ryland just did. Excuse me, what Lennar just did across the street and so.
Aller: Even at the medium density which allows for flexibility, it allows us to move the lot sizes and the
structure on the lot. But I don’t see, based on the map that’s in front of us where we would be getting 15
units.
Aanenson: What you’re looking at now is you’re looking at it as it’s laid out meeting the larger lot. If
you were to go similar to what Lennar has across the street, which is the similar property, with also some
of those lots fell within the shoreland. That was the RLM which allowed you to go as small as.
Al-Jaff: 9,000 square feet.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Al-Jaff: And 63 or 64.
Aanenson: Yeah, 65. I don’t think they were that small in that subdivision.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Aanenson: But they were selling very well there so we believe that, based on the house plans that were
submitted, and reconfiguring that. Again that’s up to the applicant to do that but we believe it can be met
based on that and without impacting, meeting the ordinance requirements.
Aller: And we’re here for concept purposes.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: We’re not here to make a decision or say that this plan is set in stone or even moving forward
because it’s really up to the developer to take the comments…
Aanenson: That’s correct but I guess what we’re saying is under the, under the low density or the
application that came in, we don’t believe that could advance solely on, the other path that could be taken
which we’re asking your feedback on is to go towards the re-guiding of the property. Then again it would
have to come back through for a public hearing but just to get your read on that.
Aller: And then with some of the other issues that are in the staff report that I would see this coming
forward with the hardscape requirements at 50%. With driveways and garages or patios, are going to
need to meet that?
Al-Jaff: They will have to provide us with all of that information so the next step will be figuring out
exactly where that 50% open space is and then calculate the hard surface coverage on the site, and that
would be part of the planned unit development regulations that we would put together should this project
move forward.
Aller: Any other questions at this point? The applicant wish to come forward and make a presentation?
Welcome sir. Come forward, state your name and address for the record.
John Knoblauch: Chairman Aller, staff and the Planning Commission, my name is John Knoblauch. I
live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota. I’m the applicant for the Preserve at Rice Lake.
Couple comments. This property, the landowner has drawn somewhere in the neighborhood of 12
different drawings on this subject parcel here we’re working on. Staff’s done a great job trying to work
with myself in this challenging piece of property, but we have drawn about, I think we’re on our eleventh
shot at this as far as working with staff and trying to make a project that makes sense. The new drawing
that we submitted on Monday is not shown here and that would fall closer to Kate’s comments of the lots
are 10,000 square feet. There’s 16 lots. They meet the 4 units per acre of developable land. We have a
total wetland impact I believe of point, on that new drawing I think it’s .14 total and seems to be pretty
close to, pretty close to what I think is a very doable project for us. So yes, we would like to ask to switch
to that medium density situation so that we can proceed and work with staff to try to massage this to get it
to work. The wetland impacts, just the drawing up there obviously is a little exaggerated because of the
bigger lots. The V that you see coming with some red and orange, which are the buffers for the wetlands,
just to make you aware. That is a 23 foot buffer so the triangle is greatly exaggerated because from the
actual wetland it’d be 23 feet so those would be rounded off, just to let you know on that triangle there.
We have a new drawing now that has a similar setup there in that area but we actually only have about
300 square feet of wetland that would be affected, or actually not make your buffer setback from that
Type I wetland. I’m sorry, Type 3 wetland. So I’d like, I don’t think we have that from Monday?
Aller: Are these wetlands delineated now?
Aanenson: No, I think at this, we didn’t want to put the new plan in because I think it’s kind of a moving
target. I think we’re trying to look at some of the macro issues and it’s defining the parameters of the
development. The shoreland district. The impact to the wetlands. Those were kind of the driving factors.
Can we get sewer to the site? How is that connection going to be made? There’s still a few question
marks that need to be resolved on where that’s going to be so really the goal here is before we went into
actually laying out the plat is, we believe based on the parameters that are set in place that you would
have to go to a smaller lot. And even if you changed the density to medium you still have to get to 4.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
You can’t go below that. So we believe that you know if we get to the 4 buildable acres at 4 units.
Working through all the design, you know limitations we can make that work and the lot sizes, they’re
not all going to be at 9. They’ll probably be closer to 11 or 12 I think is what we were looking at.
Al-Jaff: This one is 11.
Aanenson: Yeah, in area which is similar to what we just did across on 212 so. Yep, and meeting the
50% open space so it would have to meet all those regulations but we didn’t want to show that plan now
because our whole staff report bases on this. Really the goal here tonight is to say, do you believe this is a
reasonable way to, to proceed for this application to go forward? That’s really the goal here because I
think you know we’re going to have to go through all that detail in the next iteration of the plan itself.
Aller: Right, and it sounds like you’re well aware of the wetland issues, which are probably will be the
biggest ones that you have to face once, regardless of the zoning.
John Knoblauch: Right.
Aller: You’ll have to deal with the other entities, the State entities with regard to how you’re going to put
these and what impacts.
John Knoblauch: Yes, no doubt and I think you know the, as far as this design, what I think it brings a
couple nice things to the table I think. You know it fits well with the surrounding area. The path which
would finally get connected to the east, which would be a nice trail for the neighbors. We are proposing a
sound wall to continue from the townhomes to the west in similar fashion across the next to 212 which
would be, we’re figuring right now, I mean we haven’t completely had noise studies. We had preliminary
noise study done but somewhere in the 6 to 8 feet going across the berm, which is basically across the
lower part of the drawing up on the board there. And then we’re planning on, if we can work out with
staff the 16 lots, we’re planning on this parcel to the west, which actually turned out to be about an acre
and a half would end up, which is good, high ground, would end up being dedicated to the City, which
would be nice open space. To the, on the east side, I’m sorry. Yeah, it’s a very challenging piece of
property but I think it’s a really good site for my product because I build a really nice 2,800 to 3,000
square foot two story and I think, the pad area that I’ve got figured with patio, 3 car garage will fit well
underneath the 30% hard cover, including you know driveway, sidewalk and the pad sizes we drew on
that sketch. On the new sketch actually mirror this house and I actually made an attempt to oversize the
garage from what we normally do to make sure that staff felt comfortable that these homes that I’m
proposing will have no trouble down the road and we won’t be back asking for situations that they don’t
enjoy so. Any questions?
Aller: Anyone? Not at this time. Thank you very much sir.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just add one other point of clarification? We didn’t discuss, there’s a lot of
other things that need to be, we talked about the applicant just briefly talked about the noise wall that
needs to take place and we still haven’t finalized where that sewer location tie is going to be. There’s a
lot of other design issues. Again we’re just kind of back talking about, is this the right way? You know
we’ve worked through a lot of different designs that didn’t seem to fit so we’re just trying to decide the
right path before we come back with all that detail. But there’s quite a few things that still need to be
addressed.
Aller: Ultimately the question is if it goes forward, the best option for it may very well be the increase to
allow for a PUD at the medium density so that we don’t pigeon hole whether this goes forward but we
don’t stop another person from coming in and doing something different if this one does not go forward.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
Aanenson: That gives you the flexibility, that’s right. You have another public hearing on that. As you
recall we changed the PUD ordinance so it can go down to the smallest is 11. It’s the frontage
requirement that’s hanging us up in the shoreland district of 90 feet of frontage. That’s what’s hanging us
up so.
Aller: And staff is comfortable with that potential modification based on the 2030 plan and it fits.
Aanenson: Correct. Again…ordinance requirements, correct.
Aller: Can it be done water wise?
Jeffery: Chairman Aller, I believe it can. Again it would be on the applicant to show that it can. You
know there have been, I don’t what? 11 iterations now. Every one seems to get a little closer so I guess
time will tell but I think there’s probably a way to make it happen.
Aller: And if not this one, the flexibility would allow for another applicant to come in. It would just be a
new look, a fresh look as far as you’re concerned for purposes of the impact on the wetlands. That the
property.
Jeffery: That is correct. That is correct.
Aller: …any additional work. Okay. Let’s open up the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come
forward, please do so. State your name and address for the record. Lots of lookers, no talkers?
Welcome ma’am.
Mary Muirhead: Thank you. My name is Mary Muirhead and I live at 424 Monk Court so my
townhouse would directly face, it directly faces the marshland. Judging from your last comments I can’t
quite tell whether development is a foregone conclusion. If I had my druthers the land would never be
developed. It’s leaving an undeveloped helps my property value at a time when everyone has
experienced loss in property value. I moved here from Anoka County where I was on 4 acres on the Rum
River and one of the things that just astounded me was the fact that I moved down here and I actually had
a sense of being more in nature than I did at the spot that I had been living and it would make me very sad
to lose that. One of the, if construction is a foregone conclusion at some point in time in the future then I
think my biggest problem with this development is where the road is. I mean the road cuts as close to the
townhouse property line as possible and just the thought of having headlights in the evening and then
additional traffic as people are going into their homes, that just is a concern to me so respectfully
speaking if this didn’t go forward I would not be at all sadden.
Aller: Thank you, and this is exactly what we’re here for is the concept so that the developer and the
council can get impact statements from people with regard to what they feel should be done with the
property so construction is never a foregone conclusion. We have to see what happens. Things have been
approved and never move forward too so thank you for coming.
Mary Muirhead: So then let me be that much clearer, please leave it undeveloped.
Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against, or commenting? Good evening.
LuAnn Markgraf: Good evening. My name is LuAnn Markgraf and I live at 401 Rice Court and I’m in
th
the townhouse development. I’m the very last building and the unit closest to 86 so I would be
definitely impacted by the entrance the way this roadway concept is designed now. I have lots of trees.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
It’s not that far back to the wetland, to the pond. It’s very narrow. I mean how you could even think of
even putting a narrower street in there to accommodate the wetland, plus put a sidewalk and then try to
make it more attractive by putting spruce trees up so we’re not impacted by all the traffic that would be
going in and out because it would be coming in and out right out, out my deck. Right straight there and
there is not that much room back there. It is beautiful. I don’t understand why the entrance needs to be
right there against the back of that last townhome building. I do believe from everything that I’ve read
since Saturday that there is a great impact on that roadway and all that wetland that’s behind that area in
that little circular area that you see there. I have lived in that townhouse since the development was first
built. I’ve been there since 1996. When I was, when I first moved in there was not even one single family
house and none of those homes in Mission Hills Lane were built. There has to be, this is such a great
impact on the wetlands and the proximity to the townhouses and I think the association, I don’t know if
they have been involved in this at all. They would need to be involved because that property line, which
you had said Saturday all those trees would go. I mean that, I’ve got some big old oak trees. I’ve got a
dense property on that corner right there and to have all that gone and to have all that traffic in and out,
th
plus I also think it would also be problems with traffic on 86 and 101. There’s already enough problems
th
with 86 and 101 without it being a controlled intersection. Especially coming from 212 and going north
th
on 101. A lot of people go through the single family homes to bypass that intersection of 86 and get
onto 101 from farther down. So there is a lot of issues with this concept and just because we’re a
townhouse development should not bear anything that we get the bad end. Oh, you’ll have the traffic in
and out. You’ll have you know all this beautiful area, all these trees, the wetlands back there impacted. It
is absolutely horrible to even think of having that on that western edge of this development.
Aller: Alright, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Good evening sir.
Steve Lehto: Good evening. My name is Steve Lehto. I live at 8591 Tigua Lane so our, my wife and I
th
have the property that’s in the upper right corner of the map, which abuts this property all the way to 86
so we’re going to have a lot of impact. And I’d like to echo the comments of the first person who spoke
tonight that when we bought our home in the summer of 2010, one of the main reasons we fell in love
with the property was the fact that it was indeed in nature and the impact of a development like this is
obviously going to be significant for us. Again in line with what the first person stated, our view is that
you know it would be best for us selfishly if the property were never developed but if development is
truly an inevitability, we’re looking for something that is obviously going to be as, the least amount of
impact obviously to our property and also to the neighborhood. I guess I don’t know what different
options might exist out there. What the difference really is. We’re going to obviously have to do some
research too but the difference between low and medium density, I’m not certain how that impacts
potential developments that another applicant might bring before the council but in some ways it seems
like this, the 11 drawings that were mentioned have gone some way to try to mitigate that impact so we’re
certainly thankful for that but again if we had our druthers the property would remain a natural resource
like it is now so, thank you.
Aller: Alright, thank you sir. Anyone else?
Arturo Urrutia: Sure. My name is Arturo Urrutia. I’m at 408 Monk Court and I think I would like to
second what the previous homeowner said. One of the reasons that I purchased my townhouse was that it
afforded me a nice view of the wetlands in the back, and that’s always been one of the things that I
pointed out to the people that came to visit. The first time, or the first couple of months that I had guests
was, look at the nice view that I have on the other side of the house. And I don’t know what the pro’s and
con’s tax wise and development wise for the City would be. From a selfish homeowner standpoint, also
with all due respect to the developers, I think it would be to our detriment to Mission Hills if something
like this gets developed. Hopefully if something does get developed it would try to minimize the impact
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
traffic wise and tree wise and view wise for the current owners so I just wanted to second what other
people were saying and thank you for the opportunity to express our views.
Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing
portion and open for comments from the commissioners. Anyone? It’s a concept hearing so.
Colopoulos: Yeah, Chairman Aller you made an earlier comment about the roadway which I think is
apparently of concern here regardless of what other considerations are given to the zoning itself. You
know that is, off the top of my head that to me is the biggest concern. The roadway cutting across that
wetlands there. I mean obviously as this plan goes forward there’s going to be several, several shall we
say conflicting perceptions here. You know the views expressed by the neighbors versus the property
rights of the owner of the property and their legal right to pursue application for developable plans.
Where do we think the roadway issue is going to weigh in? That’s as much of a question I guess as that
of a comment. I mean how much of an influence is that going to be?
Aller: I think it’s going to depend on the actual plan that’s put forward.
Aanenson: We just need to stay for the, you know there’s going, this property is developable and we’ve
looked at all the different iterations for the roadway. I think the least amount of impact to the wetlands is
in the configuration that it’s shown the access to the property. You’re coming across a larger portion of
the wetland the further you move to the, to the west. Excuse me, east. So we had to place it there.
Certainly I mean we haven’t looked at all the impacts of the surrounding property. That’s the first I’ve
heard all those trees are coming down on the property. What would be the property. It’s on their property
if the trees would come down, on the developer’s proposed property but we would look at that more
closely.
Colopoulos: So the concept drawing here just basically…across the wetlands and with minimum impact,
that was behind that drawing there.
Aanenson: I’ll let Terry answer that question.
Jeffery: If I may. Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator. I’m not Krista Spreiter. It’s a little tough
to hear, to see in this drawing and I intentionally overlaid the wetlands in a very transparent layer so that
you could see what was beneath it but if you look at where the two red impacts are, there is actually no,
there is a small bridge that exists right there. It’s two separate wetlands. One over, one over to the, yeah.
Yep, there. One to the east. One to the west. Yep, yep, so to come through up here would actually result
in greater impact and then to come even further north would result in property he doesn’t even have
control of. Again regardless of what comes through as a final product he’s going to have to meet the
Wetland Conservation Act sequencing which always look at one, avoidance. Two, minimization and
three, replacement of those unavoidable impacts so, and the intent of the PUD would be that there would
be that trade-off where okay, we can, you get the lots but we need to provide protections that we would
not otherwise be afforded if we used standard zoning.
Aller: And that’s why I don’t think it would be a bad thing to comment and pass our comment along to
the council that they should potentially look at this for movement towards allowing for a PUD with
medium density to allow greater flexibility so that this project, or another project can come forward and
allow for greater opportunity to deal with the mitigation to those wetlands.
Aanenson: If I may, I think if you look at this map that’s up on the screen right now, it’s very illustrative
of the wetland impacts. What it’s not showing is the over layer of the shoreland impacts and that’s where
the, where the problem aligns. As we showed on the other, other drawing, part of the property is zoned
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
for twinhomes so you know there are some different things. What we’re trying to do is kind of take the
best of all that. Get that 50% open space. Minimize those impacts and we don’t have all that detail yet.
As the applicant said we’ve already worked through a number of drawings so we’re saying we’re really
not on the right path right now. Now we want to go to a different direction and try to even do a better job
of trying to reduce those impacts and move forward so that’s what we’re just trying to get a read on. On
that issue and just anything that we would do, whether the council would recommend would have to come
back through in their process so I want to make sure the residents understand that. There’s plenty of time
to work through some of those issues.
Aller: Anything?
Tennyson: Well that was a good reminder that it would come forward again and there’s no being stuck
with the path that could be taken.
Aanenson: Correct, and there’s a lot of other agencies that have review. You know the DNR. Wetland
Conservation Act, all those agencies are going to have to weigh in on that so it’s going to be a little bit
more work on that.
Tennyson: Okay.
Aller: Anything further?
Hokkanen: It seems to me that it’s going to be difficult at some, I mean with all these agencies and the
wetlands, changing it to medium density might be the best and flexible way to do it but I mean a couple
of these lots here might not even be able to have, I mean a home based on what I see. So adding I don’t
know, I mean you have to explore the options though. It’s the property owner’s right.
Aller: And I think that’s, that’s what we’re here for is to comment to the council that if they’re going to
redirect this and put it back and consideration could be had for the medium density allows for flexibility
which would hopefully leave those areas untouched perhaps but it will depend on what comes back
through.
Hokkanen: Right. Okay.
Aller: Okay.
Colopoulos: This will be a free standing development? It’s not going to be part of a nearby association?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Colopoulos: Okay. It’s a separate?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Colopoulos: Development. Got it.
Aller: Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to pass comments to the City Council.
Tennyson: I’ll move. I’m reading two different things here. Staff recommends that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback and direct the applicant to
address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 15, 2013
Hokkanen: Second.
Aller: Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Aanenson: Can I make clarification on the motion?
Tennyson: Adding the comment about staff report?
Aanenson: Did we get medium density in there?
Aller: We probably should because there were items in the staff report that we discussed that were not…
Aanenson: Okay, I guess just to make sure that we’re clear on that we’re looking at a land use, potential
land use amendment, just for clarification. It’s in the staff report but I want to make sure that, I want to
make sure you and I understand what you’re recommending, if that’s what your recommendation is.
Tennyson: So staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staff’s proposed comments listed in the staff
report.
Hokkanen: Second.
Aller: And with that we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City
Council with comments and feedback, and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff
report dated January 15, 2013 along with staff’s proposed comments listed in the staff report dated
January 15, 2013. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Aanenson: And if I may Mr. Chair, just for the residents that are here. This item is going to the City
th
Council on January 28 I believe.
th
Al-Jaff: January 28.
th
Aanenson: 28, yes so these comments will be forwarded to the City Council. Again they’re going to
just make a recommendation too and then it’s up to the applicant if he wants to pursue, based on whatever
direction that he also gets from the City Council.
Aller: So the City Council won’t actually be doing anything as far as an up or down vote unless they
decide to…?
Aanenson: That’s correct. Correct.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2012 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
None.
13