Loading...
Planning Commission - 03/13/2006 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006 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 Scott Kipp, Senior 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, Koenig, Nelson, and Stoltz. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 27, 2006 Seymour had a revision to the minutes; stating he was absent from the meeting. MOTION by Sutherland, seconded by Rocheford, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 4-0. Seymour abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING A. ST. ANDREW WOODS by Henry Lazniarz. Request for Informational meeting to present a concept plan for a proposed multiple family use of property currently guided for low density residential. The Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 Page 2 plan includes 17 condominium units in a two-story building. Chairman Stoelting indicated that this project has been temporarily postponed at the request of the proponent so he can clarify project related issues. Scott Kipp, Senior Planner, indicated that a letter was sent to the neighborhood advising then of this postponement. New meeting notices will be sent to the neighborhood when the developer is ready to proceed. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ERS ESTATES by ERS Development. Request for: Preliminary Plat of 1.33 acres into two lots. David Gatchby, an employee of ERS Development, presented the proposal. He stated that he has been working with the City to address the issues of the proposal this evening. He said that his company is redeveloping one home on one lot and looking to build a new home on the proposed second lot. He said that he did not see any issues in the staff recommendation. Stoelting asked Kipp to address the staff report. Kipp stated that this property is zoned R1-22 and creating 2 lots from this parcel of land would meet or exceed the City Code requirements. Kipp stated that the Staff does recommend approval of this project. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Bob Franzen, of 6851 Beach Road, stated he has some objections to this proposal. He stated that there will be 10 oak trees along Beach Road that will be destroyed. He also pointed out that where they plan to put up the new house there is a hill on that spot and to erect the house the hill would have to be taken away and he is in opposition of that. Matthew Zahn, an attorney representing Bruce and Linda Paradis, who reside at 12530 Beach Circle, stated that they are in objection to the new subdivision. Mr. Zahn pointed out that they are not present this evening because they are out of town. He stated that one of the objections is that the lot sizes in the area are very large and splitting these two properties would make them the smallest in the area. Mr. Zahn said that the Paradis's feel that the physical characteristics of this site would make any building project difficult. He stated that they are concerned with the tree loss and also the increased water flow in the area, connected with the tree loss. Mr. Zahn stated that the next objection of the Paradis's is the private easement down to the lake. Mr. Zahn said that ERS Development is requesting that three families share this easement, which would increase pedestrian adjacent to their property traffic flow. Mr. Zahn pointed out that a number of people signed off on a petition to oppose this project. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 Page 3 Bryan Duoos, of 7160 Willow Creek Road, stated that he resides across from this development. He pointed out that he feels this proposal will change the character of the area. He said that cutting the lot in half does not fit with the neighborhood. Stoelting summarized the issues as follows. 1. Destruction of the oak trees. 2. The adverse effects of building the home on the hill and what this will do to the land. 3. How building the home on the hill will affect the characteristics of the neighborhood. 4. Address the incline and where the new lot and house will be constructed. 5. Concerns about the easement to the lake. Mr. Gatchby addressed some of issues Stoelting summarized. He said that the intent of this project is to make the neighborhood better and not worse. They do not want to destroy any trees and are trying to take out as few as possible. He stated that they do plan to replace the oak trees that are taken out with new oak tress and they will also be planting evergreen trees and filler trees. Mr. Gatchby stated that the lot is only situated on one-half of the hill and that none of the hill would not be eliminated. He pointed this out using the overhead projector. He stated that the only thing they would be putting up is retaining walls. He showed where the split in the two properties would be located and said that they chose that split due to topography. He stated that elevation in the hill will not be an issue in constructing the new home. Stoelting asked Mr. Gatchby to show where the retaining wall will be located. Mr. Gatchby used the overhead projector to illustrate where the retaining wall would be located. Mr. Gatchby also addressed the issue of lake easement. He stated that in the Deed, the easement was established when this land was plotted out. He pointed out that every house in the neighborhood had access to the water. Mr. Gatchby also pointed out that the existing home is worth one million dollars and they are going to remodel it and sell it for approximately two million dollars. He stated that the new house will go for over two million dollars. Rocheford asked Kipp if the staff report addresses the issue of Lot 2 constructing another dock and felt that it could not be constructed. Kipp stated that is correct; that Lot 2 could not construct another dock. Only lots fronting on the lake can construct a dock. Rocheford asked if the residents at Lot 2 had a boat would they have to ask the neighbor's permission to dock the boat. Kipp stated that any new dock would have to be addressed through a variance request. Rocheford asked if the docks are association docks or private docks. Mr. Gatchby stated that he did not know if they were association docks or private docks. Mr. Zahn stated that the dock on the lake frontage is a private dock. He pointed out that the association does have a dock for their members. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Gatchby stated that in regards to the tone and character of the neighborhood, the existing house is an old home and by rebuilding the home it would give the neighborhood a better look. Stoelting asked Kipp to clarify what is the issue of tonight's meeting. Kipp stated that the Commission is looking at a preliminary plat request and the placement of a house pad. Mr. Gatchby stated that by adding two beautiful homes it would be an enhancement to the area. Rocheford asked Kipp to address the issue of Bryant Lake and the residents' use of the lake. Kipp stated that Bryant Lake is a public lake and anyone can have use of the lake. Stoelting asked Fox to address the issue of the tree loss. Fox stated that the tree loss should not be a reason to deny this project. Fox pointed out that Mr. Gatchby and his company are ready to replace the trees and be in compliance with tree loss in regards to this project. Stoelting asked Kipp that since there will be no building designs presented tonight what can be done to ease the neighbors' sentiments. Kipp stated interaction between the builder and current neighbors might create a better feeling in regards to the project. Stoelting stated that there was an issue with the tone of the area and asked Kipp what his position was on that lot. Kipp stated that these two lots would be smaller than the other lots on the lake but when looking at the City Code in regards to this parcel of land it does comply with the zoning and subdivision code, and because of that the City is compelled to approve it. Mr. Duoos asked about the easement to the lake and would it mean that the new lot would have access to the water. Stoelting stated that on page 2 of the staff report it states that"the existing lot has an easement to the lake across a property to the northeast and a dock. This dock is non-conforming. The use of this dock may continue. In order to have a dock a lot must abut the lake. The proposed second lot is not entitled to an additional dock on the lake." Kipp stated that access to the dock is a private issue. Seymour asked Staff if any of the other lots in the area could be subdivided in the future. Kipp stated that there could be,but the property owner they would also have to submit a proposal that meets the city code. Rocheford stated that it seemed that the majority of concern of the meeting tonight was the public water access and pointed out again that Bryant Lake is a lake that is opened to the public. Rocheford pointed out that Mr. Gatchby and his company has done an excellent job of developing the property and that they are meeting City Code and are entitled to this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 Page 5 Kirk said that he was uncomfortable in agreeing to this project because he feels that it does change the character of the neighborhood. He said that taking the smallest lot and subdividing it into two would impact the tone of the neighborhood. Seymour said that he agrees with Kirk, and stated that he feels that the neighbors have bought into the property expecting large lot sizes and that this split would change the character of the lake. Sutherland stated that he was reluctant to agree to this project and would feel more comfortable if he were to see a design of the house that is to be constructed. Stoelting stated he agrees with Sutherland. He also recommends that Mr. Gatchby communicates with the neighbors in the construction moving forward. Rocheford stated that he has no concern accepting a proposal because it might change the character of the area. He feels that this would be a change for the better. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Sutherland, to approve the Preliminary Plat of 1.33 acres into two lots,based on plans stamped dated March 8, 2006, and the staff report dated March 10, 2006, and with the condition that this project be subject to further staff review for additional tree loss. Motion carried 4-1, Kirk voting no. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. Change of date for June Planning Commission meeting. The camera and sound system will be replaced in the Council Chambers from June 26th through July 10'h. The June 26, 2006 meeting will need to be changed to June 19, 2006. Stoelting asked the Commission Members if this would be a workable date, and all agreed. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kirk, to change the Planning Commission meeting from June 26, 2006 to June 19, 2006. Motion carried 4-0. Sutherland abstained due to the fact that he will not be on the Commission during that time. Kipp stated that the next meeting will be March 27, and will include a variance request. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2006 Page 6 XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.