Planning Commission - 11/24/2003 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred
Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray
Stoelting, Bill Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Acting Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Acting Chair
Nelson, Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Seymour, Steppat and Sutherland. Absent:
Koenig and Stoelting
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Steppat, second by Brooks, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 6-0
III. MINUTES
A. Minutes of the October 27, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Brooks, to approve the minutes. Motion passed
4-0, Nelson & Seymour abstained
B. Minutes of the November 10, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting
Sutherland pointed out the Motion under III. Minutes should read "to approve the
minutes." Sutherland pointed out the Motion of October 27,2003 under III.MINUTES
should have indicated the motion passed, not failed.
MOTION by Foote, second by Brooks, to approve the minutes. Motion passed, 4-0,
Steppat & Seymour abstained
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 2003
Page 2
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
A. INFORMATIONAL MEETING— SCENIC HEIGHTS APARTMENTS by
Duane and Patricia Pidcock. Request for Informational meeting to discuss a Guide
Plan Change from Low Density to Medium Density Residential, Rezoning from
Rural to RM—2.5, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Subdivision of.97 acres
into two lots. Location: 15201 Scenic Heights Road.
Duane Pidcock presented his request. He stated they have been providing
affordable housing for residents of Eden Prairie with their six unit apartment
building for the past 52 years. He said when the properties were platted it was with
the intention that they would be divided at some point. He stated he is requesting
rezoning to protect their retirement investment and to subdivide the single family
lot.
Franzen stated although this is not a public hearing notices were sent to residents
within 500 feet of the property. He said staff has looked at several alternatives for
use of the property and the informational meeting is intended to provide direction as
to the alternative that would fit best in the neighborhood. He said the proponent will
then take that information and prepare for a public hearing. Franzen stated there are
five alternatives listed in the staff report and staff is comfortable with numbers 1, 2,
4, and 5.
Steppat asked Pidcock for his input on the alternatives. Pidcock responded he would
prefer number three but has no other preference at this point. He said he would like
the Board's feedback on the matter.
Foote asked staff for clarification as to what the Pidcocks were requesting. Franzen
responded they requested rezoning for both parcels with use of the property
remaining as it had been. He stated they would like to develop the property within
zoning regulations. He said if the apartment building is maintained and the other lot
split off this would conform best with the guide plan and the pattern of the
neighborhood. Foote questioned if the property were to remain Rural whether the
Pidcocks could leave it as it exists until it was sold. Franzen responded they could
that but the problem would be that if the property were destroyed the structure could
not be rebuilt.
Brooks asked staff if something happened to the apartment building under the
current zoning, how many homes could be built on that piece of land. Franzen
responded they could create two R1-13.5 lots. Brooks asked Mr. Pidcock if he had
looked at the economic value of the rental units versus selling the property as two
residential lots. Mr. Pidcock responded the apartment building is in good condition,
is providing a good income and he sees no value in tearing it down. He said if they
Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 2003
Page 3
were to build single family homes they would not provide that income,
consequently, they were interested in preserving the property as it is. Foote asked
Mr. Pidcock if he had talked to his neighbors as to their opinion regarding the
rezoning. He responded he spoke with neighbors abutting the property and didn't
get any negative response. Steppat asked about the difference between alternatives
three and four. He asked whether changing the guide plan as described would
require bringing the building up to code. Franzen responded it would.
Sutherland asked about how the grandfathering in process works and whether it is
something that would happen automatically or whether property owners had to
apply for it. Franzen responded at that time, the city rezoned areas; most of them
were grandfathered in when the zoning was changed. The zoning was not changed
on this site. He said whether the zoning is rural or multi-family the building
wouldn't fit the current code. He stated if property was zoned multi-family the city
would have to allow them to build but since it's zoned rural the city has
discretionary power to change zoning. Sutherland asked if the property were zoned
multi-family 52 years ago with today's zoning standard it could not be rebuilt as it
is. Franzen responded the building would have to meet current rules and could not
be rebuilt as it exists today.
Nelson asked if the building was up to fire code. Franzen responded that Mr.
Pidcock has worked with the building inspections department to bring the building
up to code for fire doors and smoke detectors but not all building and fire codes.
Steppat asked about option number four regarding the building of six garages,
paving the parking lot, and landscaping. Pidcock responded it would not be
economically feasible to build the garages and they intend to pave the parking lot
but haven't because of the question regarding building the garages. He said a few
years ago they discussed the possibility of adding on to the building and that would
have necessitated doing all those things so they decided not to pursue that and
decided to leave the building as it is.
Sutherland asked Mr. Pidcock what he meant in the fourth paragraph of his memo
where he talks about the residential character of Scenic Heights Road. Pidcock
responded that in 1958 it was rural and that over the years the character has changed
with the construction of the City Center, a Fire Administration Building, Scenic
Heights Office Buildings and a Methodist Church.
Brooks agreed with spinning off the lot for single family but could not agree to a
change in the density. Foote stated a single family home would fit in there
perfectly. He stated if the neighbors don't have a problem with the apartment
building than he was fine with it. He said he can't support tearing the building
down. Seymour agreed that the lot could be spun off and leaving the apartment as
is. He said the other options don't make sense. Steppat stated he agreed with
Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 2003
Page 4
spinning off the lot. He would like to see the building remain since it is a source of
retirement income for the Pidcocks. He stated he would be comfortable with option
four or some variation thereof. Sutherland stated the Pidcocks are good citizens and
with a zoning change there could be problems if the property were sold and wasn't
kept up. He said he agrees with the idea of spinning off the lot for single family
housing. He said the property blends well in the neighborhood as it is currently and
building a large garage would detract from the property and wouldn't be a good fit.
Foote asked staff if there is discretion with number four. Franzen responded that
the Board has the authority to grant variances.
Sutherland asked if the driveway paving is an improvement that could be made or if
it would require a variance. Franzen stated that they would not need a variance and
it would be considered upkeep, similar to replacing a roof.
Nelson stated she would have no problem splitting off the lot for a single family
home. She said if the apartment meets all health and safety requirements it should
remain as it is and she would not want a 12-unit building or six townhouses on this
site.
Franzen stated if the property were rezoned as multifamily they would need to
conform to zoning rules. He said with a guide plan change, zoning change, and
variances they could rebuild the structure. Foote agreed with this approach. Brooks
stated he is challenged by the thought of rezoning the property at this time. It's
functioned well for the Pidcocks and it fits the neighborhood. Someone else could
come in with a different plan and they would be locked into that plan. Foote stated
he could understand the concern with rezoning and that someone else may not be as
good with the property as the Pidcocks. He said he didn't want it torn down and
didn't believe they should build the garages. Pidcock stated he doesn't understand
why the City didn't zone it multi-family at the time in 1958. They have difficulty
understanding why there are problems with rezoning. He asked if it couldn't be
rezoned could there by a requirement that it could only be six units if rebuilt.
Nelson stated there should be some amendments crafted to allow only the six unit
building. Franzen responded there is a possibility rather than rezoning to RM-2.5
the site could be zoned RM-6.5 with a waiver for density, garages and setbacks and
language that would require the property be used only for six units. Nelson stated if
the neighbors are agreeable, it looks as though this would be a good option. Steppat
stated he would like to amend his comments and would be in favor of rezoning.
Nelson suggested Pidcock meet with the staff to develop an appropriate plan for a
future meeting.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE #2003-12 for Nathan Bergland and Boumeester Custom Home
Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 2003
Page 5
Construction for property located at 7012 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, MN.
A variance for a septic and soil absorption system setback from the Ordinary High
Water Level of Bryant Lake from 100' to 75'
Steppat excused himself from the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Nathan Bergland stated the home is situated on a point and there are constraints
regarding a 75 or 100 foot setback. He said that originally a 75 foot setback was
required when the property was subdivided. He stated currently the requirement is
100 feet. He said the State of Minnesota has a 75 foot setback requirement for this
septic system while the City requires a 100 foot setback. He said the septic tank
needs to be in a flat area and the contents are pumped to the drain fields which are
on top of the hill. He stated there is an alternative location under the driveway
which would be much more costly and falls within the state requirements as to
where a septic tank could be.
Nelson asked Gray for an explanation of the differences between putting it at the 75
foot setback location or under the driveway. Gray responded staff discussed the
options which included the two considerations for the septic tanks. He stated
environmentally both locations are equal. He said the contractor has proposed to
actually pressure test the tanks to demonstrate that the tanks are properly sealed. He
commented that they want to construct systems that can be maintained relatively
easily which would include being pumped periodically and to look at baffling in the
tank to make sure they are in good shape. He said this type of maintenance would be
easier to perform if the tank were placed where the proponent wants it; the driveway
location would be very deep and would require a pumping system which would be
an additional liability for the system.
Seymour asked about the state and city difference for setbacks. Gray responded
there really isn't a reason or significant benefit to having a larger setback.
Sutherland asked Gray if the nibbler system is related to the request for the setback.
Gray responded this is a dosing system that when it's fed into the drain system there
is a good distribution throughout the system. He added its use is dependent on site
conditions. Franzen responded that is accurate because there isn't enough space for
a standard septic tank and drain field for both lots. He said the system had to be
designed to fit this site. Brooks asked if there have been any comments or feedback
from the neighbors regarding the variance for the septic system. Bergeland
responded there had not been any comments.
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 5-0
Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 2003
Page 6
MOTION by Sutherland, second by Seymour, to recommend approval of a variance
for a septic and soil absorption system setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of
Bryant Lake from 100' to 75'. Motion carried, 4-0, Brooks abstained.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Brooks, second by Seymour to adjourn.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:59 p.m.