Planning Commission - 04/28/2003 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,APRIL 28, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote,
Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson,
Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Paul Sodt, Bill
Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Al Gray, City Engineer
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting,
Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Steppat, and Sutherland.
Absent: Koenig
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Steppat, second by Sodt, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 8-0.
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the April 14, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting
MOTION by Steppat, second by Foote, to approve the minutes of the April 14,
2003 Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion carried, 8-0
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LIFETOUCH by Lifetouch. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 16.22 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 16.22 acres,
Zoning District Change From Commercial Regional to Office on 3.539 acres, Site
Plan Review on 16.22 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 1 lot and one
outlot. Location: Viking Drive.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 2
City Planner Franzen stated he met with Lifetouch and discussed the wetland
buffer, sidewalk, access, and site vision issues. The wetland buffer changes include
modifying Outlot A to define the wetland and the wetland buffer and all land north
of the City trail will be in a conservation easement. The sidewalk will be graded for
phases two and three. For phase I, Lifetouch will prepare a plan and cost estimate
which will be the basis of the assessment agreement. Regarding access to the site,
employees will be encouraged to use the far eastern access and Lifetouch will
provide additional parking to encourage the use of this access. The site vision will
be improved by removing conifer trees around the entrance.
Franzen said staff is recommending approval with one change according to staff
report — park fees should be removed. In reviewing the history of the property, the
City accepted land dedication in 1984. As a result, the language regarding cash
park fees to be paid at time of permit issuance should be deleted.
MOTION by Sodt, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried,
8-0.
MOTION by Nelson, second by Steppat to approve the Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 16.22 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
16.22 acres, Zoning District Change From Commercial Regional to Office on 3.539
acres, Site Plan Review on 16.22 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.22 acres into 1
lot and one outlot, based on plans dated April 11 and April 25, 2003, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated April 25, 2003, to the City Council, with
the recommendation by staff to eliminate the park fees requirement. Motion
carried, 8-0.
B. THE BLUFFS AT PURGATORY CREEK by O'Catarais, LLC. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.55 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 10.55 acres, Zoning District Change
from Rural to R1-22 on 10.55 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.55 acres
into 3 lots and 1 outlot. Location: North of the terminous of Center Drive.
John Helmer of O'Catarais LLC presented the project. He stated they have a revised
plan that is better. They have changed the cul de sac to a private road and reduced
the tree loss by 20%.
Franzen stated the staff recommendation is for approval with one change. Initially
staff had recommended dedication of Outlot A. The proponent has asked for a
conservation easement over the Outlot A to preserve the trees and the wetland.
Franzen said this is an acceptable alternative which accomplishes the objective to
preserve a portion of the slopes, wetland buffers and trees.
Nelson stated it looks reasonable and likes the fact that there is less tree loss.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 3
MOTION by Steppat, second by Nelson to close public hearing. Motion carried,
8-0.
MOTION by Seymour, second by Sutherland, to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 10.55 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 10.55 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-22
on 10.55 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.55 acres into 3 lots and 1 outlot,based on
plans dated April 25, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated
April 25, 2003, to the City Council. Motion carried, 8-0.
C. PRAIRIE CENTRE TOWN OFFICE PARK by F&D Holdings, LLC.
Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.8 acres, Planned
Unit Development District Review on 1.8 acres, Zoning District Change from
Rural to Office on 1.8 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat
of 1.8 acres into 1 lot. Location: Aztec Drive, south of Anderson Lakes Parkway.
Tom Dunsmore of F & D Holdings, LLC presented the project. He stated they
developed property to the west and this site is the remaining undeveloped portion
of the site.
Franzen stated when the first phase was reviewed the lane was guided
neighborhood commercial. The Planning Board and City Council felt Office was
an appropriate use in that location and changed the Comprehensive Guide Plan for
the first phase and second phase. Part of the transition called for berming and
plant materials. In order to provide adequate buffering, the berm needed to be
quite high. For the second phase the staff recommends a waiver for parking
setback which would allow more separation between the office building and the
property line. This phase will include the same number and size of conifer trees as
in phase one. Staff is recommending approval according to the recommendations
on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
Bonnie Berndt of 8514 Darnel Roadstated she was not opposed to the
development plan as a whole. Her concerns included construction work activity,
silt fences and location of the dumpster. She said the silt fence on the back of the
berm was never removed and because of erosion of the berm, the fence is
breaking up. She said to the south of the development construction hours aren't
observed; they are often beginning work at 5:00 p.m. and going until the early
morning hours. The Williams Place development will add to these noise
problems. She stated the dumpster area is a mess with trash thrown in the fenced
area which ends up blowing into residents' lawns. These issues need to be
addressed before further development of the office park occurs.
Nelson asked about the fascia of the buildings and whether it would be different
than the first phase. Dunsmore responded it would not be the same as the first
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 4
phase. She asked what is going to happen to the berm and what plans there are to
landscape the berm. Dunsmore responded that he believes they need to seed the
berm which should have been done by now and he will check on it and make sure
the work is finished.
Nelson asked about the work times. Dunsmore responded that they had received
calls complaining about this, checked on it and he thought it may have been the
auto body repair shop that was making a lot of noise. Nelson stated you do have
stated hours in your contract. Dunsmore responded he will make sure the hours
are enforced.
Nelson asked about the difference between the two phases — other than looks or
landscaping. Do the two pieces go together. Dunsmore responded that when the
first phase was completed there was concern about the architectural appeal from
the road and we tried to address that in the second phase.
Stoelting asked where the dumpster was located. Dunsmore responded by
showing it where it's located on the plans. Stoelting asked if there was an
enclosure around the dumpster. Dunsmore responded there is a concrete wall
with brick around it. Stoelting stated that this development is very close to
neighborhoods and he asked staff to address what can be done about the trash
enclosure. Franzen responded there can be a different type of dumpster with a
closing mechanism or the dumpster can be moved to another location. They
could also put a roof on it to prevent escape of trash.
Franzen stated that in regard to the berm and silt fence the City is holding a letter
of credit to ensure seeding, implementation of the berm and landscape
completion. Until all of the required elements are completed the City will hold
the letter of credit.
Foote asked about the construction hours and what the code states. Franzen
responded the hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. He said sometimes contractors
will do interior work at night. If there are problems, people generally contact the
Police Department. Foote asked what kind of enforcement the Police Department
can do in these kinds of situations. Franzen responded the police can request a
stop work order from the Building Department. The response from contractors is
often that they are unaware of the hours.
Steppat asked what kind of separation there will be between the parking lot and
the daycare. Will there be a fence? Dunsmore responded there won't be a fence.
Steppat expressed concern about the daycare kids walking across the parking lot.
Sodt stated he understands the reason for the waiver. He asked what the City is
giving up by reducingthe parking setback. Franzen replied the parking lot won't
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 5
be screened as effectively but since there is commercial activity on both sides of
the street no residents are impaced by views of the parking.
Brooks said he has heard positive comments from commercial owners in that
area. He asked Dunsmore how many units there were in phase I, how many have
sold and the price. Dunsmore responded there were 21 units in phase one with the
up and down units selling for$115 - 120 per square foot. The slabs sold for$167-
170 per square foot. Brooks asked how the prices compare to phase II and
whether all the units have been sold. Dunsmore responded prices will be $10 per
square foot higher on the slabs and they have all been sold.
Sodt moved to close the public hearing, second by Steppat. Motion carried, 8-0.
MOTION by Brooks, second by Seymour, to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 1.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review on 1.8 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 1.8 acres,
Site Plan Review on 1.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.8 acres into 1 lot, based
on plans dated April 15, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report
dated April 25, 2003, to the City Council, and that staff address the dumpster
issue, fencing, construction hours and the berm. Motion carried, 8-0.
VI. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
A. FLYING CLOUD SHOPPES by HJ Development. Informational meeting to
present plans for a neighborhood commercial center. Location: Anderson Lakes
Parkway and Columbine Road.
Franzen introduced the project. He said an informational meeting differs from a
public hearing in that with a public hearing the Community Planning Board would
be asked to approve, modify or deny the project. The informational meeting has
three main purposes. The first is for the developer to present the plan. The second
is for the developer, Planning Board and staff to hear comments from residents
regarding the proposal. The third includes issues for staff to address in the plans
should the project return in the future.
Jerry Hertel with HJ Development presented the project. He stated he was
contacted by Liberty Property Trust, the owner of the site, who asked his firm to
look at developing this site as a retail center. The plan is to put in three buildings
with approximately 45,000 total square feet. He said they plan to include a drug
store, family restaurant and possibly a hair salon. He stated his company has
developed a number of projects in the Twin Cities, including the cities of Savage
and Cottage Grove, and they will duplicate the appearance of the office property
design as much as possible. There will be a decorative berm along Columbine to
visually buffer the project from the residents and to act as a noise barrier.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 6
Sodt asked for a clarification as to whether the property owner, Liberty Property
Trust, asked HJ Development to develop this as retail. Hertel responded that they
did.
Franzen stated that in 1996 there was a proposal for this site called Staring Lake
Townhomes which included 800 housing units. The Planning Board supported
the site for townhomes but the City Council felt there should be more of a mixed
use for the area. Liberty Property Trust proposed an office PUD in 1998 for six
buildings and 300,000 square feet total. There were comments at that time from
the neighborhood regarding traffic which resulted in installation of signals at
Columbine Road and Fountain Way. Franzen said the key question for this project
is what is the best land use for the area. Should it remain office and continue
berming and brick screening and parking as in master plan or should it be
commercial, since parts of Eden Prairie has been converted from commercial to
residential. Considerations for designation of commercial includes proximity of
neighborhoods, location of lights and traffic patterns. The total numbers for
traffic may be the same but there would be evening and weekend traffic with a
commercial use.
Richard Walsh of 8845 Peep O'Day Trail stated that when he bought his home,he
checked with Eden Prairie City Hall to find out more information as to what was
planned for the area including taxes,bond issues, etc. In one of the visits he
asked the builder what was planned for this site. The developer said the area was
planned for office buildings. Mr. Walsh stated he had no problem with office but
didn't want retail because of the traffic it would generate. Retail would add more
traffic on Columbine. With a restaurant the center would be busy Saturdays and
Sundays. With office buildings, there is some quiet time without traffic on the
weekends. He stated traffic is going to be horrendous and many people already
speed down Columbine. He concluded, he was very opposed to developing the
site as retail and would like the Board to deny this project.
Jerry Brown of 13228 Spencer Sweet Pea Lane stated he is a member of the board
of Staring Lake Townhomes. He said the developer made a presentation to the
residents and they were very interested in feedback from residents on this
development. As a result of this meeting, the board mailed surveys to the
members of their townhome association. Of the 104 members who were
contacted, 55 responded—35 were for the development and 20 were opposed. He
said he wanted to inform the board as to the results of survey.
Jeni Fuller of 8705 Columbine Road said she lives right by it and she feels there
are numerous reasons not to build commercial. There is already a strip mall
located across from the site. The current traffic is a problem and residents don't
want additional traffic on the evenings and weekends. She stated Eden Prairie has
already spent money with downtown Eden Prairie and the City needs to preserve
that area and put its efforts into that.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 7
Don Buteyn of 8908 Ladino Circle said he saw two issues of concern—traffic and
property values. There's no question that money is being lost in that
neighborhood. Right now it happens to be Liberty Trust. The City doesn't need
additional commercial property at this time. He said there has been stockpiling of
structural steel on that property. The owner is losing money on the property as
long as it remains unused. The negative effect of changing the designation from
office to commercial will shift the property value loss to the residents in the area.
That loss would be spread over 400 homeowners. Liberty took the risk and they
will have to live with it. It would be inappropriate for the City to shift that loss to
the property owners. He stated he was speaking as a homeowner not a
representative of an association.
Craig Boarman of 13161 Spencer Sweet Pea Lane stated he likes the way the area
looks with the view of the lake. He said he's not opposed to a retail center but
doesn't want to see a repeat of the other retail center. If it were neighborhood
friendly and if traffic concerns were addressed it might be a possibility. He said if
it's done correctly and a lot of thought was put into it he would support it.
Nelson asked Mr. Boarman what types of businesses he considered to be more
neighborhood friendly. He responded different than what other strip malls would
have. Something that sets it apart. Steppat asked what he would like to see. He
responded a neighborhood coffee shop.
Karen Knott of 8898 Ladino Circle stated the problem with that strip mall is
because there is one across Anderson Lakes Parkway and others off of 212 with
an Applebees and others around the Eden Prairie Mall. Eden Prairie doesn't need
more coffee shops or drug stores. She said she disagrees with Mr. Brown. She
stated they put together a petition which showed there were 47 against, 5 for and 1
undecided. She said they would like to prevent this from coming into the
neighborhood. The traffic at Anderson Lakes and Combine is very congested and
dangerous. It's a danger to many children on bikes trying to get to the school or
park.
Mary Schoening of 8980 Massie Curve stated she moved there for the quiet. She
said there is a lot of traffic and they're speeding through the area. There is a "No
U Turn" sign at Anderson Lakes Parkway going west and people ignore that and
make a U turn and no-one addresses it or watches it. It's not the amount of traffic
that's as much of a concern, it's the speeding.
Ann Wasik of 13167 Murdock Terrace stated that even though she's further away
the huge consideration was what was going to happen in the cornfield— she made
her decision to buy because it was going to be office. The safety factor is
important. People hang out at retail areas which makes it more unsafe.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 8
Dave Jellison, Vice President of Liberty Property Trust, stated they started out by
developing a master plan and started with the office development. He said they
were doing well until companies started laying off employees. At that point they
had to stop construction. They did a survey of the office tenants and they wanted
services to the office development. As long-term owners of the site the goal is to
build retail and office parks that will last a long time. It's becoming common to
see residential, office and retail combined. He said their intention was not to
disturb the neighborhood. They wanted to add something of value to the office
park and for residents in the area. Since Liberty Property Trust has invested quite
a bit in this development, they wanted a high quality developer such as HJ
Development to build the retail. A restaurant would be a good addition for office
employees for lunch or breakfast. The idea of having a drug store made sense so
that employees who have kids could make use of prescription services. HJ
Development wants something for residents of the community and tenants of the
park to use.
Steppat asked what other types of retail tenants would go in there other than
Pannekeuken House and Snyders. Jellison responded a Caribou Coffee might be
a good addition and a dry cleaning service. These tenants would benefit everyone
in the area.
Seymour asked how much of the office space is occupied and the number of
tneants. Jellison responded that it is 100% occupied with approximately 1,000
tenants.
Mr. Hertel of HJ Development stated his company wanted to bring a quality
project to the site which would bring in tenants to service the neighbors along
with the office tenants. There would be a restaurant, drugstore, dry cleaners,
possibly an exercise facility. He said their company works with a large base of
tenants when doing a retail development. He stated that in their developments,
they do not allow loitering and don't put in convenience stores, nothing that would
draw that type of clientele. He continued, they are a family oriented business and
develop family oriented centers.
Jan Schendel of 9024 Terra Verde Trail stated she wondered how they could be
talking about retail and at the same time talking about building office on Aztec
Road which was recently built. She wondered why this property has been
standing vacant.
Richard Cone of 9017 Terra Verde Trail asked that the board take a good look at
traffic patterns in the area. There are vacancies across the street in the other retail
development. He said it's getting to be a dangerous area on Columbine and
Anderson Lakes Parkway. This project may serve the office tenants but it doesn't
serve the residents.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 9
Nelson asked Mr. Hertel whether Panakeukken and Snyders are tenants for sure.
He said they haven't signed a lease yet but will this week. Nelson asked if the
Snyders was connected to the one next Rainbow. She stated Snyders closed a
store within one mile of this development. She stated if you don't have signed
agreements from those tenants, would you be changing the building outline. He
responded at this time they are confident they will sign. Nelson asked why this
will work on that side of the street as opposed to the retail center that is struggling
across the street. He responded he's been in the business for 20 years. He said
they maintain their properties and upgrade them on a regular basis. Will redo the
fascia and replace glass and make improvements to landscaping. The property on
the north side of Anderson Lakes Road has not been maintained. It was offered to
them for sale a few years ago but they refused it because of its poor condition.
Nelson asked if the Panakeukken would be 24 hour restaurant. Hertel responded
that it was not, they would be open for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Steppat asked staff about comments on traffic in this area. Gray responded
generally, the total volume of traffic may not be dissimilar. It's the time of traffic
that would be generated by commercial which would be spread over different
hours extending operational hours into the evening plus weekend. What you
generally hear is the concern about safety. There may not be differences in terms
of peaks but there will be additional traffic during quiet times. Whether we need
to do a detailed traffic study may be overwhelmed by whether we think it's an
appropriate land use for the area and how residents feel about it.
Seymour asked what Gray thought about the impact further down on Anderson
Lakes Parkway on either side of Flying Cloud Drive due to retail rather than
office. Gray stated it can be assumed that the neighborhood commercial
customers are going to come from a wider area. The other component that may
come to the commercial will be utilizing the intersection of Columbine and
Anderson Lakes Parkway. It's probably the primary intersection used by the
residents. Likely heading north. We could do a traffic study but most of the
impact will be in that intersection.
Hertel mentioned the project they built in Savage on CR 42 which is a larger
project than proposed here. That property is designed similarly in that there is an
entrance in and out. It has been doing very well and is 100% leased. There has
been no problem with traffic. The traffic trickles in and leaves. There doesn't
seem to be any peak periods. Sodt asked if that center had access from CR 42.
Hertel replied there is no access directly into the center. At the intersection of 42
and O'Connell the access is from O'Connell.
Sodt asked if this project proposed will have access off 212. Hertel responded
there is no access directly into the center. Sodt asked if this is to service the
office tenants were there any thoughts about direct access off of 212 or just from
the office area through the parking area. Hertel stated access from 212 has been
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 10
refused. Sodt asked Gray about the Williams Property area and the signal light.
Gray responded that's at the intersection of Collegeview Drive which is south of
this area.
Gray stated the retail will need to have a bigger draw than the immediate
neighborhood and office tenants to survive. He stated to preserve safety it's
important to manage access. Retailers locate on highways for the visibility. Gray
stated that if Eden Prairie has done anything wrong it's the number of accesses to
sites along 212. There are too many signals and the area should be redeveloped to
get rid of some of the accesses. For this reason there shouldn't be another access.
The type of corridor Anderson Lake Parkways has needs to be managed,
particularly the access. The proposed access is right, it's whether the use will
work.
Brooks stated it would be easier if the zoning was neighborhood commercial. It's
understandable the owner wouldn't want to build office on the site. It's also
understandable that the tenants of the office building would like the retail use but
they go home in the evening and the residents have to deal with the traffic in the
evenings and on weekends. He asked staff about the size of the project and that it
seemed rather large.
Franzen stated the neighborhood commercial zoning has a maximum of 50,000
square feet. If you rezone the property neighborhood commercial the City has to
allow any use permitted in that zoning. Retail centers go through changes in
market and changes in tenants. The project may not be a restaurant or drug store
forever.
Brooks stated he would need a compelling reason to move forward with this
project.
Sutherland asked Hertel about the community meetings It has come to your
attention there is some controversy and the driving force of the project seems to
be to serve the office complex. It would seem there would have been some
people from the office complex to represent their interests at the meeting. Hertel
responded the site lends itself to retail development. It's being proposed because
they are an established market and they wouldn't go forward with the project if it
was just supported by the office tenants, it's important to pull residents as
customers. He said they locate projects are on major roads to get as much
exposure as possible and would be willing to landscape with berms, trees and
anything to shelter the noise and visual of the building.
Foote stated he remembered reviewing the original plan and supported it because
it was a lesser use. The main criteria for a guide plan change is whether it is a
better use or positive change for the neighborhood. This project would seem to be
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 11
more intrusive rather than beneficial to the neighborhood and he would be very
reluctant to support it.
Steppat stated that he believes it would be high quality but has not heard
substantial support for this development. He said he wouldn't support it unless
there was neighborhood support.
Nelson stated that if this were to be considered it would be important to do a
traffic study. There is some justification with this development. There are new
senior buildings down the street and a drugstore and restaurant would be good for
them. The concerns are the long-term aspects of commercial and whether the
traffic problems can be solved. This kind of neighborhood commercial might be
acceptable if it's the right kind of development. Nelson asked about the addition
of a gas station which she would not support, and whether the proponents would
have to come back in front of the Planning Board if they added it. Franzen
responded if it's a physical alteration to the plan it would be a problem because
they would have to reduce the size of the buildings to do stacking for the gas
stations. Nelson stated would want them to look closely at hours for signage
which should be more in accordance with the office center hours. Bright neon
signs would not be acceptable near people's home.
Seymour stated that the developer thinks this is a good site for retail. Residents
had a reasonable expectation that this would remain office. There would need to
be mitigation of site lines in the area. Anderson Lakes Road is overloaded at peak
hours. He concluded, this mix is not something I could support.
Stoelting stated this is an informational meeting. Major issues for this project are
traffic and impact of commercial versus office. Truck traffic, pedestrian traffic
affected, and noise of operations. He wondered if there is a need for commercial
given the fact this project is near the Prairie Center Shopping Center. Residents
don't see a need for this project. For a project such as this they would want to do a
better job of surveying the residents as to what sort of commercial development
would suit there needs. He thanked the residents for their input.
Hertel asked the Board if they thought this project is worthwhile to pursue. He
said they are long-term owners, they are concerned about the affects on the
residents in the area. He said his firm is successful because they do what they say
they will do and they will maintain the property.
Stoelting responded Hertel needs to address the issues that have been raised by
the residents. Board members are not comfortable with moving forward at this
point. Nelson stated she believes there is potential for this developments.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 12
Sodt stated received a number of letters regarding the project. There were a few
comments from residents asking why the City is doing this to us. The city is not
doing this to anyone. It's the developer who is bringing this project to the City.
The Board adjourned for a five minute break at 8:55 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:05 p.m.
VII. MEMBERS REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS'REPORTS
A. Planned Unit Development Waivers and Variances
Franzen stated that starting with the first meeting in May, the Board will be voting
on variances. The decisions can be appealed to the City Council. Variances are
written differently from rezoning reports. The reports list choices rather than
recommendations for approval or denial. Nelson who served on the Board of
Appeals stated that worked very well. It's a very different viewpoint because the
requests are site specific to meet the needs of the site. Traditionally, it is not gone
over quickly on individual sites. When dealing one on one with homeowners and
business owners it's important to give them the same consideration as you would
give a developer because what the resident is asking for is just as important to them,
it's just on a smaller scale.
Sodt asked if there is a public meeting process used for notification regarding
variances. Franzen responded that there is and notices are sent out to residents
within 500 feet of the property. This will be a learning experience for staff and
Board members. Board member Nelson will lend experience that will be helpful.
The first variance will be on May 12'h which will be a request for a pool setback on
Red Rock Lake.
Nelson stated that after the Board has seen some of the garage placements they may
have a different impression as to allowing a developer a narrow lot.
B. Photos
Franzen stated Administration would like to do a group photo and he wanted to be
sure that Board members would all be available for a picture. All members stated
they would be available for a group photo at the May 12'h meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
April 28, 2003
Page 13
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Sodt , second by Nelson to adjourn. Motion carried, 8-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.