Jul 15, 2024 Planning Commission

QUESTION. THEY DO HAVE A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM THE WATERSHED, CORRECT? I BELIEVE AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN CLARIFY THEY'VE GOTTEN FORMAL APPROVAL AT THIS POINT.

[00:15:03]

YEP. THEY JUST GOT IT OVER THE AT THE END OF LAST WEEK.

SO FINAL APPROVAL PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITH THE WATERSHED.

PERFECT. SO WHAT WE DECIDE TONIGHT WON'T BE CONDITIONED ON APPROVAL FROM OTHER AGENCIES.

CORRECT. WE IT'S A STANDARD TO PUT THAT CONDITION IN THERE TO MAKE SURE OUR PLANS ARE SET.

BUT THEY'VE ISSUED THE PERMITS ON THIS SET THAT WE HAVE TONIGHT, SO, YEAH, WE WOULD NOT NEED TO.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NONE IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

BRUCE BOEDER, 11919 HOLLOWAY ROAD, MINNETONKA.

I APPARENTLY DID NOT RECEIVE THE MEMO FOR MY ADDRESS.

SO, ANYWAY DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THE HISTORY OF FULLERTON ESTATES.

IN 1997 THE WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF ORONO REQUIRED A STORMWATER POND, AND IN 97 STORMWATER PONDS WERE FAIRLY COMMON.

BACK IN THE EARLY 90S THEY DESIGNED RAIN GARDENS, BUT THEY WEREN'T ACCEPTING ACCEPTABLE [INAUDIBLE].

NOW, THE WATERSHED DISTRICT IS ACCEPTING RAIN GARDENS AND ACTUALLY, MY CLIENT AND THE ENGINEERING COMPANY IS PROPOSING A NOT ACTUALLY A POND, BUT A RAIN GARDEN LOCATED SORT OF ON THE EAST SIDE [INAUDIBLE].

THE APPLICANT OR THE SF REAL ESTATE.

MY CLIENT MARCEL SMITH'S AND VIRGINIA PEREZ CONNECTED TO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND THEN THE SEPTIC SYSTEM WAS LOCATED WHERE THE NEW STORM RAIN GARDEN WAS LOCATED.

THIS WAS TO BE LOCATED SO IF I MAY JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROJECT.

SO THIS RAIN GARDEN IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE AT THE REPLACEMENT FOR THE DRAINAGE POND THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.

YES AND THE ENGINEERING.

MORE ENGINEERING.

PROPOSED IT TO THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.

THE WATERSHED DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERS REVIEWED IT, AND WE HAVE A FINAL PERMIT.

SURE. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER LIBBY.

SO IT WOULD APPEAR FROM OUR PACKET THAT I READ EARLIER THAT THERE'S A QUITE FORENSIC ABATEMENT THAT'S DONE OF THE OLD EFFLUENTS FROM THE OLD.

THERE WAS AN OLD SEPTIC DRAIN FIELD.

YES. YEAH.

OKAY. WELL YEAH.

THE IN UP TILL ROUGHLY A YEAR AGO THEY HAD CONNECTED WITH THE DRAIN FIELD AND THE ENGINEER FROM HIS PROPOSAL TO THE CONTRACTORS WAS TAKING OUT THE EFFLUENTS, AS YOU CORRECTLY CALL IT, AND DISPOSING OF PROPERLY DISPOSING OF IT.

AND THEY TAKE THAT OFF SITE THEN.

YES. YEAH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. JUST A CURIOSITY.

I'M THE NEW GUY ON THE BLOCK HERE, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WETLANDS AND YOUR PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN, YOU CALL IT? WELL, THE I WILL STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

THE BECAUSE I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND I LOVE HISTORY.

MY CLIENTS PURCHASED THE 3245 LOT AND BUILT A HOUSE IN 2017 AND MY CLIENT DIDN'T DID NEVER LIKED THE POND AND HE NEVER LIKED THE MOSQUITOES ET CETERA AND HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY IN 2021 TO PURCHASE THE OTHER PROPERTY AND THE RAIN GARDEN.

I MEAN, IT LOOKS, IN ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AS A GARDEN.

[00:20:06]

BUT THEY I DIFFICULTY EXPLAINING IT, BUT IT'S IN THE DRY SEASON.

THE THERE'S A GARDEN AND IF YOU HAVE A WET SPRING LIKE THIS YEAR OR A WET SUMMER LIKE THIS YEAR THE AREA IN DARK WAS HAS WILL BE SOMEWHAT WET BUT NOT NEARLY AS WET AS THE POND RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IF THE DIFFERENCE IS DUCKS WILL LAND ON THIS POND.

DUCKS WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ABLE TO LAND ON THE RAIN GARDEN.

SO. I THINK THOSE WERE.

THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH MY QUESTION, ACTUALLY.

YOU KNOW, RAIN GARDEN VERSUS POND MOSQUITOES ARE ONE THING AND YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO A BODY OF WATER.

SO I DON'T THINK THE WATER FEATURE IS GOING TO BE TERRIBLY MISSED.

SO YEAH, IT MAKES REASONABLE SENSE.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT IF YOU'RE ELIMINATING.

YEAH, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT AND THE LONG TERM GOAL OF MY CLIENT IS TO NOT DEVELOP THE NORTH PROPERTY.

YEAH AND ACTUALLY HE HAS HIRED A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FIRM, AND THEY ARE GOING TO RETURN THAT PROPERTY AND HIS OTHER PROPERTY TO THE HISTORIC OAK SAVANNA AND HE KEEPS TELLING ME 20 YEARS FROM NOW PEOPLE WILL APPRECIATE IT, AND I WILL SAY NOT SURE IF I WOULD BE ALIVE 20 YEARS FROM NOW, BUT HE IS PRETTY ADAMANT THAT HE WILL NOT SELL THE PROPERTY UNTIL HE SELLS HIS HOME.

SURE. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS AT ALL.

THANK YOU.

SO THAT'S PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I CAN GO AHEAD AND START.

I THINK I DO THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE CURRENT SITUATION.

IT'S KIND OF RARE THAT PEOPLE WANT TO UPGRADE THE STORM WATER ON THEIR SITE.

IT'S A 97.

THIS POND WAS APPROVED.

NOW THEY'RE PUTTING IN A RAIN GARDEN THAT HAS A LOT MORE ENGINEERING AND INVOLVED, AND I THINK IT'LL BETTER SUIT THE SITE.

SO I'M IN FAVOR.

ANY ANYONE ELSE UP HERE? HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR? JUST GOING TO SAY THIS LOOKS LIKE IT IMPROVES BOTH PROPERTIES AND IT DOES BRING IT UP TO DATE.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT.

ANYONE ELSE? NO. I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF ANYONE IS WILLING.

I'LL GO MOTION TO APPROVE LA24-000027 AS APPLIED.

I'LL SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KRAEMER.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL VOTE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

BRINGS US TO LA24-000038 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD.

[5.4. #LA24-000038, Â Lake West Development, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard, Interim Use Permit, Material Import/Grading (Staff: Laura Oakden)]

THIS IS FOR ANOTHER IUP OR MATERIAL IMPORT AND GRADING MS. OAKDEN. YES.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT ANOTHER INTERIM USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT GRADING, INCLUDING REMEDIATION OF SOIL AND CONTAMINATED MATERIAL ON SITE.

SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL MOVE THE THIS IS AN IDENTIFIED AREA WITH CONTAMINATED SOIL.

I'M SURE THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK FURTHER ABOUT WHAT THOSE CONTAMINANTS ARE, BUT IT HAS BEEN A LONG STANDING KIND OF CHALLENGE WITH THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL MOVE THAT CONTAMINATED MATERIAL ON SITE INTO A LARGE MOUND AND CAP IT FOLLOWING MPCA GUIDELINES.

THE SITE WILL THEN BE FILLED WITH CLEAN SOIL TO CREATE BUILDABLE AREA FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE NORTH PART, OR CLOSEST TO WAYZATA BOULEVARD.

[00:25:02]

THE APPLICANT PLANS TO REMOVE TREES AND DEMOLISH THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL.

AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE SITE, IT IS KIND OF BOOKENDED BY LARGE KIND OF WETLAND COMPLEXES, AS WELL AS A WAYZATA BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH AND THAT'S WHERE THE ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE AND HIGHWAY 12 TO THE SOUTH, WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PUT A MOUND TO TO MOUND THE SOIL, THE CONTAMINATED SOIL. THE EXISTING CONTAMINATED AREA IS ROUGHLY 9.8 ACRES.

THE PROJECT WILL EXCAVATE APPROXIMATELY FIVE, JUST SHY OF FIVE AND A HALF ACRES AND CONSOLIDATE THE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL.

IN AN AREA OF 4.2 ACRES IN SIZE.

THE PROJECT WILL CONTINUE.

WILL INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 67,000YD³ OF EXCAVATED WASTE MATERIAL.

THE CLEAN SOIL WILL THEN BE SPREAD OVER THAT CONTAMINATED MATERIAL TO CAP IT, FOLLOWING MPCA CREATING AN EMBANKMENT OR A BERM AND THEN ALSO THE CLEAN SOIL WILL BE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE SITE, CREATING A CLEAN FILL ALONG THE NORTHERN PORTION.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING TO CREATE THAT EMBANKMENT FOR THE CONTAMINATED SOIL AND FOR A DISPOSING OF THE CLEAN SOIL AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE. AN IUP OR INTERIM USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR PROPERTY.

THE FIVE ACRES WHEN IT DISTURBS OVER 20,000FT² IN THIS AREA.

THE SITE WILL DISTURB APPROXIMATELY 9.6 ACRES, WHICH IS 420,000FT² OF GRADING.

SO IT'S A RATHER LARGE PROJECT HERE.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS REASONABLE.

THE CITY ENGINEER HAS IS REVIEWING THE PROJECT AND DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT.

BUT IF THEY AS THEY FURTHER LOOK, THOSE WILL BE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL AND WILL BE REVIEWED AS WELL WITH A GRADING PERMIT.

THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY SEEKING APPROVAL WITH THE MPCA AND MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED FOR THE PROJECT TO REMEDIATE THE SOIL OF FOR CONTAMINATED MATERIAL ON THE SITE.

ALSO OF NOTE THE COMMISSION COULD ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE SITE AS THAT'S BEEN DESCRIBED, BUT NOT IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO SPEAK IT INTO THE RECORD.

NO PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE PROJECT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE INTERIM USE PERMIT.

AS OUR CONDITIONS FOR AN IUP HAVE BEEN MET OR STAFF BELIEVES THEY ARE MET.

BUT ON THE CONDITION THAT ALL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FROM ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONS BE COMPLETED AS WELL, WHICH THAT'S THE MPCA AND MINNEHAHA CREEK. SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR SCROLL THROUGH ANY PLANS.

I ALSO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SO WHAT TRIGGERS THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF LAND BEING MOVED FOR WHEN IT'S OVER 20,000FT² OF AREA.

YEAH, THE DISTURBANCE.

YES. WHERE THERE'S 5000YD³ OF IMPORTED VERSUS EXPORTED MATERIAL.

SO I GET WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR BECAUSE A PART OF ME GOES, WELL, WHY WOULD WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MITIGATING CONTAMINATED SOIL? BUT JUST ONE THING TO CLARIFY.

SO WE HAVE THE RESULTING OF THE PROJECT WILL BE 9.86 ACRES OF GRADED AREA AND WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN, IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, BUT THE COMMITMENT OF THIS, TRYING TO FIND IT HERE, IS THAT THE EMBANKMENT BERM SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE SITE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CONTOURS.

HERE WE ARE THE WETLANDS, WHICH WILL BE RESTORED TO THE PREEXISTING CONTOURS AFTER WASTE REMOVAL AND VEGETATED.

YEP. SO THEY HAVE SOME BUFFERING IN THE WETLAND AREA.

THAT AND SOME CLEANING UP, KIND OF RIGHT ON THE FRINGE OF THE WETLAND AREA.

THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH MPCA.

THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK ABOUT THAT PROCESS.

THEIR PLANS SAY THAT WILL BE FULLY RESTORED TO THE ORIGINAL CONTOURS.

SO INSTEAD OF LIKE THEY'RE NOT ALTERING A WETLAND, INSTEAD THEY'RE JUST CLEANING UP AND THEN RESTORING IT TO THE ORIGINAL GRADE AND AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPING ON THE SITE, IT NOTES THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S A GRADING PROJECT.

SO THAT'S OPEN SOIL, BUT THEY ARE JUST [INAUDIBLE] REQUIRED SEAM MIX FOR THE SITE ONCE IT'S COMPLETED.

SO JUST MORE ABOUT ASKING THE APPLICANT IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL OR TO HAVE IT BE STATED INTO THE RECORD.

SURE, YEAH AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY FOLLOW UP.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FOR YOU.

HOPEFULLY THE APPLICANT CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED AND WHAT THEIR PLAN IS.

YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A REPLANTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT YOUR QUESTION FOR YOU.

[00:30:01]

SURE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

GOOD EVENING, KELSEY THOMPSON, LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT 14525 HIGHWAY SEVEN, IN MINNETONKA.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

LORI DID A GREAT JOB ON PRESENTING THIS APPLICATION.

SO A FEW OF THE QUESTIONS CAME UP.

WHERE TO START? MAYBE I SHOULD ASK YOU GUYS IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME, AND I CAN ANSWER THOSE ACCORDINGLY.

GO AHEAD. JOHN. COMMISSIONER RESSLER, YEAH, IF YOU COULD COMMENT.

I MEAN, AGAIN, JUST SO WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND IT, I DON'T SEE IT IN THE WRITE UP.

SO THERE'S SOME TREES BEING REMOVED.

YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TRY TO SEE IF WE, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE REPLANTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR IT.

YOU KNOW, THE 9.86 ACRES OF GRADED AREA VERSUS WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY? IF YOU CAN CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, THE CONTRAST THERE AND THEN THE CONTOURS OF THE WETLANDS IS OBVIOUSLY IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT PUBLIC WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT.

SO JUST TO HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD IS GREAT.

GOT IT AND LIKE LAURA SAID, WE PLAN TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONTOURS.

THIS IS REALLY JUST A GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW US TO CLEAN UP THE CONTAMINATED SOILS ON SITE.

WITH THAT, WE WILL NEED TO REMOVE SOME OF THE TREES ON SITE.

I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT LANDSCAPING PLAN ON HAND, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY FOLLOW UP WITH THE COMMISSION.

I CAN WORK THROUGH LAURA AND SUBMITTING THOSE PLANS SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW THOSE AND THEN THE YOU'RE ASKING FOR, LIKE THE BUILDABLE SITE AREA OR IN CONTRAST TO LIKE WHAT'S EXISTING IS THAT KIND OF LAURA, MAYBE YOU HAVE THOSE STATISTICS ON HAND FOR THE I THINK HE'S ASKING LIKE WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE AND WHAT WOULD.

SO MELANIE, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, I THINK THERE'S A TREE REMOVAL KIND OF INDEX AND THEN IN THERE IT JUST CALLS OUT. SO THESE MAYBE IT'S NOT AS HELPFUL IN HERE.

THERE THIS ONE. SO THIS KIND OF NOTES A BUNCH OF TREES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.

THE AS YOU CAN SEE THE CONTOURS HERE, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO KIND OF CREATE A FLATTER AREA HERE TO MAKE IT A BUILDABLE KIND OF SPACE IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS ALL KIND OF ON THE FRINGE.

A LOT OF THE CONTAMINATED STUFF, IF I'M NOT.

MISSPEAKING. KELSEY IS KIND OF IN THE CENTER CORE AND TO THE SOUTH, SO THEY'RE REALLY LOOKING TO JUST BRING IN, CLEAN FILL, REMOVE THAT CONTAMINATED SOIL IN THOSE AREAS TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH MELANIE, YOU CAN SEE THE GRADING CHANGES AND THAT WILL BE KIND OF A LARGE EMBANKMENT HILL BERM. I MEAN, SOMETHING PRETTY TALL AND PER KELSEY, I'M NOT SURE YOUR PROCESS WITH MPCA, BUT THIS IS FOLLOWING MPCA GUIDELINES OF HOW TO HANDLE SOMETHING WITH CONTAMINATED, A SITE THAT HAS THIS MUCH CONTAMINATED SOIL.

BUT THE PLAN CALLS OUT A SEED MIXTURE FOR REPLACEMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS OTHER LANDSCAPING PLANS OR WHAT YOU GUYS WERE DOING FOR LAND COVERAGE.

YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THAT AT THE MOMENT, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE CAN DEFINITELY PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE.

GO AHEAD, MR. LIBBY, COULD YOU JUST DO ME THE FAVOR OF GIVING US KIND OF THE THOUSAND FOOT ELEVATION, HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE PLANNED INTENTION.

YOU'VE GONE THROUGH SO MANY FORENSIC REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ISSUES TO TRY TO MAKE THIS APROPOS FOR SOMETHING AND I CAN'T REMEMBER REALLY WHAT THE PROJECT WAS.

COULD YOU. YES.

AT THIS POINT, THIS ISN'T REALLY A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

IT'S JUST AN APPLICATION TO GET THE GRADING STARTED FOR THE CONTAMINATED SOIL CLEANUP.

A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WILL LIKELY COME DOWN THE PIPELINE.

EVENTUALLY WE HOPE TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU WITH SOMETHING BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT AT THIS TIME.

I KIND OF REMEMBER THIS AS A SKETCH PLAN OR PART OF A SKETCH PLAN.

CORRECT. REMIND ME AGAIN THE REASON FOR KEEPING THE CONTAMINANTS ON SITE AND CAPPING THEM VERSUS REMOVING THEM COMPLETELY.

THAT WAS IS THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

BUT THERE'S SOME BEING COVERED I THINK.

IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT.

WE'RE JUST WORKING WITH THE MPCA AND DOING THE BEST PRACTICES IN, YOU KNOW, MEDIATING THE CONTAMINATED SOILS AND SO WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH MPCA AND OUR CONSULTANTS IS THAT PUTTING THEM ON SITE, MAKING THE LANDSCAPING FIRM HERE ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SITE IS THE BEST USE AND WE WILL NEED

[00:35:04]

TO POTENTIALLY HAUL OFF, YOU KNOW, SOME CONTAMINATED SOIL OFF SITE.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, KEEPING THAT ON SITE, IS THERE A CONTINGENCY PLAN IF SOMETHING DOESN'T GO AS PLANNED ONCE, ONCE THE EXCAVATION STARTS? I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

MAYBE YOU COULD SPEAK MORE TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

IF POSSIBLE, I GUESS.

IT APPEARS THAT YOU'VE DONE QUITE A FEW BORINGS AND PRETTY MUCH KNOW WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THERE.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S DIFFERENT? YEAH. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

SO OUR PLANS WITH THE MPCA GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING WERE TO COME UP, HOW WE HANDLE THIS.

SO I WOULD LOOK, I GUESS, TO THAT FOR ANY TYPE OF LIKE, QUOTE UNQUOTE PLAN B OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THINGS ARE VERY MUCH THOUGHT ABOUT FROM THE MPCA.

AND WE FORESEE, YOU KNOW, THINGS MIGHT COME UP, BUT WE'LL HANDLE THAT.

ONCE WE CROSS THAT BRIDGE AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S ALL IN THE PLANS WITH THE MPCA.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

I DON'T SEE ANY, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

YEAH. GO AHEAD. SO, MISS OAKDEN GOOD QUESTION.

SO IF SOMETHING DOES GET UNCOVERED AND WE'VE ALREADY EXPOSED THE SOIL THAT IS BEING COVERED AND NOT MITIGATED OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THE MPCA IS STILL MONITORING, AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MPC CALLS OUT IN THOSE SITUATIONS.

SO WHETHER IT COMES BACK TO HERE OR NOT, YOU STILL HAVE AN EXPERT GOVERNING AUTHORITY THAT'S GOING TO DICTATE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

RIGHT. YEAH. WE ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY THAT'S REVIEWING THE CONTAMINATION OR THE CLEANUP OR THE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED TO THAT.

WE ARE TRIGGER AND OUR PURVIEW IS THE REGULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE THAT'S HAPPENING.

SO YEAH.

SO AN INTERIM USE PERMIT OUTLINES THE CONDITIONS TO ALLOW FOR THIS LEVEL OF GRADING.

THAT MUST BE MET AND I THINK IT'S THE MINIMUM IS, LIKE ANY PROJECT, OVER 20,000FT² OF DISTURBANCE IN THIS KIND OF ZONE OF THE SHORELINE WOULD REQUIRE AN INTERIM USE PERMIT. AND SO BECAUSE OF THE SCALE OF THE DISTURBANCE, THAT'S WHERE OUR GOVERNING AUTHORITY COMES IN, NOT NECESSARILY WHETHER IT'S CONTAMINATED OR NOT CONTAMINATED.

WE WOULD SEE THIS PROJECT.

THE FACT THAT IT'S CONTAMINATED JUST MEANS THAT MPCA IS INVOLVED AND WILL REQUIRE PERMITTING, OVERSIGHT, INSPECTIONS AND ALL OF THAT ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING TO DEAL WITH THOSE CHALLENGES, MUCH LIKE WE SEE WITH THE LAKESHORE AND WATERSHED DISTRICT BEING INVOLVED IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THEY'RE JUST ANOTHER GOVERNING AUTHORITY. SO I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

SO THE ONLY LAST ONE THAT I HAD WAS JUST GOING BACK TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT.

WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DICTATED.

WHEN AND IF THIS GETS PROPOSED FOR A DEVELOPMENT DOES A TREE COUNT NOW OR IS THE TREE COUNT AFTER.

SO THE TREES ARE NOT IN A PROTECTED AREA NECESSARILY.

SO YEAH.

IT'S NOT IN A PROTECTED AREA.

IT'S NOT IN THE LIKE THE 75 FOOT SETBACK OF A LAKE BECAUSE THE LAKE'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO AT THE TIME OF A DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD TRIGGER THE CONSERVATION DESIGN TREE COUNTS.

ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND WE DO HAVE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR BOULEVARD TREES AND PLANTINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AT THE TIME OF A DEVELOPMENT AND A PLAT. THIS SITE, WHILE IT'S VACANT, IS ALREADY A DISTURBED AREA.

THERE WAS A FARM. THERE'S CONTAMINATED SOILS AND ALL THAT.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THIS IS A LONG STANDING WOODS, NECESSARILY IN THIS SPACE.

HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF PLANTING PLAN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND WE WILL REQUIRE THIS TO BE REESTABLISHED WITH SOME GREENERY. WE DON'T ALLOW FOR JUST OPEN SOIL JUST TO SIT THERE.

OF COURSE. YEAH, THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT CLARIFICATION TO YOU.

SO IT LOOKS GREAT.

I APPRECIATE WE CAN'T ASK FOR MORE THAN IS REQUIRED AND SO IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE TREE COUNT, THEN IT'S HARD TO ASK FOR THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE REQUEST HERE IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL FROM MPCA AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT.

TRUE. OKAY.

MR. LIBBY, I'D LIKE TO ASK A SIMILAR QUESTION.

YOU WOULD PROBABLY BEST KNOW THIS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE FAMILIARITY WITH THE OTHER AGENCIES THAT ARE THAT HAVE GOVERNANCE AND DECISION MAKING, BUT WOULD IT NOT BE

[00:40:02]

ASSUMPTIVE ON OUR PART THAT THE CONTAMINATED MATERIALS THAT ARE LEFT ON SITE THEN WOULD REDUCE OR LIMIT IN SOME FORM OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE THE DEVELOPMENT USABILITY OF WHERE THOSE CONTAMINANTS ARE PLACED.

YEAH. SO WE HAVE IN OUR COMP PLAN GUIDED FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF DENSITY AND HOUSING KIND OF IN THIS SPACE AND THERE IS CONTAMINATED SOIL THAT THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO DEAL WITH BY MOVING THAT SOIL INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY OFF SITE CONTAMINATION.

MOVING IT AS A BERM ON A PORTION OF THE SITE WOULD INTO ESSENTIALLY OPENS UP PART OF THE SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT IF THEY WANTED TO, IN THE FUTURE, DEVELOP THIS SITE ENTIRELY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER GRADING PROJECT TO THEN REMOVE THIS BERM TYPE THING THAT THEY'RE CREATING TODAY.

IT'S NOT. YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THE BERM THAT THEY'RE BUILDING ON.

IT'S NOT DEVELOPABLE WITH THAT SPACE.

BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL GRADING.

AND IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP THAT LAND IN THE FUTURE, JUST NOT WITHOUT GRADING WORK.

IT'S A FUTURE RELOOK AT THIS AGAIN.

YEAH. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BY WITH ANOTHER PLAN SET ANOTHER PERMITTING WITH MPCA.

IT'S NOT PART OF THEIR CLEAN UP AREA.

THEY'RE TRYING TO MOVE IT ALL TO ONE AREA SO THEY CAN CAP IT AND CONTAIN IT THAT WAY, FOLLOWING MPCA GUIDELINES.

THAT'S CLEAR. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO BASED ON THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR THE APPLICANT.

I THINK IF I WERE TO PUT THIS IN A BOX, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IMPROVING AND MITIGATING SOIL TREES BEING REMOVED ARE NOT OUR JURISDICTION TO MONITOR AND REPLACE, AND FOR THAT REASON, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO HAVE ANY STIPULATIONS AROUND IT AT THIS STAGE, ESPECIALLY SO BASED ON THAT, AGAIN, JUST TO SIMPLIFY, IT FEELS LIKE THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE SOIL AREA AND IMPROVEMENT IS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

SO FOR THAT REASON I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT.

UNLESS THERE'S ANYBODY THAT HAS ANY OBJECTIONS.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE ENGINEERING REVIEW FROM THE CITY.

DOES IT LOOK LIKE THAT WILL BE COMPLETE PRIOR TO COUNCIL? YEAH, I GOT SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS.

NOTHING THAT IS REQUIRING ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS.

IT'S JUST SOME NOTES TO THE DEVELOPER, WHICH I'LL PASS ALONG.

I JUST GOT THEM.

I DON'T BELIEVE OUR ENGINEERING REVIEW WILL REQUIRE ANY CHANGES THAN WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED.

UNLESS MPCA OR WATERSHED REQUIRE CHANGES, THEN WE'LL WANT TO ADOPT WHATEVER CHANGES THAT THEY'LL REQUIRE.

BUT AT THIS POINT, I DON'T BELIEVE OUR ENGINEER HAS ANY COMMENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANY CHANGES THAN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TONIGHT.

THAT BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND QUESTION THEN.

IF MPCA OR WATERSHED HAVE DIFFERENT CHANGES, WHAT WOULD TRIGGER IT? COMING BACK TO OUR REVIEW.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT BASED ON A DISTURBANCE, HOW MUCH IS BEING REMOVED AND HOW MUCH IS BEING YEAH, THE LAND AREA BEING DISTURBED.

SO IF THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THEY'RE DISTURBING ALMOST THIS ENTIRE SITE ALREADY WITH THIS INTERIM USE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY'RE CLEANING UP A BIG PORTION AND CAPPING IT ALL, THEY'RE DOING DISTURBANCE OVER THIS ENTIRE SITE.

THE ONLY TIME IT WOULD COME BACK TO SEE YOU IS IF THAT DISTURBANCE REALLY GOT GREATER THAN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT.

IT'S NOT THE OR IF THEY WERE GOING TO POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, GREATLY ALTER THE WAY IF THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, YEAH, WE'RE DISTURBING THIS WHOLE AREA, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE NOT TO DO THE EMBANKMENT.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT ALL FULL CLEAN UP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU FOR.

SO IT'S REALLY A LARGE SCOPE OF CHANGE.

IF THEY'RE JUST CHANGING SOME OF THE PROCEDURES ON HOW TO HOW TO CAP IT OR CHANGING THE SLIGHT SHAPE OF THE EMBANKMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULDN'T TRIGGER THE NEED THAT TO IMPACT THIS INTERIM USE PERMIT.

SAY THEY RUN INTO A LOT MORE CONTAMINATED SOIL THAN THEY THOUGHT.

ARE THEY ALLOWED TO MAKE THE BERM AS LARGE AS THEY WANTED, OR DOES IT NEED TO STAY WITHIN THIS GRADING PLAN WITHIN REASON? YEAH. SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO ALTER THAT BERM SHAPE AND SIZE WITH THIS INTERIM USE PERMIT.

IT REALLY IS THIS GRADING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW IS THAT GOING TO.

SO IF THEY HAVE TO GO WAY DEEPER, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING AND HAULING MORE OFF SITE OR SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERS ONE OF OUR INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS, EITHER BY A FURTHER DEGREE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT OR BY A MAJOR CHANGE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING A WHOLE LOT OF HAULING.

THEY'RE THINKING THEY CAN USE MOST OF THE SOIL ON SITE, BUT IF THAT CHANGES AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT TO HAULING, WE MIGHT WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND, BECAUSE THE TRIGGER IS THE AMOUNT BEING MOVED IS THE AMOUNT, AND OUR REVIEW IS THE PLAN THEY'RE PROPOSING.

[00:45:04]

SO IF THAT IF WE APPROVE IT BASED ON THE AMOUNT BEING REMOVED OR ALTERED BASED ON THIS PLAN, AND THERE ARE CHANGES ALONG THE WAY BY MPCA OR SOMEBODY AND IT CHANGES THE CONFIGURATION OF THE PLAN, IT SHOULD COME BACK FOR REVIEW.

YEAH. IF IT CHANGES THE CONFIGURATION IN A WAY THAT TRIGGERS THE INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS, IT WILL COME BACK.

SO IT WOULD HAVE TO TRIGGER ANOTHER.

THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION IS BECAUSE THE THE IDEA BEHIND THE IAP IS THAT WE HAVE OVERSIGHT ON THESE PROJECTS.

WE HAVE IF IT CHANGES ALONG THE WAY, I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD COME BACK.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO TRIGGER ANOTHER 20,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE GRADING OR.

RIGHT. SO IF IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE THAT'S CHANGING THE YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT TO A FULL HAUL OFF SITE OR IF IT'S A CHANGE NECESSARILY, MAYBE TO THE SHAPE OF THE MOUND OR THE HEIGHT, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO TRIGGER THIS INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARD TO COME BACK TO YOU.

HOWEVER, WE CAN UPDATE THOSE PLANS TO THE COUNCIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS A CHANGE.

IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A NEW PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS IT TRIGGERS ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS FOR THE IUP.

SO THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS, I MEAN, REALLY, THE BIG THING IS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CONCEPT.

WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND AGAIN, WE HAVE MPCA KIND OF MONITORING AND ADVISING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS FAR AS THE BERMING AND SHAPING GOES AND IF THAT'S GOING TO BE DRASTICALLY CHANGED, IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF IS GOING TO REDIRECT THAT BACK TO US IF THEY FEEL IT'S NECESSARY.

THERE'S SOME DISCRETION THERE.

SO I SO THE MAIN TRIGGER IS THE AMOUNT OF LAND BEING MOVED AND THE AMOUNT OF LAND BEING DISRUPTED.

SO FOR THAT REASON, I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE MAJOR CHANGES LIKE HEIGHT OF THE BERM AND THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE TRIGGER OR THE AMOUNT OF SOIL DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THAN PERHAPS WHAT THE APPLICATION IS, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE IT'S PRETTY LOW BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S QUITE A BIT BEING DISTURBED.

BUT I THINK OUR ONLY CONCERN IS JUST DOES THE BERM GET TWICE AS TALL BECAUSE THEY FOUND MORE CONTAMINATED FILL AND DIDN'T WANT TO HAUL OFF SITE? YEAH, AND TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ON THAT THOUGH, I MEAN, THEY'D BE DOING IT BECAUSE OF THAT.

SO. RIGHT. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE MPCA WOULD BE CALLING OUT, NOT THE I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD CARE WHAT THE SIZE OF THE BERM IS.

RIGHT. YEAH. THE OVERSIGHT IS ON OUR LEVEL IS WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AT THE END AND HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS, HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE SITE.

AND MPCA IS JUST GOING TO SAY, IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT BERM 100FT TALL AND IT FITS, THEY CAN DO IT AND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE OVERSIGHT TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD BE APPROVING 100 FOOT TALL BERM RIGHT NOW.

IT'S YEAH, IT'S ABOUT I THINK IT'S A LIKELY IT'S ALREADY 40FT TALL.

I DON'T I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER SITE IN THE CITY THAT WE HAVE A 40 FOOT TALL BERM.

THAT'S A GOOD PERSPECTIVE. SO JUST AS THEY WERE GOING TO DO WHATEVER MPCA DICTATES, BUT MAYBE WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO GO ON RECORD AND SAY WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE.

BUT WELL, I GUESS FOR ME TO, FOR ME TO BE OKAY WITH IT, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT WOULD TRIGGER THIS COMING BACK FOR REVIEW IF SOMETHING HAD TO CHANGE.

RIGHT NOW, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN AS IT SITS, BUT IF THEY FIND SOMETHING WE ALL KNOW, STUFF COMES UP.

IF THEY FIND SOMETHING, WHAT WOULD TRIGGER IT FOR US TO COME? THIS SEEMS WELL ENGINEERED.

IT SEEMS WELL TESTED.

I THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO.

IT'S A PROFESSIONAL APPROACH AND IF THEY RUN INTO MORE CONTAMINANTS, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY'D HAUL THEM OFF SITE RATHER THAN MAKING THE BERM 60FT TALL OR 70FT TALL.

BUT THAT'S. WE CAN'T LEAVE THAT UP TO THE MPCA.

SO YEAH, THAT'S GOOD.

NOTING YOUR COMMENTS, I CAN ASK THE INTERPRETATION WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT THAT LIMITATION, AND I CAN PUT THAT IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL.

REGARDING LIMITATIONS ON THIS IUP TYPICALLY YOU WE CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON AN INTERIM USE PERMIT.

THAT'S NOT UNREASONABLE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT IS 50FT A 50 FOOT TALL BERM? IS THAT IS IT 47FT? YOU WANT TO JUST FIGURE OUT THAT SCOPE? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S LARGE AND RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DO ANYTHING TALLER.

BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE, LIKE HAULING THEM OFF SITE VERSUS KEEPING IT ON SITE OR THE SHAPE OF THE BERM, I DON'T THINK IS A TRIGGER FOR OUR IUP, BUT ADDING A CONDITION THAT SAYS SHOULD NOT, YOU KNOW, EXCEED WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND IF THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO AMEND THEIR PROPOSALS, THEN THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED TO COME BACK TO YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT CONDITION.

IT JUST MEANS THEY'D BE HAULING MORE PHIL OFF SITE.

IF THERE'S MORE CONTAMINANTS, IF IT'S MORE CONTAMINATED, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND THE MPCA LIKES TO KEEP CONTAMINANTS ON SITE DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY ARE AND COVER UP

[00:50:07]

AND SEAL. SO THERE'S A DON'T GET ME WRONG, THERE'S A GREAT PROJECT.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS JUST DOES THE BERM START TO GET OUT OF HAND AT SOME POINT? AND I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

YEAH, MAYBE. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A LANDSCAPING PLAN, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO DICTATE WHAT THE, WHAT IFS THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW.

CORRECT. THEY HAVEN'T DUG IN, BUT SO I GUESS, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF YOU COMMISSIONERS FEEL, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PUT ADVISORY ON THERE THAT SAYS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT RELOOKED AT IF THAT BERM IS GOING TO CHANGE BY 10% MORE THAN PROPOSED.

THAT'D BE FAIR. YEAH AND THEN AT LEAST GIVES THAT DIRECTION TO COUNCIL AND THEY CAN ACT HOWEVER THEY'D LIKE WITH IT.

BUT AT LEAST THAT'S OUR GUIDANCE, WHICH IS OUR JOBS.

RIGHT? RIGHT. EXACTLY.

REASONABLE. YEAH.

ANY OTHER THAN THAT, I'M FOR IT.

YEAH. IT'S A GREAT PROJECT.

I THINK IT'S HELPFUL. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER LIBBY.

MY QUESTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE PERTINENT TO THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THAT WE ARE WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, BECAUSE THE IUP IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FOCUS FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT.

BUT I THINK, INFORMATIONALLY, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THIS IS A MULTI-SOURCE CONTAMINANT, OR IS IT A CONCENTRATION OF A CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPE OF CONTAMINANT? IS IT A PETROLEUM BASED OR IS IT GARBAGE OR A DUMP OR YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT CAUSED THE CONTAMINATION? THAT'S THE RIGHT. THAT'S A CURIOSITY QUESTION.

A GOOD QUESTION.

IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.

MY NAME IS KELSEY THOMPSON.

LAKE DEVELOPMENT 14525 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA.

GREAT QUESTION.

SO MOSTLY THIS IS A BURIED ORGANICS FROM WHEN THEY DID THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 12.

WE ALSO FOUND JUST LIKE SOME HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE THAT'S BEEN MIXED IN THROUGHOUT AND THAT'S MOSTLY WHAT WE HAVE FOUND.

SO IT WAS LIKE AN OLD FARM SITE WHERE SOMEBODY JUST DUMPED EVERYTHING THEY HAD INTO A SLOUGH OR SOMETHING, OR.

YEAH, IT WAS AN OLD FARMER AND HE JUST OPENED IT UP TO HIS NEIGHBORS, SAID, COME ON OVER AND DUMP WHAT YOU WANT YEP.

MY GRANDPA.

YEAH. THE GOOD THING IS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EXTREMELY HARMFUL CONTAMINANTS.

NO. YEAH, IT'S NOT PETROLEUM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S UP TO THE MPCA.

ANYWAYS, I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT I'M GOOD.

COMMENT A QUESTION YES I MISSED WHAT IS THE PLANNERS EITHER AMATEUR OR PROFESSIONAL? WE RARELY TALK ABOUT HISTORY, BUT THE EISENHOWER FAMILY HAD A LONG HISTORY IN THE CITY OF ORONO.

I THINK IT PROBABLY PRECEDED THE CITY OF ORONO AND AND PLUS ANY TYPE OF REGULATION.

BUT I THINK IF ANYBODY WAS INTERESTED IN THAT HISTORY I'M SURE A VISIT TO THE WESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTY MUSEUM IN LONG LAKE THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE THERE THAT COULD TALK TO YOU QUITE AT LENGTH ABOUT THE EISENHOWER FAMILY, I THINK.

AND SO I THINK IT'S NOT TOTALLY OUT OF LINE TO JUST RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTION THEY MADE FOR MANY YEARS AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO JUST QUOTE ONE SENTENCE FROM THE NARRATIVE THAT ACCOMPANIED THE APPLICATION AND IT'S IN PART IT SAYS WE KINDLY REQUEST APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THIS NECESSARY AND LONG OVERDUE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP, TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMPLY WITH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND I LIKE TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR THAT MISSION.

WE'VE OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS COME AND GO ON THIS SITE AND IN RELATIVELY RECENT YEARS SINCE WE'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION AND SO BUT I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT STEP TO START THE PROCESS OF MOVING THINGS ALONG AND I AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT'S OPINION THAT IT IS LONG OVERDUE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ERICKSON.

ONE QUESTION HERE. WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE BERM? THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT THE BERM IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I THINK THEY HAVE A PROPOSED AROUND 40FT, BUT I.

4044 ZERO.

IT'S A LARGE EMBANKMENT.

[00:55:01]

IT SEEMS LIKE 10% ADDITION OR SUBTRACTION IS REASONABLE.

YEAH. SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE IS TO PICK THIS UP TEN FEET HIGHER THAN THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT.

BUT THE ALLOWABLE STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS TO THE MEDIAN POINT OF THE ROOF.

RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY HIGHER THAN A STRUCTURE WOULD BE.

RIGHT. CORRECT.

SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE A STAB AT A PROPOSAL HERE.

I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TO APPROVE LA24-000038 AS APPLIED WITH THE CONDITION OF, IN LIEU OF A LANDSCAPING PLAN GUIDANCE THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS A 10% VARIANCE IN CHANGE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED BERM ON THE APPLICATION. IF THAT LANGUAGE IS CLEANED UP, GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.

MISS OAKDEN, I THINK I CAN USE THAT.

I HAVE CONDITION TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF THE BERM WITHIN 10% OF THE PROPOSED.

IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? AND IT STILL IS FOLLOWING THE MPCA GUIDELINES AND ALL THE OTHER WATERSHED REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO THROW THAT INTO THE STIPULATIONS.

SO IF WE'RE CONCERNED OVER BUILDING THAT BERM, THEN THAT'S GOING TO CLEAN THAT UP TOO.

SO I THINK YOU DO NEED TO HAVE THAT IN YOUR MOTION THOUGH.

CONDITIONS OF THE 10% VARIANCE AND THEN CONDITIONS OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FROM ALL APPLICABLE.

I THINK IT IS IN MY MOTION.

I MEAN IT'S GOING TO BE FINALIZED BY COUNCIL.

RIGHT. IT'S NOT STOPS DOESN'T STOP HERE.

YOU'RE JUST RECOMMENDING.

YEP. SO IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

SO THAT IS MY THAT IS ANOTHER CONDITION OF YOUR MOTION.

THAT'S A PROPOSED CONDITION OF MY PROPOSAL OF MY MOTION.

YES I'LL SECOND IT.

SECOND OKAY.

SECOND AND THE THIRD I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER.

I HAVE A SECOND BY SCHULTZE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL PUT IT TO A VOTE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THIS BRINGS US TO LA24-000036, MARK AND MARY ENGER.

[5.5. #LA24-000036, Mark & Mary Enger, 2697 Casco Point Road, Hardcover Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]

2697 CASCO POINT ROAD.

THIS IS A HARD COVER VARIANCE.

MISS CURTIS.

THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT HAS BUILT A NEW HOME IN 2019.

THEIR NEW HOME PROJECT WAS DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO THE 25% HARD COVER LIMITATION.

AFTER EXPERIENCING A WINTER IN THEIR HOME, THEY BEGAN EXPERIENCING CHALLENGES WITH THEIR DRIVEWAY SIZE AND DESIGN.

IN 2020, THEY REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A HARD COVER VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET OF DRIVEWAY CONFIGURED AS SHOWN AS LIKE A BACKUP KIND OF BACKUP APRON.

HERE IN RED.

WHERE'S MY MOUSE? OKAY, THERE IT IS.

OKAY. THE THIS WAS INTENDED TO TO PROMOTE THE ABILITY TO FRONT OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, UP THE HILL FORWARD, RATHER THAN REVERSE.

MANEUVERS. CURRENTLY, THEY ARE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND FROM 10 BY 10 TO 12 BY 17, 12 BY 18 WHICH RESULTS IN AN ADDITIONAL 116FT², BRINGING THEIR SITE HARDCOVER FROM 26.3 TO OR I'M SORRY FROM 25.7 TO 26.3%.

THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED THE SAME PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AS WITH THE 2020 VARIANTS, INCLUDING SAFETY, BUSY ROADWAY, THE NARROW DRIVEWAY WITH AND SLOPE, AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO CHANGE THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT.

THEY ARE IN ATTENDANCE THIS EVENING.

IT SHOULD BE ASKED FOR TESTIMONY REGARDING THEIR REQUEST.

AS WITH THE 2020 REVIEW, THERE ARE VERY FEW AREAS ON THE PROPERTY WHERE HARDCOVER CAN BE REDUCED OR REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY SPACE.

THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE STEEPNESS OF THE ROAD APPROACH ARE CHALLENGING.

HOWEVER, THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE APPROVAL PROVIDED RELIEF IN ALLOWING THE TURNAROUND AREA TO BE CREATED.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS APPLICATION, AND ALTHOUGH STAFF UNDERSTANDS AND APPRECIATE THEIR APPRECIATES THEIR SITUATION, WE CANNOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ADDITIONAL HARD COVER.

THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE SHOULD HAVE ALLEVIATED DIFFICULTIES IDENTIFIED BY THE APPLICANTS.

IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THERE ARE, OR THERE ARE CONTINUED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES TO SUPPORT A GRANTING AN ADDITIONAL HARD COVER VARIANCE AND APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION MAY BE APPROPRIATE. THE APPLICANTS HAVE PROVIDED SOME SITE PHOTOS THAT I CAN DISPLAY, BUT I THINK THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE APPLICATION.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

[01:00:02]

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST CLARIFYING. I SEE IT IN THE SITE PLANS, BUT IT'S THE IT'S TEN FEET BY TEN FEET IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.

NO. THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE OKAY.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR 12 BY 18 OKAY.

SO THEY'RE ASKING TO INCREASE THE LENGTH OF IT AND THE, OR THE WIDTH OF IT AND THE DEPTH AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE FLARE JUST TO MAKE MANEUVERABILITY A LITTLE EASIER. SO TEN BY 10 TO 12 BY 18.

YES OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I GOT. COULD YOU GO OVER THE TIMELINE AGAIN.

HOUSE WAS BUILT WHEN 2019.

2020 WAS THE FIRST VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MISS CURTIS, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS YOUR ONGOING SUPPORT OF THIS GREAT COMMUNITY.

MY NAME IS MARK ENGER.

MY WIFE MARY AND I HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2015.

WE PURCHASED IT FROM MARY'S PARENTS LAWRENCE AND CONNIE KANE WHO HAD OWNED THE PROPERTY SINCE 1972. DURING THOSE DECADES OF TIME, WE ENJOYED COUNTLESS HOLIDAY EVENTS ON THAT PROPERTY AND I GUESS THE FAMILY EXPECTS US TO CONTINUE THAT TRADITION FORWARD TO BUY THE PROPERTY.

WE ACTUALLY WISH THAT WE WEREN'T HAVING TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

WE HAD HOPED AND THOUGHT THAT THE APPROVED TEN BY TEN VARIANCE THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED FOUR YEARS AGO WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.

WE FOUND OUT PRETTY QUICKLY, PARTICULARLY IN THE WINTER MONTHS, THAT JUST DIDN'T ALLOW ENOUGH ROOM TO BACK UP AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE MAP, THERE'S REALLY NO OTHER LOCATION THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE PUT IN.

SO WE QUICKLY DISCOVERED THAT THE TEN BY TEN FOR OUR USE AND OUR SAFETY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT AND NOT A FUNCTIONAL TURNAROUND TO ALLOW OUR VISITORS TO BACK IN THERE AND DRIVE UP TO CASCO POINT ROAD.

WITH A WITH THE FRONT EXIT.

CASCO POINT ROAD, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVEN'T BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, HAS GOTTEN INCREASINGLY BUSY WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MORE AND MORE TRAFFIC. ON AN UNRELATED TOPIC TODAY, THE FACT THAT WE ALLOW PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET ADD ANOTHER ELEMENT OF OF COMPLEXITY TO CASCO POINT ROAD.

THAT PICTURE RIGHT THERE PROBABLY POINTS AS WE FILL OUT THE APPLICATION AGAIN ON THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.

THE MOST APPLICABLE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IS WHEN A SAFETY WITH PERSONAL SAFETY AND PROPERTY SAFETY.

I HAVE BECOME FAIRLY ADEPT AT BACKING MY CAR UP THE SLOPING, LONG, FAIRLY NARROW DRIVEWAY.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS FROM THE NORTHBOUND DIRECTION.

IT'S REALLY BECOMING INCREASINGLY A BLIND SPOT TO ACCESS CASCO POINT ROAD.

SO WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ASK FOR SOME ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

I SAID WE'D HAVE BEEN THRILLED IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE.

WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME, OUR TIME OR OUR MONEY.

WE'VE ALREADY INVESTED A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO INTO THE TEN BY TEN AND JUST UNFORTUNATELY DON'T FIND IT TO WORK.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DRIVEWAY, I THINK ARE HIGHLIGHTED.

IT'S, AT TOWARDS THE TOP.

IT'S ONLY LESS THAN TEN FEET WIDE.

IT HAS A 16 DEGREE SLOPE, WHICH, AS YOU DO AS I DID RESEARCH IS CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT SLOPE.

PLUS IT CURVES.

SO FOR OUR GUESTS THAT HAVE CHOSEN OR SERVICE VEHICLES.

THE MAILMAN, BY THE WAY, ASKED ME ABOUT 3 TIMES A WEEK WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS FERRY BECAUSE HE WILL NO LONGER DRIVE DOWN OUR DRIVEWAY BECAUSE HE CAN'T TURN AROUND AND AND EXIT. SO THE SAFETY ISSUE.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY QUOTE NEAR MISSES HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED, NOT ONLY PERSONALLY, BECAUSE I PROBABLY BACK OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY MORE THAN ANYBODY, BUT WE'VE ALSO HAD VISITORS, INCLUDING FAMILY AND FRIENDS, THAT JUST CANNOT BACK THEIR VEHICLE UP.

IN FACT, I HAVE TO IN MANY OCCASIONS GET IN THEIR CAR AND BACK IT OUT ON THE STREET FOR THEM.

SO WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT AN EXPANDED TURNAROUND WILL ALLOW A CAR TO BACK, PARTICULARLY A CAR, BUT ALSO HOPEFULLY

[01:05:07]

SERVICE VEHICLES TO BACK INTO A LARGER SPACE.

KEEP ALL FOUR WHEELS ON THAT HARD COVER AND THEN WITH A FAIRLY SHARP TURNING RADIUS, GET ONTO THE DRIVEWAY AND EXIT THE CASCO POINT ROAD.

LAST WEEK WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE MAYOR'S COFFEE AND GOT A CHANCE TO GIVE HIM AN OVERVIEW.

AT HIS GENEROSITY, HE OFFERED TO COME AND VISIT OUR PROPERTY, WHICH HE DID RIGHT AFTER THE COFFEE AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT HE CLEARLY COULD SEE AND PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THE CHALLENGES OF BACKING OUT OUR DRIVEWAY AND SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT OUR MAYOR DID COME OUT AND SEE IT AND I THINK IS SYMPATHETIC TO THE SITUATION THAT WE FACE.

AND WE DO APPRECIATE HE HAD TO LEAVE, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THE OF THE MAYOR'S COMING UP.

SO WE RESPECTFULLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE OUR ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR 110 116 ADDITIONAL FEET SO WE CAN HAVE A USABLE, FUNCTIONAL TURNAROUND THAT ENABLES, FOR A WAY, SAFER EXIT FROM OUR PROPERTY ONTO CASCO POINT ROAD, WHICH HAS GOTTEN BIGGER VEHICLES, MORE VEHICLES, AND WAY MORE TRAFFIC.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

TELL ME ABOUT THE TEN BY TEN.

HOW IS THAT DECIDED ON SIZE? IT WAS ENCOURAGED THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS GOING TO BE A VARIANCE.

BEYOND THE 25% AND SO WE LISTENED TO THE STAFF'S ENCOURAGEMENT.

THAT WOULD BE TEN BY TEN WE HOPE THIS WILL BE SUFFICIENT AND MAYBE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION ON THE DRIVEWAY OR DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

IT COULD BE, BUT WE JUST HAVEN'T FOUND THAT TO BE THE CASE.

OKAY AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS THE 12 BY 18 DO YOU.

WELL WE'VE DONE I BELIEVE THAT'LL BE ENOUGH.

YEAH. EVERY GOOGLE SITE HAS A DIFFERENT PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT HAS DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SIZE OF TURNAROUNDS.

WE'VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM 20 BY 22 DIFFERENT VARIATIONS.

THE 12 BY 18, WE THOUGHT AS REASONABLE.

IT DOES NOT ACCOMMODATE EMERGENCY VEHICLES OR A LARGE EMERGENCY VEHICLE.

THIS IS WHICH WE HOPE WILL NOT NEED TO VISIT OUR PROPERTY.

BUT IT DID WOULD ALLOW US TO GET A CAR AND A LARGER SERVICE VEHICLE BACK IN THERE AND WHERE YOU TURN THE STEERING WHEEL AND STAY ON THE TEN FOOT DRIVEWAY TO GET OUT OFF THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? QUESTION IF I ASK, EXCUSE ME, I VISITED YOUR SITE TODAY AND THERE'S QUITE A DRIVEWAY YOU HAVE.

I'LL TELL YOU THAT THERE FOR A LOT OF YEARS.

YES AND YOU CAN SEE ALSO THE SHARED EASEMENT, WHICH WE HAD TO KIND OF CONVINCE OUR MAYOR, WITH THE HELP OF THE CITY, THAT'S A 50 OR A LIFETIME EASEMENT.

OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE FACT THAT THE AREA RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE DOORS IS NOT A LARGE ENOUGH AREA TO GET THE VEHICLES TURNED AROUND.

WELL, MY WIFE AND I, WHEN WE PARKED IN THE GARAGE, WE CAN BACK OUT AND DRIVE UP.

BUT WHEN WE HAVE VISITORS, WHICH WE DO WITH A LARGE FAMILY THEY DON'T PARK IN THE GARAGE, SO THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM TO SAFELY AND EASILY.

SO IT'S NOT ABOUT MARY AND MIKE GETTING OUR CARS OUT OF THE GARAGE.

IT'S BECAUSE WE CAN BACK OUT.

SURE. OKAY. IT'S FOR THE VISITORS.

OKAY AND THEN IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE AN AREA ABOUT WHERE THE PLAN IS FOR YOU TO PUT THIS ENLARGED AREA.

THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE SOME FLAGSTONE OR SOMETHING THERE IN PLACE THERE NOW.

YES. FLAGSTONE.

THE TURNAROUND WHICH WE WANTED TO LOOK ESTHETICALLY PLEASING IS WITH FLAGSTONE WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH SOME PART OF THE DRIVEWAY UP BY THE GARAGE AND SO INSTEAD OF JUST THROWING BLACKTOP ON THERE, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT IT LOOK NICE.

BUT I MEAN, TO ME IT LOOKED AS THOUGH YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT IN PLACE.

WELL, THE TEN BY TEN IS THERE.

SO THAT'S THE TEN BY TEN, THAT'S WHAT.

OKAY AND WE WOULD USE COMPARABLE MATERIAL TO EXPAND IT IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED TO GIVE US APPROVAL, WHICH WE HOPE YOU WILL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I DID WANT TO RESPOND TO THE OOPS, SORRY.

THE BACKUP AREA IN THE CODE FOR ROADS THAT ENTER ONTO COLLECTOR STREETS.

THE CODE REQUIRES A BACK ROAD TURNAROUND AREA OF EIGHT BY 12FT.

[01:10:02]

NOT TEN BY TEN, BUT IT'S YOU KNOW, TWO EXTRA FEET IN THE WIDTH IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO GET INTO AT A RIGHT ANGLE.

BUT THAT WAS THE REQUEST.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM REQUIRED.

CORRECT. YEP. GOT IT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE.

WE'LL BRING IT BACK HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

I'LL START ON THIS ONE.

AT FIRST, WHEN I WAS READING THIS ONE, I WAS TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND ALL THE RULES WITH PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, ETC.

AND I THINK THE STAFF REPORT WAS VERY DILIGENT.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS THERE WAS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN 2020 THAT WE DECIDED, OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL DECIDED PROVE THE VARIANCE, BUT THAT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WAS NEVER FIXED.

SO IN MY MIND, IF THIS FIXES THE SCENARIO, I'M FOR IT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYONE ELSE FEELS ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S I'M DEFINITELY FOR THIS.

I WANT THAT PROPERTY TO BE SAFE.

I SHOULDN'T SAY IT, BUT I'D BE FOR IT IF IT WAS EVEN BIGGER THAN.

THAN IT IS. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY THE 18FT, I THINK, IS NOT ONLY REASONABLE, IT'S PROBABLY MINIMAL.

IF WE COULD APPROVE, 20 MIGHT EVEN MAKE MORE SENSE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED.

MOST CARS ARE ABOUT 18FT LONG, I BELIEVE.

OR MAYBE THAT'S A PICKUP TRUCK.

SO. WELL, IT'S JUST A TURNAROUND OUT OF PARKING SPOT.

BUT YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE.

I MEAN, I WE KNOW ALL CARS POINT VERY WELL.

I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTS TO MINIMIZE CONGESTION ON THAT ROAD.

SO I THINK IT'S REASONABLE.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE WIDTH OF THE LOT IT'S SO NARROW THAT THE, DEFINING PERCENTAGES GET SKEWED PRETTY EASILY BECAUSE IT'S A NARROW ROAD.

AND SO JUST THE ROAD TO ACCESS THE HOME TAKES UP A LOT OF LAND AND IF IT WAS BUILT 50FT CLOSER TO CASCO POINT, SURE.

THAT PROBABLY WOULD ELIMINATE HARDCOVER, BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A REASONABLE WAY TO RESOLVE IT AND SO WHAT'S THERE IS NOT EGREGIOUS AND CLEARLY THE APPLICANT WAS DOING THEIR BEST TO NOT ASK FOR TOO MUCH WHEN THEY INITIALLY PUT IN THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST AND I DON'T SEE ANY RECORD OF PUSHBACK THAT SAID, NO, WE WANT YOU TO MOVE IT ONLY TO TEN BY TEN.

SO BASED ON MY RESEARCH AND SO BASED ON THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS ANY PUSHBACK TO IT THAT WAY BEFORE.

SO THIS IS WELL THOUGHT OUT.

DOESN'T SEEM EGREGIOUS BY ANY MEANS, CONSIDERING THE SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE LOCATION BEING A KNOWN AREA, AND I WOULD SUPPORT IF WE CAN COME UP WITH MORE SUPPORT FOR CASCO POINT ON TURNAROUNDS FOR THE SAME REASON IN THE FUTURE.

IF I CAN JUST GO ON RECORD TO SAY THAT TOO.

SO I'D BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS ANYBODY WAS OPPOSED.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DIFFERENT THAN I SUPPORT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, AND I ALSO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT I'M EMPATHETIC AND SYMPATHETIC ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DILEMMA FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, BECAUSE I'VE OWNED PROPERTY AND LIVED IN PROPERTY WHERE THAT DAILY ROUTINE AND ANTICIPATION OF COLLISIONS BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY IS INTOLERABLE.

MY VERY SHORT LIST OF THINGS THAT I FIND VERY INTOLERABLE HAPPEN TO BE BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY ONTO A THOROUGHFARE.

I REALLY DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE FOR IT.

I CAN SEE WHY YOU DON'T, AND I THINK IT SUPPORTS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.

WELL, ALL THAT BEING SAID, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'LL MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE LA24-000036 AS WRITTEN.

I'LL SECOND THAT SECOND.

MOTION TO APPROVE BY KRAEMER A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOLLIS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL VOTE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME.

THAT BRINGS US TO LA24-000037, MARK FERRY AND ELIZABETH FLYNN FERRY.

[5.6. #LA24-000037, Mark Ferry & Elizabeth Flynn Ferry, 3545 Ivy Place, ALS Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis)]

3545 IVY PLACE, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE.

MISS CURTIS.

[01:15:02]

THANK YOU. APPLICANTS ARE THE NEW OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS SITUATED AT THE END OF IVY PLACE.

THEIR LAKE SHORE FACES THE COVE.

THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY BEHIND THEM.

I'VE OUTLINED THE HOME FOOTPRINT OF THE NEIGHBOR IN BLUE.

THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HAS A FLAG LIKE CONFIGURATION SO THAT IT WRAPS AROUND THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, AND THE NEIGHBORING HOME IS ENTIRELY BEHIND THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LAKE.

ON THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE, SETBACK VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THE LOT, ORIENTATION AND LOCATION OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES SUPPORTING THEIR REQUEST.

STAFF FINDS THAT SEVERAL.

THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER THE PROPERTY, THE ORIENTATION AND IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE NEIGHBORING LOT, AND THE LOCATION OF THE NEIGHBOR'S HOME.

THE PURPOSE OF THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK IS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE VIEWS OF THE LAKE FROM THE NEIGHBORING HOMES, OVER A SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK ELIMINATES THE BUILDABLE AREA ON THIS PROPERTY.

THEIR PROPOSED HOME PLACEMENT WILL CREATE APPROXIMATELY 20 20FT OF ADDITIONAL LAKE VIEW FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION AND THE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THE OPENED VIEW IN YELLOW.

SO I'VE OVERLAID THE EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT OVER THE PROPOSED AND IDENTIFIED THIS AREA AS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE VIEW.

THE APPLICANTS HAVE SUBMITTED ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS FROM NEIGHBORS AND NO ACTUAL COMMENTS.

NEGATIVE COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

TWO OF THE NEIGHBOR COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

I SENT BY EMAIL ON FRIDAY.

BUT AFTER THE PACKET WAS PUBLISHED FINDING THE REQUEST SUPPORTED BY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE AS APPLIED.

I DO HAVE THE HOME PLANS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM, AND ANY OTHER PHOTOS OR ITEMS FROM THE PACKET I CAN DISPLAY ON THE SCREEN, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOPE. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM.

HELLO. PLANNING COMMISSION, BETH FLYNN FERRY, MY HUSBAND, MARK FERRY AND SCOTLAND YARD IS SUPPORTING AS A BUILDER.

WE'RE AT CURRENTLY AT 154 BABCOCK LANE IN WAYZATA, BUT HOPING TO MOVE TO IVY PLACE.

MAYBE THIS TIME NEXT YEAR IF WE CAN GET THE AVERAGE LAKESHROE SETBACK APPROVAL.

WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT IT. WE'VE BEEN LOOKING A LONG TIME.

LOVE CASCO POINTE AND SO WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO GET THIS STARTED.

WE MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, THE SETBACKS.

THE HARDCOVER IS AT 18.1 BELOW THE 25.

THE HOME ITSELF WILL BE SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.

THEIR WALKOUT RAMBLER.

NOT ANY HIGHER.

THE NEIGHBOR IN BACK.

WE DID SHIFT THE ORIENTATION A LITTLE BIT AND SO HE DOES HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL 20FT THAT MELANIE MENTIONED FOR FROM A VIEW STANDPOINT.

SO WE'RE JUST HOPEFUL THAT YOU'LL SUPPORT OUR PLAN.

ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS. NONE.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS FOR OR AGAINST IT? PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NOBODY WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK UP HERE FOR DISCUSSION.

RARELY DO WE SEE AN ALS REQUEST THAT ACTUALLY IMPROVES THE VIEW.

THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND IT IS TO PROTECT THE VIEW AND IF YOU WERE TO APPLY ALS HERE, THERE IS NO BUILDING ENVELOPE.

THAT'S PRETTY UNUSUAL AS WELL.

WE'VE SEEN TINY BUILDING ENVELOPES, BUT I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN IT WHERE THERE IS NONE.

I'M FOR THIS PROJECT, AND IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS.

YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I THINK THERE'S NOT MUCH TO ADD AT IMPROVING EVERY POSITION THAT YOU'RE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, EXISTING UNLESS IT IS ALREADY MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS AND AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK.

NOT TO MINIMIZE IT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE WE UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THERE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SEEMS RIGHT TO BE PROPOSED THAT WAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE DISCUSSION I NEED ON THAT.

I'M PREPARED TO SUPPORT IT AND MAKE A MOTION IF THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS TO GO AHEAD.

OKAY. WELL, UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION.

A MOTION TO APPROVE LA24-000037 AS APPLIED.

MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER RESSLER SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIBBY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT.

I HAVE TO SAY THIS BECAUSE IT GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE ONE OF MY VERY FAVORITE WORDS, MEANDER.

[01:20:04]

SO YOU LIVE IN A LAGOON, WHICH I'M VERY ENVIOUS OF BECAUSE MY DOCK IS ON SMITH'S BAY, ON THE MAIN PART OF THE LAKE, WHERE I GET CONSTANTLY BEAT UP WITH WAKE FROM OTHER BOATS AND THE NATURAL ELEMENTS OF THE WIND AND BOY WOULD I LOVE TO BE IN YOUR LAGOON.

SO CONGRATULATIONS THAT'S A WONDERFUL SETTING.

THANK YOU. SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.