Planning Commission - 05/24/2004 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, MAY 24, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy
Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz,
William Sutherland, Ray Stoelting
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Kacher, Nelson, Rocheford, Seymour, Stoltz, and Sutherland.
Absent: Koenig
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Brooks to approve the agenda. Motion carried 8-0.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the May 10, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoelting to approve the minutes with an
amendment of record to indicate that Jon Stoltz and William Sutherland were
absent rather than present at the May 10, 2004 Community Planning Board
Meeting.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2004-06 Petition of Brian Cook for property at 6539 Countryside
Lane. Front yard setback variance from 30 feet to 22 feet for a one-stall garage
addition.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 2
Brian Cook, 6539 Countryside Drive, said he was asking the Board for their
approval because of circumstances unique to the property. Cook indicated there
were two reasons for the variance: (1) the shape of the lot which has partial
frontage on a cul-de-sac, and (2) to construct the addition at the required setback
would alter the architecture of the front of the home. Cook presented the Board a
letter of support from one of his neighbors and indicated that the other neighbors
were in support of the garage addition.
Stoelting asked Cook to address the hardship relating to his request.
Cook responded that because the way the street and curb are constructed, it does
not allow them to build. Cook said that they considered a detached garage, but
because of the steep hill on their lot, they would have to remove a large tree,bring
in a lot of fill, and it would block light coming into the house.
Franzen told the Board it was reasonable for a resident to ask for a garage
addition as proposed. The 22-foot setback is from the closest point of the garage
to the closest point of the street. The 22-foot setback is really only a corner of the
garage. Franzen pointed out that the applicant has valid reasons because of the
shape of the lot and where the garage is located. Also, the garage addition would
fit in with the current architecture of the house. Franzen said that if you measure
from the street to the proposed garage addition, it measures approximately 30 feet.
Franzen thought that the reasons for the variance were valid.
Nelson expressed her support for the variance citing that a detached garage would
be a detriment whereas keeping the addition where it is would enhance the
architecture of the neighborhood.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 8-0.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Stoelting to approve Variance#2004-06 for
property located at 6539 Countryside Lane to include a front yard variance from
30 feet to 22 feet for a one-stall garage addition. Motion carried 8-0.
B. VARIANCE#2004-07 Petition of the City of Eden Prairie for property at 16301
Valley View Road. A lot size variance from 22,000 square feet to 19,176 square
feet, and a lot frontage from 90 feet to 44 feet.
Franzen indicated that the road design was put together by the SRF Group
relocating the driveway access to the east. To realize the roadway improvements
it requires the reconfiguration of the existing lot to the east and creates the
variance for lot size and street frontage. The existing house would be removed
and replaced by new construction. The new house is proposed to be constructed
will meet the required setbacks and is being built by students of the Hennepin
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 3
County Vocational College. The new home would share access with Little Red.
The two variance requests would (1)reduce the lot size variance from 22,000
square feet to 19,176 square feet, and (2) a lot frontage variance from 90 feet to
44 feet.
Matthew Bryant, 16213 Valley View Road, said that he is the property owner that
would have his lot significantly reduced in size. Bryant said that because of the
lot size reduction,he would not have enough parking for his vehicles. Bryant told
the Board that he has contacted the Hennepin County representatives to express
his concerns, but has not received answers to his concerns. Bryant said he would
no longer have any front yard and they will be removing his conifer trees on the
west side of his home, which offers a lot of privacy. Bryant said he was promised
consideration of some of the land,but has not received any. Bryant also indicated
that he is concerned about the type of people that are going to move into the new
home, their income level and how many cars would be parking outside. Bryant
said he had questions about the Land Trust and there seems to be a coordination
issue between Hennepin County Land Trust and the City of Eden Prairie. Bryant
indicated he has been dealing with this issue for three years and has not received
any answers to his questions.
Stoelting said that it seemed as though Bryant had the following concerns: (1) no
frontage and how will the road impact his home, (2) what is the process of land
condemnation and where is that process, (3) how many people would reside in
the new home and review of the building design, and (4) the removal of the
conifer trees.
Bryant said that the County has given him compensation for the loss of the
frontage,but has not given him compensation for the inability to use his garage.
Rod Rue, Assistant City Engineer for Hennepin County and project manager for
the construction of the intersection,replied that what Bryant is referring to is that
this is a cooperative project with Hennepin County, West Hennepin Affordable
Housing Land Trust, Common Ground, Hennepin Technical College and the City
of Eden Prairie. Rue said that the County has offered to do the road design and
the project went out to bid. The County is responsible for right-of-way
acquisition and they solicit appraisals for that process. Rue said that the project
being considered was purchased about one year ago. After appraisals are sent out,
they try and negotiate a price for the right-of-way and after 90 days, they can start
the condemnation process. Rue said that they are presently in the 90-day window.
Stoelting asked Rue if Bryant received a letter.
Rue said that the letter would have come from Hennepin County. The County is
presently managing the right-of-way acquisition and the last resort would be
condemnation.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 4
Stoelting asked what would happen if Bryant is not satisfied with the right-of-way
offer and they couldn't come up with an agreeable price.
Rue said if there is not an agreement, the condemnation hearing would be before a
Hennepin County judge. The court would probably grant Hennepin County the
right to go onto the property and construct what they want to construct. The judge
would decide the value of the land being taken at that time.
Stoelting asked staff if it is too early to review the project if the process isn't
complete.
Franzen responded that the Board could consider the variance request at this time
since the demolition of the existing home and the road project will be started
soon.
Rue said that the road project has already been bid and awarded on May 4, 2004,
and the project is scheduled to start after Memorial Day. When right-of-way
becomes available on the east side of the road, then the crew will begin.
Stoelting asked Rue to review the distance from Bryant's house to the road.
Rue said that the need for the taking of the property right-of-way involves
widening of the road. Rue explained that the northwest corner of the property is
out into the roadway. There is about 12-15 feet taken from the northwest corner
and it tapers down easterly in front of Bryant's house. The trees would be taken
because they would end up in the middle of the new road.
Stoelting asked Franzen what the distance would be from the house to the road.
Franzen said that the setback from the new property line would be about 20 feet
rather than the required 30 feet.
Stoelting asked about the proposed new home: what type of building would it be,
how many bedrooms, how many people would live in it, how many cars would be
parked outside.
Franzen responded that the new home would be about 50 feet long, 30 feet deep
with a 24-foot wide garage. The main level would have a large master bedroom
and there would be a total of three bedrooms. The lower level would include an
unfinished basement with room for another bedroom and recreation area. This
house is typical of the homes built in the 1990s. Houses built today are a little
larger. The home is a single-family home.
Stoelting asked Franzen to address the parking issue.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 5
Franzen said that he does not have a drawing showing the parking,but between
the back of the house and rear of the property line there is 25 feet and
approximately 30 feet between the back of the curb and the garage. Two cars can
be comfortably parked. Actually, you need about a 20 foot space in front of the
garage to park most vehicles.
Stoltz indicated that Bryant would lose about 10 or more feet in front of his
property.
Bryant said that he has three full sized vehicles and after the taking of the right-
of-way, there would be about 20 feet of parking space and he would not be able to
park three vehicles. Bryant said he was given a price for the taking of his land on
the west perimeter,but he was wondering where he would park. Bryant said he
would like to know what they would do with his garage. He asked what single-
family means and how many people would be occupying the new home.
Franzen asked Bryant if it were possible to move his garage back on the lot,
would he feel better about the taking of the property.
Bryant said he sent a document to the County on May 2, 2004, so they could
address safety,privacy and pollution issues. Bryant said that if they find a
comparable property in Eden Prairie, he would make an even trade on his existing
home. He indicated he proposed that they move his existing home and garage
back on the property. Bryant said he has proposed many things to the County in
the past two years.
Franzen said that it seemed logical to move the property back on the lot. He also
said that the County is required to replace trees that are taken on the property.
Bryant told Franzen he has not heard back from the County and asked that
Franzen contact the County to discuss these issues on his behalf.
Stoelting asked what type of people might live in the new home and how many.
Sandal Hart, Treasurer of the Board of West Hennepin County Affordable
Housing Land Trust said the Land Trust does have income guidelines when
placing people in these homes. The homeowners would have to have 60 to 80
percent income of the area median, which would mean that a family of four would
have to have an income of$60,000 per year. The Land Trust has placed 14
families in homes, 10 in Minnetonka, 2 in Richfield, 1 in New Hope and 1 in
Wayzata. The families placed consisted of one person to six people living in the
homes. Hart said that the cities regulate the parking issues. Hart said that they
have not experienced any significant problems with the families placed. Hart said
that the Land Trust owns the land; the potential homeowner must qualify for a
mortgage and their income and debt are appraised by the borrowing bank.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 6
Nelson said that the types of people who would own this type of home would be
police officers, teachers, etc. who have a middle-income range.
Hart said that is correct. The Land Trust does not target low-income families.
Hart said that 35 to 40 percent of the households in communities have about 80
percent of the area's median income and could qualify.
Stoelting said that the City does have some affordability goals in the City that are
part of the Livable Communities Act.
Stoltz said he was excited that the City of Eden Prairie is a part of this type of
project. Stoltz said he was in support of the project and hoped that the City and
Mr. Bryant could come to some type of agreement.
Stoelting said he was concerned about removing the conifer trees.
Fox said he looked at the site and the 10 conifer trees are under power lines and
have been trimmed back severely. Fox said the conifer trees are more in danger
of the power lines than any construction.
Brooks said he supported the variance,but he suggested there be a City liaison to
help property owners work with the County.
Kacher said he would like to know if Bryant would have to go to the City to get
another variance.
Franzen said that the building does not meet the setbacks; therefore, if he sold the
property he would be required to get a variance.
Kacher said he was concerned that this project affects the current homeowner and
would like to see his concerns addressed.
Franzen said that if the Board approves the variance, they would make a safer
intersection and improve access into Little Red. The lot size is not out of
character for the neighborhood. Franzen said the variances are not creating the
problem for Bryant's lot. Franzen said that there are options such as moving the
garage back on the lot, an opportunity for fencing, and tree replacement.
Seymour said that he drives this intersection and it will be nice to see that this
intersection is going to be upgraded. Seymour also expressed his support for the
new home being built. He said he is hopeful that if Franzen talks with the County
that some of Bryant's issues would be resolved. Seymour expressed his support
for the variance.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 7
Nelson said she supported the project also. She said she would like if the City is
able to work with the County on moving Bryant's garage back on the lot and
some tree replacement.
Sutherland said he supported the variance request and indicated that the request
for the variance would be the same even if the road would not be widened.
Seymour asked Franzen if the garage being moved is up to the City or County.
Franzen said that moving the garage would be up to the County and the property
owner to work out.
Char Bruening, 7361 Walnut Court, a couple of houses from the intersection that
will be improved, said she did not know why they have to improve Valley View
for more traffic when there is Hwy. 5 nearby.
Bryant said he was still concerned about the people moving into the new home
and wondered what would happen if their income increased or they won the
lottery, would they still be allowed to live in the home. Bryant reiterated that he
was still very concerned about the trees and loss of privacy. He said that they can
move his garage back on the lot,but he is more concerned about his house in that
he could no longer use the front yard and the road is right outside his front picture
window.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 8-0.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour to approve Variance#2004-07,
petitioned by the City of Eden Prairie for property at 116301 Valley View Road to
allow a lot size variance from 22,000 square feet to 19,176 square feet and a lot
frontage variance from 90 feet to 44 feet with the City of Eden Prairie working
with Hennepin County on an issue of moving the existing garage back on the lot
for property located at 16213 Valley View Road. Motion carried 7-1.
C. FLYING CLOUD MALL by Kleve properties, location Pioneer Trail, east of
Highway 212. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Industrial to
Neighborhood Commercial on 2.96 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 2.96 acres, Rezoning from Commercial Highway to Neighborhood
Commercial on .65 acres and rezoning from I-2 to Neighborhood Commercial on
2.31 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.96 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.96 acres into
1 lot.
Dennis Kleve, 13075 Pioneer Trail, addressed the Board and said that they were
at an information meeting in December and they would like to move ahead with
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 8
the project. Kleve said he was there with his brother, Dale Kleve, and his
architect if the Board would have any questions.
Stoelting asked if Kleve would review the format of the project and what they are
proposing.
Martin Woody, Architect for the project, said they are proposing combining
existing lots that are zoned Industrial and they would like them zoned
Neighborhood Commercial. Woody explained that the building would be a one-
story building for retail businesses. The building would be a steel structure with a
75% glass and brick fagade. Woody said that they are proposing a building with a
little over 25,000 square feet and approximately 151 parking spaces. The types of
businesses are smaller retail users such as Dominoes, Radio Shack, coffee shops,
etc.
Franzen said that staff and the developer came before the Board in December and
this proposal is a change in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board felt that this
change in land use would be appropriate for the area. This proposed building is
across the street from SA and McDonalds. Franzen felt that this change from
Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial would make sense at this site. Franzen
indicated that the plans met all of the City requirements and is according to Code.
Staff recommends approval.
Stoltz indicated that he had no problem with changing the land use,but it seemed
that there was not much thought put into what the building would look like. The
plans seem one-dimensional and that is disappointing.
Stoelting asked Franzen how the proposed building materials compare with the
City's specifications.
Franzen said that Code requires that 75% of the fagade consist of glass and natural
materials like brick or stone,but the Code does not tell the builder how to design
the building. Franzen said that if the Board is suggesting changes in architecture;
the staff and developer would work on revising the plans. Franzen said that the
Board could approve the Guide Plan change and the City could work with the
developer on the architecture of the building.
Martin Woody, Architect, said that these types of building are laid out based on
economics. Woody said that in the center of the building they have a jog where
the fagade is moved back about 12 feet and they could plant some garden space in
the front.
Stoltz asked Woody what the building would look like at night and inquired about
the lighting on the building.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 9
Woody said that they will include wall mounted lighting fixtures by the entrances.
He also said that there is lighting on the fagade, which will be about the same
height as the awnings.
Nelson asked if there was any discussion about pole lighting outside.
Woody said that on the front of the building there will be wall mounted light
fixtures,but they could look at the option of adding a dressier fixture. He said
that the objective is to light the parking lot and transition to lighting on the front
of the building.
Kleve said they were looking at options on lighting,but indicated that they had a
height restriction on the building.
Sutherland asked about the difference between scheme A and scheme B.
Woody said that the footprints between scheme A and scheme B are similar;
however the two-story scheme is a smaller footprint and they would add a second
story mezzanine. Woody said that one tenant requested a two-story space.
Sutherland said that any approval from the Board would leave both options open.
Seymour thought the project was a good fit for the area and changing the use of
this property would be a catalyst for change in that area,but he said he would like
to see a little more of an upgrade on the building. Seymour said the drawings
were not acceptable because they do not show all the materials that meet code.
Seymour said he would like to see some of the lighting on the building and more
detail on the plans.
Stoelting asked the Board if they were comfortable with the plans since some
members have expressed concerns about the lighting and fagade on the building.
Stoelting said the Board could go forward with the motion and give specific
direction to staff or the Board could continue the project until the next meeting.
Franzen said that it is a question of scale, the type of materials, and the detailing
of the building. He mentioned that this is not a large building at 25,000 square
feet.
Stoelting said that the developer could work with Franzen on some of the detail
issues.
Seymour said that he would like to see more detail on the plans such as color of
brick and lighting.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 10
Stoelting asked the Board members if they would be comfortable with Franzen
working with the developer on the details of the plans.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 8-0.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve the request by Flying
Cloud Mall by Kleve properties, location Pioneer Trail, east of Highway 212.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Industrial to Neighborhood
Commercial on 2.96 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.96
acres, Rezoning from Commercial Highway to Neighborhood Commercial on .65
acres and rezoning from I-2 to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.31 acres, Site Plan
Review on 2.96 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.96 acres into 1 lot based on plans
dated May 21, 2004 and subject to the following conditions: (1) Prior to release
of the final plat, the proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff, utility,
and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and
Watershed District, (2) Prior to grading permit issuance the proponent shall
notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading, (3) Prior
to building permit issuance for the property, the proponent shall provide a plan for
screening of mechanical equipment that includes the roofline of the building and
the location and height of equipment and pay the Cash Park Fee, and (4) City
staff will work with the project architect to upgrade the fagade of the building.
Motion carried 8-0.
Franzen told the Board members he would bring back the revised elevations and
the plan details for the Board.
D. GROOTWASSINK by Robert and Joan Gootwassink. The request is for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.88 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Rural
Zoning District on 7.88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.88 acres into 2 lots, Location:
9999 Dell Road.
Paul Vogstrum, 3375 Crystal Bay Road, Orono, said he was there to represent the
applicant. He indicated that they applicants are trying to split the lot in half and
subdivide the property into two lots. The back of the lot on the site would be an
outlot and it would be given to the City. Vogstrum said the applicants are
proposing to add a home on the west property and there is an existing house on
the east property. The requirement for this area is a 10-acre minimum,but they
are trying to have 7.2 acres rather than the 10 acres. He said there is adequate
room for a septic system.
Franzen said that discussion about subdividing the lot has been going on for a
couple of years. Franzen said that there is no sewer and water in this area,but the
City has considered dividing the property if the City could protect the bluff. The
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 11
City made an offer to the applicants that if they dedicated 4 acres plus a 2-acre
easement, the City would then support developing the property. This dedication
of property to the City will preserve the bluff, slopes and trees in this area.
Franzen said there is another alternative, the Board could decide not to develop it
until there is sewer and water available, however without the land dedication to
the City, there would be 6 to 8 houses in that area. The Board could recommend
the waivers to the City Council and protect the natural features in that area. The
applicants are giving up land for preservation to the City in exchange for
subdividing their lot. Staff is recommending approval with the waivers.
Nelson asked if this property is located in the Eden Prairie water table.
Franzen said that the City has asked for a percolation and a soil test. Franzen said
he did not think this area was in the wellhead protection area. Franzen said that
the applicants do have to comply with State ordinances that address drainfields
and separation distance of the well to the drainfield.
Nelson said that she could not support the project if it is in a high permeability
soil area.
Kacher asked Franzen if this type of project had been done in the past.
Franzen said that in the rural district there is no comparison but the City has done
it throughout the City in other areas where there is City sewer and water.
Kacher asked what happens when sewer and water is available to the area, could
the applicants further subdivide.
Franzen said that the City would have waivers on record to keep them from
further developing. The outlot would be left exactly as it is. Franzen explained
that they would record on the deed the developer's agreement and that restriction
would be listed on the property deed and recorded as such.
Gary Stevens, 17650 Flying Cloud Drive, expressed that he was concerned about
building on the smaller lots rather than the 10-acre lots as required for the area.
Stevens wanted to know if there are plans to upgrade Dell Road.
Chuck Demers, 10001 Dell Road, indicated he had no problems with this project,
but indicated he would like to subdivide his land. Demers wanted to know if the
City is setting precedence for the area and would he be able to subdivide his land.
Jeff Nyland, 9997 Dell Road, indicated that he also would like to subdivide his
land, which is about 5 acres.
Stoelting asked Franzen if these property owners could subdivide their land.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 12
Franzen said that the applicants are willing to dedicate 6 acres to preserve the
land, and if other landowners can come up with the same type of agreement so
that the City will be getting something in return, then they can apply for the same
thing. The landowners would also have to meet the ordinances for a well, septic
tank,parking, etc., without destroying the character of the property.
Stoelting asked if the City had plans to upgrade Dell Road.
Franzen said that it would be very expensive to upgrade Dell Road because of the
drainage, grades and need for extensive retaining walls. Franzen said that the
City is not proposing that Dell Road be upgraded until the Marshall property
develops and it becomes a necessity.
Kacher said that the precedence set could be an unfair one,because the landowner
would have to give up three-quarters of their property. Kacher questioned if the
precedence set could be applied fairly.
Franzen said that if this proposal is approved, the City is going to use this as their
guide and if the neighbors could come up with something similar then the City
will consider it.
Kacher questioned if the City wanted well and septic rather than City sewer and
water.
Franzen said that it is part of the trade off.
Stoltz asked what stipulates when the City brings in sewer and water and how is
that decision made.
Franzen indicated that if there is an area where sewer and water can be brought in
then the developer pays for it. When a neighborhood comes in and they want a
development and there is support for that neighborhood, then that is when the City
contemplates approval.
Stoltz said that if there is a precedence set tonight, there may be a lot of
landowners coming into the City for the same type of request.
Franzen said that from comments received tonight, he would expect similar
applications. Franzen said that the City wants to preserve the slopes and protect
the bluff along Hwy. 212.
Stoltz asked if the other lots would meet the objectives that the City is putting in
place.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 13
Franzen said they could meet the objective of conservation easements,but they
would have to have the physical room for the drainfield, backup drainfield, and
well for the houses they plan on putting on the lots. They would have to put
together a plan and the City would have to review it.
Stoltz indicated that he did not want to see a lot of houses in that area.
Stoelting asked Franzen if he saw this project as preservation of the bluff area,
and also limiting the development of that area.
Franzen said that yes, this area is very fragile and the City wants to protect that
area. When the City has an opportunity to preserve an environmental feature, it's
a good thing. Franzen said that if this were not a good way to protect an
environmental feature,he would not support it.
Nelson asked how old was the existing septic system.
Franzen said that it was about 20-25 years old.
Nelson asked if there was anyway the City could insist that they bring the old
septic system up to date.
Franzen said that the City could require that.
Nelson said that if the soil does not have high permeability and the old septic
system were to be updated, she could support preserving the bluff.
Kacher said that there are about 10 to 20 homeowners in that area and asked
whether the City would make an informal policy and set precedence. Kacher's
concern was for fairness and setting precedence for that area.
Stoelting asked to hear from the board members on the project.
Rocheford said he would be comfortable with this approach and as new applicants
come forward, the Board will be able to address the issues at that time and seek a
solution for the property. Rocheford said he favors fewer homes in that area and
in preserving the natural areas.
Kacher said he was all right with taking an informal approach, but the Board
should do it with their eyes wide open.
Rocheford said that he believed there was a lot of value to preserving the land.
As the Board is faced with variations of this type of request, the Board can look at
the merits of each application.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 14
Nelson indicated she would like to see the soil and percolation reports and she
would not want to go forward if the soil had a high permeability.
Seymour said he was 90% comfortable with the project and expressed that he
does like the fact that the City is getting something for this project,but does not
want to set any precedence that might allow higher density in the area.
Sutherland expressed that he would like to see the City rid of septic systems;
however, he favore+d the environmental protection of that area. Sutherland
indicated he was comfortable with the project.
Stoltz said his concern is setting precedence for higher density in the area.
Stoelting said that in the interest of the preservation of the bluff area,he approves
of this project. Stoelting asked Franzen what he would be looking for from future
property owners in that area and what concerns would need to be addressed.
Franzen said that there are 3 or 4 items:
(1) Half of the property would have to be dedicated.
(2) Half of the remaining land would be a conservation easement to protect
the slopes and trees.
(3) Demonstrate the ability to put another house on the property without
crowding the lot.
(4) Demonstrate you can put a well, drainfield and back up drainfield, septic
tank that meets the current State and City standards.
Franzen said that the City has to be very clear about the reasons they have granted
waivers, which is that it improves the property or protects a natural resource like
the bluff. Each application would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If
property owners bring in something that is very close to this type of request, and
they meet the parameters, then the City would have to seriously look at the
request.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Rocheford to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 8-0.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher to approve the request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 7.88 acres, Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Rural Zoning District on
7.88 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.88 acres into 2 lots, Location: 9999 Dell Road,
by Robert and Joan Gootwassink subject to the conditions as listed in the May 21,
2004 Staff Report plus two additional conditions to include: 1) the land is not
located in high permeability soil, and 2) update of all current septic systems on
the property. Motion carried 8-0.
Community Planning Board
May 24, 2004
Page 15
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNER'S REPORT
Franzen said that there are three variances for the June 14 meeting and another smaller
item, which is a one-acre lot split. Franzen also encouraged the Board members to let
him know if they are unable to attend the meetings.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour to adjourn the Planning Board meeting
of May 24, 2004 at 9:32 p.m. Motion carried 8-0.