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.