Get documents about "Kathy Maroney
Document Sample
BURNSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING OF JUNE 9, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Richard Dusterhoft None Matt Brokl
Michael Esch Craig Ebeling
Tim Ivers, Alternate Lonnie Fredrickson
Skip Nienhaus Paul Oehme
Nancy Nystuen Jenni Tovar
Mary Sherry, Chair Chad Wohlers
The meeting was called to order by Mary Sherry at 7:00 p.m.
1. Fredrickson administered the official oath to newly named Commission members
(Dusterhoft, Ivers (Alternate), and Esch.).
CONSENT AGENDA
2. Adoption of Agenda.
3. Consider Approval of Minutes for Previous Meeting of May 27, 2003.
Sherry called for adoption of the Agenda and changes to the Minutes.
Nystuen requested a change to the last sentence on page two, paragraph five, of the
minutes from ‘Monahan indicated that Pillsbury goes to Nicollet’ advising that it should
say, Monahan indicated that 126th goes to Nicollet.’
Nystuen moved to approve. Nienhaus seconded the motion. Ayes: Esch, Nienhaus,
Nystuen. Nays: None. Sherry abstained due to absence from the May 27 meeting.
Motion passed.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 2
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from GC (Golf Course) to RR (Rural
Residential), and Preliminary Plat Approval of a 28 Lot Single-Family
Subdivision to be Known as CHATEAU HIGHLANDS to be Located East of
County Road 5, North and South of 155th Street W.
Tovar presented an overview of the application and advised that staff recommends the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application as
conditioned.
Sherry called for questions of staff.
Nystuen asked if the term vacate meant removal. Tovar advised that it did. Nystuen
referred to the background statement that ‘all slope provisions had been met’ and asked
Tovar to explain. Tovar explained that the ordinance is being met in that it does not
allow development on slopes greater than 40% without a variance. She indicated that
created slopes are at the maximum of 3 to 1. She stated that retaining walls are included
in the plan and meet the requirements. Nystuen asked how the required Met Council
approval of the Comprehensive Plan would affect the City’s decision in relation to
purchase agreements, dates, etc. Tovar advised that, per the owner, a valid purchase
agreement is in place. She added that Met Council reviews are part of standard procedure
to comp plan amendments. Nystuen asked what would happen if the Met Council did not
approve the plan. Brokl advised that if the Met Council did not approve, it would come
back to the City for reconsideration of options. Nystuen asked if Circle High Drive
residents would be forced to hook up to City sewer and water. Tovar indicated that was
not required as part of this development. She further stated, however, that it was a
requirement that the developer bring public utilities up to the property line. Nystuen
asked whether the Comp Plan or Zoning Ordinance takes precedence. Brokl advised that
the law indicates that the Comp Plan is the ruling document, however, in this situation,
the Comp Plan nor the zoning was changed prior to the application. He stated that the
current application doesn’t require rezoning which negates the need to review the Comp
Plan. He advised that, in this case, we have to look at the R-1A zoning standards in
relation to the R-1A straight up application. It was his assertion that the zoning is the
controlling factor. Brokl went on to explain that the Comp Plan is a long-range guiding
tool which the Met Council reviews in detail.
Nienhaus asked for an explanation of the layout of the Circle High Drive cul-de-sac.
Oehme advised it was of typical design. Nienhaus asked if his only option coming from
the development to Circle High Drive would be a right turn. Tovar explained that the
only option would be to continue north and loop around to the west then south to exit
(circling through the entire development to exit on County Road 5). Nienhaus cited a
hypothetical comp plan situation where agricultural land was designated to become an
industrial park with the zoning being changed to Industrial Park. He asked if that would
force taxes to be paid on the C-1 vs. agricultural rates. Brokl advised that most growing
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 3
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued
cities would allow farmers to continue to be guided by agricultural zoning until it
developed at which time it would become industrial. Nienhaus noted that the golf course
had not been paying residential tax rates but rather golf course rates. Brokl advised that
the current application is in line with the R-1A zoning. Nienhaus asked for confirmation
that, had golf course zoning had been created to match the Comp Plan, it would have
prevented the landowner from selling the land for any purpose other than a golf course
requiring the landowner to either sell the land for whatever price was appropriate for a
golf course or continue operating it as a golf course. Brokl advised that is correct,
however, he noted that a golf course zoning would be extremely narrow and zoning
classifications tend to be broader. He said that the golf course as a private open space is
an odd use for property. Tovar pointed out that recently a zoning classification of parks
was created which denotes a land use of public or private golf course. Nienhaus pointed
out that had that zoning been applied to this property the land would be limited to some
kind of park usage. Tovar advised that this property is not included in that district nor did
the property owner request being placed in that district.
Esch asked about the timing of the end of the purchase agreement and the need for Met
Council review of the Comp Plan. Brokl advised that, although the City has been told the
agreement expires on June 30, they are not privy to any of the terms and have not seen
the document. Esch asked if it was permissible to use the Comp Plan for guidance.
Brokl advised that denial of the application could not be solely based on the Comp Plan.
Esch inquired as to the amount of taxes that would be generated once the new
development was completed vs. the amount of revenue from a golf course. Tovar
speculated that it would be approximately $280,000 after development. Nienhaus
indicated that he believed golf course taxes are approximately $12,500+. Tovar advised
that, if the City were to purchase the golf course, tax revenues would equal zero. Esch
speculated that the revenues from the golf course would be significant.
Dusterhoft questioned when the Comp Plan was written, changed, and/or amended.
Sherry advised that it had been updated in 2000 and every ten years prior to that. She
further advised that amendments can be made at any time. Dusterhoft asked if it was
correct that the Comp Plan designation for this property had not been changed since
1965. Sherry advised that was correct.
Sherry asked if 155th Street would remain open to County Road 5. Tovar advised that to
be correct. Sherry asked if the street connecting to Circle High Drive would exceed the
allowable 8% grade. Oehme advised the street is well within standards at approximately
a 5% grade.
At 7:30 p.m., Sherry opened the Public Hearing and invited anyone wishing to address
the Commission to step forward. She further stated that the duty of the Commission was
to look at the technical/legal aspects of the item.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 4
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
Larry Borgen, 1201 West 156th Street, asked that the Citizen Comments from the May 12
meeting be added as part of the record. He advised that 270 youth had signed up for the
Orchard Gardens golf league. He talked about the effect and historical setback that
developing the golf course would cause to the community. He cited confusion about the
charge of the Planning Commission and requested that decisions be postponed until more
of the questions raised had been answered. He stated that he did not believe that the City
had obtained sufficient findings. He said there were many reasons that it would be
premature to make a decision (refer to handout).
Scott Lundquist, Attorney, 905 Kaymar Lane, addressed three issues: the role of the
Planning Commission, technical conformance and stated the Planning Commission was,
in fact, a quasi political body responsible for advising the Council on land use issues. He
cited and interpreted numerous legal statutes. He urged the Commission to reject
amending the Comp Plan. He referenced Title 10-2-1; stated traffic concerns referencing
a ‘secondary crash point’; he referenced an alleged 20 foot buffer zone are which was not
part of the sale and would cause lots to be below the required one acre minimum; he cited
flooding/drainage problems which would be caused by nine acres of asphalt roads.
John Brooks, Airline Pilot, 15425 Bryant Avenue, talked about his travels and his dismay
at nonconformance to Comp Plans in other areas. He shared that he’d been to Pensacola
and Laguna Beach in 1967 when everyone enjoyed access to the beaches and then
returned to find it built up with access only to those who lived there. He asked the
Commission to review this application objectively rather than subjectively. He
referenced an article regarding the growing popularity of nine hole golf courses and
advised that other communities were trying to find ways to add green area. He urged the
Commission to follow the Comp Plan.
Chuck Heller, 1112 Circle High Drive, advised that the grade on the south side of Circle
High Drive is a very unsafe 20% and said that any additional traffic would make it even
more unsafe. He talked about traffic concerns, steep grades, sharp turns, and visibility
issues. He indicated that he felt that the road improvements necessary to move forward
with this development would cause the residents of Circle High Drive to pay for
improvements that would otherwise have been unnecessary. He said that, should the
development be approved, it was his contention that Circle High Residents should be
accommodated and compensated in some fashion. He presented a written statement.
Bill Steele, 501 E. Burnsville Parkway, stated that he has no vested interest in the golf
course. He stated that he takes exception to the reference that the Commissioners role
was to look at technical aspects of applications and asked, if not them, who would be
looking at the emotional aspects. He urged the Commission to look at what is desired.
He stated that strategic planning is based on looking at visions, missions, purposes and
then creating compatible rules, laws, and ordinances. He closed by saying that he is a
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 5
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
strong supporter of the Heart of the City but that baseball fields, rinks, golf courses, etc.,
are part of the spirit of the city.
Connie Morrison, 909 West 155th Street, advised that the responsibility of the
Commission members is to be visionaries who create the city. She asked the
Commissioners to look at the intent and meaning of the Comp Plan. She urged the
Commission to consider more than technical aspects. She noted that there is no way to
regulate the value of the homes that will be built and pointed out that the City only gets
20% of the taxes paid. She speculated that more money would be made by running a golf
course than by the taxes generated.
Tom Anderson, 1719 Slater Lane, urged the Planning Commission to look at the rights of
the landowner and his rights to develop the land as zoned.
Gary Rocklitz, 12724 Diamond Drive, responded to Mr. Anderson’s comments by
inviting Commissioners to visit Dallas and observe shacks next to a business next to a
business with no consistency in development. He said the golf course is one of the two
best he’s seen and he would like it to remain as is. He referenced a statute, which says
that, if the Comp Plan is changed, the zoning would be brought into compliance with the
Comp Plan within nine months from the date in the change to the Comp Plan. He
advised that the attorneys had completely different views about whether the Comp Plan
or zoning overrides and asked that a decision be delayed until legal opinions could be
verified.
Chuck Wolff, 1216 Circle High Drive, referenced a letter he’d sent to the
Commissioners. He then referenced pages 6-28 of the Comp Plan saying that the City
always develops in accordance with the Comp Plan. He said the statement needs to be
amended if this application is approved. He referenced statute 473.858 stating that, if a
comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning
ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the plan by the local government units
in conjunction with the review and if necessary amendment of its comprehensive plan
required under section 473.864 subdivision 2, saying that his interpretation is that the
Comp Plan trumps the zoning ordinances. He also noted that it takes 2/3 vote to amend
the Comp Plan. He asked when the Comp Plan and zoning ordinances should be brought
into compliance and suggested a moratorium would provide that opportunity. He went
on to cite safety issues in relation to access to County Road 5, traffic and visibility issues.
Kathy Maroney, 1317 158th Street W., referenced development problems in Lakeville
where condo’s were initially planned but when they couldn’t be sold, single family
homes were built which created problems such as over crowing of schools etc. She asked
what could be done to ensure that the builder would complete the development as
presented. She stated that she supported the Henry’s right to sell his land but said the
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 6
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
City’s offer of $950,000 was what had been paid for Birnamwood in 1988 and didn’t
seem logical. She cited flooding issues as a problem and asked if the City would be
willing to look at paying more. She said that Orchard Lake Elementary was overcrowded
and this development would add to that problem. She also asked how many more trees
would be removed under this 28 lot proposal.
Bob Kanoch, 13645 Duluth Circle, Apple Valley, said that he was surprised to learn that
there are only a few courses available to accommodate his league which currently golf’s
at Orchard Gardens. He noted that Bloomington owns and operates Dwan Golf Course
(18 holes) and Edina owns and operates Braemer (27 hole + exec.) and added that he
thought it would be great for Burnsville to own a classy course like Orchard Gardens.
Michael Falk, 1000 Hilloway Circle, advised he was a member of Keep Orchards Course
and a friend of the Henry’s. He said the course is a legacy to the work that the Henry’s
put into building the course and a community asset worth preserving. He said that he
believes that the cart had been put before the horse in regard to the inconsistencies
between the Comp Plan and the zoning ordinance. He stated that Burnsville is a leader in
the metropolitan area and the Comp Plan had been used as an example for the Met
Council. He said that an opportunity exists to correct the non-compliance oversight
through a moratorium.
Tom Simonsen, 19120 Dodd Blvd., Burnsville landowner and the developer of the
property. He advised that the plan presented meets the R-1A criteria to a tee. He stated
that Mr. Lundquist was errant and the lots are all one acre. He said that a Comp Plan
outlines a vision and zoning provides a guide to how to accomplish the vision. He
restated that they meet every requirement of the R-1A and area not asking for any
changes. He referenced Comp Plan goal #18 asserting that the terminology simply states
that the City “support” the retention of Buck Hill as a ski area and Orchard Gardens as a
golf course. He noted that the City had four appraisals on the golf course and elected not
to purchase it. He said that he supports private property owners’ rights and the zoning
should allow he and the Henry’s to get approval to move forward. He also referenced
Comp Plan goal #19 which talks about analyzing the development operation of a full size
18 hole community golf course and said the City is exploring plans along the gateway
(north side Highway 13) to do that along the Minnesota Riverfront. He also noted that
the Comp Plan references Buck Hill Ski area and Orchard Gardens as Burnsville’s only
private parks. He also noted that the Comp Plan states that excepting a new youth
ballpark complex requiring land acquisitions and development; the park system is for the
most part complete and developed. He stated there are adjacent R-1A lots not of one acre
size and that the proposed plat is conforming. He requested preliminary plat approval.
Steven Falk, 1324 Forest Circle, stated that it appeared to him that most of the legal
advice he’d heard was based on fear of litigation from the developer. He said there are
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 7
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
traffic issues that could cause litigation as well. He also questioned the logistics of other
area parks. He also questioned the amount of park dedication fees and suggested the
developer build a park as an amenity to the development. He closed saying that the
project motivation was solely dollar driven.
Scott Lundquist, 905 Kaymar Lane, stated that he’d not seen a copy of the purchase
agreement but had heard that Mel said that there is a 20 foot buffer zone extending
beyond his property. He asserted that would mean that lots would not equal the one-acre
requirement. He also requested that Brokl provide citizens with his basis for his
statement that the zoning ordinances trump the Comp Plan.
At 8:52 p.m., Sherry closed the Public Hearing and called a recess.
At 9:00 p.m., Sherry reconvened the meeting and called for staff and the developer to
respond to questions raised during the Public Hearing.
She stated that part of the technical role of the Planning Commission is to look at the
question of the Comp Plan. She clarified that the Planning Commissioners are not policy
makers.
She then asked staff to respond to questions regarding:
The possibility of flooding at hole #2 (NW corner of the property) and in the
driving range areas.
Oehme advised that staff has addressed the flooding issue and are comfortable with
the current proposal. He said that storm calculations would be made after preliminary
drawings were approved. He said that everything north of 155th Street would
eventually drain into the Northwest properties at hole 3 and 4. He said there currently
is no outlet associated with that area and occasionally has to be pumped. He said that
the developer would be providing a lift station. He said that prior to any building
flooding the pond would overflow to County Road 5 and go into the County storm
sewer system. He said the lowest elevation on County Road 5 is 105 and the lowest
elevation of the buildings adjacent to the wetlands is 107.5.
Secondary crash point
Oehme said that curb cuts have associated risks however the curb cut design for 155th
Street mitigates the risk as much as possible by aligning intersecting streets and the
new roadways. He further advised that the 4-5% grades meet sight distance minimum
standards.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 8
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
Grade at entrance to Circle High Drive
Oehme didn’t know the grade off hand but advised that the goal was to make the
development as safe as possible by creating a second access onto 155th Street and
tying into Circle High Drive. He also pointed out that an alternate route would be
155th Street to County Road 5.
Are improvements being ‘forced’ on Circle High Drive
Tovar said it is a requirement of the zoning ordinance that cul-de-sacs are not longer
than 1325 square feet so the intent in hooking up is to meet the ordinance and to
provide emergency vehicle access.
Can contractor put an $85,000 house on a one acre lot?
Tovar said that the City cannot regulate minimum home prices or types of homes that
are built on a single-family lot (as long as they meet building codes).
If the development doesn’t succeed what would stop them from increasing the
density?
Tovar advised that a developer can apply for any land use application at any time
(after denial there is a six month waiting period). The decision to approve or deny is
then made by the City Council.
Will this development overload the schools? Was the school district consulted in
this development?
Tovar advised that a notice had been sent to ISD 194 and they had not responded.
She said that she had talked to a school board member who told her that they are
planning on doing redistricting at the elementary school.
Will more trees be cut down with this application than with the prior one?
Tovar the old plan showed removing 24% of the value of the trees; this plan shows
removing 26% of the value which amounts to about $4,000 more (of trees) and is
within the guidelines.
Explain park dedication fees? Are nearby parks adequate and do children have to
cross County Road 5?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 9
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
Tovar explained that park dedication fee is cash in lieu of land (in this case $38,430)
is based on a formula established every year by the Parks Department -- based on the
value of raw land within the City. The fee is based on the average number of children
per single family home (note: $38,430 is based on park user population not acreage).
The Parks Department determined that the number of parks within a walking distance
(West Buck Hill and Garden Park) radius can adequately serve the 28 homes.
Concerns about litigation due to negligence as relates to traffic safety
Oehme stated that the City has standards for grades, site distance requirements,
offsets to major roadways, spacing between roadways, access point limitations onto
collector streets, etc., and it is the goal of the City to minimize risks to the public.
20 foot buffer zone as part or not part of the subdivision
Tovar referenced the plans which do not show anything of the sort. She said the first
set of plans had something to that effect but the plans didn’t meet lot requirements,
etc., and plans were subsequently changed. She said if the landowner had an
arrangement with the developer to not build within a certain part of the area or a deed
restriction, it doesn’t limit the lot area as it is platted into a lot of record.
Timing of Comp Plan Change and possible implementation causing delay
Brokl said that there is a nine month rule for bringing the Comp Plan into congruence
with any change to zoning and/or vice versa. He said that is why the recommendation
is to fix the incongruence at this point.
Did the City offer the same price for Orchard Gardens as had been offered for
Birnamwood Golf Course 15 years ago?
Sherry said it was not relevant.
Brokl asked to make a point of clarification by advising options. He said that the
Council has an option of choosing to condemn or purchase the property for a golf
course. The Planning Commission has the option to approve, deny, table, or continue
subject to the 60-day rule, or recommend that the City Council adopt a moratorium.
He explained that the discussion regarding the Comp Plan is: if the Commissioners
choose to deny, they would need to indicate why. He said that a good basis for denial
would be based on the problems with the roads, parks, drainage, etc., and the fact that
it is not in compliance with the plan. He went on to say that it was his opinion that
the fact that it is not in compliance with the Comp Plan is not enough alone as a basis
to deny.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 10
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
Sherry asked the Commissioners if they had any further questions.
Esch asked where the water would go if it flooded over County Road 5. Oehme said it
would go into a storm sewer system that routes to a detention pond.
With no other questions, Sherry opened discussion among the Commissioners.
Nystuen: “Obviously, this is a very difficult decision. Any time that you have very
passionately held points of view that seem somewhat diametrically opposed, it makes it
very difficult. If I thought there was some satisfactory middle ground I think I would try
to propose that but I don’t think that I have that solution. I do feel that I have enough
information that the findings that we have before us are sufficient to make a decision.
My understanding as I read the specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan that have
been discussed … the entire section pointed on 6.2.8 … the preface to that says that it is
part of a policy section …that the policies are proposed courses of action and one of those
proposed courses of action is to support the retention of Orchard Garden as a golf course.
To me that is very different from guaranteeing that it will be a golf course forever and
ever. Yes, it is listed as a land use designation of golf course according to the 2000 plan
that I have with an underlying zoning of R-1A. There are other land uses that are also on
land zoned residential. I’m thinking of the hospital that Fairview is on. It’s guided as a
hospital, it’s zoned R-1. If for some reason Fairview Hospital decided they needed to sell
their property and no other hospital came forward, but a residential development came
forward that met all of the rules and regulations, I don’t think we would sit here and think
that Burnsville should buy that hospital even though it is a fine amenity and the health of
the community could be affected by that change … and I see this golf course as the same
issue. That we have to go, indeed, with the underlying zoning. Do I wish someone
would step forward and make the Henry’s happy with whatever price they have in mind?
Yes, I wish all of you maybe would do that … the passionate feelings about wanting the
golf course to remain … but I have to agree that the application meets the requirements
and so I will be in support of it.”
Esch: “I agree with a lot of what Nancy said, especially the part, why hasn’t somebody
come forward to talk with the Henry’s and perhaps purchase it as a golf course other than
the City of Burnsville. I don’t know if we want to be the landowners of the Birnamwood,
Orchard Gardens and the proposed new golf course at the River Quadrant. Having said
that, reading over all of the documentation, which there is an abundance of, and knowing
my position as an advisory person to the City Council and that we make
recommendations to the City Council, I’m going to recommend to the City Council that
we adapt Connie Morrison’s thought that we try to make Burnsville a better place for all
of us to live and recommend that we, in fact, don’t approve it based on all of the
evidence, not just the Comp Plan but I think there are a lot of questions that still need to
be answered. So, I will be against it.”
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 11
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
Ivers: “I’ve always had a problem losing green space – I think it’s an amenity to a City
but in the same token I agree with Nancy that this is a project that apparently meets the
requirements that are involved here and that it probably should be approved. I think there
are plusses and minuses and I think in this case the plusses outweigh the minuses.”
Dusterhoft: “Seems to me that at some point back in the 60’s it was decided that this
should be a golf course and it’s been one ever since and it’s been a good amenity for the
City but it’s owned by private people who want to do with it what they want to do with it
and I don’t think that it’s right to try to say that they have to continue to provide
Burnsville with a private park. The Comprehensive Plan says that the City is going to
support the retention of Orchard Gardens as a golf course, the City tried to buy it to do
that and wasn’t able to. So they did their best and I think that without somebody else to
come forward to buy this as a golf course, the private landowner has a right to do with
this property what they want to within the requirements of the zoning. So, I think that is
what we’re left with and I’ll be in favor of it.”
Nienhaus: “When I look at this it appears that we kind of have a triangle. On one side of
the triangle we have the landowner. I do agree with Nancy that that landowner has a
right to sell their land. I know there are some people that are very passionate about it
staying a golf course and … I think where we get slightly confused is, one of the speakers
referred to in their travels seeing a lot of community assets sold for development …
unfortunately for those who would like to have this a golf course … this is not owned by
the community. This is a private owner of this land and they certainly have the right to
sell the land. On the other side of the triangle we have a developer. The developer has
come before us with one proposal which this Planning Commission recommended denial
because it did not meet the zoning. This developer has now come back with a second
proposal and, as he actually stated, it meets the zoning to a tee. I believe that a developer,
when they meet the zoning in a city, has the right to proceed with that development and
he has a landowner that wants to sell him the land, he has agreed to meet the zoning
requirements … I think he has a right to proceed with his development. The last part of
the triangle and the base is, obviously, the residents who live around what is a semi
vacant piece of property … and I think that whenever a development goes in we need to
make sure that the residents are not harmed. I look at it and I believe that the homes are
going to be in the $600-800K value and I believe that with those types of homes put on
that development from a financial standpoint surrounding residential homes will not be
harmed. If anything, their values may increase. Our engineer has addressed the various
safety issues that have come forward both in the previous development application and in
this development application. A number of people have suggested that this body is not a
technical body and, in some cases we are not a technical body because we are not
engineers, that’s why we do rely on the engineers to give us their opinions and
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 12
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
utilize their knowledge. They have addressed the technical issues of safety and it appears
that they are comfortable that there are no safety issues with this development. I also
agree with Nancy. I went back and looked at the Comp Plan and I believe she is correct
in her statement that the Comp Plan does not say that Orchard Gardens will always
remain a golf course. It says that the City shall support the retention of a golf course.
Now we can all argue to what extent the City did or didn’t support the retention of
Orchard Gardens but there was an attempt at least made. I know you all would like to see
it stay a golf course but the Comp Plan does not say that it absolutely will be a golf
course … it has never said that. Lastly, I would like to correct one thing. I was quoted
by a number of speakers and the statement that I actually made at the last meeting was
that I could not vote in favor of a PUD that would change the zoning when we had a
Comp Plan that said it was a golf course. There is a difference here. We now have a
development that is going to meet the zoning and that is the classic difference that I see.
The developer now is going to meet the zoning and the landowner has asked to be
allowed to sell their land which is their legal right so I will be voting to support the
application.”
Sherry: “I have little or nothing to add to what has been said except that I do feel that in
this difficult position that we’re in … as I look at the rules and the fact that this proposal
does meet all of the zoning requirements … I have to say I do feel that the landowners
rights would be severely limited by this … by changing the Comp Plan and limiting what
they can do with that land so I will be supporting this as well – somewhat reluctantly – I
played golf there on Thursday … I won’t tell you my score … but it is a lovely piece of
land … but it’s a very tough issue … it’s a very, very difficult issue. Before I ask for a
vote is there anything any other Commissioner would like to add to the discussion, or
comment or question?”
With no additional comments or questions from Commissioners, Sherry called for a
motion.
Nystuen moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the preliminary plat and comprehensive plan amendment with the following
conditions:
1. The wetland delineation report for this property needs to be completed and
approved by the City to determine that there are no other wetland areas. If other
wetland areas are identified, wetland alteration permits may need to be obtained.
2. The applicant shall work with the City to vacate the east-west segment of Circle
High Drive abutting the golf course. The existing right-of-way will be turned
back equally to the abutting property owners. The developer will be responsible
for the costs to remove the existing roadway, restore it with seed, and construct a
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 13
4. Public Hearing – Metro Development Corp. – Continued.
cul-de-sac at the southerly end of the current westerly connection of Circle High
Drive.
3. Metropolitan Council shall approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
4. Additional engineering information includes submittal of storm sewer calculations
for review and all outstanding engineering issues need to be addressed (see
attached memo).
Ayes: Dusterhoft, Nienhaus, Nystuen, Sherry. Nays: Esch. Motion passes and will go
to City Council on June 16, 2003.
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Application for a Rezoning from B-1 (Office Business) to B-1, PUD, (Office
Business, Planned Unit Development), Preliminary Plat Approval of a Two
Lot Subdivision to be Known as GRANDVIEW COMMONS, and a Planned
Unit Development for Concept and Development Stage Approval of Mixed
Use Development Consisting of an Office Building and an 86 Unit
Condominium Building to be Located South of County Road 42, West of
Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church, East of Grand Avenue and
North of 145th Street.
Wohlers provided an overview of the application and advised that staff recommends that
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed
mixed use PUD as conditioned.
Ron Mehl, Stonebridge Development, provided background on the company and
provided information regarding design, building materials, configuration, pricing,
parking, etc., about the proposed condo’s and office building.
Jeff Wrede, Toushie Montgomery, provided a three dimensional fly-by of the project and
changes that had been made to accommodate the project. He addressed concerns
expressed by the neighborhood including:
Berms off 145th Street He pointed out an area off 145th that is a drainage swale
and cannot be bermed. He indicated where berming would
be done.
Traffic He indicated that the road is designed for 5000 trips per
day. 2001’s traffic map shows 1900 trips per day and the
engineer predicts the addition of 750.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 14
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
County Road/Signalized He said that the signalized intersection is a ‘thorn in the
side of many neighbors because it is not timed/sequenced
properly.
Violations Herman Klaas, Toushie Montgomery Architects, advised
that a Police Report shows one violation within the site area
which was a failure to stop at Grand and 145th. All other
violations occurred at the intersection of County Road 42
or Southcross Drive. There were minimal speeding
violations. He cited a neighborhood concern regarding the
impact of adding 750 vehicles at the intersection of 145th
and County Road 42 (in terms of a left turn access onto
County Road 42), He said he spoke with the County who
indicated that signal timing changes would only occur after
completion of the development, the addition of the
vehicles, and their ability to confirm that a problem exists.
Monument Sign Wrde advised that there would be two monument signs, one
for the residential and one for the office and residential
portion.
Tot Lot The developer is not interested in providing a tot lot as it
does not coincide with the targeted demographics.
Sherry called for questions of staff or the applicant.
Nystuen asked if any property with a PUD could provide any combination of mixed-use
development. Wohlers said that PUD allows for mixed use. Nystuen asked how to base
a decision regarding what is a good mix of uses on a property. Wohlers advised that, for
this application, staff looked at surrounding properties and the zoning and determined this
mixed use would be a good transitional component. Nystuen asked if the two lot
subdivision could be divided to allow two separate owners with two entirely different
agendas. Wohlers advised that two separate owners could own the lots, however, the
approved Planned Unit Development would regulate the project. Nystuen referenced the
nearby R-1 zoning which houses a church and an office building. She asked if any
churches are considered conditional uses in a residential zone. Wohlers advised that
churches are conditional uses in R-1. Nystuen asked for a calculation of the density for
the condo. Mehl advised there would be 86 units or approximately 30 units per acre on
the condo lot. Wohlers advised that was similar to an R-3C zoning (area around hospital)
with density similar to that of apartment buildings. The density, when you take the entire
mixed-use property, is closer to 17 unites per acre which is similar to R-3B zoning.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 15
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Nystuen asked about maintenance agreements for infiltration ponds. Oehme said the
maintenance agreements are for the property owner but the developers would maintain
the proposed ponds, not the City. He further explained that the maintenance agreement
ensures the City has recourse if the ponds are not maintained. Nystuen asked about the
security cameras in the garages. Wohlers explained that the security cameras are to
provide information should a crime occur, provide a sense of security, etc. Nystuen
noted the amount for park dedication was considerably higher than the previous
application and asked if that was due to the number of units. Wohlers said it was.
Nystuen asked about parks to serve the development. Wohlers advised that Interlachen
Park (to the east) would serve the development. Nystuen asked if a sidewalk was planned
for along 145th. Sherry pointed out that there is a sidewalk along the zero lot line homes.
Wrede indicated the developer did not plan to provide a sidewalk along 145th. Nystuen
asked him to consider it. He responded that he would have to talk to the developers.
Sherry asked if the applicant would consider a sidewalk linking the development to the
sidewalk along Grand Avenue.
Nienhaus asked if the developer’s traffic counts were in agreement with the City. Oehme
said they were. Nienhaus asked if the City made sure that new homeowners are advised
that the development across the street is B-1. Wohlers said that typically is done but he
would have to look back at records. Nienhaus asked if the two monument signs are in
compliance with zoning. Wohlers said yes and advised that they would be six feet tall
and two are allowed. Nienhaus stated that the shared parking makes sense but questioned
what would happen if it didn’t work as planned. Wohlers advised that the PUD would
need to be amended to allow them to give up some of the excess greenspace to use for
parking. Nienhaus asked if the trees along 145th would create a buffer high enough to
cover the siding on the third or fourth floor of the condominium from the residential
development. Wohlers said he did not believe so.
Esch asked if everyone was okay with vinyl siding. Wohlers said that the thought
process of using vinyl to provide a residential appearance seemed to make sense but other
products certainly could be used. Esch said that he’d be interested in hearing from the
others, as vinyl would be his last choice. Esch also expressed concerns about more traffic
than has been projected, especially during rush hour. He asked if park dedication fees to
parks or to the general fund. Ebeling offered that parks dedication funds go to the parks
capital fund which is a special revenue fund within the general fund that is segregated
and used only for park development purposes.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 16
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Ivers asked if the only east west access was at Plymouth Avenue. Mehl advised that
there are two accesses to County Road 42 – one would allow you to exit on Grand
Avenue but you have to make a right turn; to get into the property on Grand Avenue you
also have to make a right turn coming from west to east; the only all access besides
Southcross on the South end is off of County Road 42 and 145th Street.
Sherry asked if the monument signs are going to be lighted. Mehl advised they will be
ground lit and meet city lighting codes.
Nystuen asked if the 62 foot height of the building is measured from a lower grade. Mehl
indicated that the site is extremely sloped with the 62 foot measurement running down
the center.
At 10:15 p.m., Sherry opened the Public Hearing and advised that questions would be
answered after everyone spoke.
Duane Paloranta, 14500 Chateau Lane, asked if there is a requirement to berm between
residential and business in B-1. He stated he didn’t like vinyl siding. He asked if the
units would be single family owner occupied or if it would contain rental units. He noted
that there were no provisions for children and expressed safety concerns about them
playing in the street. He asked about parking restrictions on boats, RVs, etc., and
requested that a buffer be added between them and the parking lot. He asked if the
Association bylaws would address the types of vehicles that could be parked. He said he
hoped that someone couldn’t buy 20 units and rent out 19 of them. He questioned the
height of the building and the population density projections. He asked about
reforestation plans. He asked if there would be decorative lighting.
Dennis Carlson, 13816 Stevens Road, Good Shepherd Evangelical Church and School,
questioned how cut through traffic could be handled, expressing concern for the school
children and asked for assistance if it should become a problem. He advised that Good
Shepherd has an unfenced playground and any of the neighbors are welcome to use it or
attend the church.
Mary Cady, 14502 Chateau Court, expressed concerns regarding building height, density
land use, traffic, green space, the drainage pond and lighting. She provided the
Commission with some computer-generated photographs to illustrate her concerns.
Dan Moran, 14509 Chateau Lane, expressed concerns about building height, traffic and
parking issues, on-street parking on 145th and parking on Chateau Place.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 17
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Mary Jo Paloranto, 14500 Chateau Lane, said that in addition to all of the concerns that
had been expressed she has concerns about the effect of car lights on the homeowners.
Signe Pagel, 14518 Chateau Court, asked that attractive siding and roofing materials,
mature trees (especially evergreens), and shrubs be provided to screen the parking lot
from the view of the homes. Additionally she requested that landscaping be placed
around the holding pond on the West side.
Dan Moran, 14509 Chateau Lane, asked if the City has looked at the amount of traffic
that will be dumped back onto County Road 42.
At 10:40 p.m. Sherry closed the Public Hearing and called for questions of staff.
Berming Requirements Wohlers advised that screening of a 3 foot
When B-1 Faces Residential evergreen hedge is required. The applicant
is proposing six foot tall evergreen trees,
combination of overstory and ornamental
trees, and shrubs along 145th Street.
Vinyl Siding Wohlers said that the neighborhood spoke
out against vinyl so if the Commission
struggles with it there are different materials
which would probably hold up better that
could be used.
Owner Occupied Wohlers said the proposal is for owner
occupied, adding that staff would not be in
support if it were rental. He suggested
adding a condition requiring it to be owner
occupied.
Discussion ensued about how owner
occupied could be enforced. Brokl said
owner occupancy could be contained within
the Development Agreement and could be a
condition of the Planned Unit Development
but in the future would be difficult to
enforce unless you were willing to go to
litigation to enforce it.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 18
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Sherry asked if you could enforce not
allowing children. Brokl said no.
Parking Lot Concerns Wohlers advised that there is no outdoor
storage of cars, boats, RV’s in B-1. He said
that could also be addressed in the
Association Bylaws.
Bylaws Wohlers said Bylaws can deal with many of
the issues.
Four Story Building Wohlers advised that B-1 has no limitation
on building height. Anything over 25 feet
must come before the Planning
Commission/City Council for approval of a
CUP or PUD.
Schools Wohlers indicated that the School District
was contacted and no feedback was
received. He reiterated that the developer
does not anticipate a large number of
children.
Mature Trees Wohlers indicated that the minimum City
requirement would be met.
Parking Lot and Wohlers said the applicant provided a
Monuments Lighting lighting plan which meets all requirements.
Fee in Lieu of Green space Wohlers said minimum green space on this
site is 30% and the applicant is proposing
35+ % of green space which exceeds
requirements.
Surface Drainage/100 Year Event Oehme advised that the applicant has
incorporated some low impact development
items on drainage ditches to infiltrate as
much water as possible into the soils. He
said the ponds would be wet most of the
time with a normal depth for the westerly
pond is approximately four feet deep.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 19
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Pond Appearance Wohlers advised that a condition could be
added that the applicant work with the
Water Resource Specialist to add plantings
that are appropriate for around a pond area.
Pond Maintenance Oehme said the City doesn’t have staff to
review private development ponds. He
indicated that concerned neighbors can call
the City at which time the City would
contact the property owners.
Traffic Cut Through Oehme advised that the City has a Traffic
Committee that reviews situations. He said
that the Committee tries to limit
improvements to City right-of-ways and
streets but staff can look at taking traffic
counts.
Nienhaus asked if the church could install
speed humps on their own property. Oehme
said they could within reason.
No Turn Around Signage Oehme advised that the Engineering
Department would review and make a
determination.
Parking on 145th Street Oehme indicated that both 145th Street and
Grand Avenue are County roads and
collector streets which do not allow parking.
Amount of Traffic added to County 42 Oehme said that County Road 42 east of
35E currently handles 25-35K ADT daily
and adding 750 would not have a significant
impact.
Roofing Materials The architect said that an architectural
shingle would be used.
He further commented that the developer
would consider another option for siding if
necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 20
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Sherry called for discussion among the Commissioners.
Esch: “I guess I’ll be brief since it’s late. I’ll support the project. I feel badly for the
neighbors about the height of the building. I would really like to see it not have vinyl, an
EFIS of some kind, or a planking material of some kind is better than vinyl. I also don’t
agree with the traffic count but time will tell there. And now you also know neighbors
that you can call the City and have Berean Church clean up their pond. But I will support
the project.”
Nienhaus: “This is one of the reasons why I always hate it when we take something like
B-1 and rezone it to R-1 because then when we have the B-1 come before us we have
problems. I guess I would agree with Michael. I would like to see the siding go. In our
background material the justification was it made it more residential considering that the
only residential there has no siding that doesn’t seem to flow quite the way I would think
it would. I would also like to see something done around the pond area that was under
discussion … some type of plantings. I’m looking at the traffic counts and we’re arguing
about numbers but if the roads were designed for 5000 trips and we currently have 1900
trips, that’s another 3000 potential trips that those roads will hold and while I’m sure
nobody would like to see that, that’s what the roads are built for so I’m going to go with
the engineer on the traffic counts and say that the traffic is not an issue. I will support it
but I would like to see the siding go and I would like to see some kind of plantings
around the pond area.”
Nystuen: “I’m afraid I can’t support this. As much as I am a proponent of mixed use this
just does not feel like the right combination of uses for this particular spot. It also feels ..
the condo unit feels … so much larger than the little teeny piece of office that it just
doesn’t feel like the right proportion to me for mixed use. It feels like the building is
kind of wedged in here without as much consideration as could be given for the particular
area and the … I realize it meets the exact percentage required for green area but it …
I’m just not getting the feeling that it will meet that from the eye. It just won’t look that
way to me. So, I just think it’s like too much building and too much residential compared
to, by contrast, kind of a little teeny two story business. That just doesn’t feel right to me
so I can’t be in support of it.”
Ivers: “I agree with everything that Michael and Skip said. Basically, the only problem I
had with it was actually physically getting to the site … I thought access was awkward.
But, in general, I think it’s a handsome building … set of buildings … I think it’d be a
very nice addition to the City.”
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 21
5. Public Hearing – Stonebridge Development and Acquisition LLC –
Continued.
Dusterhoft: “I agree with what Skip said. I don’t like the vinyl siding and I’m a little
concerned about the pond. I think something should be done about that but I am in
support of it.”
Sherry: “I think it’s a very attractive proposal but I can’t support it because of the height.
I think that it is just too big for that spot … the tall building. That’s the only reason. If it
were someplace else I would be thrilled but I think it’s just too tall. I know that several
of you were interested in or had concerns about the vinyl siding, would you like to add a
condition to that and also for the pond? Okay, can we do that – deal with that – do you
want to come up with some wording for us Chad?”
Wohlers: “Sure. Absolutely.”
Nienhaus moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the proposed mixed use PUD conditioned on the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City regarding
the infiltration ponds.
2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from MNDOT for work within
the right-of-way.
3. The applicant shall pay the park dedication fee of $172,128.75 prior to permits
being released.
4. The applicant shall work with the Police Department to install security cameras in
the underground parking areas and provide clear unobstructed glass in the garage
doors.
5. The applicant shall revise the plans to remove the vinyl siding and vinyl shakes
from the condominium project and change to a more durable material.
6. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to provide plantings around the
pond area for screening purposes and shall maintain the planting.
Ayes: Dusterhoft, Esch, Nienhaus. Nays: Nystuen, Sherry. Motion passes 3:2 and will
go to City Council on June 16, 2003.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 22
6. Public Hearing – US Salt, Inc. – Application for a Rezoning from GIM
(Gateway Industrial Medium) to GIM, PUD (Gateway Industrial Medium,
Planned Unit Development) and a Planned Unit Development for Concept
and Development Stage Approval and Conditional Use Permit Amendment
to Allow the Construction of Two Accessory Buildings for Storage of Salt at
1020 Black Dog Road.
Wohlers presented an overview of the application and advised that staff recommends to
the City Council approval of the application as conditioned.
Sherry called for questions of staff.
Nienhaus asked about replacement of damaged structures under the PUD. Wohlers
advised that structures can be replaced but not increased in size.
Nystuen asked if a condition could be added to address the phasing plan. Wohlers said it
could. Nystuen asked about signage. Wohlers indicated that no signage could be put on
the roofs of the structures.
At 11:07 p.m. Sherry opened and closed the Public Hearing and opened discussion
among the Commissioners.
Sherry thought it was a great improvement.
Dusterhoft said he could support it.
Nystuen said she could support it but would like to see green and tan building structures.
She said it was otherwise a nice plan.
Nienhaus: “I actually think the buildings are ugly. But I do think they will be an
improvement so I will also support it.”
Sherry: “And I think they will be an improvement and I thank Mr. Johnson for working
with the City on this.”
Nystuen moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the rezoning, Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Concept and Development
Stage PUD conditioned on the following:
1. Structures and improvements shall not cause any increase to the 100 year flood
stage.
2. All previous approved CUP conditions shall remain in effect.
3. All site improvements, including construction of the office garage shall be
completed by 2008.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 23
6. Public Hearing – US Salt, Inc. – Continued.
4. The applicant shall install $6,000 in landscaping consisting of trees along the
south gravel roadway at time of construction of the amphitheater. This will be
secured with a letter of credit.
5. Development stage approval shall be required prior to construction of the office
building.
6. No advertising shall be permitted on the We Cover buildings. Note: this was
revised to say: No advertising shall be permitted on the We Cover building roofs.
(see conversation below)
Esch seconded the motion.
Nienhaus: “Chad mentioned on Item number 6 the concern was on the roof of the We
Cover buildings. Would you be willing to amend that to the roof of the We Cover
buildings?”
Nystuen: “Yeah, or is it on any part of the canvas?”
Wohlers: “Staff’s real intent is the roof so I think if we add roof to the language … staff
is okay with it … I’m assuming you’re okay with it?”
Sherry: “So it’s okay as it is then?”
Wohlers: “I think we should tweak this language and say the roof.”
Ayes: Dusterhoft, Esch, Nienhaus, Nystuen, Sherry. Nays: None. Motion passes and
will go to City Council on June 16, 2003.
7. Public Hearing – Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. – Application for a
Conditional Use Permit to Allow Grading and Filling in the Flood Fringe on
a 40 Acre Site Abutting Embassy Road to the West, at 1020 West Cliff Road.
Tovar presented an overview of the application and advised that staff recommends that
the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application as conditioned with an
added condition that the applicant work with staff to resolve the issue with MNDOT
regarding the culvert and flood closure device as approved by the City Engineer.
Sherry called for questions of staff.
Nystuen asked if the DNR is usually involved in wetland filling and mitigation. Tovar
advised that the City Council issues wetland permits. She said that the DNR was
informed of the situation and staff had not been contacted by them with any issues.
Nystuen referenced the ‘pump’ asking where water is pumped to and from. Oehme
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 24
7. Public Hearing – Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. – Continued.
advised that there is a culvert running under Black Dog Road on the west side of 35W
and when the river rises, a flap gate ensures that water doesn’t backup into the drainage
ditch. He explained that when the flap is down, the water in the ditch has no place to go.
He indicated that in the past MNDOT and the City have pumped the water over Black
Dog Road but staff anticipates that considerably more water will need to be pumped in
the future. Nystuen asked if the terms organic and structurally unsuitable soils refer to
pollution. Tovar explained that it is peat, a softer dirt. Oehme advised that the soil had
not in fact been tested as a part of this application but all indications are that it is peat.
He said that staff will take a closer look.
Sherry asked who owns the berm on the north end of the property and questioned its
height. Tovar advised the berm Sherry was referring to is outside the property line.
At 11:18 p.m., Sherry opened the Public Hearing.
Dave Edmunds, General Manager, Edward Kraemer and Sons, stepped forward to answer
questions. He said that they had been evaluating the site for over three years with the
goal of being able to put the foundation in place for the long-term vision for the property.
He said that soils tests identified sand and gravel, marrow (clay), and peat. He said the
site has not been filled. He said that the peat will be removed and turned into topsoil or
taken into the quarry for berms, etc. He advised that EKS is submitting a wetland
mitigation plan with the CUP. The amount of wetlands being disturbed is under two
acres. He indicated that a mitigation site would be developed in the floodway north of
the dike and west of the McGowan property. He shared that EKS worked in the past
during flooding with the City and MNDOT. He said they are comfortable with
purchasing the pump. He went on to say that while EKS is willing to cooperate, although
they feel no obligation to replace MNDOT’s culvert under Black Dog Road.
At 11:20 p.m., Sherry closed the Public Hearing and opened discussion among the
Commissioners.
Ivers: “I see no reason to oppose it. “
Dusterhoft: “I agree.”
Esch: “Yeah, I agree with the plan.”
Nienhaus: “I’m in support.”
Nystuen: “As am I.”
Sherry: “I am, too.”
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 2003
Page 25
7. Public Hearing – Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. – Continued.
Esch moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of
the conditional use permit conditioned on the following:
1. The applicant shall pay the City $50,000 for the cost of acquiring a mobile pump.
The $50,000 will be paid through assessments to the property over a ten year
period at a 7% interest rate. The $50,000 will be credited toward future storm
water fees that would be incurred when the property is developed.
2. The proposed slope shall not exceed 3:1 ratio.
3. The applicant shall work with staff to resolve the issue with MNDOT relating to
the culvert and flood closure device, as approved by the City Engineer
Dusterhoft seconded the motion. Ayes: Dusterhoft, Esch, Nienhaus, Nystuen, Sherry.
Nays: None. The motion passes and will go to City Council on June 16, 2003.
8. Discussion – Election of Planning Commission Chairperson and Vice Chair.
Each Commissioner wrote down his selection of a Chair and Vice Chair and votes were
counted by Tovar and Wohlers and verified by Fredrickson. The results were:
Skip Nienhaus, Chair
Michael Esch, Vice Chair
The Commissioners thanked Sherry for her service as Chair.
9. Adjournment.
Nystuen moved to adjourn. Nienhaus seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at
11:25 p.m.
“The City of Burnsville does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, sexual
preference, disability, or any other basis protected by law in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in,
its programs, activities, or services.” To obtain this information in alternative forms such as braille, large print, audio
tape or qualified readers, please contact the City of Burnsville at (952) 895-4400, TDD: (952) 895-4567.
