Planning Commission - 09/26/2005 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMER 26, 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: Kacher and Sutherland.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
Stoelting voiced a revision for Sutherland. It is on page 7,paragraph 5, last sentence. It
should read "Mr. Farr stated it should be 859".
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to approve the minutes. Motion carried
5-0. Nelson and Rocheford abstained.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2005-11 at 18887 Magenta Bay, Eden Prairie, MN. The request
is to permit a shoreland setback for an in-ground pool of 130' from the Ordinary
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2005
Page 2
High Water Level of Rice Marsh Lake (DNR classified Natural Environment
Waters). City code requires a 150' setback from the Ordinary High Water.
Jill Siering, of 18887 Magenta Bay,presented the proposal. Mrs. Siering pointed
out that she was not even aware of the setback until she went to get the permit for
the pool. She said that she understands the setback and does not want to harm the
lake. She also stated that they will not be removing any trees, only sod. The
grade of the yard will not change; the yard is level. She stated that they have not
had problems with erosion. Mrs. Siering stated that both neighbors are in favor of
this project. The pool will be located very close to the house. It will have no out
buildings, retaining walls, or slides. Mrs. Siering pointed out that there is another
pool in existence in the neighborhood. She also reiterated that the impact to the
lake will be minimal.
Stoelting asked Mrs. Siering about undue hardship. He explained to her what an
undue hardship entailed and she said that her undue hardship would be that her
husband has some physical problems that he would benefit with the use of the
pool.
Nelson stated that the house was setback from the street 50 feet versus the normal
30 feet and asked Mrs. Siering if they had built the house originally and if so did
they know about this setback. Mrs. Siering stated that they did build the house
but were unaware of the setback; that it was left up to the builder.
Rocheford commented that this site has a significant buffer for the wetland; a 20
foot bluff, and that this lot is a very flat lot. He stated that the pool would be
located in a good spot and he does not see any reason not to grant the waiver.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that there are
different classifications of water bodies by the DNR. He pointed out that if a pool
was being built in a recreational district such as Staring Lake, the setback would
be 100 feet. As in this case,being a natural environmental lake, the setback is
more restrictive,possibly because of the line of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In
this particular case, the City sited a possible location of the pool behind the
garage,but there would be more restrictions and a lot more work that would have
to be completed if it were in this area. There are three alternatives to this
variance. This first one being if this is approved, the findings should be the
reason for granting this. The second action would be approval with modifications
as outlined in the alternative. The third would be to deny the request based on
past reasons similar variances have been denied.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Nelson asked if the pool would have to have a fence around it. Franzen stated it
would have to have a fence around it for safety reasons according to building code
requirements. Nelson asked if the fence could be a see-thru fence versus a solid
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2005
Page 3
structure. Franzen stated that normally the fences are see-thru rod iron fences so
visibility can be seen from the house or yard. Nelson asked the project proponent
if her intention would be to put in a see-thru rod-iron fence or some other type of
metal see-thru fence. Mrs. Siering stated that if this variance is approved she
would have to bring it in front of her association board to get the fence okayed,
and they are planning on requesting a plain rod-iron see-thru fence to be put up.
Stoelting asked Mrs. Siering to use the overhead projector to explain the
surveyor's certificate that was included in the packet and to illustrate the outline
of the pool in relationship to the 150 foot setback line. Mrs. Siering illustrated the
outline of the pool in relationship to the setback. Stoelting asked if the whole
pool was within the 150 foot setback and Mrs. Siering stated it was. Stoelting
asked why the pool could not be placed closer to the deck. She stated that she did
not want to put it any closer to the deck footings because code requires that it be a
certain amount of feet from the deck. Stoelting commented that the pool was 20
feet by 40 feet and asked Mrs. Siering if it could be made longer. Mrs. Siering
stated that she did not want a lap pool. Mrs. Siering illustrated where the pool
would be located if it were to be placed by the garage and stated that there would
be a much higher elevation and a greater impact to the land.
Koenig asked Mrs. Siering how much total acreage of land she had. Mrs. Siering
stated she was unsure as to how much acreage of land they had.
Koenig asked why the setback was so much greater with this piece of property.
Franzen stated it was because of the design of the house and also that is the reason
that there is not much room in the backyard.
Koenig stated she had concerns if this variance was granted and one concern
would be that there is such a limited use of pools in this climate.
Stoelting stated that the yard is much higher than the lake in elevation and asked
Franzen if that was a factor in any of the setbacks. Franzen stated it was not.
Franzen said that if Staff is considering granting the variance they should question
if it would be disruptive to any of the wildlife habitat along the lake.
Kirk stated he is comfortable with granting this variance. Nelson also stated that
she is comfortable with granting the variance, as long as it does not destroy any of
the habitat around the lake. She would also like to make a stipulation to the
variance stating that no slides, awnings or structural buildings should be allowed
to be put up around the pool.
Koenig asked Mrs. Siering where the fence would be put up. Mrs. Siering stated
that she was unsure but that it would be minimal and close to the pool. Koenig
stated that she is uncomfortable with this variance because she is concerned if
someone else could come in and request a variance for something else; not
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2005
Page 4
necessarily a pool but something that could go into the setback. Koenig asked
Franzen to address that issue. Franzen stated that he would evaluate the visual
impact to the neighbors in each specific situation.
Stoelting asked Mrs. Siering if there would be any regrading issues and Mrs.
Siering stated that there would not be any regrading issues. Stoelting asked what
would happen to the dirt that was excavated. Mrs. Siering stated that the pool
contractor would be creating a small burm with the excess dirt; which would be
very minimal.
Stoelting reiterated that the hardship was the size of the lot and the unusual
frontage. Seymour stated that in regard to undue hardship, City Code states that
unreasonable use is property that cannot be put to reasonable use. He stated he
does not see any undue hardship in relationship to this property and feels that
granting this variance would set a precedent for future variances. Koenig asked
Franzen to comment on what Seymour said. Franzen stated that undue hardship
means that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property that is not due to the homeowner. He also stated that this piece of land is
a unique situation and does contain hardship.
Stoelting asked what Stoltz's opinions were. Stoltz stated that he does not feel
that this is an unreasonable request.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kirk, to approve the shoreland setback
variance from 150' to 130' based on plans stamped dated September 23, 2005 and
the staff report dated September 23, 2005. In addition, that there be no other
slides, awnings or buildings to be put up around the pool, other than fencing,
which should be of a see-thru nature and style. Nelson amended the motion by
adding that the hardship would be that the house is set back further due to the
double road frontage and that no habitat would be destroyed and that it is an in-
ground pool that is not visible from the lake. Motion carried 5-2.
Stoltz asked Franzen if future owners would want to add a slide would they have
to have a variance request in order to do so. Franzen stated that they would have
to have a variance request.
B. VARIANCE#2005-12 at 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN.
The request is to permit one wall sign of 79 square feet in the Office Zoning
District. City Code permits one wall sign per street frontage not to exceed 50
square feet.
Franzen said that the project proponent requested that this hearing be continued
until the October 10, meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2005
Page 5
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Rocheford, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
C. MCCALL BLUFF AMENDMENT by McCall Construction Company.
Request is for a Planned Unit Development concept Review on 4.89 acres;
Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment in
the Rural Zoning District on 4.89 acres. Location is at 9997 Dell Road.
Jeff McCall,president of McCall Construction,presented the proposal. He
utilized the overhead projector to show an illustration of the plan. He pointed out
that the subdivision was approved last month but they are back now because they
want to add on an addition to the home. Mr. McCall displayed a floor plan of the
expansion. He stated that this is currently a 3,000 square foot home and most of
the homes in the area are between 6,000-12,000 sq. ft. He said that this is the
reason for the amendment to the waiver. He pointed out that the dedication of the
bluff land would remain the same.
Stoelting asked Mr. McCall to illustrate where the 25 foot setback would be
located. Mr. McCall illustrated where the setback was located and that would be
on the west side of the property,he also pointed out that there is a side yard
setback of 7 feet for lot one, and a side yard setback of 15 feet for lot two.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that size of the
home is not an issue for Staff, but how many houses should be on the bluff and
what is the best way to maximize the bluff area to preserve its natural state. He
said that to wait for sewer and water to come into the area, this would result in
more houses. The decision of the City was if it can get by with the subdivision in
its current state that benefits the landowner, the City can preserve 50 percent of
the site with dedication and another 20 percent with land easements. Staff
recommendation is for approval.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Kirk asked Franzen to comment on the property that is located to the west.
Franzen stated that the resident, Mr. Gary Stevens, currently lives in that home
and has been talking about creating two lots. That issue will be addressed at the
October 24h meeting.
Kirk asked Mr. McCall if there had been any discussion with Mr. Stevens about
the setbacks. Mr. McCall stated that there had not been any discussion with Mr.
Stevens. Franzen said that developers are in agreement with the setbacks.
Stoelting asked Mr. McCall about the large tree stand and if they are saving this.
Mr. McCall stated that it should not be affected. Stoelting asked if this was
property to the west and Mr. McCall confirmed that it was.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2005
Page 6
Nelson stated that she has no objections to upgrade the property. Koenig agreed
with Nelson.
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Rocheford, to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 4.89 acres, and Planned Unit Development
District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Rural Zoning District on
4.89 acres based on plans stamped dated September 22, 2005, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated September 23, 2005. Motion carried
7-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Koenig asked Franzen about the status of the tree cutting incident that took place by Anderson
Lakes. Franzen stated he did not have the status report on that incident.
Koenig asked Franzen if he knew about the prosecution in regards to the slide at Staring
Lake. Franzen stated he is not privied to that information.
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated that there will be three variance items on the agenda for the October 10,
2005 meeting. They are:
1. Pool Variance
2. Two sign requests
3. Stellent Variance Request
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.