Loading...
Planning Commission - 05/23/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Nelson, Seymour, and Sutherland. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Stoelting questioned some information that was included in the packet as to whether it was included in the agenda; Franzen stated that it was the background information for the second variance on the agenda. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 9, 2005 Koenig made the comment that she would like an addition to the statement on page 6, third paragraph, under Planner's Reports. It currently reads "the area that was redone in the Excelsior and Grand area in St. Louis Park turned out very nicely." She would like an addition to read, "and also a redevelopment project in the Uptown area involving retail and residential also turned out very well. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 2 V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2005-07VARIANCE#2005-07 at 9188 La Rivier Court, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Request is for a side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 12 feet in the R1-22 District. Eric Askegaard, owner of 9199 La Rivier Court, presented the proposal. He stated that he and his wife purchased the home in 1995 and they have lived there ever since. He stated that when they moved in they did not have children; they are now expecting their fourth child in June. The oldest child is seven years old. Their home is only a three bedroom home. Mr. Askegaard stated that because of the age of their children, they feel that they need to have all of them on the main floor because they are so young. He stated that the need is to have bedroom space on the upper level and they would also like to add a mud room with laundry capabilities on the main level and add a third stall garage for storage. The third stall would also be needed in order to build above the garage to create the bedroom space needed for the young family. Mr. Askegaard pointed out that because of the pie shaped nature of the lot, the variance for the garage would only affect the very front corner of their garage. He also said that he did present the variance request to the neighbors and they are all in support of it. Stoelting pointed out that in looking at the regulations as it pertains to variances, it states, "used in conjunction with granting a variance means the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property, not created by the landowner". In regards to this statement, Stoelting asked Mr. Askegaard to address his hardship and to explain how that if the variance is granted how it will not alter the essential character of the property. Mr. Askegaard stated that the nature of the home should not be altered by adding the additional garage stall. He stated that to add on the additional bedroom space the only alternative is to put it above the garage. The hardship is the age of the children; being that they are so young they need to have bedroom space on the same floor as the parents. Stoelting asked Mr. Askegaard to specifically address the variances related to the corner of the garage; which is 15 feet to 12 feet. Mr. Askegaard illustrated this variance request by use of the overheard projection. He showed the 15 foot setback as it relates to the property line and the area impacted is the front corner of the garage where the third stall would be located. Stoelting reiterated that the variance request would be due to the unusual angle of the property boundary. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 3 Kirk pointed out that the additional driveway proposed was a fairly significant addition and asked Mr. Askegaard if that was also discussed with his neighbors. Mr. Askegaard stated that he showed his neighbors the exact packet that was given to the Commission Members and discussed it with them. He also stated that there might have been some additional things included in the submission that they are not necessarily going to use; one being a basketball hoop. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said that before he would review the staff report he wanted to expand on the driveway issue. He stated that by ordinance, a driveway can be located to three feet from the property line. Franzen stated that there were several reasons for considering the variances, but he thought of two more to add to the list. The first one, which was brought out by Mr. Askegaard, would be that the lot is a pie shaped lot. The second would be that there is a 9 foot encroachment out of the 240 square foot garage addition. Stoelting opened up the meeting for public input. There was no input. Rocheford commented that this house was built in 1989 with a two car garage in mind,hence it being too close to the front. Rocheford believes the hardship exists because the house cannot be moved. He does not have an issue with granting the variance. Koenig asked Mr. Askegaard if the request of this variance would allow him to have a bedroom over the garage that would be the same size as the existing bedrooms. Mr. Askegaard stated that the additional bedroom would be the same size as the other two bedrooms, not including the master bedroom. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the request for a side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 12 feet in the R1-22 Zoning District,based on plans dated April 26, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated May 20, 2005, to the City Council,based on the following findings: The variance will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood; the distance between homes is 38 feet. The code is 30 feet. Motion carried 6-0. B. VARIANCE#2005-08 at 9634 Crestwood Terrace, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Request is for a front yard setback variance from 57.2 feet to 40 feet in the R1- 13.5 District. Leon Sprenger, owner of 9634 Crestwood Terrace, presented the proposal. Mr. Sprenger stated that he and his wife are requesting the variance so they can put a third stall on their garage and still preserve their land in the backyard; which includes an old maple tree. Mr. Sprenger used an overhead projection to illustrate his proposal. He pointed out where the tree was located in accordance with the Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 4 house and how important it was to protect the tree, and also where the third stall garage would be located in accordance with his neighbor's homes. Stoelting asked Mr. Sprenger to verbalize his hardship. Sprenger stated that their hardship was the need for additional storage space and the need to protect the maple tree in the backyard. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that in the packet he included an approved subdivision plan for Ray and Carol Walter that goes back a few years. He stated that the purpose of including this drawing was to show that there have been buildings located on property at setbacks that are not typical for an R1-13.5 District. He stated that normally homes are at 30 feet. Because there was an existing storm sewer pipe out front, the buildings had to be moved back and placed between the trees. He pointed out that the City knew they would have setbacks to start out with. He also stated that having a setback that is not quite conforming is not that much out of character with the unusual pattern that is in that area. Franzen stated that this would be a reasonable request. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Koenig applauded the homeowner for taking such efforts to protect the maple tree. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kacher, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance from 57.2 feet to 40 feet in the R1-13.5 Zoning District,based on plans dated May 9, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated May 20, 2005, based on the following findings: The proposed 40 foot setback is for the third car garage only; the two car garage and the house meet the average setback of 52.5 feet; the 40 foot front yard setback is consistent with the 40 foot front setback from the existing home on Lot 4; the approved plan showed varying setbacks; only the third stall encroaches into the 52.5 foot setback. Motion carried 6-0. C. L.G. EVEREST TRANSFER FACILITY by L.G. Everest. Request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.74 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.74 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the I-General District on 2.74 acres; Preliminary Plat of 2.74 acres into 1 lot. Robert Everest, Vice President of L.G. Everest Company, which is based in Sioux Falls, SD,presented the proposal. Mr. Everest stated that the function of his company is to operate quarries and sand and gravel operations; they also run a Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 5 small short line railroad. The proposal presented if for an operation of a rock facility off of Industrial Drive. Mr. Everest used the overhead projector to illustrate the location of the proposal. He stated that his company operates a quarry in Ordenville, MN and it is on the TCW rail line. He showed the rail line and Industrial Boulevard and Midwest Asphalt, which would be located across the street. He stated that the proposal is to bring in cars on the TWC line and offload the granite and stockpile into bins for reload into trucks for both Midwest Asphalt and other customers in the area. Stoelting stated that he was having difficulty trying to ascertain Mr. Everest's neighbors. He stated that he thought Midwest Asphalt was across the street, along with MAC Equipment and LCC. Stoelting asked Mr. Everest if LCC was the shop office for Midwest Asphalt. Mr. Everest confirmed that it was. Stoelting asked Mr. Everest to point out some of the adjacent properties. Mr. Everest stated that Midwest Asphalt does own a lot of the property in the area. He stated that United Investment is located to the east of the property, and that Midwest Asphalt owns more property to the east of United Investment. An old propane business is located to the west of the property. Mr. Everest pointed out that there is no operation going on there at this time,but it is still zoned for propane storage. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that discussions with L.G. Everest go back to the fall of last year. Franzen said that his first reaction to the project was that it would not be a permitted use because the City has a provision in the Industrial District that if processing is taking place then it must be done inside of a building. Franzen explained that he went out to Midwest Asphalt in New Brighton, where they bring aggregate in by rail. He stated that he took a tour of the facility to understand the process. He explained that the rail cars that come in can have different aggregate size. They have a front end loader that sits on top of the car to unload the aggregate into a dump truck that then goes into the site and is dumped in one spot. For each different aggregate size there is a separate pile. Franzen stated that as long as they do not mix on the site, it is not considered a process. As long as it is just transferring material from a rail car to the property, then it is a permitted use. Franzen stated that in order to permit outdoor storage there are some performance standards in the City Code. The first one being the screening requirement; which is keeping the loading area and maneuvering area out of the setbacks, which they do comply with. They also comply with the requirement for a hard surface area, because it is paved. They also comply with the requirement for treating the storm water,because there is a wetland that the water charges into. The traffic shows that they are not having material impacts on the road. The City also had L.G. Everest contact a company that does emission computations to determine whether or not they are falling in with the City standards for dust particles. Franzen stated that the only two requirements that this project does not meet are the lot size,because they are only Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 6 able to assemble 2.74 acres and the loading facility is in the front yard. The reason the loading facility is in the front yard is because they do not have a building in front. Franzen stated that typically in the industrial districts, the parking is in the front and the building is in the middle and the loading is in the back and all the outdoor storage material is in the back. This is a different situation. There is nothing in the City ordinance that precludes a business from having a storage site without a building,but it does preclude them from operating a loading facility on a street front. Franzen stated that the other issue that needs to be looked at with this project is the bigger picture of what this industrial park should be in the future. One approach is to look at this area as a collection of interim but non conforming use and L.G. Everest would fit in with that point of view or eliminate non conforming uses as required by code. The Commission should take a visionary look as to where they see this area in the future and reach a conclusion as to what is the better approach for this property. Franzen stated looking at the long term vision of this property for the City for non-conforming uses, he would be an advocate for conformance. Stoelting opened up the meeting for public input. Cliff Brown, of Dayton Die Cushions at 6330 Industrial Boulevard, which is adjacent to G.L. Everest Transfer Facility, addressed the Commission. He stated that previously they had submitted concerns to the Commission in regards to this business. He stated that earlier that day he met with Blair Burry and they have since cleared up any concerns that Mr. Brown and his company may have had. Stoelting addressed the Commission and requested a discussion on the following topic in the Staff report. On page 4, it states that the current guide plan identifies the site and the surrounding area as industrial and continued industrial use can be acceptable in this location since there is industrial to the west and east of the area. If industrial is an acceptable use then the next discussion point is whether the area should remain as is or should it move towards a development pattern consistent with City code requirements. Stoelting asked the Commission to address these two questions: Is industrial an acceptable use? If it is, then state whether you prefer moving this consistent with City code requirements, which would be conforming. Rocheford stated that industrial is the appropriate mix for this area and does not know where he would start to redefine this area. He stated that if the adjoining neighbor does not have an issue then he does not see an issue with granting a waiver for this project. Stoelting asked Rocheford if he was comfortable with a non-conforming use. Rocheford said he was. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 7 Kacher asked Franzen if there were other parcels that are likely to come up in the near future for this kind of discussion, variances to be requested, or changes anticipated in the area. Franzen stated that it would be too costly for owners to make conforming additions to buildings in this area. Every site would have to go through a variance process and no one has been willing to come forward for a variance because of the degree of variance that would be asked for. Non conforming land owners don't want to ask for variances because cities typically require the existing sites to meet code requirements which add costs beyond a building addition. The sites are so small that they cannot meet all of the requirements and that is probably why the sites stay the way they are. Franzen stated that if a decision is made tonight to grant a variance for a non-conforming lot then a pattern is established that this will be a non-conforming area for an indefinite time period. Franzen stated that the City does not have the financial resources to aggregate the property and turn it over to another use, so the City relies on the private sector to accomplish redevelopment. Kacher stated that industrial usage is acceptable for this area. Kirk stated that industrial usage is acceptable in the area and is consistent with the long term plan. He also commented that it would be nice to bring this facility into conformance. Koenig stated that she does not have too much more to add than what has already been said. She stated that at this point in time she is comfortable with the non- conforming use and at some point in time if the City wanted to look at the zoning change, the land would have to be kept at its current state so that the relative value would not go up very much. Stoltz said that he does not have a problem with it being industrial now but is concerned that if the Commission agrees to this project,he questions when the opportunity would come up in the future to change this area to conforming. Franzen stated that this area is the oldest industrial area in town and because of that; they are the last places to redevelop. Stoltz asked Franzen if he sees any change to the area within the next 20 years. Franzen stated that he does not see anything in the area until the Charlson property, south of the airport is completed, so the time frame could be between 5 to 10 years. Stoltz asked that if the project is accepted, would it change the time line. Franzen stated that one decision by itself would not affect the time line but it would give an indication to other businesses in the area that the City maybe willing to look at other exception to the non-conforming status of the property if those businesses wanted to expand the uses. Stoltz stated that he is not excited about the project but would not push it either. Stoelting stated that based on the previous discussion,he is comfortable with industrial use and tends to agree that approval of this non-conforming use does Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 8 not necessarily jeopardize someone who, in the future might want to come and purchase several properties to attempt to make them conforming for some future use. Having said that, Stoelting wanted the Commission to address two other issues, which are the waivers associated with this request. He stated that if the Members were comfortable with the industrial use and the non-conforming nature of the property, this project has two waiver requests. The loading facility is located on a street frontage and requires a waiver and the preliminary plat combines two existing lots to create 2.74 acre lot, this is a waiver from city code. Stoelting asked Franzen to address these waivers. Franzen stated that the I- general zoning district has a 5 acre minimum lot size. The reason for this is because the City permits outdoor storage of raw materials, and site needs to be large enough to provide room for screening. He stated that they are asking for a waiver from that requirement down to 2.74 acres, which would be 2.26 acres short of the minimum lot size requirement. Stoelting asked if it was really the issue of the non-conformance; the lot size. Franzen stated it is both lot size and loading in the front yard. Franzen stated that the Commission should consider under what conditions to grant the waiver. The code requires screening of the outdoor materials. Franzen stated that if all of the other sites conformed in the future and this site was still there, the visual impacts of the stock piles would be mitigated by screening and this would be one reason to grant the waiver. Stoelting asked if the Commission were comfortable having the loading facility located right off of the street frontage and granting that waiver. Kacher said he was comfortable with that, as did the other Commission Members. MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Kirk, to approve the request for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.74 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.74 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the I- General District on 2.74 acres; and Preliminary Plat of 2.74 acres into 1 lot,based on plans dated May 2, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated May 20, 2005, to the City Council. Motion carried 6-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS Koenig asked when the widening of Technology Drive was going to take place. Gray stated that the City has just opened bids and that the City Council is aware of the contract so they should be starting in June. Koenig asked how this would impact the wetland across from ADC. Gray stated that the impact would be very minimal. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 9 Kacher asked Gray why the curbs that were just put down on Eden Prairie Road were already getting repairs done to them. Gray stated that the City goes over all curbs when they are completed to check for cracks and that is why some curb replacement is taking place. He also stated that this work is being done by the contractor as part of their warranty for labor and materials. Rocheford asked Gray how long the work is going to take over by Prairie Center Drive and Hwy. 212. Gray stated that there are four separate stages of construction in order to maintain traffic,because of that, this project would be completed in August or September. Rocheford asked when the road will be opened that comes from the back of Flagship past the new development. Gray stated that the road is Columbine and about 300 feet of it needs to be constructed along with some improvements in the intersection. He stated that they are completing the final negotiations with the national ownership of the Flagship Club and that there are a few legal issues that need to be worked out but that it should be done later this fall. Rocheford asked when 494 going east and west and north and south will be completed. Gray stated that the portion between the interchange of Hwy 212 494,heading east into Bloomington will be completed late this summer. The portion that goes north into Minnetonka will be completed in the summer of 2006. Koenig asked about Mitchell Road and Technology Drive, if it was going to be down to one lane at times on Mitchell Road. Gray stated that the intersection of Mitchell Road and Technology Drive is being reconstructed and that turn lanes are going to be added. Koenig stated that the intersection on Mitchell Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway can be quite hazardous. Gray stated that intersection could be a future project. IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated that there are two upcoming meetings. One on June 7, 2005. This is a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting with an update on the MCA study. The second meeting is the June 13, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. There are three projects on the agenda. The first one is the fire station off of Dell Road and Linwood court. The second project is a two lot subdivision on Duck Lake Trail. And the third is a nine lot single-family subdivision in the northwest section of Eden Prairie. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2005 Page 10