PC 2004 03 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 2, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Steve Lillehaug,
Rich Slagle, Bruce Feik, and Bethany Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner, Paul Oehme, Public Works
Director/City Engineer; and Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Dan Keefe
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
6670 Mulberry Circle
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO EXPAND THE
GARAGE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A ONE ACRE LOT, ZONED A2,
LOCATED AT 10240 MANDAN CIRCLE, BRUCE PAUL, PLANNING CASE
NO. 04-09.
Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff. Do we have questions of staff7. Kurt, do you want to
start?
Papke: Yeah. Page 5. Point 3. Staff requests denial on the basis of the fact that the
applicant has the ability to increase the size of the garage without the need for a variance
by building a 36 by 34 foot garage with an area of 1,224 square feet. Could you give us
an idea of what that proposal would look like?
Bouvet: I'll put the map back here on the screen. The 50 foot setback is pretty much
adjacent with the existing home as it is right now. Sorry if you can't really see that
outline. So ideally the applicant could move the proposed garage 12 feet to the west to
meet the 50 foot setback requirement. He's got about 2 feet to the west of the proposed
garage is a setback from the bluff so if he was to move the proposed garage over 12 feet
and take, instead of being 46 feet wide, making it 34 feet by 36 feet, running this way.
Papke: So that would remove that front piece that currently exists, is that what you
would propose?
Bouvet: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Papke: And that would be a 3 car wide stall garage?
Bouvet: It would be a 3 car wide garage. And it would meet all the setback requirements
and be no longer non-conforming.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions from staff?.
Claybaugh: Yes.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: This may be better addressed to the applicant, though I'll ask you anyhow.
Do you know what the current plan is? Is it to take down the existing garage?
Bouvet: I spoke with the applicant and he might be able to clarify that better but he does
intend to use the cement, the current cement flooring of the garage with the proposed
garage but he would be taking down in essence the whole thing.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Do you have questions Steve? Go ahead.
Lillehaug: Also on page 5. Can you further explain the implications that, the statement
guaranteeing that a garage with 1,656 square feet is sized to meet the home occupation.
Where do you come up with that?
Bouvet: Just due to the size. The home right now is roughly 1,500 square feet so his
proposed garage is about 200 square feet larger than his home. Have had conversations
about the intended use. He's stated that he's got a lot of wood making equipment and
storage are in his basement of the home. Wanting to relocate it. City staff, myself kind
of concluded that it could lead to a home occupation if it was used as a wood shop or a
wood working or a construction type of place of business.
Lillehaug: And you're indicating that reducing it to a 36 by 34 would reduce it by 400
square feet. ! mean do you still have the same concern that it could be used for a home
occupation even with that? I'm trying to figure out the difference between a 36 by 34
versus a 36 by 46, and it's only 400 square feet.
Bouvet: ! think the alternative that we had is making the depth less so you have enough
room to park your cars but it lessens the storage space or the working area of the garage
so to speak, but it still gives them that increase of a larger garage.
Lillehaug: Okay. That's it, thanks.
Sacchet: One quick last question on page 5 of the report. Commissioner Papke pointed
out the statement that the applicant has the ability to increase the size of the garage
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
without needing a variance. By shrinking it a little bit. But then on the first finding you
make a statement that creating a non-conforming structure, which makes it impossible to
expand to the 42 year old garage to this size. That means the full size.
Bouvet: Correct.
Sacchet: I just want to be clear about that. So this is covered. Okay, that's all the
questions. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come
forward and if you have anything more to add, or any aspects you want to emphasize for
us to consider, please state your name and address for the record.
Bruce Paul: Bruce Paul, I live at 10240 Mandan Circle. My intent is to tear the whole
garage down, cement and everything. Clear it all out of there. ! need storage. If! didn't
need the variance ! could put a 36 by 34 there right now. ! wouldn't have to go through
this hassle. There will be no plumbing in the building other than ! probably will heat it
because ! do have some wood working equipment that's stored in my basement that it
needs to be heated or this stuff will rust. I'm an auto mechanic by trade so ! don't intend
on running a wood shop business. ! probably have enough tools in my shop that !
probably could fit a 10 by 12 building alone with that so I'm looking ahead when ! do
retire, this stuffs going to come home. I've got 3 cars and I'm trying to figure out where
I'm going to put my boat, and ! don't need two more sheds out in the back like some of
the neighbors. It's tacky looking. ! don't need it and ! want to build something that's
pleasing. It's going to be stucco and metal fascia and everything on it. It's going to
match the house. My intent was to go the full dimension that ! could. ! didn't know that
there was a square footage that ! had to be within a certain size of my home for the
garage. ! mean I'm willing to cut back some, but ! mean ! wish you could at least meet
me half way on some of this stuff but my intent is to have a 3 car garage there with an
area to store this wood working equipment stuff in the back. I've got to heat it. ! got to
put it in there and have it heated. And ! will cement the driveway and everything. ! don't
need anymore parking. ! mean if you had me set it back, you're giving me a 10 by 36
chunk of concrete with no building over it which makes no sense. As far as traffic on the
neighborhood, there's 3 cars maybe all day. So ! mean ! don't know what the problems
is. ! mean other than aesthetic looks, if ! push it back where you want it, the garage will
be back further than the neighbors home so now he'll have a better view of my front yard
so when ! have to do my septic, he can see my mound system.
Sacchet: Alright.
Bruce Paul: You know and, like ! said and you maybe have a petition there. ! did go to
all the neighbors. ! spoke with all of them. ! had two of them that wanted to come here
tonight. ! said ! probably don't need you here tonight. There's not a problem with any of
them. ! don't want a tacky looking building. ! want a nice building. I'm going to retire.
I'm going to live there. Have the money to do it now and this is why ! want to do it.
Sacchet: Alright.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Bruce Paul: So, you know, but basically ! need storage. ! need stuff to put things
without putting buildings all around the yard. There's enough of those in the
neighborhood already so.
Sacchet: Alright. Any questions from the applicant? No? ! have a question. You made
a statement that, well let me clarify one thing first. ! think it's important to clarify that.
I'm not aware that there is a requirement of size of garage versus size of house. Where
we have requirement is setbacks. ! mean that's the framework that we establish as a city
that we're trying to live by, and as ! mentioned in my introduction, our role is to see to
what extent does it apply. And now, you mentioned that you'd be willing to, and that it
doesn't quite have to be that big. You see the problem, one of the problems with your
application is that you're intensifying the non-conformity. You're not going further to
the road but you're making it bigger on the same line. Now, would you be willing to go
back a little bit to give a little more setback?
Bruce Paul: Yeah, ! need the 36 foot width.
Sacchet: But you don't need the 40, what is it?
Bruce Paul: That would give me the 3 car. The 46 in the depth, I'm willing to
compromise on that.
Sacchet: You would be willing, but you'd rather not go down to the 34 or what?
Bruce Paul: 34 doesn't do, it hardly pays to take the garage down for that.
Sacchet: What would do?
Bruce Paul: Pardon?
Sacchet: What would do?
Bruce Paul: What would it do?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Bruce Paul: 34?
Sacchet: You say 34 would not.
Bruce Paul: No, 34 depth would not do hardly anything for me.
Sacchet: So how much would be workable for you, that's my question.
Bruce Paul: I'd like to see 40, 42.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: 40, 42. Okay.
Bruce Paul: Yeah.
Sacchet: Alright. That's all the question ! have.
Bruce Paul: ! mean I'm willing to give and take a little here but, and ! hear you people.
The only thing ! see that the square footage doesn't quite match with the house, and ! can
agree on that. Maybe it' s too big.
Sacchet: That's for you to decide.
Bruce Paul: And then you're worried that I'm going to use it for a residence so there will
be no plumbing in it so.
Sacchet: Well you're the judge of the size. ! don't think we have any foundation from
our side to get into that.
Bruce Paul: ! mean but that's what I'm kind of hearing that the city's...
Sacchet: Well the concern about home occupation, that's sort of related to size but !
don't think we're in a position to restrict size of garage. ! mean if somebody wants a
garage bigger than their house, there's absolutely nothing that I'm aware of in our code
that we have to say about that.
Generous: In this district, that's correct.
Sacchet: In this district. Okay, yeah. So yeah, and ultimately we have to take your word
about that. But you had a question.
Slagle: Just one question. To confirm the property to the north, his driveway and garage
is the closest thing to your property, is that correct?
Bruce Paul: Yeah. ! believe it's 4, ! measured it out. ! want to say it's 40 feet away.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's all.
Sacchet: That's all? Craig.
Claybaugh: ! guess ! would like to follow up on Commissioner Slagle's question. Is that
particular neighbor one that signed the petition?
Bruce Paul: Yes it is and he actually come over and he says what are you doing here? So
then ! showed him. He says that's cool. He says as long as you don't go right to the lot
line, I'm fine with it.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Alright. Well thank you very much. This is a public hearing so if anybody
would like to make a statement about this matter in front of us, this is your chance to
come up. Seeing nobody, I'll close public hearing. Bring it back to commission for
discussion and comments. Anybody?
Feik: I'll start.
Sacchet: You want to start? Go ahead Bruce.
Feik: ! have no problem with the application as drafted.
Sacchet: Okay.
Feik: Reason being is a consistency issue. We've had numerous issues up in front of us
in the past, some of which have been building on really an unbuildable lots where we
have allowed an oversized 2 car garage to go across the street from an existing 2 car tuck
under because the gentleman had, as he described, toys. And those were his words, and it
was recommended by staff that we approve that. So based upon what we've done in the
past, and in the spirit of consistency, ! have no problem with the application as drafted.
Papke: What you mean, you have no problem with.
Feik: As drafted.
Generous: As requested.
Feik: As requested.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: So you would grant the variance?
Feik: Grant the variance with all 46 feet.
Sacchet: That's what ! hear you saying, okay.
Feik: Yes.
Sacchet: Just want to be clear about it. Okay.
Feik: Yes, because ! think that would be consistent with what we have done over the last
3 years.
Sacchet: Okay. Anybody else have a comment?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Lillehaug: ! do.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Lillehaug: I'm looking at a real true photograph of the adjacent properties, and ! see the
adjacent houses with garages closer than, most definitely closer than 50 feet to the
property line. And it doesn't appear that they're recorded non-conformances in the
project that, or in the area. That house directly to the north, that house is closer than 50
feet. The house, that one and that one's closer than 50 feet. ! mean it looks like it's
staying consistent, you know 30 feet to the existing garage and the property line. ! think
that looks pretty consistent within the neighborhood. It's zoned agricultural. ! don't see
a problem with it. ! think it's reasonable. They are increasing the intensity of the non-
conformance but ! think it's reasonable.
Sacchet: Okay. Kurt, do you have a comment?
Papke: ! respectfully disagree. ! believe the applicant has reasonable use with the staff' s
proposal of the smaller size, 36 by 34 garage. ! think a 3 car garage is reasonable use and
goes in the direction that we want to go. ! mean the city code for variances under these
circumstances is pretty clear. That we're not to extend the variance that currently exists
and ! think this one, there's no hardship at all under these circumstances so ! support the
staff' s recommendation.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany, do you have a comment?
Tjornhom: You know I just don't ever want to stand beside or between a man and the
size of his garage. It's a man's prerogative ! think. ! also don't have a problem with any
of it because there's already a garage that was set in place there and your neighbors don't
seem to have a problem with it. ! don't have a problem with it either.
Sacchet: Okay, Craig.
Claybaugh: ! actually came into the meeting of the mindset to vote to deny the request.
1,656 square feet strikes me as excessive. In the context of you not needing a variance,
as Commissioner Sacchet had stated, that's your prerogative. In the context of requiring
a variance to do it, that's another matter. After hearing you speak, ! believe that your
intensions are quite genuine and would be willing to support the compromise that you
alluded to in your comments. That's all my comments.
Sacchet: Verygood. Rich.
Slagle: Basically the same as Commissioner Claybaugh.
Sacchet: Yeah, and I'm in the same place. My position is that since the non-
conformance is intensified, if the garage is being made bigger with the same setback, we
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
really have to respect the rules, and the rules are very clear about that. That if there is a
non-conforming situation, that if it gets changed, it should not be staying the same or
getting worst. In this case it's getting worst, even though you stay the same distance
from the road, so ! was very happy to hear that you're willing to make a compromise and
! think we, ! would be totally comfortable giving you a 40 foot by 36 garage. Basically
cutting the variance in half to 6 foot, rather than 12 foot variance. ! think that would be
appropriate in my opinion. Balance in this case. So with that I'd like to have a motion.
Claybaugh: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission deny, or I'm sorry. How
should we approach this Bob with the modification? Just recommend approval with a 6
foot setback?
Generous: Just change the setback that you would approve.
Claybaugh: Okay. The Planning Commission approve Variance #04-09 for a 6 foot
variance from the 50 foot which would become a variance from the 50 foot front yard
setback requirement as shown on plans dated 9/20 as prepared by Allan R. Hastings
based upon findings in the staff report and the following.
Sacchet: We may have to change those findings because they're for denial.
Feik: Just drop the findings.
Claybaugh: In their entirety?
Papke: Yeah.
Sacchet: Throw out the findings and maybe state based on our finding that this is a
reasonable request with that.
Claybaugh: Okay, we'll drop the staff's findings and add the note that based upon the
commissions findings, this appears to be a reasonable request.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second and a point of clarification. Do you want to add any verbiage
Commissioner to the fact that the applicant agreed to that?
Claybaugh: ! have no objections to it.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: And do we want to have maybe a friendly amendment stating that this is not to
be used for home occupation. ! think that would be appropriate since there's concern
from staff' s side and it' s not an issue for the applicant.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Claybaugh: ! don't have any objections to that.
Sacchet: Okay, very good. We have a motion. We have a second. We have some
friendly amendments.
Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve
Variance #04-09 for a 6 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback
requirement as shown on plans dated 9/20/03, prepared by Allan R. Hastings based
upon the commission's findings that this is a reasonable request and the applicant's
willingness to compromise on the size of the garage, with the following condition:
1. The site shall not be used for a home occupation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: It's appeal able, yes if you want to appeal that you can.
Slagle: And if! may, Nate. Great, well written. Well written.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-
LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY; A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
REVIEW FOR AN 18 TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN
18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 18
TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND OUTLOTS; AND A VARIANCE FROM THE BLUFF
CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON 6 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT; A2, LOCATED AT
2930 WEST 78Tn STREET (NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78Tn STREET
AND HIGHWAY 41); HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK; PLOWSHARES
DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Scott Bemas
Susan McAllister
Todd M. Simning
Ed Hasek
Brent Hislop
Nathan Franzen
6800 France Avenue South
2930 West 78th Street
1851 Lake Drive West
Westwood Professional Services
1851 Lake Drive West
1851 Lake Drive West
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff.
Papke: I'll start. Just to make sure I understand a couple things. On page 2. Third
paragraph you state that the applicant has greatly improved the plan, and I just want to
make sure I understand you know, how you define greatly in this context. I understand
the trail has been added.
Generous: Pedestrian access.
Papke: The narrower road.
Generous: Well, they brought it down to meet standards.
Papke: Right.
Generous: Increase the pending to comply with the city storm water pending
requirements.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: Reduced the retaining walls on the eastern edge efthe property and graded in
to sort of match the existing development to the east, and provided additional
landscaping.
Papke: Okay. In terms of the trail, could you explain a little bit better how the funding
for that will work. If ! understand kind of in summary, they build the trail and then they
get reimbursed for the.
Generous: The trail construction.
Papke: The trail construction but they pay essentially for the engineering of the trail.
Generous: Correct.
Papke: So that great improvement is a city funded trail.
Generous: Yes.
Papke: Okay. One last question. The applicant stated in her letter to the Mayor and the
City Council her understanding on page 2 of the letter that the, her understanding was
that the start of the primary zone was 300 feet from where the vegetation starts. Okay.
That was included in our packet here.
Generous: Right.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Papke: I just want to make sure I understand, because that seems very different from the
primary zone that we have on our drawings, so there seems to be a pretty distinct
discrepancy between the applicant's understanding of how that primary zone was
established and what we have on our drawings. Could you shed any light on that?
Generous: Right. Well there's no way to specifically address a distance requirement in
the primary zone. It could be as narrow as 10 feet and as wide as a quarter mile. It really
depends on topography, vegetation, and hydrology and it's, as part of the Bluff Creek
natural resource management plan they studied what elements should be included within
the primary zone and what should be preserved. And so in this instance we came up with
the line which is the prima fascia start for where it's located. However we don't find out
until it's actually surveyed as part of the development proposal where that final line will
be and that's part of what they did here because we've agreed that it doesn't include the
corral area or the barn, but it does include all the mature stand of trees on the north side
of the property.
Papke: Okay. Last but not least, just to make sure ! understand the change in the trees
that will be taken out and removed. So in the greatly improved plan we have about 7 or
8, 60 foot white pines that are taken out to make space for the city funded trail. Is that
correct? That's kind of a major improvement in the preservation analysis. Okay. That's
all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Who wants to go next?
Lillehaug: I will.
Sacchet: Ladies first.
Lillehaug: Go ahead.
Tjornhom: I just have a couple questions. Bob, explain to me that, can the primary zone
expand as the years go by? I mean do these natural resources of the wetland, can they
just keep on, if no one takes care of them. You know if they're not mowed or if they're
not developed, do they expand?
Generous: Theoretically yes. The habitat area could become larger or smaller.
Tjornhom: Okay, so that if it wasn't developed now, say in 5 years that area could be
even larger? I mean you probably don't know but I'm just wondering.
Generous: Potentially if the, well in this case the canopy coverage could expand out to
the south.
Tjornhom: And then they wouldn't be allowed to build in that.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: In that area.
Tjornhom: In that area either. Okay. And so ! guess ! don't know if this is even an
appropriate question to ask but as ! read through all of this, to me the main thing is, if
these people don't get you know, their Section 3 into 3 lots, is it a deal breaker? ! mean
are we wasting our time if people, if we all agree that they can't.
Sacchet: We probably will have to ask the applicant, yeah. ! think that's a question for
the applicant Bethany.
Tjornhom: Okay. Then ! guess ! don't have...
Sacchet: It's a very good question.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Sacchet: Who else? Craig.
Claybaugh: I guess I would dove tail on that inappropriate question and ask what your
discussions have been with the applicant with regard to that specific issue. From the
staff' s perspective.
Generous: They have advised me that they needed 18 units to make the project go
forward. The underlying property owner said she needs more units.
Claybaugh: And to come back to the ultimate plan, the ultimate plan in the staff's
opinion did not mitigate the encroachment of Lot 3 into the primary zone?
Generous: With the pond to the north, is that?
Claybaugh: Well the alternate plan that you had, yes trotted out as part of your
presentation.
Generous: Well staff' s concern was that this was even encroaching even further into the
primary zone boundary and taking out additional trees in that. While the structures were
pushed away from the primary zone, you have this other encroachment into there.
Claybaugh: And I'd like you to define, the reason I'm asking that question is that with
respect to the alternate plan, all we have is the contour line plan, and for the plan that you
are recommending, we have a number of sheets that are devoid of contours and define it
and it's easier to read so I'm asking you to interpret that alternate plan a little bit for me,
and come back and maybe justify your decision because my interpretation was by
locating the retention pond to the north, that lessened the physical encroachment of
buildings.
Generous: Of the structures.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Claybaugh: Exactly.
Generous: Except for the storm water pond.
Claybaugh: Except for the storm water pond, yes, but my primary concern was with the
buildings and the people occupying those buildings.
Generous: And so yes, for those structures it would be, they would be pushed farther
away from the tree line.
Claybaugh: Okay. Then with respect to the NURP pond, is that not an accepted
placement for that? How do you draw a parallel between the encroachment of the
buildings and the encroachment of the storm water pond with respect to the placement
near the bluff?. Do you assign the same weight to those two?
Generous: ! wouldn't personally. I'd have the storm water pond would have, be more
natural feature if you will than a structure. However from the environmentalist, either
encroachment is an encroachment and it's bad for the corridor.
Claybaugh: Okay with respect to the sediment pond being there and an environmental
issues with respect to it, and the separation. If that pond was back outside of that primary
zone, then they would just have that additional buffer to filter it before it made it's way
down to Bluff Creek, is that correct?
Generous: If it was back.
Claybaugh: The function of the NURP pond is obviously for settling sediment.
Generous: Right. To pre-treat it.
Claybaugh: Okay. It's location with respect to the primary setback is just a function of
the area that the runoff through there will have to filter. Is it a filtration question with
respect to where it' s. If they could locate the NURP pond outside of the primary setback
zone.
Generous: Right.
Claybaugh: Okay, I'm assuming that would be acceptable to you.
Generous: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. By locating it where it is currently located and encroaching in that
primary setback zone from an environmental standpoint, what's at risk? What are we
losing?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: You're losing the integrity of the treed area. The existing tree cover that's
there. That's primarily.
Claybaugh: We've hopefully gone at length to establish that the quality of those trees,
not only their ...was located, in your opinion is there substantial stands of trees down
there that are in jeopardy? Of quality trees.
Generous: Well the existing canopy coverage is. Not a substantial number, no.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich.
Slagle: ! have a couple. The easiest one first, and Bob thanks for your efforts on that
trail. My question is, if you go to the sidewalk that runs on the north side of West 78th, it
goes east. And it hits Century Trail, okay.
Generous: Correct.
Slagle: And it appears it stops there and then someone would need to walk across West
78th to continue east. My question is, other than the trail that is just east of Century, if
I'm going out further east. Century has a trail that goes to the east of it and runs north
and then hits the wetland and then it starts to work it's way to the trail that's behind this
development. My question is is where is the nearest trail connector and/or sidewalk that
would come up into Pulte so these folks wouldn't have to walk all the way to Century
and then go up a quarter mile to get to the wetland. And if you don't know the answer,
maybe the applicant knows. But ! think it's a fair question is, what route are people
going to utilize the services that the city might end up paying for. So, if we don't have an
answer.
Generous: The new connection on 41 would be the only close one. Otherwise you go to
the wetland finger east of Century Trail, or Century Boulevard and then you go in the
Vasserman Ridge even further east.
Slagle: ! think for some reason, and ! hope I'm right, that there is a stub somewhere in
Pulte to the west of Century that comes up from the trail into the homes. ! hope.
Generous: Yeah I don't know. I'm not certain on that.
Slagle: Okay. Getting back to the question of the pond now. It appears to me, and you
referenced it by saying it's still within the canopy if the pond was situated to the north,
but from all the drawings I'm seeing, there's very little canopy in the majority of the area
where the pond would go. ! mean the pond might infringe on some of the canopy
coverage but it appears to me that it's fairly open. The shrubbish you know, or ! mean is
that a fair assessment versus going 50 yards to the northwest or 50 yards to the northeast.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: Yes. 50, if you're going to locate it in the north side, that's probably the best
part.
Slagle: Okay. And my only question is then, would it not be ideal, or maybe that's too
strong a word. Would it not be beneficial to some of those residents to have a pond
behind their homes? And one could even envision a walking path around the edge of it,
or something to that effect. ! mean why would we think a pond wouldn't be an amenity
that one could utilize?
Generous: Definitely it could.
Slagle: Okay. So last question then Bob. Are you suggesting then that the trade off that
they've recommended in the application. Not the alternative one but the application,
you're not in agreement with the encroachment into the primary zone and the only
alternative that we've seen so far is the pond going to the north, is that correct?
Generous: Correct.
Slagle: And then the other option would be lesser units.
Generous: Correct.
Slagle: Okay, so there's no other alternatives or options that have been discussed that
you can address?
Generous: You could put additional units, go to 4 unit structures.
Slagle: So then the density would just increase.
Generous: Well they'd probably keep the density. It's just you'd have different structure
types. Fours and threes instead of twos and threes. That would be another way to do it.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Bruce?
Feik: Sure, ! have one and I'd just like to rephrase something that I've heard, and you
correct me where I'm wrong ! guess, and this is getting back to the NURP pond out there
and the trees. The City Forester I'm understanding. Sorry. The City Forester as !
understand does not weigh the impact of an encroachment as it relates to the specific
trees for either alternative. So she hasn't said if you have to encroach, this is better or
this is worst? It's just encroachment's bad.
Generous: Correct.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: So there's no weight given to the loss of some really nice sugar maples as opposed
to the loss of some pretty beat up basswood, to put it bluntly. There really, it's just
treated, canopy cover.
Generous: Right.
Feik: When speaking with the applicant regarding this alternative plan, and ! know I'll
ask the applicant when he comes up as well but would you give me a little primer on
what his thoughts were regarding from a build ability perspective and whether the NURP
pond on the north end was reasonably feasible?
Generous: Well you'd probably ask them but I believe they wouldn't have presented it as
an option if it was.
Feik: Okay. That's it for now, thanks.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Boy I have questions. I want to preface my big question with a comment. I
guess I'm having trouble, you know we gave some pretty specific direction last time on
what to do to improve this and the proposal I'm seeing in front of me went the other
direction with the fine tuning of the engineering, so I'm disappointed for one. So that's,
so prefacing my questions, I need to take, go way back and get things clear in my head.
The underlying guidance of the zoning was, that was, could you refresh my memory what
that was?
Generous: It's guided low, residential low density. Currently zoned A2.
Lillehaug: Okay. And ! know I'm back stepping here, but if that were rezoned as RSF,
how many units, or what would the density be for the 6.56 acres? How many single
family homes would they have to put on that? And the reason I'm asking that is because
when we, when this is rezoned as PUD we need to see a significantly higher quality
development here and all I'm seeing is larger impacts to the primary zone. I'm not
seeing the benefits out of putting a PUD in here. So that's why I'm asking that question.
How many single family homes would be allowed on that property?
Generous: Without laying it out it's hard to say for certain but using the formula we use
within the comprehensive plan it would be 9 units. For an RSF development.
Lillehaug: Okay. That answers that question. My other questions would be, give me a
second here. Going back to conditions. One of the main conditions here, and you know
we're saying that there is greatly improved the plan. Well the first condition is, staff
recommends deleting Lot 1, 2 and 3. So ! don't see that the applicant has worked with
staff at all on this. ! mean that is a deal breaker obviously. Recommendation there. And
so that is a firm recommendation from staff to delete Lots 1, 2 and 3 because.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: Take them out of the encroachment into the... That's what that does.
Lillehaug: So with that condition it would follow through to a lot of conditions, there's
probably others in here but for example condition number 18. You're computing that for
17 units when in essence if condition number 1 were granted it would be either 15 or 14
units, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. You know ! think we'll let the applicant speak before ! go ahead with
any more questions. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. ! have 2, 3, 4 quick questions as well. But the first question, the
one thing I'm mostly struggling with is the proposal that was brought in front of us last
time had 50 percent of the site graded. Now the report on page 7 states the plan proposes
to grade about 70 percent, so how did we get from 50 percent to 70 percent... ? Is that an
engineering question or is that something you can address Bob? ! guess it's unfair to put
engineering on the spot. You weren't here when this was here the first time. Maybe the
applicant is in a better position to address that.
Generous: Their engineer would be better able to answer that.
Sacchet: Okay. We'll hold that for the applicant. Get you off the hook. Another
question similar. On page number 12, we're talking about the landscaping, the tree
preservation aspect, and last time we said we're preserving 28 percent. Now this time
we're cutting a significant amount more trees and they're still saying we're preserving 28
percent. How's that add up? Don't know, okay.
Generous: Well just the math.
Sacchet: Well yeah, that math is more than fuzzy. A question that ! have from, one of
the improvements, given this is an improvement. We don't have a 9 feet high retaining
wall, we have 4 feet high retaining wall that's being moved to the south end. Is there any
concern in terms of safety to have that retaining wall next to the road or sidewalk or how
would that be handled? Can you give me some insights?
Generous: We would require a fence on the top of...
Sacchet: So it would be a fence and then would be the drop off with the retaining wall.
And to kind of pull off on Commissioner Lillehaug's comment about condition number 1.
It's actually also condition number 2 where it says the property line between Outlots A
and B shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. So we're
asking that, now if ! understand this correctly, Outlot A is the part that's supposed to be
preserved and possibly even deeded to the City or easement or something like that?
Generous: Correct.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: And so we're saying that the lot line should be the primary zone the way we are
defining it.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to
invite the applicant to come forward. See where he can enlighten us on some of these
things because we certainly need that.
Todd Simning: Good evening commissioners.
Sacchet: State your name just for the record so we know who we have here.
Todd Simning: No problem. Todd Simning, Plowshares Development out of
Chanhassen, Minnesota. First off, just to give a little brief introduction again. Basically
when many of you asked questions about us working with staff or not. Actually we've
worked intensely with staff. Unfortunately we have gotten no good direction. The things
that we have proposed to date to, you know there was somebody in staff that vehemently
opposed it, and it really didn't give us a really good firm, solid ground to go to something
that you guys gave us recommendations on last time I was here, and unfortunately we're
back with something that you guys might not have given us recommendation on but we
do feel is a good plan, and I'm going to kind of run through that. Some of the items that
Bob had noted in his staff report that it was greatly improved. We did try to relocate the
pond on the north side. That was less desirable, not necessarily just because of the trees
that were affected on our site, but one of the things that you guys don't see in the bigger
picture, and I'm going to show it on an overhead. This is the alternative plan that you
guys had with the storm pond on the north here. Basically speaking we did take out a fair
amount of canopy in order to make this work. But more importantly what we don't
notice, or what you guys don't see is that we do have to have storm, underground storm
system that goes all the way down to the pond down there which is actually, you know
we haven't even done a tree inventory because it isn't part of our property. So when
you're looking at that, there's going to be significant canopy and trees and you know, just
to get equipment down there and actually make anything work. So when we went back
and decided which direction we were going to go, staff and ourselves are looking at this
and saying okay, well what would be a better alternative and we came back with the same
plan for the most part that we had with the improvements that Bob has noted in his staff
report. Now that gets me to the second pond that I'd like to make is that in there staff
does not support encroachment into the primary zone. And they also note that 30 percent
of the site is in the primary zone. I guess this is the heart of the issue for us. And what
I'd like to do is try to bring forward some evidence at least what we've brought up to try
to help you guys understand where we came from and come to a good conclusion as to
where we want to go. The purpose of the Bluff Creek Overlay District from the
information that I've culled in Ordinance number 286 did six things. And basically
speaking the intent was number one, consistency of provisions of the comprehensive plan
which includes the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan as amended. Preservation
of the natural conditions found in the primary zone. Creation of a suitable balance
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
between the amount of open space, landscaping, bluff protection. The creation of inter
connected open space that preserves the migratory patterns of the wildlife. Creation of an
inter connected open space network that provides recreation and educational
opportunities for people. And the purpose of it was also six fold. To protect the Bluff
Creek corridor. To encourage development pattern that allows people and nature to mix.
Promote innovative development techniques as clustering, foster the creation of the
greenway connecting Lake Minnewashta and Minnesota River Valley. Encourage cost
effective site design, and lastly, implement the policies and recommendations found in
the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resource Management. Now, this last item is
probably the most important one. Implementing the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural
Resource Management Plan. I'm going to go the document that was actually drafted and
put together by Bonestroo, which is an engineering firm for the City of Chanhassen, and
basically what they did was gathered a group of citizens, staff, council people and
basically got everybody together and said let's look out 40 years and what do we want to
see? What do we want to protect? And in the overall plan that we're trying to
incorporate and use with our ordinance, it, let me just get my bearings here. It defined,
hang on. I've got to get my bearings. It defined the primary zone and this is important to
read. The primary corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undisturbed
conditions are desired. This is the area where any type of development or human activity
directly impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. That
being defined as the metamorphical are related to the stability of the stream and vary
depending on the variations and the flow regime, the amount of sediment carried by
runoff, localized erosion, non point pollution, the management practices for this area will
focus on preservation and enhancement of natural conditions. The area that was
established for that buffer, and Susan's property actually lies within what they call
Section lA, which is defined as the uplands area. That was off of Figure 9 on page 45 of
the Bluff Creek Management Plan. That recommended for the uplands of Al, which is
defined as Susan's property, that the corridor boundaries be defined by existing wetlands,
and recommended a 300 foot strip buffer along either side of Bluff Creek. Now in all of
the definitions that were trying to be adopted at the time, it had nothing to do with trees
necessarily. It had to do mainly with the preservation of Bluff Creek waterways. To
make certain that they're preserved, and in that what they were trying to do was not
necessarily, one of the reasons why they had homeowners, property owners involved is
that they didn't want to necessarily have to encroach and just take property from
homeowners as you were asking a question Commissioner about, does it grow? Well you
know what? It's not that fair that it continues to grow at the will of city staff and what
they think, what they believe it should be and what the original practices and the
ordinance look like the intent was set for. So anyway, on with that, I'm going to
introduce also just a map I received from the GIS coordinator from Carver County,
Gordon Schnander and for the most part what I would, sorry about that. Do I need to go
this way? What I'd like to demonstrate is when staff states that 30 percent of the
McAllister property is sitting in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, if in fact we were going
by the intent of what the management practices document shows, as well as what the
ordinance was intended to do, you basically would find about .95 acres that would
actually be in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Now, in our document, or what the
document that Bob shows is that they basically come up with a prima-facie definition and
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
boundary where they think it's supposed to be and then we're supposed to come up here
and argue that it is or it isn't in this particular area. ! think this clearly demonstrates that
in reality ! think that the primary zone that staff has been going with has grown probably
a little bit too much from where it really should be, and ! don't think that we are asking
all that much when we're looking at our property of you know where we have our
primary and secondary zone right now. In reality ! think that should be pushed back. So,
go ahead.
Slagle: Todd are you, in this image are you suggesting that your red lines are 300 feet?
Todd Simning: They are exactly 300 feet.
Slagle: Okay.
Todd Simning: And that was set up by the GIS coordinator down in Carver County.
Now, onto why ! feel that we should be approved tonight with the plan set forth that we
have. I'm also going to introduce a project that Pulte did which is called Arboretum
Village, which is basically a project probably approved about 3 years ago that's been in
the building phase for the last 2 years. On this, what they had presented to the city, and
what they got approved, and if you look at my little pink marks here, they took out
significant trees to be able to fit, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 units down by the creek side, which even
by the standards of the 300 foot buffer are not even close to matching up, if in fact we're
trying to maintain the stream quality and runoff and that sort of thing. ! also brought in
some GIS surveys. The first one here is from the year 2000, and basically speaking what
it shows is that Pulte had not put in their project yet, but you can see the backs of the
buildings, the 10 units right here that sincerely encroach onto what technically today
would be called the primary zone but obviously back in year 2000, 2001 when they were
getting this approved, wasn't. From the 2002 aerial, which comes into color, you can see
again probably a little bit more demonstratively the amount of trees that they actually
took off to encroach to put those 10 units in, and then in the 2003 aerial, again I'm just
demonstrating that things haven't changed, and I'm not certain why they ended up having
to change for the McAllister project, or property and also ourselves. Going forward, !
honestly do not think that we're violating the intent of Ordinance 286. ! think we're
adhering to it very strictly and in our practices of how we have set the site out, the
ordinance was not established to be harmful to land owners. ! think that was probably
why they put the 300 foot buffer in there in the first place because they didn't necessarily
want to take eminent domain from people. Not compensate them for it. ! think that we
aren't, technically speaking when even staff says that we're encroaching on the primary
zone in those three lots, we aren't actually taking any significant trees. We are taking
some tree cover on some smaller ones, but they are identified in the tree survey that we
do have that the larger trees that are there are staying. They are not coming down. So
with that ! think that we should be approved tonight, including Lots 1, 2 and 3, on Block
3. ! do believe that the primary and secondary zone should be revised further back so you
guys don't even need to consider us having to get a variance because ! think it's
encroached too much at this point. ! believe that we should delete number 28 as a
hammer head issue, since we're sprinkling all units, that shouldn't even be part of the
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
equation. The fire marshal, if in fact and gosh, if you go back to what Matt had stated the
last engineer that was here, as long as we sprinkled every unit, which is actually a
requirement. Number 7 on page 19, that we would not even be required to have a
hammer head. So with that I'm going to open it up to questions for you guys and
hopefully ! can help out and help understand where things are going.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good presentation. Questions from the applicant. Who
wants to start?
Lillehaug: I'll start.
Sacchet: You want to start Steve.
Lillehaug: I'll start with a difficult question. You just requested that the city revisit or
revise the primary zone location. Correct?
Todd Simning: That is correct.
Lillehaug: With doing that, why would the city want to allow a PUD in this area then,
because if you revise that primary zone as far back as you were showing, ! would say that
you can easily get 9 single family homes on that parcel.
Todd Simning: I think it's important to always strike a good balance, no matter what
you're going and whether it's my personal life or business life or you guys at the city, and
technically speaking I guess if in fact you just wanted to see most of the trees go down,
and work with just a 300 foot buffer, maybe we wouldn't even have to stand up here and
ask for a PUD. I think in the same token, a good balance is that we see value in keeping
the trees. I mean that's something that sells our developments and we'd rather be able to
keep as many as possible to be able to have more of a natural environment for our clients
then just cutting in there and doing what you can do in Eden Prairie and I watch a
townhouse development just absolutely take just about every tree out of this development
and I'm like, what's going on. I mean my partner and I Steve wouldn't never have even,
we said there was no way they were going to be able to do that and by god, they ripped
every darn tree out and it was like that doesn't even look good. So I guess we're looking
to strike a good balance and that's more of what we're looking for with the city.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. You also indicated that you received no good direction. !
guess this is probably more of a comment but ! think last time you were here we gave
pretty explicit direction that we wanted a revision to stay out of the primary zone. The
existing primary zone as the city saw the boundary. So with that do you feel the Planning
Commission gave no good direction?
Todd Simning: I think I was referring to city staff at the time where we took your
direction and that's what we were going to run with, and then we got in the middle of that
and it was just like, between city staff, everybody was fighting with what exactly
somebody wanted to see or not see and you had 2 people for it, 2 against it and we kept
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
going back and forth on it so I don't think it was necessarily the Planning Commission
that was stating that didn't give us good direction. It was mainly once we went out of
that and we were trying to incorporate the ideas, it was going nowhere and that's where
we ended up coming back to this plan which again we feel is a better alternative.
Lillehaug: Okay. ! think that's all ! have, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay. Who else wants to ask questions?
Feik: I'll ask. ! want to touch base on that NURP pond on the north side. From a
marketability perspective, assuming for just a moment that Lots 1, 2 and 3 are included as
generally proposed or at least as proposed on the alternative plan. From a marketability
perspective, a desirability perspective, of the two plans for both sale and for a resident to
be living there, which do you think is the superior plan?
Todd Simning: I'd take the plan in front of you over the alternative and the reason that !
would is that, yes the pond is a nice amenity that somebody could have in their back yard,
okay. But that's for a limited number of units that might be there. ! think there's
probably 1, 2, 3, maybe 4 that kind of get that benefit so to speak Whereas by putting it
on the north side, what we're able to do is actually take the units that abut West 78th
Street and actually move those further away from West 78th Street, and there's more units
that actually benefit from that and ! think overall that the city actually benefits from it
also because as an aesthetic point of view as you're driving down the road, it's going to
look a lot nicer if in fact the units are a little bit further away from the road than sitting
right on it, so that's as far as marketing goes and ! know we know marketing since we
sell a fair amount of product.
Feik: And the, I'll ask the question direct, the 3 lots. Does that kill the deal?
Todd Simning: Absolutely.
Feik: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah Bethany, go ahead.
Tjornhom: One thing that hasn't been addressed, and I'm going to go with the scenario
that everything was approved with the lots in the primary zone. Staff was concerned
about how you were going to differentiate the different buildings, and did you work that
out with them so they have an idea as to how they would aesthetically compliment each
other and make a nice neighborhood?
Todd Simning: We did not have an opportunity to discuss that yet. We'd actually, I just
got the report ! think on Friday from Bob. It may have been in Saturday's mail too, and !
know that was part of the last conditions and ! guess ! didn't put big, you know a number
one issue because ! thought that'd be very easy to come to terms with different colorings
and that sort of thing and that's part of what our developments are is Kroiss
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Development. ! mean we automatically hold ourselves to a different level and so ! didn't
see that as really an issue for us so.
Slagle: I've got a quick question Todd, you were able to have a couple of those GIS
photos. Can ! look, or can you put one up. What I'm just trying to determine is there a
connection on that trail to the north into the Pulte, and ! think ! saw that there was before
Century.
Papke: Yeah it is. It's over on the east side. I've actually walked back there on the
property...
Slagle: Go further east. Yeah, there you go.
Todd Simning: Commissioner Slagle, it comes right through this area. Our's is going to
come down the north and the actual, the park board actually owns the property inbetween
our's and this trail and that ! think is what Bob was alluding to. That once this is put in,
that they will finish the connection all the way down to the trail.
Slagle: Okay, great. It's good to see that. I'm just still, to be honest with you Todd, just
still wondering about the alternative plan. And actually, and I'll share with you, I'm not
so much thinking about it because of the primary. I'm just thinking about it from an
aesthetics standpoint and maybe what I'll call impact.
Sacchet: Any points Craig?
Claybaugh: Yes sir. Last time you were in front of us there was some discussion with
respect to the height of the retaining walls which was driven by the touch down points
which was the NURP pond and ! believe that was the primary touch down point that was
established in the road elevation.
Todd Simning: Correct.
Claybaugh: Which led to the retaining wall height. One of the conditions with the
alternative plan was to mitigate the build up on the site. When ! look through the
alternative plan and look to your submitted plan ! see the same road height elevation of
1010. Can you explain how that pans out? How you achieved it this time where you
weren't able to achieve it apparently last time?
Todd Simning: I'm going to defer that to Ed over here, the engineering just for a second.
Ed Hasek: Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services. ! am not an engineer, just so you
know.
Claybaugh: You're forgiven.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Ed Hasek: But ! will do the best that ! can. Part of our discussions with the city and the
reason why the wall exists in the first place is because of the elevation that we were
trying to achieve as basement walkouts for the units that were adjacent to 78th. What we
did was to basically leave the road alone but in discussions with the park board and the
city were able to eliminate the wall because we could grade into city property which is to
our east. The city actually owns the lot between our property line and the lots that Pulte
built on. ! don't know if that tells you why the road didn't go up or down.
Claybaugh: Yeah, that's a fair explanation for that. I was just, as you were stating that I
was trying to correlate that with the impact. One of the things we were trying to do was
mitigate the build-up on the site to try to save potentially more trees. The fact that the
city is willing to allow you to grade the adjacent property to help mitigate that retaining
wall doesn't address the underlying concern that ! had. But it does answer the question.
I'd like to come to the point that you made about the 300 foot setback, and in my
experience ! guess ! would assign that to a broad brush type technique, because ! know
for a fact that that would put a lot of delineators out of business. ! think in your
experience you've certainly became aware that there's more considerations that go into
establishing where that primary setback plants, hydrology. Certainly I'm not a
hydrologist but in other projects you certainly must have run into delineation beyond a
standard prescribed foot setback. Is that a fair statement?
Todd Simning: In most developments that we are in, whether it's in Shakopee, Eden
Prairie, Victoria, Eden Prairie, we've had ! would say on the whole very definitive
answers about how to plot lots on a particular site. This is the only one that has been this
broad stroked, and ! understand the point about being broad stroked in a way, but ! think
this is one that's been a little too much.
Claybaugh: Okay. Alright, ! guess with respect to the alternate plan, ! keep coming back
to it myself as being appealing to me for the reasons that it does back physical properties
out of the primary zone. ! understand your point is well taken with respect to the storm
sewer line that has to go down and extend through and it's going to take canopy coverage
out. I'm assuming that with the lack of recommendation or the no recommendation for
the plan on behalf of staff, no tree survey has been done at this point with respect to that?
Todd Simning: Correct. Only on our property. The property between ourselves and the
trail there that the city owns, we've done nothing, no.
Claybaugh: Okay. And in your experience with respect to location of the NURP pond to
the north, my recollection and being the site was, that the barn was located down there.
Is it a fair assumption to say that in your opinion that that has been degraded? That area
where you're looking at locating a NURP pond immediately has been degraded on some
level by the activities of just it being a hobby farm.
Todd Simning: Boy, you know I honestly I don't know how to answer that
Commissioner. There is, you know we looked at the overall grading and what we would
have to do, you know getting machinery around there and obviously part of it's open but
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
in order to grade around and do what we need to do, there was still a significant amount
of loss there.
Claybaugh: Okay. Alright, that's all the questions ! have.
Sacchet: Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: I'm sorry ! brought up that alternative last time. It seems to be kind of a sticking
point now. I'm just wondering if there isn't a better compromise here. ! think many of
us are hung up on the fact that the NURP pond on the north side just seemed to be a
win/win scenario. That's where the barn is. That's where the corral is. There's this huge
brush pile in that area. ! mean it's a very unappealing area to preserve. How many trees
are you proposing to put in that area on your plan here you show you know a give and a
take. You've got kind of a tan colored area where you want to, you want the city to give
up some of the primary area and you want to give back the area that you depict in green.
I'm looking to see, is there a compromise here where you could do some more intensive
restoration of the barn and corral area there in order to make it more of a give and take
situation.
Todd Simning: Absolutely.
Papke: Could you expound on that a little bit?
Todd Simning: ! have no problem in the area planting more trees to make it, you know
within reason because obviously you don't want to choke each other off because as the
canopies grow and you know you envision out 15, 20, 25 years you don't want
everything dying because everything's so close. But we have no problem bringing in
enough trees to satisfy both ourselves, because people are going to be over looking the
area and so it will be a naturally appealing area for our homeowners. As well as
something that's going to be helping the city in reforesting, forestering, ! guess ! don't
know how to say that but you know a certain area that may be didn't have as much
canopy and one of the things that we deal with all the time is new growth. Everybody
wants always to save old growth. Old growth. Old growth. Old growth. Well you know
at some point in time we have to intermix the two to have a sustainable, renewable
natural resource and people always forget that. You're always concerned with just the
old tree you're taking down. You know what, in a lot of cases, if in fact we took out
some of the old ones and put in saplings and that sort of thing to reforest it, we're going
to be better off in the long run and ! think that's part of the intent of the management
program of looking out 40 years and saying what do we want to see?
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Quick question. Todd, you're honest answer if you wouldn't mind. The units to
the south under your proposed plan that would have the pond behind them, ! mean is that
important? In the scale of like a 1 to 10, is that an 8, 9, 10 that they have pond behind
them as far as the success of the development?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Todd Simning: On the south side, if I understand correctly, the pond is to the south of it
and then the units are to the north. That they had a pond, no. As long as ! was far
enough off the road, ! think that that is more important than whether it had a pond or not
to overlook.
Slagle: Okay, with that answer then my question would be, would there be sufficient
berming that you could do because I'm looking at right now of 4 feet or so. ! mean
would there be more berming that you could do that would, ! mean ! don't know what the
difference of 10 feet or so more going north for those units, you know what I'm trying to
say? That berming to the south of the units 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, would that, ! mean
would that alleviate some of those concerns if you bermed it more?
Todd Simning: You mean if in fact the, say we relocated a pond to the north?
Slagle: Pond to the north, right.
Todd Simning: Okay, that's what ! wasn't completely understanding. You know when
you say will 4 feet, an extra 4 feet do? If in fact you look at the, what city planners and
you guys deal with on a daily basis, developers come in here and they try to convince you
that hey, I'm going to be putting up a berm here you know and I'm going to be shielding
car lights and everything else. But in fact, ! mean you guys have driven down your city
streets and city roads and you can see that the berming that you try to do within a, say an
extra 4 feet, really doesn't accomplish that much. ! mean I've been disappointed with
that dealing with, looking at other developments as they go into cities and it's like, god
they're right on a boulevard and nobody's really doing anything, and the developer goes
in and tries to convince guys, like yourselves, commissioners that, and City Council that
hey, but we're doing a great job berming. But in reality you know when it gets done, it's
really not much to shake a stick at.
Slagle: But you wouldn't be like them would you?
Todd Simning: Well no, ! honestly ! don't think we are. You know it might sound crazy
but ! really don't.
Slagle: No, but ! mean your berm would be a berm.
Todd Simning: Well if in fact you did it, but you couldn't do it just an extra 4 feet.
mean you've got to make something that's going to be significant.
Slagle: Sure. Okay.
Sacchet: Craig, are you itching...
Claybaugh: No, ! was just thinking the one exception would be the Federal Courthouse.
With respect to the berming.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: I have some questions, actually mostly the questions I asked of staff. I know
one thing that really perplexes me is what you brought last time to us was grading had 50
percent of the site, and I'm struggling with this one now says you're grading 70 percent.
Todd Simning: The majority of that commissioner comes in the grading of the trail
system along side 41, and that wasn't anything that was taken into account on the last
one. That's one of the other reasons why we ended up with the greatly improved plan
where we take down another 11 percent of the trees. It actually expanded out in the
grading of the site also.
Sacchet: So yeah, I'm aware that that's a component but it also appears to me that you
greatly reduce, if not largely eliminated the tree buffer to the west.
Todd Simning: With the.
Sacchet: From both sides though.
Todd Simning: With the gosh, what do you call it? With the trail over on the side.
Sacchet: On the west side but it seems also the units are actually further moved west.
Isn't it?
Todd Simning: What were they before?
Ed Hasek: I don't know, I think the first time probably in the 70 to 80.
Todd Simning: Okay. So yeah, another 20 feet.
Sacchet: Because at this point I'm looking at this, it seems like you're taking out literally
all the big trees on the west side, and there's going to be a sliver of vegetation left.
However valuable that will be would remain to be seen. But anyhow, so that explains
somewhat increase of that. Now the other thing that I asked of staff, that really doesn't
compute for me is that the figures given us as tree preservation stays the same. You
know it's 28 percent last time. It's 28 percent this time, however this time you're taking
all the white pines to the tune of about 10 of them, you're taking out more big oaks.
More big maples and reducing canopy further, pretty much eliminating the canopy to the
west and it's still the same percentage. To me that seems not real. Okay, I don't know. I
mean that's an element from the staff report and staff wasn't able to respond to that so I
don't know whether it's fair to ask you that question but if you have anything to add to
that, it sure would help me.
Todd Simning: Okay. Ed.
Ed Hasek: Okay, I'm going to just ask you to ask me the question one more time so I
can...
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: Okay. What I'm struggling with is the fact that in the current staff report the
tree preservation is quantified as 28 percent. 1.81 acres. And in the last time's proposal
it was also 28 percent. ! think it was 1.82 acres or something like that, so it's basically
the same and ! can't reconcile that frankly logically with looking at how much more
canopy you're taking down. How much more trees you're taking down than you did
propose last time, because really ! only found 2 trees that you claim you saved that last
time you were not saving, and actually we would want to address those specifically
because ! question the viability of that proposal. It's tree number 7258 and 7259, those
two maples that we specifically address last time. At this point you're listing them as
saved, however one of them is literally on the deck of unit, which unit is that? Unit 1 of
Block 3, and the other one, 7259 is way closer than is practical and much closer than the
good number of ones you're actually taking out.
Ed Hasek: ! think, ! don't know that ! can completely answer that question for you
because ! don't know where the numbers in the staff report.
Sacchet: Understand. Understand.
Ed Hasek: But the one tree that we have counted behind unit 1 in Block 3, actually is, we
do propose saving that. What we've done and it does not show in the plan, and that is my
problem, not your' s, is we are going to move the deck and the porch to the side.
Sacchet: Oh, to the side of the building.
Ed Hasek: To the side of the building.
Sacchet: That explains that. That's a good idea. Okay. That addresses that concern to
some extent. It's still closer.
Ed Hasek: ! just lost my commission.
Sacchet: It's still closer to the building than some of the other ones that you actually,
some on the western side you pretty much mark all the trees that last time were preserved
like 8307, 8306, 8305 which are much further west from buildings than these two maples.
Ed Hasek: Right. The option that we're going to look at, and I think when this comes
down to it, we made a statement that we are making a commitment to save as many trees
as we possibly can, and we are going in fact to do that. The question comes up, can we
effectively build some walls around some of the trees behind the units that back up to
County Road 41, and we really will not know that effectively until we get into the field.
The reason is because we don't want to drain water directly on the base of a wall. All it's
going to do is wash that wall out. Okay. So that's, I'm going to continue to count them
as gone until ! know that they're not gone and that's a safer bet than telling you that
they're going to stay and then having you walk out.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: Definitely a reasonable approach to take. Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Can I ask a question about those units 9, 10 and 117 You mentioned from the
former to the current plan they've been moved westward some 20-30 feet. Can ! ask
why?
Ed Hasek: 9, 10 and 11. Are we talking about 1, 2 and 3 in Block 17 The...
Feik: They're numbered differently on the two plans.
Slagle: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, 1, 2 and 3.
Ed Hasek: 1, 2 and 3.
Slagle: Yep.
Ed Hasek: Right. What we needed to do in order to maintain 18 units on this plan is to
pull these units, the, what is that, the 7 units that are south of the road, as far south as we
possibly could and still maintain some distance between them and get the curve for the
road far enough away from the building and the sidewalk far enough away from the
building so it makes some sense. What happened is when we came into the site
originally, we had a very flat curve and it came about 20 or 30 feet closer, farther to the
east. In order to make it work we had to push the road over and in the process of doing
that the buildings went with it.
Sacchet: Any other aspects you want to add to this? Go ahead Todd. Are we done with
questions?
Claybaugh: Maybe more of a housekeeping question at this point for staff and that is, !
don't believe that we responded to the developer's point regarding hammer head turn
around and ! believe condition 28, and subsequent condition number 7 on page 19. The
condition 28 is located on page 17 of 19. Condition 7 is located on page 19 of 19. And if
it's possible for staff or engineering. ! understand that engineering, or Matt who was here
last time isn't present now. ! don't know if that can be responded to. Perhaps you can
respond to it Bob.
Generous: Well it can be provided that the units are sprinkled. You don't need to meet
the requirement for the hammer head.
Sacchet: So that's a reasonable request under that circumstance?
Generous: Yes. However it's my understanding that not all the units, ! wasn't sure if
they'd all meet.
Claybaugh: That's where the conflict was, as ! understood the developer to say that all
the units were in fact going to be sprinkled. And my question to the developer is that.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Todd Simning: All units are going to be sprinkled.
Claybaugh: And that's expressed in your plans?
Todd Simning: That is correct. Well actually and it doesn't state it here so, if you guys
wanted to put that in there as a condition or whatever, ! mean we're going to
automatically do it.
Claybaugh: ... response to it not being included on the drawing.
Todd Simning: ! mean we don't want to do it for one and then not the other.
Sacchet: Go ahead Paul.
Oehme: The issue of the hammer head, are you considering not to, taking the hammer
head out completely? Is that what you're proposing?
Todd Simning: Potentially, yes. But basically just not meeting what a standard would be
for a fire truck to get back and around, and that was from our last, Matt and ! can't
remember what the other guy's name said that that was something that could be done.
Oehme: From an engineering perspective ! think that, if it doesn't, if we don't need to, if
it meets our fire code requirements, that's fine. ! mean we still need ! think a hammer
head out there for garbage trucks, delivery trucks, those type of vehicles to back up and
turn around in. ! would hate to see larger vehicles having to back up all the way to 78th
Street to exit the development.
Todd Simning: Us too so ! mean our intention is to have it there, we've got construction
going on anyway so ! just wanted to clarify that it doesn't have to meet.
Claybaugh: ! understood that you weren't necessarily looking to build it to fire truck
standards, but you wanted some relief on that but it would be there for deliveries,
groceries and some of the items that Paul had alluded to.
Todd Simning: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. You had more questions Steve.
Lillehaug: Yes ! do.
Sacchet: And then you wanted to add something.
Todd Simning: Yes.
Sacchet: Which one go first? Go ahead.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Todd Simning: I don't know, maybe I should let you go first.
Lillehaug: Well, ! left this one alone previously in our last meeting but you guys opened
it back up because he said the city owns Outlot G directly to the east of your property. Is
that correct?
Todd Simning: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay then, I'm going back to my previous recommendation that we should be
providing access off of Century Trail. Previously you said that was not owned by the
city, it was just a simple easement. Now that it's owned by the city, that we found out
that, ! would not support having access off of West 78th Street because it would be
adequate to provide access off of Century Trail. Would you care to comment on that?
Todd Simning: ! think ! would actually, ! don't know what to say on that one ! guess.
Slagle: Would that be positive?
Todd Simning: ! don't know.
Sacchet: You need to think through it first I'm afraid.
Todd Simning: Yeah kind of, and actually it seems as a private street, it seems a little
odd just sewing it back and around onto Century Trail.
Lillehaug: ! mean the closeness to the median as well as to the Trunk Highway 41. It's
not an ideal access location. Obviously it's probably closer than 300 feet, which it would
be on Century Trail but a lot less traffic obviously.
Todd Simning: Yeah ! guess it, you know the homeowners next door in the Arboretum
Village ! guess would be the most affected by it and it's hard for me to speak about that !
guess.
Sacchet: Did you have a comment about that Paul?
Slagle: One thing if! can add to fellow commissioners, the properties to the west of this
property across Highway 41, Westwood Church and soon to be other landowners will
have an access at some point going west so West 78th will pick up in intensity and traffic.
Sacchet: Good point.
Lillehaug: Is West 78th Street a state aid road also? City state aid road?
Generous: Yes.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Lillehaug: It is. So the sidewalk would need a 2 foot area behind it rather than right on
the property line correct? Yeah, that's correct.
Sacchet: Any wisdom from our engineers?
Oehme: Yeah, we were just looking at the, how that would tie into Century Trail a little
bit. Just quickly looking at the grades, from Century Trail up to the existing, or the
proposed grades of the new development, it will be right about 9 percent grade.
Sacchet: If it has that elevation that is currently proposed. Not the natural elevation
currently.
Oehme: Exactly. So ! mean just based on a quickly, our estimates on existing grades at
Century Trail and the new development, it'd be a pretty steep incline up to the new
development so.
Sacchet: Alright. Did you have any other ones Steve or are you going to be... Go ahead,
it' s all your' s.
Todd Simning: Commissioners, one thing that my partner and I were just talking about,
because we are cognizant of trying to save trees and make our site very sellable. One
thing that wouldn't hurt us as much is if in fact we were to lose one unit, and a proposal
on that would be that in order to, on the west side here, in order to bring these units back
a little closer towards the east and save some of these, try to make certain that we really
save some of these larger trees back here, we could actually come with two-3 unit
buildings and just eliminate one at the end and shift everything over enough to try to
accommodate that too.
Sacchet: Let me make sure ! understand. So you're saying it would be viable with 17
units, because we had initially when one of the first question ! asked you, one of the first
is whether it's viable with less units. Assuming at that point there was 3. You could live
with minus 1 but not with minus 3?
Todd Simning: Exactly.
Sacchet: Could you live with minus 2?
Todd Simning: No.
Sacchet: Okay. I just want to be real clear here.
Todd Simning: That's why ! went back. ! mean my partner and ! just had a little pow
wow back there and we know what we can or can't do and how it would and wouldn't
work and again, and what we're trying to show also is that we're realistic about what
we're trying to do and so anyway, with that.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: No, that's a very important comment. ! mean if it gets, we're definitely looking
for some give and take here.
Todd Simning: So beyond that I don't have anything else unless you guys do.
Sacchet: Well there's probably more going to come up but appreciate your presentation
and trying to address all our questions. Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite
anybody else who likes to address this item to please come forward. State your name and
address for the record and we'll listen to what you have to say.
Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. ! am the landowner so ! do have quite
a bit that I'd like to say. First of all ! would like to ask the question to Bob. If when you
talked about the 9 units, doesn't, in a twin home situation, doesn't single family
automatically become twin home? You can use the same formula?
Generous: No.
Susan McAllister: No? So if something's 9, it can't become 18 automatically?
Generous: No. Well, when they asked me to calculate it based on an RSF zoning, which
is a 15,000 square foot lot and ! used 2.42 units per acre. Twin homes are 10,000 square
foot per unit so it would be closer to 4 units an acre, so different calculation .... math
equation too.
Susan McAllister: Okay. I'm just going to read a little bit of how the primary zone
might have gotten to where it is ! guess. My head is spinning a little bit too but the city
code amendment transcription okay for the Bluff Creek Overlay District first reading, it
was City Council meeting February 23rd of 1998. Kate Aanenson is talking with Mark,
who is he? Koegler, is that how you say it Bob? Yeah, didn't he write the ordinance or
help write the ordinance? What did he do?
Generous: He drafted the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Susan McAllister: Okay. Kate Aanenson and Mayor Mancino. Okay, the two different
zones. Yeah, ! think when Mark goes through he would say a bit more clearly but let me
just relate how this came about. How did the primary zone come about? Did it just
appear on a map and all of a sudden it seemed to make sense? But the primary zone was
delineated at the conservancy zone where conditions should be undisturbed and was
found in that area of the primary zone is probably already encumbered by either water, or
not encumbered by water. There was a wetland or a creek that ran through it. ! don't
have either one. There may be significant wildlife in the back of the glossary. An
inventory was done of all wildlife in the area. Also plant species where ! inventoried the
diversity in those areas were maybe was a larger concentration of those that affected
where the corridor went. In reality, there's nothing different between you know my
entire property has got you know the same thing on it. The deer are either eating the trees
or they're out in my grass eating the grass, so ! mean there's no difference. And then I'm
33
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
going to go on, okay. They talk about how it needs to minimize, Mark is saying, he
would like to, he needs to minimize the impacts to the property as well but certainly not
to preclude the development of the area. I'm going to get to a really important one here
real quick. Mayor Mancino. My other question is, on delineation of the primary zone.
At the time of when an applicant comes in. When we delineate a wetland they're very
you know, everyone knows the definition of a wetland. The plants are in there. How
much water, etc. What is going to be our definition of the primary zone? Are we going
to be very specific about that so people know how to delineate it as much as the wetland?
Okay. Then he talks about, they talk about how lengthy it is, and Mark says, you raise a
good point. There are some standards in here that ! think Kate alluded to with regard to
some of the species that are looked for and so forth we're delineating as part of the
primary zone. So while there is quote unquote, no technical Bible so to speak for the
primary zone or primary corridor delineation, this serves as a basis, okay. Kate says also,
so there's an appendix in the back where the species were identified and that again is for,
you can have somebody qualified to go but and say you know, that line seems a little bit
arbitrary. It should be back further and if they can demonstrate that, and we can, there's
some valid documentation, then we will certainly review that. Again a point we believe
it was some validity but certainly can be clarified. Some of this, you know it's a
transcript, it doesn't really make, flow. Mayor Mancino. Kate, this is the most important
one to me. Kate, now you can understand ! was on this for a year we said 300 feet, and
we went back and forth and we spent a year of our time telling what we thought should
have started out being 150 feet, but then ! doubled it to 300 feet okay? Because ! thought
that was a good amount and ! was, you know ! felt comfortable that ! only had the
northeast part of my property on the, would fall in the primary zone. ! was willing to do
a density transfer agreement for that part of the property only. Okay? That's why ! was
up there and ! was part of it. And I'm also interested in preservation, okay. Okay.
Mayor Mancino. I'll pass this copy if you'd like me to. Kate, you said that you talked to
land owners in the area that will be affected by this. What was their, what has been their
reaction? This is underlined in my notes. ! mean ! don't see any here tonight so, then
Kate says, we did send this ordinance up to the builders association. Called several times
for feedback, and then they go on to talk about you know, it's not important to what
we're talking about right now but, so ! think the builders who represent maybe some of
the land owners are interested. ! didn't go up there because ! assumed it was going to be
300 feet. You know, and ! am not a member of the builders association. ! just you
know, she was already suspicious as to why the land owners weren't there because I'll
bet you any money that a lot of us thought that they were going to do what we, you know
gave them direction to do. Let's see if! can go on any further with anything here. ! don't
think ! have anything there. Then it talks on the, ! think this is the ordinance. This is the
ordinance and ! don't know if this, ! don't know the date of this so ! apologize. There's
no ordinance number. ! know it is the you know.
Generous: 286.
Susan McAllister: Yeah, well it doesn't give the number so then it just talks about you
know the same thing that Todd touched on. It says it's amended from time to time.
Suitable balance. But it also says in the very end of it that open space shall compromise
34
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
100 percent of the area located within the primary zone. The city will establish the
boundary for the primary zone using data provided by the applicant. Well ! believe that
these maps that were provided to you is my data to you. That the primary zone start out
being 300 feet. ! have, Bob's going to kill me for this but I've had this book for 3 years
unfortunately, and it's a copy that they've probably been looking for forever, right Bob?
But I'm being real truthful.
Sacchet: ...pick up a few more Susan.
Susan McAllister: ! could just sneak it back in but no.
Feik: Bob, what's the late fee on that book?
Susan McAllister: I don't know but I mean, and I don't know ifI have to, I'm just going
to for the heck of it, read that it's the 300 feet and then we go into, I'm just you know we
have to kind of like go over this a little bit. Do you have like the... ! have the one that's
got the red lines going around the 300 feet area. Here is my property is right here. Do
you see how much primary and secondary zone is there? This is the reason why ! did not
come up to the readings of the ordinance because ! assumed it would only be that instead
of this. This is the tree line and you just went that far and that's where you just figured
that you know everything ended up and it's true. ! mean there is trees there and the
animals and everything else are there but they wander all, it's my grass. Believe me I'm
not making this up. Buffer strips of 50 or 100 feet should be...Bluff Creek, you know
and so we could talk about the buffer strip for about, to protect the primary zone. And we
were really interested in definitely finding a way to protect the primary zone. If we start
out it being 300 feet and we have like the buffer strip, that buffer strip should protect the
primary zone so that is what ! went up there for a year and ! was willing to give you
know, and take as a density transfer type of situation. But so what I'm saying is
according to Section 20-1472 under the open space requirements that ! am saying the city
will establish the boundary for the primary zone using data provided by the applicant. !
have just provided you with data. It doesn't match up to what you have but ! believe that
my data is the original data, and now I'm going to read a little bit of the report that you
know came to me on Friday about how you keep establishing the primary zone. It says,
on page 3 of 19, second paragraph down, however the primary zone is intended to be
preserved in it's existing state and expanded and protected if possible. So therefore the
primary zone keeps growing. And now, one of the you know interesting things that we
talked about when we were on this steering committee is that we would not take
somebody's land because you can either call it the primary zone or you can call it just
eminent domain. Going under the guise of the primary zone. And this really is very,
very upsetting to me because it's become significantly misconstrued, okay. And ! just
don't think it's fair that almost half of my property, you know according to you people
has ended up in the primary and second zone. ! just, it's wherever my trees ended up. !
could have cut down the trees and ! wouldn't have been in this problem. ! mean before
they put the ordinance in, if! was afraid of it, ! would have. ! wasn't afraid of it. ! didn't
show up. ! have these transcripts that you obviously can look at them if you would wish
to. And ! guess right now ! don't really have anything further to say other than ! don't
35
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
believe that we should take out any units. ! believe the city is wrong and ! think that !
have been bait and switch just like ! said. Because ! have given you documentation as to
in the beginning how it became on the northeast corner. Then ! went out and you know,
Scott and ! did the walking of the 300 feet just to make sure that ! was right. Then we
went to the GIS department of Carver County to make sure ! was right. I'm right. You
people are wrong. ! don't think that we should take out 18 units. In fact ! believe !
should have more than 18 units, and I'm willing, ! was willing to give that northeast
corner of my property to the city because ! do believe in protection, but ! don't want to
give away my property. Somebody came to my house once, they said oh. You have a, he
was dumping off a dumpster for me. He says oh you have a prime piece of property.
You should be getting a little bit of money for. And ! go yeah, that's exactly what the
problem is. ! have a prime piece of property and ! am getting a little bit of money for it
so ! think that if you do anything according to what your charts are, that you're taking my
land, and ! expect to get paid for it and you can drop the money off by putting it in the
mail at the bottom of my letterhead so that's all ! have to say and ! really wish that it
would be better than this but I'm really disappointed so.
Lillehaug: Could ! ask a question?
Sacchet: ! would say let's go on with the, question for Susan?
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sacchet: Oh yes, by all means.
Lillehaug: Through your negotiations and dealings with the city, did any city staff
guarantee you that your land would be zoned PUD with higher density in lieu of being
zoned as it currently is guided as RSF?
Susan McAllister: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
Lillehaug: Higher density. Obviously you're getting 18 units on your property and it's
not guided that.
Susan McAllister: Okay they told us, no, okay. Yes. They told us in order to get the
primary zone, if I'm thinking that you're saying what I'm supposed to interpret you as
saying, is that in order to get the primary zone and the secondary zone you can build, but
in order to get the primary zone ! would be traded you know density that ! could have
used on the part that I'm giving up and ! would be compensated for that. It says right in
the, it says it in the book. You know you can refer to my letter. I've got it right from this
book that personal property rights will be respected, and it was not to be a taking. We
specifically did not want to be a part of that. We did not want to be a part of that. And
then when the mayor, or not the mayor. The city engineer, or not engineer. The attorney
at that time said, you know it will only take me 2 days to do a taking. We were really,
really, really, upset about that. We did not want to have anybody's property taken. All
36
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
we're doing is protecting the corridor before it gets down to the Seminary Fen. I mean
this is what the deal is.
Lillehaug: I guess what I'm saying.
Susan McAllister: Is that what your question, no? No?
Lillehaug: Right now your property is guided as RSF, which Bob indicated is only about
9 units and you're asking for 18 units to preserve these trees.
Susan McAllister: Well yes, that's right. And that's.
Lillehaug: That's one of the main reasons is to preserve these trees is going from 9 units
to 18 units is to preserve these trees and preserve the primary zone as the city has defined
it.
Susan McAllister: Well, to preserve the primary zone. ! don't know, ! don't agree with
necessarily as the city has defined it. ! mean ! can show you that Pulte was allowed to
take out quite a bit of homes actually there in the primary zone. If you'd like ! would
refer to those maps.
Lillehaug: ! think we've seen that, yeah. ! agree with that.
Susan McAllister: So I'm asking you to treat me you know like, not to be arbitrary.
Arbitrary and capricious to me. I'm asking you not to be because ! don't think that's
right. ! want to be treated as you know fairly as possible with what Pulte did. It wasn't
easy for me to you know, be where ! was and to allow this you know, what happened
with the land that was to the east of me and so on and to see everything, that was quite a
bit of very moist land there and ! put up a lot of stuff because ! did it for the betterment of
my community. Not because ! was selfish. Never did ! think ! was going to be standing
in front of you either but, so ! feel real comfortable saying that, and ! just would like you
to know that ! don't believe that ! am, ! certainly would not hope that you would make us
take out that one unit. ! believe that there could be more because it's a nice development.
Okay? Anybody else anything else? No.
Sacchet: Thank you very much Susan. Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing.
Does anybody else want to address this item. Please come forward. State your name and
address. Seeing nobody, ! will close the public hearing. And bring it back to
commissioners for discussion, comments. Who wants to start with this one?
Slagle: ! have a quick question.
Sacchet: Sure.
Slagle: Bob if! may, and if you have the answer that'd be wonderful. ! think it's safe to
say the applicant raises what ! would term a fair question as to how the primary zone was
37
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
determined. Can you share with us in your own words, I mean especially in what I will
call their northwest corner of their property. ! mean how those lines were determined.
Who did that?
Generous: Lori, Jill and I met with their engineer on site to look at where the property,
where that primary zone boundary should be based on the existing development.
Slagle: Is that engineer here?
Generous: No.
Slagle: No, okay. And so again, if I can ask, so you guys are walking and you're
discussing and taking notes and what not. Was there any evidence at that point that !
mean this person's like no, no, no, or was, I'm just curious.
Generous: Well just on the margins there were some disagreement.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's all.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Kind of a related question. What's the process for someone like Susan to appeal
the delineation of this boundary. You know she had documentation of this. As she stated
she had this document for the last 3 years. Would there have been any opportunity for
her before coming to the Planning Commission with this development to somehow
appeal the delineation of that boundary as it's documented.
Generous: Well the final delineation's not done until a development proposal comes in
so if she wanted to establish that, yes. She could have hired a, what is it? It's Section 20-
1555 of our ordinance. Then you get someone who's qualified in watershed zone
boundary determination to go out and actually map it or stake it and have that surveyed.
Slagle: Can I just ask, and to my fellow commissioners. Doesn't it seem a little
awkward that we would wait til development comes in to delineate the boundaries versus
letting developers know ahead of time where they can build?
Generous: And that's what the map and the study did. They tried to provide a
generalized map for where it is. It lets people be aware that this is the approximate
location but until you do the actual survey of a property you can't know for certain.
Claybaugh: If I can add too. That also alerts a developer when they're getting close.
Certainly there's historical mapping for wetland areas. Could you possibly discuss the
difference between delineating the primary zone and delineating a wetland. Is there,
with respect to the criteria. Physically the process of delineating is going on like you
said, in a group of people typically. An engineer representing the developer physically
walking the site. Looking to determine whether this is a wetland...will be the primary
38
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
zone area and is discussed as you physically walk the site. They tag it. Then they do the
coordinates and then they map it.
Generous: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Generous: And the distinction with wetlands there's specific criteria in the wetland
conservation act that defines what a wetland is. Under this it's more open because it's
flora and fauna topography. You know what's going to contribute directly to the primary
zone, so there's a little more.
Claybaugh: So it's part, or pardon me. It's part art as much as it is science, is that
accurate?
Generous: That's correct.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Feik: I had another question on that. I was going to say, do you have the original map
which showed the delineation as derived a couple years ago?
Lillehaug: Bob, while you're looking there, can you also comment on the magic number
300 feet is being thrown around. ! guess ! haven't, staff has commented on that number.
Is that a legit initial number that was documented anywhere or where did we come up
with that? And why is it such in great deviation from 300 feet from what it actually is
delineated as?
Generous: Well the 300 feet's easy. That was just a number they started out to work
with. However, like ! said originally, the primary zone could be 10 feet wide or it could
be a quarter mile. It really takes into account all these other environmental features, and
if you look at our map you have areas where the zone goes way out. It includes no
wetland but it may be a forested hill that was included as part of the corridor.
Slagle: Bob, let me ask a quick question if ! may. If you take a look at the GIS
information that the applicant showed, and compared Pulte, those 3 or 4 units that were to
the east of the applicant's property and their proximity to what ! will call the Bluff Creek,
and then we go to the west and we have this area that is in dispute if you will, ! mean to
me as just an objective observer, it would seem to me that we allowed a previous
developer to get a lot closer than we're even contemplating with this developer. Is that a
fair statement?
Generous: Well ! wasn't.
Slagle: ! understand you weren't there.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: I'm not familiar that they did based on the information that's provided, it's
possible. ! did find the map on it. Actually more of this property was shown in the
original Bluff Creek study as being in the primary zone. They went more southwesterly
as it crossed the property. It started in the treed area but it kind of stopped, the house
straight to Highway 41 and came down. We're saying that it actually cuts up to the north
on the western side of it.
Feik: So we're looking at the outline.
Generous: ...green line in here is the primary zone. So as part of this study that's what
they were talking about. ! don't know how that corresponds with 300 feet because
obviously based on their GIS that wasn't contemplated as part of the.
Sacchet: Let me just clarify, because ! think this is important. What you're saying here
on this map, the delineation is actually is further south than we have it now? You say it's
pretty much going through the house actually.
Generous: That's what it appears to on this map, yes.
Sacchet: So in this particular case it would actually be the other way around. Would it
be more stringent, not less stringent?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: That's interesting. Well, there's a few things and I'd like to jump in here a little
bit. Usually ! look for everybody else to make comments first but this is convoluted
enough that I'd like to put some stakes in the ground here because we're just all over the
map with this one. First of all ! want to remind us all, in my opening statements we
review applications based on the standards in our city codes and ordinances. We do not
have the discretion to change those rules as part of this review process, okay? ! think
that's one fundamental rule we have to consider. What our role here is at the Planning
Commission. We're reviewing proposal in front of us as to how they apply to the rules of
the city, the ordinances, the code and as part of that review it's not our discretion to
change those rules. Okay? Another aspect taken, ! think that's a very heavy word that
was coming into this discussion and it keeps coming up over the years every so often.
Now reasonable use. What we're talking about is reasonable use. And we run into that
repeatedly. Reasonable use does not mean maximal use. There have been court cases
that ! remember in...government trainings ! went to where the dispute was over
reasonable use and reasonable use could be to have a bench out there to enjoy nature. If
you want to go real extreme. Now I'm not saying that's where we're going here, but
reasonable use does not mean the maximum density possible. As a matter of fact !
consider it part of our responsibility to balance what is reasonable use in view of the
developer's interest, the owners interest, the city's interest, nature's interest, everything
as far as you can go. That's our responsibility. Let's see. What else in terms of
fundamental things here. One thing I'm really struggling with, we're all struggling with
40
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
is location of the primary zone. And there are really other fundamental things here that
are being questioned that ! consider way out of scope of what our domain is to make a
decision about here, so I'm struggling with where we go with this and we have a proposal
in staff in front of us that takes up to 3 units which in no doubtful terms has been clarified
once by the applicant is a no go. Kills the project. We've seen some willingness of give
and take by the developer saying that well maybe one unit could be given up to preserve
some more, so there is a clear willingness to incorporate and go somewhere with this.
However, the proposal in front of us by staffI think it's neither fish nor bird, as we would
say in Switzerland. It doesn't fly, it doesn't swim.
Claybaugh: Come again please.
Sacchet: By taking out 2 units you're basically killing it so if we're supporting that !
think we should be up front and honest about it and recommend denial, and not approval
of something that obviously kills it. I'd much rather try to recommend approval of
something that is doable but things are so all over the map here that ! don't know whether
we can get there. ! doubt it at this point. So but now I'm getting into comments and !
want to hear from you guys.
Claybaugh: I'll start. My personal position is that I would not support any encroachment
into the primary zone. That being said, I understand what the developer and what the
owner is saying with respect to the delineation. And if that's their position I would
encourage them, strongly encourage them to challenge the delineation. Whether you're
challenging the process, challenging the field interpretation, or both. I strongly believe
we're not qualified in this body here tonight to interpret how the delineation was done.
How accurate it is or isn't. With that statement I feel it's out of the realm of what we can
address here tonight with what you're putting in front of us.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig.
Tjornhom: I'll just say that I feel bad about this because I think the developer really
tried, obviously to go forward with what we had recommended from last time. It sounds
like he had some complications with city staff. ! don't know if that's true or not but if
that's true, I'm sorry about that. But ! too, ! feel uncomfortable tonight because ! feel
like I'm having to be judge and jury over who's right with this boundary line. ! mean is
the city right or is the owner right? ! believe what the owner says. ! believe what the city
says. ! don't think I'm qualified to make that judgment on who's right and who's wrong.
! wish someone was here that could tell me exactly what's going on. ! probably believe
that when this happened it probably was you know 300 feet, but maybe it spread, and that
was one of my first questions. Maybe it didn't, ! don't know but that was one of my first
questions when, you know and so ! feel like Craig but ! can't decide. ! wish ! could, I'd
like to help you but ! don't feel like ! can do it at this time.
Susan McAllister: Can I just say one point? ...primary zone, that's where it was.
Sacchet: Alright Susan. Do you have a comment Rich?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Slagle: ! do and ! think where ! would share with commissioners where I'm at with this
is, ! think with the question of primary zone, the important question that Commissioner
Lillehaug asked about the property to the east because that was a question ! had at our
last meeting and was under the assumption that really nothing could be done with the
property to the east, and ! have, or had in my possession the GIS showing the Pulte
development and almost all of those units, and I'm talking 12, 15, 20, 22 units are coming
off side roads that are going onto Century Trail, Village Circle, Arboretum Village Trail.
! have to say that ! really wonder if the entrance and exit to this development shouldn't be
off Century Trail. Now one could argue that we should either vote to approve or deny
this. ! guess my question is, in the hopes of working something out, is that something the
applicant would be willing to think about if we tabled this? ! don't know. That's where
I'm at.
Feik: Sure, I'll go next. First off, I'm fairly disappointed in city staff. A little bit in
regards to the evaluation of the impact on the two different areas on the northern side of
this primary zone. Had it been a NURP pond versus no impact versus taking the trees
down where the 3 lots would go, and I don't, I know it's fairly subjective but I don't
think it's a square foot is necessarily equal to a square foot up there based upon my
reviewal. And I think had we had some of that information, I think it would have made
my decision easier. Todd, you made a fairly eloquent point regarding your summing up
some very significant points in our comp plan. But all of those, your argument was
strictly based upon revisiting delineation of the primary zone. And your argument was
equally strong, if we're not going to delineate the primary zone, then we should not
proceed with any of these further assumptions. We would need, based upon your
argument, we would need to turn this down in my mind. Based upon what you brought
up, and I am not comfortable at this time proceeding with this. I would vote to
disapprove.
Sacchet: Okay. Steve.
Lillehaug: I'll try to make mine quick. Looking at the preliminary plat it appeared to me
that initially the applicant proposed a revised primary line that very closely following the
existing tree line, so ! thought we were in agreement with that previously, on where that
revised proposed primary line was. It appears that it's changed inbetween then and now
so I'm kind of miffed about that. Right now I'm simply, I'm not in favor of a PUD for
this area. ! do not think it results in a significantly higher quality or more sensitive
proposal than RSF zoning would give here, so ! would not support a PUD guidance in
this case. And then, because you never know where these go, ! want to make some
specific comments that would need to be addressed if this were appealed and brought
onto council for approval.
Sacchet: Well this goes to council either way.
Lillehaug: Then I want to make these even clearer.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Slagle: But there's a third option, right?
Sacchet: If the applicant brings it back. Well tabling, there's a question of time line but
go ahead.
Lillehaug: And I'm not in support of tabling this. We tabled it once. It came back in my
mind worst and didn't address what we previously commented on and requested so !
would not be in support of tabling this. So my specific comments would be, as
Commissioner Slagle indicated, ! would like to see the access come off of Century Trail,
since the City does own Outlot G, as I'm learning tonight. West 78th Street, this is a
specific comment that if that is a state aid route, which ! think the city indicated, the
concrete walk needs 2 foot inbetween the property line and the concrete walk, so ! think
the applicant would need to provide a trail easement because ! don't think we'd want to
shift that concrete walk any closer to the street. So ! think the city would need to address
that with the applicant. Also the trail on the southwest corner crosses onto private
property, which parallels 41. That would need a trail easement also. Conditions 26(c)
and 30, they seem redundant and contradictory as far as a sump manhole. Either request
a 2 foot or 3 foot. MnDot requested the drive grade to be flatten so if the City Council
were to approve this as it currently stands, I'd like to see that driveway grade flatten per
MnDot's request. Not to the half percent that they requested but less than 7 percent.
More in the neighborhood of 2 percent, and that's all ! have, thank you.
Papke: ! think the last time we looked at this proposal ! was the one that kind of pressed
for the NURP pond on the north side. After seeing how this would work out with the
storm sewer cutting through the Bluff Creek Overlay District ! no longer believe that
that's a wise way to proceed. ! think that would be too injurious of Bluff Creek Overlay
District. That said, ! think that area where the applicant mentioned her manure pile is, !
think there's an opportunity since that is one of the closest areas to the wetland, ! think if
! would be supportive of some sort of compromise where if the developer was willing to
do some aggressive reforestation and improvement of that area in the trade off that's
depicted on your colorful drawing here, ! think that's a win/win scenario. It might take
off a few maple trees but ! think there would be a very large area in there that's currently
very vacant that could be improved and could help improve the overall ecology of the
area. But as it sits right now ! can't vote for approval of this one.
Sacchet: ! already mentioned a few things of where I'm coming from with this in terms
of my position about this. ! have to admit ! was disappointed when ! got this package and
studied it. And ! don't know whether it's on staff's account or the application's account.
! mean that's besides the point. It doesn't really make a difference. ! definitely think it
went the wrong direction. ! mean there are some good reasons why it went from 50
percent grading to 70 percent grading, but that's a significant, that's a huge difference of
having further impact on that. What is undisputably a sensitive natural area next to the
Bluff Creek. ! think that the idea of accessing from Century Trail, or maybe have two
accesses. Century Trail and West 78th Street is a very good idea. That needs to be
studied. It's very fundamental and with the dispute of where, or the potential dispute !
should say, where this primary zone delineation, ! think you made an excellent point with
43
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
some of your going's, like this one, where you delineate the 300 foot and how much of
the Pulte development is within that. Very much in that frame and that with your
proposal you would not even cut into it. ! think that's very convincing. It's a very good
documentation but that's simply not our decision here. Our decision is to look at your
proposal so I'd like to encourage you to move forward with that. ! also was very
disappointed. ! think the tree calculations just are not real Bob. ! mean there's no way
this can be 28 percent preserved this time and 28 percent preserved last time when this
time we have an additional 10 big white pines taken out. We have an additional large
oak. Very large oak. We have an additional large maple taken out and so forth. There is
significantly more additional trees taken out. There are 2 or 3 trees saved, significant
trees that were slated and then you explained how that was actually feasible. At first !
thought it wasn't. So that needs to be looked at and that's a significant decision point in
terms of being able to judge how sensitive we are to the environment here. The alternate
plan with the pond on the north, you studied it. ! trust your judgment. ! would think it
could maybe have studied a little further but it seems to me to sum up where I'm at with
this that the proposal as it stands, we can't approve it. It doesn't meet the framework. In
terms of the overall sensitivity. In terms of the delineations that we have to work with,
we can't shift them around here to make our decisions. In terms of where they are, !
don't think it' s within the framework that we could say don't do it. The changes that you
propose that would help mitigate it, like taking a unit out to shift the development a little
bit out from the westerly border, it'd be a good step but that's a big change again that we
don't know how that would out, and ! think it's big enough that we would want to see it
again. Now with the timeframe, not that ! think tabling is necessarily a good solution but
! don't think we even really have the timeframe Bob, can you help me out. ! mean
there's a clock ticking with this application.
Generous: They need a final decision from the city by April 3rd. Unless they grant a
written extension.
Sacchet: I think it'd be the crisp position to take is that this proposal that's in from of us
is, we can't approve it so we have to recommend denying. That's my personal opinion
about this. As much as I regret doing this with this proposal. It obviously has a lot of
quality to it and I trust that we can find a better solution. That's where I'm at with this.
Slagle: Well and that's why I would like, ifI can add Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: Certainly. There's still discussion.
Slagle: The fellow commissioners that I would be supportive of tabling assuming that the
applicant is okay just because of the hope and the belief that there will be some
discussion. Hopefully some resolution on the delineation with staff. There could be
some discussion about another entrance or the entrance moving to the east. Maybe it
comes back that it's not what even staff thinks is right, but I'd rather just table it and get
the feedback versus voting yes or no.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: ! guess we should ask the applicant then whether you would potentially be
willing to give us an extension in time. Because we're stuck between a hard rock and a
place. Rock, a hard rock and a hard place. A rock and a hard place. There we go. Now
! got it. Alright. That image you understand better than the bird and the fish. So yes, my
question to the applicant, would you be willing to give us an extension in time. If
necessary. ! mean we do what we can. April 3rd, that's a month ! mean.
Todd Simning: And the issue that we face is that we're running out of time. We need to
be moving dirt in May, or this is just a dead project. We grant an extension because
we're tabled and we go back and we work with city staff and you know typically we've
gotten pushed out. We should have been on a Planning Commission earlier and we were
told by staff that they would put us on the previous Planning Commission meeting, and
then we were called back about a week later saying oh, well now we've got too much on
our plate and so you have to move back. And so every time that happens, ! mean we're
counting the clock and if it doesn't get done this year, it's just, you know we're not
moving dirt by May it's just a dead project so, if we had assurances that you know we
worked hard and we could get back here on a timely basis. You guys could look at things
on a timely basis, that would be, we would be open to that, but just as an open ended, we
want to table it and you know we'll see you in a month or month and a half, that's
tough...
Sacchet: Let's try to pin this down a little more. If we tabled this, as Commissioner
Slagle proposes, how soon would we see this again Bob? Possibly.
Generous: ! would think the earliest would be the first meeting in April.
Sacchet: The first meeting in April.
Generous: ...turn it around for the 16th.
Sacchet: The first meeting in April so it would go to City Council like middle April?
Generous: Well the end of April.
Sacchet: The end of April.
Generous: And that's preliminary plat and then they have to final plat.
Claybaugh: Also with respect to direction to the developer, are we in a position beyond
if they can challenge the delineation, get that primary boundary relocated, then we have
the issue with the encroachment on the trees to the west where we're looking at bumping
the location of the road, and then we also have the issue with some of the commissioners
want the developer to tie into Century Trail. That's going to affect your road elevation.
Okay, you're going to have to drop that elevation down there, it's going to affect your
walk out lots. So there's some complicated issues for every action there's a reaction, and
45
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
there isn't in my opinion a real straight forward direction that we can provide to the
developer.
Sacchet: If we table ! would want to have more discussion between us right now to give
the applicant some specific guidance.
Claybaugh: If we feel we can do that adequately I'd be willing to support the tabling. If
we're not able to, then ! would not be in favor of it.
Sacchet: Okay.
Todd Simning: And that is what we're looking for also as my partner and ! are talking
and we would want some sort of assurance that staff would work with us on relocating
the primary zone. ! mean we're not asking for much when it comes to the delineation of
the primary zone, and I'm hard pressed to believe that staff could not work with us, but
without an assurance we may as well just go onto City Council and go at her because
we're just going to be knocking our heads for 2 weeks so.
Lillehaug: Can ! make another suggestion?
Sacchet: Sure. We're still discussing. Thank you, but ! want to sum up Todd's comment
to make sure we're on the same page before we go on here. Todd, just ! want you to hear
this because ! want to make sure ! understood your position. Your position is that if we
can give you some concise framework where we like to see you go with this, ! mean
you've got to be aware that City Council may look at it different than we do. ! think we
owe you some clarity if we would table. You have something to add?
Feik: Not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing if we don't move the primary zone it doesn't
go. If we don't redefine where that primary zone is, the project doesn't work. That's the
lynch pin here.
Claybaugh: In order to redefine, and re-delineate that property in an accurate manner,
you have to go out there and be able to walk it, okay, and the weather isn't going to
support that at this time. Am ! correct in saying that?
Generous: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay, so arbitrarily we would have to just look at it and not based on any
facts, not based on any field surveys, just arbitrarily move that line. That's all we have to
deal with given the month of the year and the fact that it isn't conducive to conducting a
field survey to establish a new delineation. If in fact that is warranted, so.
Lillehaug: So could ! go?
Sacchet: Yes, we're discussing.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Lillehaug: Could I ask fellow commissioners to look at the preliminary plat sheet. 2 of
6, and Bob also in commenting.
Sacchet: Thank Todd.
Todd Simning: Thank you.
Lillehaug: This proposed primary line that has actually been redefined by the applicant
as shown on that preliminary plat, it follows the outline of the existing tree line that also
the applicant defined with their survey. So you have the primary line that outlines the
existing tree line. Bob, do you really see, you know based on the tree line and their
interpretation of where the proposed primary line should be.
Sacchet: This is what they're proposing.
Lillehaug: Future proposed.
Sacchet: Okay.
Lillehaug: But existing. I should say.
Sacchet: Is the tree line, yes.
Lillehaug: Their revised existing primary that they're showing on their preliminary plat,
because that's not the city's, you know that's not the city's existing primary line,
according to the book or the overlay.
Generous: Right. The tree line is what was agreed to as part of our site visit that exists,
and Nann if you could show it. This line would be the primary zone. What they want to
do is say this would become the primary zone. They'll be able to remove the trees in
here.
Lillehaug: But now the applicant is saying they want just that 300 foot area, which is just
the northeast corner of their lot is the primary zone, and in my mind it doesn't look
realistic if the true intent of that primary zone is to follow the outline of the existing trees,
so my question is, do you really see city staff changing their position on where that
primary line should be?
Generous: I don't see that, no.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Generous: As they tell me, the primary zone is the primary zone.
Sacchet: Commissioner Lillehaug, we have several stories here. ! think we have what
the landowner was explaining us, the primary zone, but ! think what we're actually
47
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
discussing is what is on the map. If you can put that up there again Nann. And not
engineer of the applicant, just highlight it. ! don't know how to call you since you're not
the engineer. Call you not the engineer. The green is what currently staff claims is the
primary zone, and the orange, or whatever the reddish is what the applicant would like it
to adjust the line to, so we're not talking just about the northeast corner. ! mean that's a
different aspect, and it's confusing because then when you look at the map and it actually
goes the other way. It's all over the board...
Todd Simning: Only one more, as staff continues to say that it's the tree line. Obviously
it wasn't the tree line for Pulte.
Susan McAllister: That's right. Thank you.
Todd Simning: You know so I mean it isn't like we're you know again I'm talking to
staff now. It isn't like, and Bob's not necessarily the one making the decision on all this
but it isn't like we're asking for something that wasn't provided to somebody next door.
Sacchet: Yeah, and you document pretty clearly that Pulte cut into it way more severe
than this, and didn't necessarily add to it, like in your case it's almost a 1 to 1 add and
take.
Todd Simning: Correct.
Sacchet: So ! give you full credit for that. ! mean that's definitely something that we
need to look at, and.
Lillehaug: Would we be setting a precedence though if we said okay, Pulte cut into it.
Now we have to let these guys cut into it.
Claybaugh: Yeah, that's an incredibly slippery slope. I don't believe anybody here, was
anybody on the commission here? At the time that that went through.
Sacchet: I was.
Claybaugh: You're more familiar with that. My position would be what is delineated by
staff is what ! have to go by at this time. Again, if you wanted to challenge the
delineation, ! understand that you want to be turning dirt in the spring. That's prime
consideration and ! understand that's put you in a very tight spot. Hearing the latest
discussion over the last few minutes, ! believe the kindest and fairest thing to do would
be to deny it. Send it to council where they have more latitude and allow staff to prepare
and address some of the issues that came up here. That will give them an opportunity to
possibly hit their time line. I'm not satisfied hearing the discussion here that tabling is
going to get us any closer to a solution in a timely fashion that's going to meet the
developer's needs.
Sacchet: Any other comments?
48
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: ! concur. ! would agree with tabling.
Tjornhom: Tabling?
Feik: Do not agree with tabling, yes. ! would move to deny.
Sacchet: ! came here thinking that way too. However based on the discussion we've
had, and based on the willingness of the applicant to improve in terms of what we're
pointing out the situation and the fact that we have some specific aspects that have not
been studied. It has not been studied accessing this from what, Century Trail or what the
road is. It has not been studied or looked at in detail ! guess it would be closer to the
previous proposal if you would have 6 units to the south side instead of 7, and therefore
move those units on the west in a little bit. Preserve more buffer to the west. ! mean
that's not that big an impact. However accessing it from Century Trail would be a very
big difference.
Feik: Mr. Chair if! might.
Sacchet: Please.
Feik: The deadline on this is April what?
Generous: Third.
Feik: And if we were to table this and no action was taken between city staff and
applicant, what would happen on April the 3rd?
Sacchet: It would be automatically considered approved.
Feik: All the more reason to deny at this point.
Sacchet: That's true. And we did not hear necessarily an agreement to an extension.
Feik: Without a clear agreement of extension of the number of days, ! would not support
at all any tabling.
Sacchet: That's a very reasonable position to take Bruce.
Claybaugh: And I'd like to further clarify my position on that isn't a function of not
liking the development overall. There's aspects of it that ! strongly disagree with but I'm
very impressed with the developer and ! sincerely believe your best opportunity for
success is to move forward beyond this body at this time.
Sacchet: Okay. Any further discussion? Comments? Otherwise I'd like to see a motion.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: I'll make a motion. ! think there's three. Do ! have to do all three Bob?
Generous: You can wrap them up.
Sacchet: Actually there's five.
Lillehaug: A through E.
Feik: Well let's just do them one at a time. ! move that the Planning Commission
recommends the City Council denial for the land use amendment from residential low
density, low density residential to medium density contingent, period.
Lillehaug: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council deny the Land Use Amendment from Residential-Low Density to
Residential-Medium Density. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who
abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2.
Feik: Second motion. I move the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the denial of PUD #2003-3, rezoning of the property from agricultural estate district A2,
to PUD. Residential PUD-R.
Sacchet: Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council deny PUD#2003-3 rezoning the property from Agricultural Estate
District, A2 to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R. All voted in favor,
except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2.
Feik: Third motion. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend, ! move
that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the denial of preliminary
plat proposed for the development of Highlands of Bluff Creek, plans prepared by
Westwood Development Services Inc. dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03, and
2/03/04.
Sacchet: Second?
Papke: Second.
Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council deny preliminary plat for Highlands of Bluff Creek, plans prepared by
50
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Westwood Development Services Inc. dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03, and
2/03/04. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion
carried with a vote of 5-0-2.
Feik: Fourth, I move the Planning Commission recommends the denial of conditional
use permit #2003-10.
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council deny Conditional Use Permit #2003-10. All voted in favor, except
Sacchet and Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2.
Feik: And then lastly, I move the Planning Commission recommends the denial of Site
Plan #2003-11...
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council deny Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by Westwood Professional
Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003. All voted in favor, except Sacchet and
Slagle who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 5-0-2.
Sacchet: This is going to council on March 22nd. I do want to sum up why we're
denying. ! also want Rich and myself to make a statement why we were withholding.
We are denying because we feel, and you've got to help me out. You who all voted for
the denial. It's my understanding that we're denying because we have disagreement on
the primary zone placement. We do not feel that's within our jurisdiction to move that
around. And we don't think that within the timeframe available it will be reasonable to
table this to clear this up. We have several of us that think that access to, is it called
Century Trail.
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: That access from Century Trail might be preferable to access from West 78th
Street or possibly desirable in addition to the access off West 78th Street. That have not
been studied. We would like to see that studied further. We find it encouraging that the
applicant expressed willingness to drop one of the units to the south in order to push the
development away from the westerly edge to preserve a reasonable buffer to Highway 41,
which ! think is very important. Some of the other concerns that ! think we voiced that
are important for City Council is that there is a definite feeling, perception on our part
that we feel from when we tabled this and what we asked for, they went opposite
direction. Most significantly some of the aspects, examples is that before 50 percent of
the site was graded. Now 70 percent is graded. We cutting significantly more of the
significant trees. We're cutting more. Not significantly more. We're definitely cutting
more than we did before, while the idea was that maybe we'd cut less. There was some
51
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
disappointment expressed by some of the commissioners here about that. Also, I
personally found that the calculations for the tree preservation cannot be real because
according to the figures, it's the same figures that he preserved last time as this time
pretty much, even though there's significantly more trees being cut. Let's see. Anything
else we need to add to this? Yes, Craig.
Claybaugh: I'd like to add one point. I believe that through, certainly through this
second meeting that the discussions and the parameters have absolutely mushroomed and
I question whether this body can any longer get their arms around it and hopefully staff,
working with the developer can prepare and address some of these areas of concern and
hopefully put in their proper context and either, whether it be the connection with
Century Road. Address that and either address it aggressively or remove it from the table
so there's not so many issues to cloud the judgment of the City Council. That's my
comments.
Sacchet: Okay, any other comments? Yes Bruce.
Feik: One. If the City Council were to discuss this,
City Forester is there to answer questions directly.
would recommend that the City Council to deny it.
I would recommend highly that the
If the City Forester is not there, I
Sacchet: Okay. Rich, why did you withhold?
Slagle: Well I think simply put, the reasons that are given for denial I think are reasons
to have tabled it because obviously from our first direction to today, it didn't go quite the
way we thought. Instead of giving it to the council primarily because of the timeframe
issue, my opinion is it sent back to staff and applicant to work it out. They come back to
us. We go through it again. I mean sometimes the 60 day rule forces projects to be okay,
denied and in some respects I'm not sure it's given it's fair due, especially when you
make recommendations and then they don't come back the way you thought you would
see them so.
Sacchet: My personal reasons for withholding are that I really would like to see some of
these parameters studied that we pointed out. Understand that with the timeframe that is
very tricky. I would have personally, after all this discussion tonight, I would have
preferred us defining these parameters a little more clearly to the point that the applicant
could work within, turn it around very quickly, but I have, ultimately have to agree with
the rest of you that within the timeframe and the fact that the applicant did not really
make a clear statement that they were willing to extend the time frame, we were pretty
much forced into, we really didn't have too many options and I think the same will apply
for council. With that, I would like to take a 5 minute recess before we go to the third
item on our agenda.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
52
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT ARTICLES I
THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO UPDATE AND
CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE.
Sacchet: We have this thing that is actually 114 pages long plus some additional, so are
we going to just go as far as we go or what's the idea Bob?
Generous: That's it. ! could give you the highlights. A lot of this we think is
administratively. Just cleaning up like community development director.
Sacchet: Maybe you can move pretty fast. ! mean ! personally have some specific
questions but not that many. So do we want to as a rule, we let Bob run through it
relatively fast. Can we jump in if you have something?
Claybaugh: ! guess there may be some public comments with respect to, individual ones.
Do you want to address them on a case by case basis?
Sacchet: Could we do one of those when you have something to say? Is that fair from
the public, because ! think this would lend itself to rather quick run through because a lot
of it is like spelling for crying out loud, but then others is more significant.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, could you ask them to move up.
Sacchet: Want to come closer please. Since you're part of the family, ! mean. We have
some really good seats over here.
Slagle: And the interviews we've got right after this.
Sacchet: Why don't you sit here Jan. These microphones are on, right? Why don't you
sit here.
Claybaugh: No really, Miss Lloyd, please. Please, come forward.
Slagle: Or forever hold your peace.
Sacchet: That'd be a tough one. Alright. Off we go. It's all your's Bob.
Generous: Thank you. This is on pages 1, 2, 3 of the ordinance are just a revisions to
some of the definitions. Trying to be consistent between different zoning categories.
Definitions will be deleted from this section and included in Chapter 1 so.
Sacchet: Just going to be consistent.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: Yes. Undue hardship was a, on page 3 is a definition that the city attorney's
office has recommended. It provides more of that reasonable use issue rather than strict
compliance, so that's good. Page 4, we just clarification of the arterial and collector
streets within the community. We added Century Boulevard as a collector street, and
that's from West 78th Street to West 82nd Street. Page 5, there's who can enforce the
code. Well the Community Development Director and Carver County Sheriff's Office.
We don't have a police department.
Slagle: Bob quick question. Arboretum Boulevard was scratched. Where's Arboretum
Boulevard?
Generous: Highway 5.
Slagle: Okay. What's the one that runs down along Starbuck's and hits St. Hubert's and
cuts over to 101 ? What' s that?
Generous: Main Street. So actually that is a private street.
Slagle: I wasn't insinuating anything.
Generous: No, I'm just clarifying. Page 5, undue, literal enforcement of variances. And
this is where strict enforcement could cause undue hardship and we define what undue
hardship is. That you can grant approval. Then also Section 3 would be specify what's
under state statute. And then I throw state statute into.
Slagle: Did you want to say something?
Sacchet: Yeah, jump in Janet.
Janet Paulsen: Could we just go back to hardship, at the very first page because ! wanted
to make sure that that will still be in the definition.
Sacchet: Like page 3?
Janet Paulsen: Page 1. On my thing page 1. First page.
Sacchet: Hardship was crossed out, okay.
Janet Paulsen: It's crossed out so I'm wondering is it going into the definition section
because that applies to other...
Generous: Well it will be called undue hardship is what the attorney's office is directing
us to use which that definition on page 3.
Janet Paulsen: Well in Chapter 18 ! think it's 22, they use the word hardship. Referring
to building variations or something. Variances.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: The variances, and so you would have to prove hardship.
Janet Paulsen: There's no definition of hardship in there.
Feik: It must have been changed to undue hardship.
Janet Paulsen: It doesn't say undue in 18 though. It says hardship.
Sacchet: Yeah, we need to be in line what we use other places.
Generous: The hardship is not, for variance findings on the subdivision, we can leave in,
I'll check with the attorney's office. Hardship be defined by Chapter 462.
Janet Paulsen: Then ! had a question on the primary zone, since you were talking about it
tonight. It says area, that's on page 2. It means the area within the watershed. Is that,
what does that mean?
Sacchet: That most directly impacts Bluff Creek.
Generous: ... portion of land. An area that can be measured and specified and surveyed.
Janet Paulsen: And there's a buffer zone after that?
Sacchet: Well you've got to read the whole sentence Janet. ! mean it says the area
within the watershed that most directly impacts Bluff Creek and/or it's tributaries.
Generous: Under the implementation of the overlay district, outside of the primary zone,
the first 20 feet of the setback is the buffer zone.
Janet Paulsen: Okay.
Generous: Page 7, just adding community.
Janet Paulsen: Just a minute. I'm on page 5.
Sacchet: Sure, go ahead.
Janet Paulsen: That's parenthesis too to hear request for variances. It says, in the very
last part of it, demonstrate that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
this chapter. So does every chapter have a statement of the spirit and intent?
Sacchet: Where is that Janet?
55
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: On 2, under the bottom. Variances are only granted, they're setback
variances or they're variances from the requirements of the design standard under the
subdivision ordinance.
Janet Paulsen: No, ! was talking about Section 20-28 parenthesis, under b.
Generous: B(2). Right.
Janet Paulsen: It says actions have to be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
chapter, so who determines what the spirit and intent of the chapter, unless it's stated
what it is.
Generous: ! believe the intent of the zoning ordinance is stated right up front.
Janet Paulsen: The spirit and intent?
Sacchet: ! think the spirit and intent, it goes beyond just the ordinance. That probably
goes to the comprehensive plan, would that be a fair statement to make?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Because basically, yeah ! mean the intent.
Claybaugh: ! perceive the comprehensive plan is the filter that basically comes through.
You pour everything through the comprehensive plan and it flows into
more.., ordinances, codes, but that is...
Sacchet: What that sentence would tell me is that it has to be demonstrated that these
actions are in keeping with the overall thing, which is comprehensive plan.
Claybaugh: Right, but the ordinances and the codes that are a by-product of the
comprehensive plan are more specific. You actually take a step backwards.
Sacchet: Right.
Generous: But they all build on each other. Is it you know laid out 1, 2, 3, 4, 5? I don't
believe there's any place that has that. The spirit is to provide a sense of community, to
preserve natural features.
Claybaugh: Right. My point was that if you have an ordinance that is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, but doesn't specifically say what you want it to say for a particular
application. To set that ordinance aside and go back and refer to the comprehensive plan
when you have a more specific document addressing that specific issue in front of you I
don't think is correct.
Generous: No, you wouldn't be able to. You'd still have to, you'd have to comply with.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Claybaugh: In the absence of the specific ordinance addressing the issue, then you would
go back to the comprehensive plan.
Sacchet: Right.
Feik: ! hear this as giving the attorney some wiggle room to address things that haven't
been addressed.
Sacchet: Yeah, primarily.
Feik: Either they haven't been specifically every, because things can occur over time. !
mean when the first thing was written we didn't have cell phone towers and all sorts of
other stuff so it gives the city a little bit of wiggle room to say, is what is being reviewed
consistent with the intent of everything else in that body of work? And if it's not, then
they got to address them separately.
Sacchet: Alright. Sorry Bob, keep going.
Generous: Page 7, Section 20-29(b). Well first the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
that's how it's specified in state statute, but we have revised the review deadline. Under
our ordinance it's 30 days. There's occasionally months where it may be 29 days from
submittal to when the Planning Commission and this gives us enough timeframe to make
sure we comply with our own code. Generally we can but there are instances where you
cannot. Amendments, this is Chapter 8. This is we're trying to make it consistent for
notice requirements. We currently exceed any state requirements for notices and so we
want, right now the amendments, you have to notify everyone around the lake whether
they're rezoning it from A2 to RSF or R4, and in this instance we just say we don't have
to do that. When it makes sense, it says the Community Development Director may
require a larger notice area.
Sacchet: This correction means it could be larger.
Claybaugh: How would that address formed associations? If there's an association on
the lake that's dedicated to the betterment of the lake, rather than individuals. Would
those formed components or entities be notified under this?
Generous: Well generally that's what I do. This would not specifically require that. But
ifI know there's an association, I'd ask that those be.
Claybaugh: What is the process, or is there a process for those associations to be
registered with the city so the city's aware of their existence or is that not a requirement?
Generous: They're not registered with the city, no.
Claybaugh: Okay. Disregard.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Janet Paulsen: Well on that point I would have to raise my objection. I think that it
should be kept as it is and mailing all lake owners helps citizens be the watch dogs. And
they're all interested in the lakeshore and the question is for whom is this requirement
onerous? The applicant? It's what they have to do. For lake owners? They really care.
For the city? Is it the cost? ! think the applicant pay a fee, it would cover the cost.
Generous: The applicant would pay a fee, correct.
Sacchet: I think it's a cost issue Janet.
Janet Paulsen: So is it just a hassle to the city that you'll have more citizens coming up
and complaining?
Generous: However we generally don't have more people with the more notices we get.
We'd like to get people to come to meetings but we don't. It's not, this doesn't do it.
People see the notice. They throw it away. ! don't know how you get people more
involved in the process.
Debbie Lloyd: I do want to say something on this.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Debbie Lloyd: Lake owners are real, they really are the watch dogs. Not just because of
their own property rights, but because of the declining water quality issues and
everything. Whether or not that homeowner throws that piece of paper away because
they're not able to attend the meeting or whatever, ! think the city owes it to the citizens
to notify them of things happening on their lake.
Sacchet: So basically your position is that it should be.
Feik: Oh, no, no, no. It's not their lake.
Debbie Lloyd: The city's lake, okay.
Feik: Okay. ! don't see any difference between this and a neighborhood, and if
somebody wants to build something really big in my neighborhood that's going to be an
eyesore but ! live 650 feet away, I'm not going to get noticed. And if I've got to drive by
that thing every day of my life, I'm not going to get noticed. Ever.
Debbie Lloyd: Well but there's a body of water on the other side of you 500 feet, is a
body of water.
Feik: Yeah, but if I've got to drive by every day because ! live, this is the only way ! can
get to my house and I've got to drive by this monstrosity, then why didn't ! get noticed?
58
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
If we open this up and make it mandatory that it has to do the lakes, then you have to
notify, then what.
Sacchet: It could also be neighborhoods.
Feik: It should be neighborhoods and then how do you define neighborhoods and
everything else ! like the idea that it's a 600 feet or 1,000 feet, but some clear distinction
that this is the world that we need to notice and sorry but the rest of it is, you need to be
an informed citizen. You need to take.
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, this wouldn't be something we're opening up. It's something that
we have been doing. It hasn't changed.
Feik: Yeah, ! know.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, can ! ask staff what the motivating factor was for making the
change?
Generous: Well we were trying to be consistent under site plan review this is the
language.
Sacchet: Let me make a comment. The fact that the new language stays, it is
development reasonable to a larger area, that the larger area would be notified in the lake.
It actually would accommodate the concern that ! heard Debbie mention. That you can
see across the lake. ! would have the confidence in staff to use that language as such and
really the issue you're bringing up Bruce is a different issue. Is 500 feet enough? And !
would agree with you, it's not.
Feik: Well I'm just wondering why we would treat a lake.
Sacchet: Different.
Feik: And the residents of a lake because they have the luxury of being on a lake,
differently with more rights and notices and privileges than anybody else in town. Where
it gives them.
Sacchet: It should be in line. It should be in line basically.
Feik: ! seem what?
Claybaugh: You seem so correct Bruce.
Janet Paulsen: ... changes from shall to may. Maybe it should say shall.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: You'd like to say that shall require an expanded mailing list. Yeah, that could
be reasonable. ! mean if it is visible to a larger area, they should do it right. Would that
be.
Janet Paulsen: Well how do you determine? Visible to whom?
Papke: You start saying shall, now you're making it mandatory and now Kate or
whoever has to figure out well what does that mean. What does expanded mean? This
gives leeway. This gives discretion to expand the area.
Lillehaug: And I think that's important because if you're on Lake Minnewashta out
there, you do something, does it make sense to notify every lakeshore owner?
Sacchet: No, but it might make sense to notify somebody on the other side of a small bay
and that gives Kate the latitude to do that. So then may is actually more appropriate.
Feik: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, we note it Janet.
Claybaugh: Kurt, you seem right.
Generous: Page 9.
Slagle: Lets go to 25 tonight.
Generous: Let's go farther than that. Again we're back to the variances we're
referencing the undue hardship. Under 6 we wanted to add, or decrease visibility or sight
distances or a reason why you wouldn't approve a variance. Board of Adjustments is the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
Claybaugh: What page are we on?
Sacchet: 10.
Generous: Page 10, under 20-72(d), non-conforming uses. The attorney's office has
recommended that we consolidate that. Page 11. 20-73(b) under non-conforming lots.
Again we talked about width and area but depth is also one of the factors in like Carver
Beach and some of the old developments where we like to handle that administratively
and then there's a typo. Page 12, we're taking the building permit stuff is already in
Chapter 7, and this language has been pushed there.
Sacchet: So we didn't take it out. We just put it where...
Generous: We put it all under building permits, right.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: Fair enough.
Generous: We did have on page 14, the zoning compliance review. Previously where we
called it a zoning permit but really we want to review these things that don't require
building permits to make sure they comply with ordinance requirements. ! did have,
point out that it should say under (b), on the second line, denied by the Community
Development Director.
Sacchet: ! have a comment. Number 5. A(5). Playhouses. Do we really want people to
come in for a play house? Zoning compliance review. ! mean ! think.
Generous: Yes. Play houses being too close to the property lines. About sand boxes. In
conjunction with that, interrupting drainage patterns so we don't want to permit it but we
want to notify...
Sacchet: ... don't consider it realistic, but ! can see why you're asking for it.
Claybaugh: I think what it does is it gives staff the latitude, if it is an extreme case, to act
upon it. If it's brought to their attention.
Sacchet: Is that the intent?
Generous: Yeah, we can hopefully forestall a lot of problems that happen down the road.
What if someone puts it in place, then the neighbor complains and we say yes, it doesn't
meet setback. You need to move it out.
Sacchet: That's what ! mean and what ! hear Craig saying is that the idea is not that
everybody who puts a little play house out has to come to City Hall, but if there is a
problem that you have something you can actually fall back on and have some teeth.
Claybaugh: ! think actually 98 percent of the people that put a play house in, or more,
aren't even going to be aware that there is a zoning compliance review. ! see this as
being proactive to give you the latitude that if one is placed that is problematic, that you
have some grounds to act upon it. Is that accurate?
Tjornhom: Is there going to be a fee for this?
Generous: No. It will just be, we looked at it. It's okay.
Papke: ! have some heartburn with the retaining wall. ! mean if ! go to Menard's and !
buy a 3 inch tree ring to put around a tree, is that a retaining wall? You know what I'm
saying? When you start getting under 4 feet here, it' s.
Sacchet: Yeah, ! mean if you put a couple of rocks around the flower bed, is that a
retaining wall?
61
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Papke: That's a retaining wall. You know.
Generous: Technically yeah. Any time you build a structure to hold back dirt, it could
be considered a retaining wall.
Papke: And I'm concerned with where this is going here. ! mean this is kind of a CYA
clause here where we can go back and get somebody if they're going to extremes. If we
extend things you know that far to play houses and tree rings, my god. People are going
to look at that and go, well that's ridiculous. You know they must have been kidding
when they put that in there. ! mean no one's going to follow that.
Sacchet: It's not realistic. ! mean the play house and if you say a retaining wall, well if
it's 3 feet but how about if it's 1 foot or 6 inches? ! mean ! think leaving it undefined to
the bottom is a headache.
Lillehaug: I agree we should just get rid of retaining walls altogether less than 4 feet but
as far as the play house, ! think it's probably necessary. If you've got a 10 foot by 12
foot play house.
Sacchet: Well but the same thing is probably true with some retaining walls that are like
3 foot retaining wall that goes into an easement is an issue. But how many of those.
Lillehaug: Isn't that covered under something?
Sacchet: But wouldn't that be covered through the easement rather than have to have say
retaining wall here?
Generous: Same thing.
Papke: It's the same with play house.
Sacchet: ! mean why do we need to list play house here when really the fact that this
conflict is because there's a setback problem or an easement problem. It's not a play
house problem, so do we have play house here and retaining wall when the problem is
not the retaining wall and the play problem is not the play house. The problem is that
people are complaining with some other...
Claybaugh: Can we try this? Two scenarios. Let's say that a play house is placed in a
drainage easement and it is problematic and you have citizens complaining. Given the
current things that you have at your disposal, this not being included, how do you react to
that?
Generous: We go out and request that they remove it. If they don't, then we.
Claybaugh: Okay, but you can't actually cite any process that the citizens did not
participate in or any specific ordinance. Whereas next week, next month if this happens
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
to pass, you go out and that same scenario, you come back and say there is a zoning
compliance review. Perhaps you were not aware of it but so on and so forth. And that at
least gives you a platform. Is that correct?
Generous: That's correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's what you're trying to accomplish?
Generous: Right. And also the specific wording in that came from the building code
because those are all exempted from the building permit requirements. And then Sports
Courts are something I just recently added because we're finding out, people are putting
these in. They're creating 50 percent impervious coverage on their property.
Claybaugh: And we had one of those people, not necessarily the 50 percent but I think
we can all remember the Sport Court, gentleman put in very well intentioned and then
came in for his pool permit. Did that and then staff went out and figured out he was in
excess of the hard cover coverage so.
Generous: Because they don't have to show anything and there's no way to track that
information. At least if they came in for this review we'd have some information.
Claybaugh: I personally just see this as a little more proactive. I don't see it, when you
look at the words play house and the rest of it seems pretty frivolous I'll agree but it is a
little bit more proactive and ! think it gives city staff at least a platform to start a dialogue
with someone about their play house that might be difficult to approach without it.
Papke: Do other cities have these kinds of process?
Generous: Yes.
Papke: Have the zoning compliance reviews, so this is, there's precedent for this.
Generous: Most of them charge a fee.
Slagle: Well Craig, if you feel comfortable about this, I do.
Claybaugh: I'm empathizing with staff's position and what I think they're trying to
accomplish, and in that context I'm quite comfortable Commissioner Slagle.
Slagle: Alrighty. What page are we on now?
Generous: Page 15. Exemptions under 3. We just had parking requirements beyond the
capacity of the site. Sometimes we have under utilized sites and so this is just clarifies
that. PUD, under 5. PUD-R is a residential zoning district so we added that. 20-109,
submittal requirements. 30 days.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: ! think you can pick up speed here for the next...
Generous: Site plan review. Breakdown, give us more information so we can calculate
parking requirements under Section 11. Page 17, the routing of the storm water.
Screening. This is the language, how do you determine adequate screening for roof top
equipment. The 250 was where it came out.
Slagle: We're all looking down.
Generous: Last review.
Papke: ...distance of 250, not beyond?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Papke: It's a typo.
Generous: Thank you. It didn't even come up on that. Including method of lighting,
that's for signage requirements. It gives us more information and detail. 19, Community
Development Director. Page 20, retaining walls have been relocated. Page 21,
residential low and medium density residential district. This is a new interim zoning
district.
Slagle: Do we need that?
Generous: Well it's an option and I'll show you what it provides. We don't have, it's
different from a PUD. It requires different standards. We'll get a different housing type
if someone uses it.
Slagle: Do you really want to go over that tonight?
Generous: If we can get there, I'd sure like to get it.
Lillehaug: Note that page. We might be deleting that, right?
Generous: Well if you don't adopt the ordinance, yes. Or recommend denial. Page 23
through 32. Those are the CUP standards that we were trying to develop. We don't have
standards for everything and when you approve it, you're supposed to compare it against
some standards and so that's what we tried to establish.
Slagle: Can ! ask a quick question? Go back to page 22. Section 20-203. District
boundaries. If you read that paragraph, it talks about district boundaries that would be
along lot lines and so forth. But it says where interpretation is needed as to the exact
location and the boundaries of any district, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, which
is us, shall make the necessary interpretation. So didn't we just say earlier that we
weren't qualified to make.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Sacchet: Good point. Thanks for catching that.
Feik: What page are you on? Where'd you see that?
Sacchet: 22. District boundaries.
Slagle: Let's just wipe that sentence out.
Sacchet: Good catch.
Generous: And that's where you rely on staff recommendation. Theoretically in those
boundaries you get a scientific technical report that says this is the point. You don't
always get.
Sacchet: But we need something to base it on.
Generous: Yes.
Claybaugh: Something solid.
Generous: So actually you know those, the shoreline...those don't follow property line
so that's where you run into problems.
Papke: What did we just decide there on that one? What are we doing?
Generous: ! don't know if you decided anything but it does clarify that the Bluff Creek
Overlay District, which is not a wetland, is not a zoning category, that's something that is
delineated and it's determined scientifically but that boundary for that Bluff Creek
primary zone can meander.
Papke: So we're going to leave this language in or are we going to change it?
Generous: We're proposing that we put the.
Papke: That's what you're questioning, right?
Slagle: Well yeah. ! mean ! wish ! wouldn't have said anything.
Claybaugh: You felt like it just washed down the creek huh.
Feik: Well ! think, to be fair to the language, in order to make a determination different
from staff, you need to be presented with data to support an opinion.
Claybaugh: Right, supporting data.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: We were not presented evidence tonight. We were not presented with any data.
Sacchet: As a matter of fact the data went both ways.
Feik: Well we're not sure what the data was because it wasn't, you don't know how it
was assembled so I don't know.
Claybaugh: Actually most of the data that was put in front of us tonight was very broad
data. It wasn't specific.
Slagle: So we could have tabled and asked for more specific data.
Claybaugh: But I don't believe specific information is attainable at this time here.
Actually I hate to say this but I'd like to go back to 21. The RLM. What's, it's there.
It's in bold. What's that mean to me right now?
Generous: We didn't have it before. We're proposing that we put this in.
Claybaugh: Okay, when do we get the definition of it?
Generous: When we get to the zoning section. It's in here. I can tell you the page.
Sacchet: No, we'll wait til we get there Bob.
Claybaugh: Alright. So we'll have an opportunity to know what the definition of what
we're approving is. Okay.
Generous: It's that interim use zoning for the property that's guided low and medium
density.
Sacchet: Alright. So we left off...Just a comment. I mean once we take a vote on this
we can go back and say on page so and so, this and that, I mean right? Okay. So make a
dog ear if you want to get back to it.
Slagle: Are we going to vote on this tonight?
Sacchet: No.
Generous: No, we recommend that you hold it over. It's a lot of information. We were
hoping to at least get through it once and then maybe have discussion, but if not. That's
why we put at least two...
Sacchet: I recommend make dog ears to places you want to go back to.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: Yeah, please keep this stuff and write on them and do all that fun stuff. On
page 33 with city approval. They can have it and it may be appropriate in some
locations. Collector arterial streets. Again on page 35 it's the Minnesota State...
Slagle: Whoa, wait now what page are we on now?
Sacchet: ! thought we were on 23.
Generous: ! said all the conditional uses...
Claybaugh: ! think we're losing our focus here Mr. Chair.
Sacchet: We went through all this before.
Generous: Yes. We had a work session. No right, and so I'm just summarizing that
we've tried to put in the right area that we tried to do some strike through based on the
previous discussion.
Sacchet: So this didn't change from what we discussed last time? That's fine. So we're
on page.
Generous: Well some of that strike through was changed that resulted.
Papke: Bob, do you want comments on this now or later?
Generous: Either or, it's up to.
Sacchet: Okay, do you have comments Kurt on any of this?
Papke: Yeah, page 28. Home improvement trade. Number 2. Hours shall be 7:00 to
6:00. ! mean maybe not outside hours of 7:00 to 6:00 but ! don't think you want to
mandate the hours. The exact hours, do you? You know hours shall not exceed or hours
shall go outside or.
Sacchet: That means Home Depot has to close at 6:00.
Papke: It means they have to open at 7:00 and they have to close at 6:00.
Sacchet: But they could be open til 10:00.
Papke: Right, but it says here the hours shall be 7:00 to 6:00. They must close at 6:00,
not before or not after.
Sacchet: It shall be between.
Papke: Between. Just put the word between in there and ! think.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: Well, why are they closing at 6:00 on a weekday? Why is anything closing on
6:00 on a weekday? ! work downtown guys.
Lillehaug: Because it's right next to your house.
Feik: ! mean you can't get there.
Lillehaug: It's right next to your house, that's why it's closing at 6:00.
Feik: Then in non-conforming zoning, they shouldn't be there. This is a home
improvement trade center. This is something that's going to fall in an industrial area.
Office industrial area, so why wouldn't they be subject to normal office industrial retail
hours?
Lillehaug: So what you're saying is no limitation on hours, right?
Feik: Yeah.
Lillehaug: No limitation.
Claybaugh: I'd like to see a 24 hour lumber yard myself.
Feik: Richfield. Been there.
Claybaugh: I'd like to see a 24 hour lumber yard closer to home.
Lillehaug: ! recommend we get rid of the hours.
Slagle: Kurt, are you done or not?
Papke: I'm done with that one.
Feik: So strike 2.
Slagle: I'm on 27.
Papke: Okay, go ahead.
Sacchet: So did we decide what to do with that? Take number 2 out?
Papke: On page 30. Motel parking shall be located in the interior or behind the building.
Do we really want, are we really mandating that for all motels? Parking shall be located
in the interior.
Generous: That's what this criteria would do.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Papke: Is that realistic?
Sacchet: Is it practical?
Lillehaug: Don't we kind of do that for all.
Generous: Well it can be on the side.
Feik: Well we've only got one motel, right?
Generous: Yes.
Feik: At the bottom of 101. We have one motel.
Generous: Direct access from the parking lot.
Feik: Right, so we've got one of those.
Sacchet: But isn't that regulated otherwise by a Highway 5 overlay or whatever?
Generous: Design standards. It may be now after we adopted it city wide.
Sacchet: It seems like we wouldn't really need to do it again here then.
Generous: Okay.
Slagle: ! have a question. I'm sorry to get back to page 27, but on golf courses do we
want to have anything about the water?
Sacchet: Yes we do.
Slagle: Well right now we have the Army Corps of Engineers, that whole thing about
getting the permits. We went through that whole thing where we weren't, at least !
wasn't quite sure that they are the body that would go around and make sure that water
usage isn't...
Lillehaug: Are you talking wells?
Slagle: Wells and.
Sacchet: Department of Natural Resources, isn't it?
Lillehaug: ! still think that's adequate.
Feik: ! think it's adequate.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Slagle: Do you?
Lillehaug: Yep. We don't have the experts at the city to question them actually. We
don't.
Slagle: We have our hands full with traffic.
Sacchet: Maybe if it gets to the Department of Health you should list it, okay Bob.
Generous: Okay.
Lillehaug: Isn't that there? Oh creepers, it's not there.
Sacchet: Alright. Let's go on. Anything else here? You wanted page 35 right?
Generous: I was trying and then they...
Sacchet: Are we all getting, yes Jerry. Come on forward.
Jerry Paulsen: On page 24 there's also a restriction on hours of operation on the concrete
mixing plant. It shall be such and such.
Sacchet: Should we say between?
Feik: Shall not exceed?
Papke: Or be between. Whatever language is consistent with what you put, or actually
we struck the other.
Generous: We struck the other one.
Lillehaug: Yeah, we don't want to strike that one do we?
Sacchet: This one we want to say between.
Lillehaug: I think we want to keep those hours for that.
Sacchet: Alright. Getting close.
Feik: Well then you've got the same thing on minerals too. We've got that in a bunch of
different places.
Sacchet: I mean the minerals is still is still a riddle to me why we have that. I mean we
don't have minerals, do we?
70
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: Well we still have Moon Valley.
Generous: Moon Valley which could go away with the subdivision.
Sacchet: Well then this is just a Moon Valley?
Generous: Well there's other opportunities.
Sacchet: So we'd want to say between there also, okay. Got it. Moving on.
Generous: 35. Steve Torell told me to put this in, the ADA standards are covered under
the Minnesota State Building Code so it's redundant. Clarify on page 36, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency rather than PCA. Interim Uses. This is, we found that they
were located in the wrong spot.
Slagle: Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry, go back to 35. You have down under motor
fuel and service station, no public address system shall be audible from any residential
parcel. It's maybe a moot point but don't you want to have a few like 100 feet or I mean
you've got gas stations where there are homes around them.
Claybaugh: The Sinclair up there would be a good example. I don't know if they have a
loud speaker system but their proximity to residential neighborhood.
Generous: And Kwik Trip.
Slagle: I'm just throwing out when I saw any, that might be undoable.
Claybaugh: I think we need a sons or decibel rating there at so many feet.
Generous: Well that could be in compliance with the State 65 decibels during the day, 55
at night.
Slagle: Boy it's scary that you know that.
Generous: It's scary yes. So beginning on page 37 we're just moving it from Article V
to Article IV in the zoning ordinance.
Sacchet: So it's not really new, it's just.
Generous: Right, but there is one change in there on Section 20-321. The third line. It
should say except, 2. Division 2. Except that the permit shall be issued after an
affirmative vote. It was, I don't know how. I just pulled it in. The attorney's office
pointed that out to me today and on page 38. We were clarifying that Section 20-322, the
Planning Commission shall recommend an Interim Use Permit and the council shall issue
permits only if it finds comma, based on the proposed location, comma, that. And then
we have one, the use meets. Two, the use conforms. And then the rest of it would
71
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
remain the same. This just clarifies the language. Flood plain. All this stuff is just
correct citation and adding GFP for General Flood Plain which is specified in the
beginning of the ordinance but not there. Here's on page 40-41, this is where the interim
use stuff came out. Wetland protection, page 42. Just adding, function and value and as
amended by the state statute citation. Section.
Janet Paulsen: I'd just like to say something on wetlands. You notice that in parenthesis
(b), it says the intent of this article. They have an intent for this one.
Claybaugh: Okay. Which page are you on Janet please?
Generous: 20-401(b). You'll see that a lot in our ordinance. These are just the...that
we're trying to change.
Janet Paulsen: And then also purpose. Do you want to really eliminate delineate. ! think
it was supposed to say delineated. Don't you want to say delineated wetlands?
Generous: But our official maps don't do that. We depict generally the location.
Delineations are done by a professional when they're surveyed and they become part of
like a subdivision. They'll show up on the plats but it's someone else that does that.
Slagle: That would be one of our objective third parties?
Generous: Yes. Someone who's trained to do that. You also have the Technical
Advisory Panel which is a group of professionals that get out there if there's a
disagreement and they dig dirt and make a final decision. Page 43, 44. Community
Development Director. The definitions are already defined so we're not repeating it. Just
streamlining that. This is excavating and wetlands. That is a type of alteration. Even
though it's a type of grading too. Those four on page 45 is 3 feet. We're making that
consistent with other sections of the ordinance.
Feik: On the next paragraph you've got minimum of 6 to 8. Do you mean a minimum
and a maximum or what are you trying to do there? You see what I'm saying there? Is
it supposed to be between 6 and 8?
Sacchet: Yeah, probably.
Feik: Or I don't know. If it's a minimum of 6, it should be 6. Not 6 to 8. If you don't
care how tall it is, ! mean what you've got now is you just said how low it can be.
Generous: Yeah, I'd have to check with Lori. ! would think it's between 6 and 8 inches
would probably be more accurate.
Feik: The height, yeah.
Janet Paulsen: So is a boardwalk considered impervious since it's a structure?
72
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Feik: No.
Sacchet: No, it lets water through.
Janet Paulsen: It's called a structure. Enclosed structure is considered impervious.
Listed as impervious.
Feik: How do we treat a deck that's 3 feet off the ground?
Generous: We treat that as not impervious if it's.., with the spacing between the boards.
Claybaugh: You don't feel there's a conflict then when they go down and they put down
a weed retardant that doesn't allow, of course that...
Generous: Well if you have a patio, then we count the patio as impervious so it depends
on how they do the treatment underneath. You can put down those weed barriers that are
impervious too.
Claybaugh: Right. Does the City building department specify those in lieu of just like a
hard poly? ! mean it used to be you know that they just put down a black poly
underneath to retard it but obviously that wasn't going to let any moisture through.
Generous: ...they specify. No, on a staff level we do but we recommend that they do
that. Page 45, and this was pointed out by the attorney. They should delete the
December 14, 1992 and then we'll add the date of adoption of this ordinance because this
is the new proposed language which requires a 16 lA foot buffer, if you wanted to count
it. Section, the next paragraph on page 46. This is the 60 by 60 foot. We're trying to
make an equation of 3,000 square, we're recommending a 3,000 square foot building
envelope.
Sacchet: How would that work Bob?
Generous: It could be different shapes.
Sacchet: So in other words we would have to make it a reasonable shape but it could be
flexible within reason.
Janet Paulsen: Shouldn't it have a minimum width and length?
Lillehaug: Well we discussed that previously that we were going to keep in there a
minimum length and width. And not only the square footage but ! thought we had
discussed that previously.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: We had discussed it and...we reviewed what the data was out there. We came
up with what the average building envelope was and it came to 2,200 some square feet.
And we bumped it up to 3,000 but we...
Claybaugh: ! know we've had a number of lots put in front of us that we weren't
particularly fond of the configuration and it still met code so ! thought that we made a
strong point that we did want both a width and a length, or depth included with that 3,000
square foot figure.
Lillehaug: 60 by 60 and 3,000 feet. Square feet. Add the words, the most restrictive !
guess.
Generous: Well the 60 by 60 would be the most restrictive.
Lillehaug: ! thought it was 8,000 square feet.
Generous: Well at one time we were looking at, that was given back to the.
Feik: Yeah, back when we were piling dirt and everything.
Lillehaug: I'm all mixed up.
Claybaugh: So bringing this full circle, what do we have in front of us?
Generous: Well we have the 3,000 square foot building envelope.
Sacchet: But the minimum width and minimum length would have to be less than the
3,000 feet.
Generous: Well what would you want? The average is 47 ! think is what we found as
part of our survey.
Sacchet: 47? So make it 50.
Lillehaug: By 60.
Claybaugh: By 60, there you go.
Sacchet: 50 by 60. That's 3,000 so that's kind of redundant. We wouldn't have to say
two times the same thing.
Generous: Well if you have a minimum, definitely.
Claybaugh: Would it avoid something that's 10 foot by 300 foot so.
Sacchet: That's what ! mean. If we say 50 by 60, then we say 3,000 again.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Claybaugh: Right, but how you arrive at that 3,000 is what we're trying to address.
Feik: You're saying 3,000 is what you're saying?
Sacchet: Yeah, why say it twice. If we want to say 3,000, then the minimum should be
less. Minimum of 40 and 40. Then it would make sense also to say 3,000.
Lillehaug: Why don't we go up to 60 by 60 and get rid of the square foot?
Sacchet: ! think she has a comment to this.
Feik: Well let me ask a question, and maybe this is not exactly relevant but we've got a
lot of smaller lots around the lake. Lakes, plural. 50 foot lots. 60 foot lots. Some day,
you know given they can meet a shoreland setback, they could be redeveloped. Knocked
down. They're certainly not going to meet a 60 by anything.
Debbie Lloyd: They're non-conforming lots though aren't they and with the changes, it's
a percentage that would be applied against that one.
Claybaugh: And then ! think we'd also refer to like our standard rambler sizes for
reasonable use. 960 square feet, so on and so forth. Some of those other guide lines
would kick in.
Generous: Under the zoning ordinance, yes.
Sacchet: Debbie, you wanted to add something to this?
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, ! wanted to say in Section 18, which went to council, your
recommendations on 60 by 60 were not presented there. Because ! know it was discussed
and that's not what went to council. ! don't know if you're aware of that.
Lillehaug: That's not what went there?
Debbie Lloyd: No, it's not.
Lillehaug: That's what we recommended though. What happened there Bob?
Generous: We went for tree removal calculations, well that's all. You'll probably see all
that again. Because council took out 18-61, which is the tree preservation section of the.
Feik: But the point is why did it go to council without.
Lillehaug: Did it go 60 by 60 to council?
75
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: For tree removal we were recommending the 105 feet in the front of the lot be
used to calculate the tree removal.
Lillehaug: When you say we though, is that you or?
Generous: That's staff. They have everything that.
Sacchet: Jerry, do you have...
Jerry Paulsen: The 60 by 60 in Chapter 18 we're talking about, ! raised it in Visitor
Presentations but they didn't act on it. ! think it went to deleting the 60 by 60.
Generous: No, they didn't act on it. They deleted Section 18-61, which is the tree
preservation section of the subdivision ordinance to send it back for staff to do additional
review.
Jerry Paulsen: Not the 60 by 60 paragraph as ! understand.
Generous: No, that whole section they took out, so they didn't act on any of that. As far
as approving it or denying it.
Sacchet: So it's basically still being worked by staff.
Generous: Yes. That chapter, that section of the subdivision ordinance is back.
Sacchet: That's a good answer.
Lillehaug: Well I'd like to see it say, this be consistent with what ! would like to
recommend for what we may see again and put 60 by 60 here. That's what I'd like to
see.
Generous: Well when we go farther on this then, on minimum house sizes, do we need to
change those too? Because right now a rambler is a minimum is 1,050 square feet. With
a 2 car garage.
Feik: No, you wouldn't need to change the minimum.
Lillehaug: No, this is for your.
Feik: Because we also use those minimums for determining what is reasonable use of the
property and some other things so.
Lillehaug: This is just to show that you can put a house on a lot. It's not saying your
house has to be 60 by 60. This is just preserving enough land, not only for the house but
for a deck and a play house next to your house, so you have room next to a wetland so we
76
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
don't put that house right up to the buffer in a wetland and you can't expand on it. That's
why ! would like to see a minimum footprint of 60 by 60.
Sacchet: We need to say minimum width. It could be like 100 by 300, or something
weird.
Generous: The b part is just.
Sacchet: Hold your horses.
Claybaugh: So what was?
Debbie Lloyd: ! also think, if ! recollect right, that you reviewed the PUD ordinance
relative to the same building pad, and there used to be a 60 by 40 and ! believe that was
also not brought forth like that. Whether or not that section is back to staff ! do not know
for certain, but ! do know it was not presented with a building pad.
Sacchet: Well we look forward to have that come back.
Lillehaug: Everything 60 by 60.
Sacchet: You like 60 by 60? ! mean we heard that.
Feik: Are we almost done?
Sacchet: We're 10 minutes past curfew. ! think we're tired. Should we suspend here
and go back to this? Jerry you have something to add?
Jerry Paulsen: Just one further comment. When you get to the shoreland section, which
is coming up here in Section, I'm not sure what chapter 20. ! would feel very
uncomfortable about changing anything in the shoreland district. Those are based on
DNR guidelines and you have to have DNR approval when you get to that point, if
you're changing or making them less stringent then they are would certainly be a
concern.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks Jerry. ! propose that we come back to discussion of minimum
width and length and review the rest. Are we planning to do that next meeting?
Generous: Yes it was to be.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so we considered this remains open as a public
hearing so we can just continue working on this next time, right?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable to you Bob?
77
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 2004
Generous: That's the way it was set up.
Sacchet: Yeah, there was somebody who hasn't said anything.
we can entertain. Oh, you are Thomas?
Dan Keefe: No, I'm Dan.
Sacchet: You're Dan. Oh, you're the other one.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Claybaugh noted the
Commission meeting dated February 17, 2004 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
Just clarifying. I'm glad
I thought Thomas would show up.
Minutes of the Planning
78