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.