Loading...
Planning Commission - 07/25/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JULY 25, 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: Kirk and Rocheford. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 23, 2005 A quorum was not met to approve the minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 13, 2005 Stoelting made a correction on page 5, paragraph 5 of the minutes. It should read, "All Commission Members voted for denial" and not"All Staff voted for denial." MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Seymour and Stoltz abstained. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 27, 2005 MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 6-0. Kacher abstained. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 2 IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2005-09 Presented by Robin J. Smith, of 9765 Sky Lane. The request is for a front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 30 feet in the Rural Zoning District and a side yard setback variance from 50 feet to 10 feet in the Rural Zoning District. Mr. Smith presented the proposal utilizing the overhead projector. He pointed out that the conditions that require variance are due to the natural grade of the surrounding properties. He illustrated where the home site would be, which would be in the upper corner of the parcel of land. He stated that water drainage is an issue for this parcel of property. There is a 3 foot berm that extends along one side of the property and channels the run-off from one of the properties to two entry points that come into the five acres of this piece of property. He pointed out that another variable that makes this project a challenge are the 3 steep grade drops that are all within a short distance of one another. Mr. Smith pointed out that another challenge is the angular nature of one of the drops that the house will be put up against. He illustrated the flow of drainage in perspective to the grade drops. He stated that the concern is not to put the house in front of the drainage flow. The house will sit nestled up against the first ridge. The challenge is that they need to avoid the water that is rushing down the slope. The house cannot be shifted because of the berm; if it is opened up there will be additional water flow coming in sideways. The house sits on a grade that is roughly 30 degrees off of the east/west portion, so part of the complication in applying the current rural zoning standard is that a 50 foot setback for both the side and front of the house would move the house back from the dirt ridge, leaving a gap of 15 feet. That would leave a large gap that would need to be filled and currently all of the dirt in the area has been soil tested and compacted so there would be issues with compaction of the soil. Mr. Smith stated that because the house sits at an angle that is actually 30 degrees off the horizontal lines, they would be moving it back from its current placement of 26 feet from the edge. The Staff used the R1-13.5 zoning standards and that is where the 10 feet come from; it would actually be 26 feet and 35 feet is the variance that is being requested. Mr. Smith pointed out that the 26 feet applies to a corner of the house and when you get to the house proper, from the lot line to the corner of the house, it is 51 feet. He stated that there is also a strip of land that is 16 1/2 feet, that is part of the Ridge property. Years ago, that strip was intended to be a driveway access for the Ridge; now it is no longer necessary because of the access off of Sky Lane and access off Eden Prairie Road. Mr. Smith pointed out that if you add that 16 1/2 feet to the 35 feet that he is requesting, then they are at the 50 foot rural setback and stated that the 35 foot variance really would not impact the surrounding neighbors. He also said that in Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 3 terms of future impact, they put the house in the corner to accommodate future development. Stoelting asked Mr. Smith about the undue hardships that he would endure. Mr. Smith stated that the most significant hardship would be the substantial water run- off. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the Staff looked at the variance request as being reasonable due to drainage and they also felt that the variance was appropriate because the sewer and water is close. Franzen also pointed out that in regards to future development, the placement of the house would allow the property to be subdivided into lots that would meet the requirement of the R1-13.5 zoning district. Stoelting stated that he is somewhat confused with the variance request, stating that Mr. Smith talked about a different distance in the variance request. He asked Franzen to clarify this. Franzen stated that the staff report is not clear. The variance was published for the R1-13.5 setbacks, not the request as shown on the plans to give the homeowner more flexibility in positioning the house to avoid having to come back and ask for a variance again. The site plan is not a survey, so it is possible at building permit application that the setbacks could be less than shown,but would still conform to R1-13.5 setbacks. Stoelting opened up the meeting for public input. Ray Driver, of 9805 Sky Lane, which is west of the proposed property, stated he had a few questions regarding the variance request. He asked if the variance request was for the whole 5 acres or just the home site. And secondly,he asked what the considerations would be as far as access for construction vehicles and what the construction hours would be. He also asked if there would there be some fence put up to catch debris while construction is taking place and lastly, what would be the time frame of construction for this facility. Stoelting summarized the questions and asked Mr. Smith to address the questions in regards to access for construction vehicles, the construction time period during the day, and if a debris fence is to be put up and what would be the time frame of this project. Mr. Smith stated that as far as fencing for construction debris, the City code addresses that issue and they would be in compliance with that. In terms of timing,he stated that there are a couple of other contingencies that could affect this. One would be sewer and water. This will be coming with the Ridge development but it is unknown exactly when that would be happening. Until that is completed it is difficult to give an exact time frame. Mr. Smith stated that in terms of access, there was an easement when the property was purchased; he and Ray Driver purchased the two properties at the same time and split them into the Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 4 two 5 acre parcels. He also pointed out that they have a driveway easement to cover construction. Stoelting asked Mr. Smith to explain the hours for construction. Mr. Smith stated that the crews would be subject to the same restrictions that the workers on the Ridge comply with; which would be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. He also said that there would be plenty of parking on the property for all of the vehicles. Stoelting asked Franzen if the variance request is for the whole 5 acres of just the home site. Franzen stated that the variance request is only for the setbacks for the house that they have proposed. He stated that there is one item that the Commission Members should take into account when they consider this request. That item would be that if Mr. Smith was not able to commence construction within a year, then his variance would become null and void and he would have to reapply. Franzen stated that there is some open-endedness regarding the extension of utilities in the property and it would depend on obtaining the final easement from MAC as to when they put the sewer and water in. Once that takes place, the construction on the Ridge will begin. Franzen stated that the Commission Members may want to put a two year time period on the variance. Stoelting asked Franzen if the Riley Creek Ridge is for a one year approval. Franzen stated that with all developments, the developer's agreement is valid for two years. Koenig asked when the soil was compacted. Mr. Smith stated the soil was compacted in 1998. Koenig asked Franzen what would happen if there was a 100 year storm event and if there is a lot of drainage going towards this property, should that be of concern. Franzen stated that the water that drains there is not concentration coming from a storm sewer pipe or an act created by a surrounding property owner. He pointed out that if it is normal rain running down the hill then a pond or pipe is not required to correct that. Koenig asked if we would need a pond or pipe in the future as the site gets more developed. Franzen stated that it would be required to treat all of the storm water from the rooftops and from the streets, sidewalks and trails and there would have to be a pond created on the property to treat the storm water. Kacher asked Franzen if it is feasible, given the access through the MAC property for the Ridge, that it becomes an access point for construction. Franzen stated that the easement, in its current form, is only for the developers of the Ridge at Riley Creek; because of this, the property owner would have to be a party to that easement for the rights to be able to do that. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 2005 Page 5 MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance from 50 to 30 feet and a side yard setback variance from 50 feet to 10 feet,based on plans stamped dated June 10, 2005, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated July 22, 2005, and further recommend that this variance be for a two year time period due to the sewer and water situation of the property; hardship being the water flow and elevation change and general topography of the land. Motion carried 7-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen stated that there will not be a meeting on August 8, 2005; that the next meeting will be August 22, 2005. This meeting will include a few variance requests for sign ordinances. Franzen also stated that on August 1, 2005, there will be a change in the data that is public and home addresses of the Commission Members are considered private unless written authorization is given. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.