Loading...
Planning Commission - 02/22/1999 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 1999 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,FEBRUARY 22, 1999 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Beverly Alexander, Kenneth E. Clinton,Laurence Dorn,Jr.,Randy Foote,Bill Habicht,Rebecca Lewis,Douglas Sandstad STAFF MEMBERS: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner and Judith Kunz, City Recorder I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL Chair Foote called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Habicht was absent. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Dorn moved, seconded by Alexander, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Foote requested that Beth Simonsted's name be corrected throughout the minutes. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Clinton,to approve the Minutes of the February 8, 1999 Planning Commission as submitted with the correction to Simonsted's name. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS by ADC Telecommunications. Kipp informed the Planning Commission that the proponent requested this item be continued until the March 22, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to give them time to address additional concerns of the residents and staff. Alexander requested that the identifier of"west" of Mitchell Road be corrected to read "east" of Mitchell Road in the staff reports and Planning Commission minutes. Kipp indicated the change would be made. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton, to continue the ADC Telecommunications' request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review to the Planning Commission meeting on March 22, 1999. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 1999 Page 2 B. FARRELL/LAPIC ADDITION Kipp introduced the proponents Mike Farrell and Tom Lapic; and their developer Perry Ryan. Perry Ryan, developer of the site,reviewed the history of the previous request for development. He discussed the difference between this proposal and the previous proposal and the need for the two variances. He also indicated that there would be no tree loss as indicated in the staff report. Sandstad asked if the previous proposal had been given approval of the final plat. Kipp indicated the previous proposal went through first reading only with no recorded plat. Dorn asked about using the neighbor's property for a driveway. Ryan indicated there is an easement,which allows for the driveway to be located on the neighbor's property. Mike Farrell,proponent and resident of the duplex on Sunnybrook Road, informed the Planning Commission of his family history of living in Eden Prairie and indicated they want to continue to live in this community until retirement. He told the Commission that the previous developer had defaulted on their agreement,which caused them considerably monetary expenses as well as vacating the premises. He indicated that this proposal is less dense. He also discussed the contributions that he and Mr. Lapic's family had made to the community by keeping the Purgatory Creek area clean, and respecting the environment needs of the area. He asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the variances so that he and his family could continue to reside in this community. Sandstad asked Mr. Farrell if they had considered converting the duplex to a single family home. Farrell indicated they had and that would require complete gutting of the structure at a considerable cost which would prevent them from being able to go through with the proposed development before the Commission. Foote asked if Mr. Farrell and Mr. Lapic owned the property together. Farrell responded they do. Tom Lapic,proponent, 3557 Tara Lane, Woodbury, informed the commission that currently he and his family do not live in the duplex due to a transfer three years ago which required them to move from Eden Prairie. Upon their return they moved to Woodbury. Lapic also discussed the expenses incurred when the previous development fell through and the cost of converting the duplex into a single family home that he estimated at $80,000. This additional loan would prevent them from going ahead with this development. Lapic indicated that he believes this proposal is consistent with the vision of the city's comprehensive plan. Lapic reviewed the improvements that he and Mr. Farrell had made to the creek area such as planting a considerable number of trees. He also indicated that the lot where the duplex stands has wild strawberries thriving under their care—one of the few places in the city. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 1999 Page 3 Kipp reported to the Commission that the staff supports the three-lot subdivision and that it is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Kipp did indicate that the main issue of concern is maintaining the duplex. Kipp reviewed the history of the duplex and that it was "grandfathered" in as an allowed non-conforming use. With this development proposal, if it were to remain, it would become a"non-permitted"use since its use is multi- family versus single family as proposed for the other lots. Kipp indicated that staff empathizes with the property owners and the proposal benefits the city allowing support of the variances but by allowing the duplex to remain it circumvents the city code. Kipp would recommend removal of the duplex resulting in all three lots being single family. Kipp discussed the tree loss figure in the staff report. The city forester determined the tree loss at 17 per cent. Clinton asked staff why the duplex would become a non-conforming use. Kipp stated that when the new city ordinance was approved, all existing structures were grandfathered in but now that a new development proposal for the area requires action to rezone the area to single family,the use of the property cannot be varied, allowing a multi- family structure to remain. Sandstad asked is there were other areas in the city where single family surrounded a duplex. Kipp indicated that there could have been but if the structures were houses they would have been rezoned to single family. Alexander inquired about the possibility of rezoning only the two new lots and leaving the rural lot in place. Kipp indicated it could be done but would be considered "spot zoning." Alexander asked if the duplex could remain for a period of time until the other homes were built allowing the owners to have time to accumulate the funds for either renovation of the duplex or removal. Kipp indicated this would be a question for the city attorney but it would be considered allowing a non-permitted use. Dorn asked why the first development failed. Kipp stated there were financial issues with another property owner. Dorn then indicated he would have a hard time recommending approval of this proposal because of allowing the duplex to remain. Lewis asked in what area would the duplex be allowed. Kipp stated under case law it would create an issue of spot zoning- a density transfer issue. Clinton asked if similar frontage had been previously approved. Kipp indicated yes. Clinton also asked if this development had been reviewed for flooding which previously occurred with the creek. The developer Ryan indicated they reviewed the grading plan and this proposal is situated two and one-half feet above the flood plain. Ryan also indicated at this time his desire to leave the duplex out of the rezoning proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 1999 Page 4 Dorn asked if this development had the same setbacks as the previous proposal. Kipp indicated the setbacks were within a foot or two of the previous proposal. Sandstad stated he would have no problem with the development as proposed for Lots 2 and 3. Alexander asked whether the duplex would meet building code requirements if it were remodeled and used as a single-family use. Kipp stated this option would have to be discussed with the building department. Beth Andrews and Steve Kroiss,MSS Holdings, appeared before the Commission stated they were strongly in favor of the staff recommendations. They believed the replatting would be financially subsidized because of future resale of the property and that renting would not be a problem. Sandstad stated he was a huge fan of gardens and preservation but was not comfortable with this development proposal because of the duplex. He would be in favor of the staff recommendation to remove the duplex. He stated the earlier proposal showed the duplex removed. Lewis stated sympathy to the property owners but the legal issues brought up require the Commission to be consistent. Lewis would be open to either removing or remodeling the duplex to a single-family use. Lewis did not believe it was in the best interest of the city to circumvent the system by allowing the duplex to remain. Dorn indicated his preference to remove the existing structure. Clinton referred to a previous proposal brought before the Commission where they recommended denial and the City Council approved; and this project has still not gone forward. He stated that Eden Prairie may be tough but he believes they are fair in their decisionmaking. He supports the staff recommendation and suggested the property owners look at other options. Alexander stated sympathy to the property owners and was happy to see the northern part of the property preserved but would have to go along with the zoning laws that would require removal of the duplex. Foote stated sympathy to the property owners and appreciate them being good stewards of the land but the Planning Commission's decisions must be fair so he would support the staff recommendation. Dorn asked the property owners if they would like a 30-day continuance to look at their options. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Farrell and Mr. Lapic requested a 30-day continuance. MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Sandstad,to continue the Farrell/Lapic Addition request for Zoning District Change with variances and preliminary plat at 12563 Sunnybrook Road to the Planning Commission meeting on March 22, 1999. Motion carried 6-0. V. PUBLIC MEETING VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Dorn suggested that the members of the Commission drive by the Oak Hollow development to view the trees they tried to save indicating they are in poor condition and will probably not make it. Kipp indicated a number of the trees were flagged with the assumption they would not make it and this was taken into consideration in approving the developer's agreement. The Commission then asked staff when developments are approved, does the city check back with the development to see if what they said they would do actually happens. Kipp indicated the developer's agreement outlines the requirements and all developer's agreements are enforced with a bond posted by the developer. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS Kipp stated that the next meeting would have several cases including Emmanuel Church, International School, Bear Path and Chestnut Apartments. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Lewis moved, seconded by Clinton,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.