Zack of flame, boys. Oh, that's a ripper. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Press the button on the very butt there. >> Oh, he's a cop. He knows how to use it. >> Oh, >> didn't work. >> We're going to sell him the door. >> Same process. >> Tell you after. >> Good evening and welcome to the city of Savage Planning Commission. Thursday, September 4th, 7 o'clock. Go ahead and call this meeting to order. Could I have roll call, please? >> Brown. >> Uh, here. >> Christensen. Item >> here. >> Nelson >> here. >> Thompson >> here. >> Wolf >> here. >> Zesman is excused. [Music] >> All right. Thank you very much. If we could all please stand, face the flag, and state the pledge of allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Very good. Thank you very much. All right. Up next is to approve the agenda. Do we have any changes to the agenda? None. >> No changes. >> All right. At this point then I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as written. >> So moved. >> Have a motion by item. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Nelson. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Abstained. Motion carried. Next up is the minutes. Approve the minutes from the July 24th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Did anybody see anything that looked out of order? I didn't personally see anything that looked incorrect. [Applause] >> I have a motion to approve the minutes as printed from the July 24th planning commission meeting. >> So moved. >> I have a motion by Brown. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by item. All in favor? >> I I >> opposed. Abstained. Motion carried. Up next is the public hearing. It's a recommendation to the city council for a variance request from zoning code section 152.48 Bluffland Overlay District Standards for property located at 13118 Ottawa Drive, project 25-34. Jared, if you would please. All right. So, we have a variance request um for a property located at 13118 Ottawa Drive. Um it is part of the Pine View Estates subdivision. Um it is property it's roughly about 0.84 acres and is zoned uh R1 lowdensity residential and guided as low density residential. The neighborhood in this um subdivision is guided and zoned the same property does is um on the eastern bluff of the Credit River and it is uh north northeast of Hen Valley Park. Just a little background on the item here. Um so the village um adopted the village of Savage adopted the slope protections um in September 6, 1974. Um later uh that's when the city became a city um January 1, 1974 due to a state act. Um in February 28th um that's when the subdivision was approved of 1980 sorry and of June July 10th 1985 the city approved the dwelling permit for the home at the property um in question here. Um and then in 2001 in September 4th, um the city updated the slope protections um that we have today um that I provided you in in the memo. Um and then in July 10th, um 1985, the city approved the new deck. Um so I just wanted to clarify that because I kind of I felt like, um there was just a lot of information in that background um in the memo. So, the applicant uh is the the original owner of the home. Um they built the home um and they um and through that process, they did get a permit. Um it was approved to modify all of these slopes um and remove these trees u to construct the the home and to make the yard um essentially having what we have today. So, in the pictures that the applicant provided, um, which was nice to have. You don't always get this. Um, but you're looking, um, you can see that there's a lot of trees that were removed. And you can see that the soil, um, does have a lot of sand, um, in that. And that's kind of that's where these slope protections are coming from is to make sure that things aren't done to the slopes that will destabilize them and cause erosion. So here we have a site plan of the existing conditions that we have today. Um so that that we do have a lot of slopes that on the property that are greater than 3:1. Um there's roughly about 31 trees that are identified um that would be of significance. Um but we have a series of walls um hopeing some of them are are pretty high. I've got some pictures here um in your packet and in the presentation upcoming here. um that are holding a lot of this earth back. And so here are these walls um that have been constructed uh right after the home was constructed. Um and so these are aging. Um they are starting to rot and they are starting to bow. Um so we have some concern um for structural integrity. Um and we would um property property owner in the city would like to make sure that um these are be are able to be repaired. So it's been 40 years um since the dwelling has been constructed and these retaining walls. Um and so there is stress um and there's concern about premature failure um of the footings um that of the deck that was um constructed uh just over 20 years ago now or sorry um yes just over 20 years ago now. Um so you can see in this picture um the footings are are starting to shift um and that's going to cause the rest of the structure of the deck to fold. Um, and that would that would definitely result if uh these retaining walls were to fail. So, the request here um is kind of um a large one, but um I don't think unreasonable. Um they're look they're looking to have um a variance from 152 408 um which is the Bluffland standards. And so the standards here um are I'll summarize them quickly for you. Um any any slopes that are in excess of 33 and 1/3% or 3:1 um essentially aren't to be modified um that includes removal of natural vegetation um or alteration of contours. So, and then further on um on the Minnesota River, we're we require a 40 foot setback from the top of the bluff. And along the credit river, we require a 25t setback from the top of bluff. Um and then planned unit developments can may be used to alter these setbacks but not get rid of them. Um and so the closest that these setback that you can get through this provision is um the structure of the height um if it's over three stories. So it's a it's a little convoluted um but we have it hasn't really been practiced uh subsection D hasn't really been practiced here in in the city since um it's been passed. Um, subsection E, um, is focused more on, uh, sewage treatment systems. Um, we don't really have any of those in the city today. U, but at the time when they put these in or put this provision in, I'm sure that we had more uh, than we do now. So, and then, uh, the big one here is no new discharge points. Um, this is primarily a storm water measure. um so culverts or anything like that um going down the hill down these bluffs. So the um in this situation uh specifically subsections A and C are u what's impacting uh this property have any questions at all? Uh Mr. Chair Jared I did have a question on subsection G related to drainage. I did notice in one of the images that there was drain tile uh somewhere around that retaining wall. Is the applicant allowed to at least modify the current drainage to kind of uh discharge it away from the retaining wall? >> So that's what we would be working with them if if a variance were approved. Um one of the conditions is that they would have to file for a building permit for these. Um and we would go that would go through engineering as well. >> Um so we would try to work with that. um to mitigate that discharge point >> um so that it wouldn't cause any future sub u erosion or anything like that or sediment issues down the road. >> Okay. >> So, thank you. >> I have one comment. >> Um sir, we'll open up the public hearing and then we'll have you come up and you'll be able to address the commission if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. Do we have any other Further questions for Jared from the commission. >> Mr. Chair. Jared. Um, the 33 and 1/3% what distance is that measured over? >> It's not specified. >> So, it could be like a 33 and 1/3% slope for like 2 feet. >> It could be, but that's not practical. Generally, what we practice is over a 50ft distance. >> Sure. because I think that's what the state statute says. But so we don't have anything in the because I I was looking on Mintopo to see if there actually was a bluff on this property and I couldn't find one. And so I'm wondering do we have a definition for like what does it say? Credit River Bluff. Like do we say that this part of the Credit River Valley is a bluff even though it might not technically have a 25% slope over 50 ft. >> So we don't have a specific definition of that either in our code. Um but when you look at the current uh DNR Shorland ordinance um it's exactly how they uh define a bluff. So even if there is not um if there's a substantial diff distance between the water body um and the bluff uh they still count that as being a a riverword bluff. So that I mean isn't the DNR definition in the short model shoreline ordinance 50 over a distance of 50 feet measured from 25 ft from the ordinary high water mark um a slope greater than 25%. >> Uh there's 33%. >> 33%. >> Yeah, I believe it's >> either way it's not 25% or 33%. Uh that's what we had measured um in our engineering team. So where is that though? I U so we're looking at areas um on the north side of of the property here. Um and then based on the other topography that we had um I guess we interpolated that there was that there was a disturbance of that 25 that greater than 25 or sorry 33% um slope on here. >> So are you saying it's the blue lines? >> What's that? >> Where's the slope? I guess >> so this don't really have So this would be the sloped area here that's in question. From what number to what number? Can't >> can't see where you circled. >> Sorry about that. Oh, of course that moves it. Um, so we'd be looking at uh roughly the top of the slope uh would be about 8 um [Music] we'd be looking at 830. Uh but then we have with the wall there um that jumps up to 838 to the top of the wall. Um and that's definitely within 50 50 ft. So that in that roughly in let's see if okay I can either do one or the other. I can't do both. So that top of bluff would really be roughly in this. Sorry. Roughly in this area. Sorry, it's kind of hard to draw with the mouse, but yeah, it due to the with those walls. Um there's definitely um even over 50 ft you go um that's over 33%. So for that >> what are you after >> math for is it 33% over 50 ft. I got no other questions. All right, Jared, I have a question for you. the height of the wall is I recall previously dealing with the retaining wall in a previous community that anything above 4T has to be engineered. Is that in the building code or is that part of the city code? >> Um I believe that is part of the state building code. >> Okay. So this is obviously going to have to go to engineering, >> right? Yes. Yeah. So they um as part of the condition they would need um we're not approving any designs here. We're simply um they're requesting just a variance from the code um to allow for their them to go back to their designer um so that they have some asurances to be able to that they're not going to put a bunch of money into it and get turned down. >> But this will obviously be built correctly into today's standards, >> right? >> That's the intent. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Jared, um, as part of this variance, is there a stipulation that whatever's disturbed has to remain with this specific area and shape, or is the applicant allowed to modify it in a way that uh, suits their needs a little bit better this time around? >> I think that there is going to have to be some modification to that. Um, some of these walls are quite tall. Um and I think that for to make the engineering work and for um sto slope stability sake I think that there's going to be some modifications there may be some additional taring um involved. Um the applicant is part of their application and in your in your packet. Their initial design um shows some additional taring with some bouldering um but we believe that there may be some additional engineering that's going to be needed u for this particular project. So, >> so they're not handcuffed in a way where they couldn't adjust any sort of >> Right. Um >> I tried to um I mean we can get into that too with the with the recommendation, but um I tried to make it so that we weren't handcuffing anything anybody um from fixing from from uh drafting a solution, you know, that's going to make this work and for the long term. Sure. >> So, okay. Thanks, All [Applause] right. Anything further? [Music] All right. I guess at this time we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. At this time, we can invite the applicant to come up and address the commission. If you so choose, please state your name and address for the record and you shall be heard. David Hotfet, HOTV, 13118 Ottawa Drive. So, I guess the thing that I would like to do is uh answer some questions that I see that you guys have burning right now. um you know, we did this um we applied for an excavation permit and then found out pretty much immediately afterwards that we weren't going to be doing anything for any reasonable amount of time. So, um we're we're basically back at ground zero trying to figure out how to make what it is that we're trying to do work. Um, we were surprised when we were asked to do this retroactive variance because when we did the original building permits, we had lots of discussions with the the officers of the of the city, zero mention was made of any steep slope or any types of things like that. And in fact, it wasn't until after we did the excavation, we had the building um uh the building inspector out, he was the one that suggested because of the large amount of excavation we had that it would be a great idea to put in a series of retaining walls just to keep the hill intact. And so that's what we did. We actually went off a set of plans that he did for us and then turned around then he approved them. So, um, we've been trying to do what's right. We've been trying to keep the hill together. Um, and I guess we have a lot more questions than I know you guys have any answers for. So, um, we've we've done our best to, uh, keep the hill intact. I do want to make one correction. There were not a lot of trees that were removed. One one tree was removed. And in fact, we had significant discussions with a lot of the excavators about, well, this tree is going to die. This one, this one, this one. And in that one picture that there's the three green arrows, those are the three trees that are still there right next to the wall. So, what we're trying to do is um put in a boulder landscaping wall. Yes, it needs to be engineered, but basically to mimic what's already been there, and that's that's all we're trying to do. >> All right. Do we have any further questions for the applicant? >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. >> Does anybody else want to address the commission? Okay, second time I got asked three times. Third time. All right, then I will go ahead and entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Motion by item. >> Second. >> Second by Nelson. All in favor? >> I opposed. Abstain. Public hearing closed at 7:22. Okay. Bring this back to Jared. All right, commission. Do we have any further discussion on this before Jared pulls up the findings effect? >> Mr. Chairman, uh Jared, one question on if we we go through uh you know, and adopt the staff recommendations. Is that going to set this up for, you know, presumably this, you know, solution with the retaining wall, boulder wall is going to be, you know, last significantly longer hopefully than than uh than the previous solution. But, you know, if it does come, if there is, you know, some sort of uh, you know, natural event that that causes a premature failure of the Boulder wall or or, you know, whatever, there's there's a failure. Does this approval by the commission and by the city set them up so that you know if this were to happen 10 20 40 years down the road uh that um they're not going to have to come back to us. >> Yeah. This variance would be in perpetuity of the um as long as the property exists. >> Great. Okay. >> Very good. All right. anything further? >> Okay. Did you want to pull up the bindings effect? >> Um so with variances, um we've got a couple items to run through. Um pursuant to 152.033C. Um so variances shall be only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. Um so initially the purpose and intent of the ordinance is to preserve the structural integrity of the bluffland um particularly when adjacent to water bodies. However when the dwelling was permitted and constructed 40 years ago the bluffland was altered. Um so today there is a risk of further damage to the bluff land without further modification. The intent of the ordinance now um as it applies to this property is to mitigate any damages um from failure um which is the basis of this variance request. Um a variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. So one of the many goals of the 2040 Savage comprehensive plan is to protect water quality of the surface waters throughout the city. allowing the slope to be further altered through granting that this variance would mitigate further erosion of the bluff land which would then result in um further um less sedimentation occurring um in the credit river. Uh from Ly's perspective, the granting of this variance would not alter the future land use um and the property would remain as a single dwelling single unit dwelling. So further um the variance a variance may be granted when the applicant establishes that there is practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Um so the property owner uh proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Um so the slopes on this property um they've already been altered with the construction of the dwelling and the construction of the retaining walls. the use of this property would not be to the extent that it is to exist today. Uh furthermore, the alterations have been considered to be reasonable in that it is intended to stabilize the steep slope while creating some area for landscaping, gardening. Um those uses in the backyard in the backyard would not have been possible without these alterations. The plight of the planned owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner. Um so the circumstances are not wholly created by the applicant. Uh the building permit for the dwelling was issued in error um due to the Bluffland Overland District standards um not taken into account during the review of the applica application um which result in the current situation um and this after the fact request. So the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Um economic considerations do alone do not constitute practical difficulty. Practical difficulties include but not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar systems. The granting um in this permit would not alter the essential character locality as the dwelling was the first dwelling um on the property um and it has been in place for 40 years. The loss of the home due to a collapse of the hill would alter the um the essential character of the locality living on the buildable lot um within an already established neighborhood. So, okay. There's any alterations or amendments you'd like to make? Um >> Mr. chairman. Uh Jared, is this a unique situation or are there other properties in this area that may be similar to this? >> There are other properties um throughout the city of Savage that are similar to this. Um and so we have to when reviewing these variances um we have to look at each property on its own merit and its own request on its own merit. Um, and we just have to keep in mind too that previous um, approvals or denials or anything like that don't have any effect on future variance requests even if they're similar in nature. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Jared, um, what's the channel elevation for Credit River in this area? um that I would have to I would you I would have to go look that up. >> I I still don't see there there's a bluff. I guess that would probably be the first thing we should confirm, right, before granting a variance from the bluff standards. >> That's something that I c I can't do from this particular location right now. I would need a a recess, I guess, if that's something that you want to do. So, oh, I've got other So, >> what what was that? I guess what? >> Oh, this is just a page from the packet, the last page that was um provided. It was page six of their their appendix, but it doesn't give me the information that I need >> to >> Oh, you're Oh, 764. >> So, there's Yeah, they're saying that 764 >> um and drops down to 761 further to north. >> So, >> I think that's what I saw in Scott County GIS today as well. The two foot contours that it was 760. It was actually probably closer to 763. Um, so it's got to rise 20 feet 25 ft above that, right? In order for there to be a bluff. >> So the bluff would be anything that's and based on our code, the bluff would be anything that's 33% 33 and a3% or less >> over any distance that you want. So I mean it's really like arbitrary. So, if we're using like the state standards, it's got to be a slow. It's got to rise 25 ft above the ordinary high water mark, which 764 + 25, what is that? >> 789. >> 789. >> 789. >> Yep. >> And the distance from here to there, what do they have on there? I can't read that. It's too Do you know what that green number was you had there? [Applause] There's a pretty strong ridge line. >> So, the other thing to keep in mind, too, is that the code, the subsection A of the code doesn't specify any water body. Um, it simply states slopes that are greater than 33 and 1/3% shall not be altered. So the alter the the setback is what would come into play here of that 25 ft. And as a as a um cautionary um effort um we I'm we as staff included subsection C as part of that as well just to eliminate that con any confusion that the river may bring. Okay. So, are we saying it's a steep slope or are we saying it's a bluff? Because you said slope. >> It's a steep slope, but the code calls it a bluffland overlay. So, I forgot what else. So, right, if if you take that longer distance and you average that out, um that that's correct. And that that's why we don't use those longer distances uh traditionally when measuring for slope. What's a 66 foot rise over 400 something feet? So that's not really a bluff. Um, I guess that's not what we're here to to to. So, when you measure over in this area here, um I know it's hard to see on your screen, um but we have a we have a a elevation of 836. Um and so we drop down to this area here um to 822. Um so in this distance here is just over 20 ft. So in that section alone um we we have over >> Didn't you say the city's policy is to use a distance of 50 feet though? >> We do, but I'm just I'm just taking these numbers here that we can see that I can that I know you can read from there. Um and so even if we were to spread that over 50 feet, we still get to to be over 33%. So that that's the crux of the issue is subsection A. >> All right. I got nothing else. So >> Okay. All right. Do we have anything further? >> Uh, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to say that um, as part of this application, I do applaud the applicants for doing their due diligence, identifying an issue, and going to the city to correct it in the legal manner. It's sometimes not always easy, but um, I >> it was not, >> right, and I do applaud that. Um, and I also see this being a life safety issue if this is not rectified. Uh, let alone this could further impact negatively the Credit River if it's not, uh, remediated. So, I I personally am in favor of this and I I don't see any reason why the applicant shouldn't be allowed to to build their retaining wall. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Do you have anything further from the commission? >> Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the variance subject to the DRC conditions. >> All right, we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Christensen. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second by item. >> Mr. Chair, I would like to amend my motion to adopt the findings of fact as well. >> Okay, >> I'll second that, too. Have a new motion from Commissioner Christensen with the adoption of funding effect and a second by Commissioner Adam again. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Abstained. >> I have one abstension from Commissioner Wolf. Motion carried. This will go to the council on what date? September 15th. >> September 15th. This will go to the city council for their review. Will this be a line item or will they review this? >> Uh to be determined. >> Okay. Not sure yet. All right. Thank you very much for coming in. >> Okay. Do you want to continue from there, Jared, or do you want to head back to your table? And back to the table. [Music] >> All right. Next up isformational updates. >> Um so the uh planet commission meeting that uh would be on September 18th. I don't think we will have any items, but um we will um be sending a consolation out if we don't um tomorrow. So just need to confirm that. >> Okay. So, we do have a um a PUD amendment and a site plan approval um that is in the works right now for Meadows Senior Living, second edition. Um 72 units of independent living um for that building. Um we're still working through uh review comments and whatnot with the applicant yet. So, but that's on track. Um we'll probably see that sometime in October. So, >> okay. Speaking of PUD amendments, did the one for the senior care facility behind it go through >> the one that Angie was working >> working on? Uh, yes, that was approved. >> Okay. >> So, >> all right. Do you have any else? >> Um, I don't really have anything else at this time, though. >> Okay. If that's the case, then I will entertain a motion for adjournment. >> So moved. Second. I have a motion by item and a second by Christensen. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Meeting adjourned. 7:38. Thank you.