Planning Commission - 06/12/2006 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JUNE 12,2006 7:00 P.M.,CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad,John Kirk,Vicki Koenig,Jerry
Pitzrick,Frank Powell,Peter Rocheford,Fred
Seymour,Ray Stoelting,Jon Stoltz
STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen,City Planner
Al Gray,City Engineer
Carol Pelzel,Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stoelting at 7:00 p.m.Absent: Rocheford
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Kirk,to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried,
8-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 22,200!� ,,- Deleted:.
MOTION by Kirk,seconded by Koenig to approve the minutes as presented. Motion
carried,6-0-2 with Seymour and Stoltz abstaining because of absence from that
meeting.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2006-05 by Lisa Rosenthal.Request to:
Permit a shoreland setback of 75 feet for a room and deck addition from Purgatory Creek.
City Code requires a 100 foot shoreland setback from Purgatory Creek which is classified as
General Development Water.Location of the property is 6816 Charts Court.
Rosenthal explained that her main goal for building this addition is to allow her to work from
her home. She presented a petition that had been signed by all of her neighbors in support of
this request. She was unable to obtain the signature of one neighbor who was out of town.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2006
Page 2
Nathan Shanklin,designer for the project,reviewed with the Commission the plans showing
where the addition will be located.They propose to extend the lower bedroom out towards
the creek.That room will be used as a studio in which Rosenthal will be able to work out of.
Shanklin said they would be expanding the dining room in the upper level and off that they
will be constructing a deck. There is the possibility in one area that they could build a smaller
addition but there is a problem with the topography of the lot and the flow of the addition
would not work with the upstairs.The access to the studio would also be affected.The
smaller proposal would also be cost prohibitive because of the existing windows and design
of the home. Shanklin stated that the proposed design would encroach on the creek a little
further than what the house currently does.The previous owner had constructed a deck
without a permit that extends 16 feet out from the house. Shanklin pointed out that the 75-
foot setback is in conformance with the State's guidelines. In looking at the other structures
in the neighborhood,many of them are built into the required setback. Shanklin further
explained that this is a very small house and this addition will make more of the house usable
and the addition will conform more to the existing homes in the neighborhood.
Rosenthal pointed out that the upper and lower decks were never aesthetically situated.
Nothing came together and the addition will be a great improvement to the neighborhood.
The affected neighbors are in favor of the addition and feel the proposed changes will have a
positive affect on the visual aspect of the home.
Shanklin indicated that this is a very small house on a large lot. Approximately 9 percent of
the lot size is used for hard cover. The applicant is building what she needs and no more. This
house is considerably smaller than other houses in the neighborhood and in the City.
Franzen presented the staff report indicating that to do something in this manner within the
setback,considerable structural changes to the house and internal changes as to room
locations would have to be made.The Commission needs to take into consideration the
relationship between the size of the building to the size of the lot.Most new homes built in
the City occupy 25 percent of the lot as compared with 9%with this variance.Franzen
explained that the Commission cannot look at structural changes and cost associated as the
only reason for considering this variance.This could be one of the reasons.The more
compelling reason would be the amount of small coverage and the percentage of the building
that encroaches on the 100-foot setback that may make it different from other lots.
Stoelting explained that the staff report talked about a shoreland setback of 75 feet for the
room and deck addition and the letter from the developer talks about a setback of 84.6 feet.
He questioned the two different setback numbers. Shanklin explained that the original survey
was printed on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper and was not to scale.When they scaled it they
came up with a 75 foot setback which is the correct number.
Powell pointed out that the neighbors who signed the petition of approval all lived on Charts
Court. He asked if any other residents on Duck Lake Trail,Tartan Curve of Sugarhill Circle
were contacted. Rosenthal explained that when she received the letter from the City
indicating that it would be sent to the people who lived within 500 feet of her residence,she
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2006
Page 3
assumed it was only necessary to contact those people who would be directly affected by the
addition. Rosenthal offered to contact the other residents for their approval to construct this
addition.
Kirk said that when he visited this site it was difficult to get an assessment of the impact of
this addition on the Creek.He asked if City staff did review this site to determine that there
will be no impact to the Creek.Franzen replied that the proponent is not proposing to remove
any trees adjacent to the house.Also,they are not altering any part of the property that is
within 50 feet of the required setback zone.
Koenig asked if staff has any idea as to how far back other homes are set in this area.Franzen
responded that any homes built prior to 1982 are 75 feet back because that represented the
State model at that time. In 1982,the City incorporated the State standards into its ordinance
and decided to require that all bodies of water have the same setback. Koenig also asked if
there are any other variances in the area.Franzen said that Staff is not aware of any. In
response to a question from Koenig,Franzen explained that no grading or alteration of the
existing vegetation is allowed within the shore impact zone.
Stoelting explained that there is a provision in the ordinance that a variance may be granted if
this is an undue hardship. He asked the proponent to address the issue of undue hardship.
Rosenthal stated that she is required to travel extensively to care for family members.This
does not allow her to take on a full-time job because of her family responsibilities and the
requirements for travel and flexibility. Rosenthal said creating this studio would allow her to
work from her home.
Pitzrick pointed out that the addition being proposed is not that large relative to the size of
the lot.A similar addition on the side of the house would have a significant negative impact
on the neighboring homes.The neighbors have indicated that they feel this is a positive
addition.
Stoelting said it appears that the undue hardship is the size of the lot.This addition appears to
be the most likely size due to the unique features of the lot. The utility easements may also be
another factor as to why this addition is placed in the direction that it is.
Motion by Kirk,seconded by Koenig,to close the public hearing.The motion carried,8-0.
Motion by Kirk,seconded by Powell,to recommend approval of the shoreland setback
variance of 75-feet for a room and deck addition based on plans stamp dated May 5,2006 and
the staff report dated June 9,2006. The motion carried,8-0.
B. WOODLAND 2ND ADDITION by Tom Robertson.Request for:
Preliminary Plat of 27,979 square feet into one lot.Location of the property is 6983
Woodland Drive.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2006
Page 4
Robertson explained that a neighborhood meeting was held regarding this proposal.Eighty
different homeowners were notified and four people came to the meeting representing the
owners adjacent to this lot.The neighbors do not object to this proposal.Robertson said they
do concur with the staff's report and are proposing to shift the proposed house pad to the
south ten feet to avoid the drip line of the mature oak trees to the north.
Staff presented the staff report indicating that staff is recommending approval with conditions
as outlined on Pages 2 and 3 of the staff report.
Pitzrick asked the proponent if he has contacted the people that are proposing to purchase the
property to the north.Robertson explained that he is the individual selling the property and
the purchaser is buying that property and this lot. At the present time,they have no plans to
do anything with the lot but want to know they have a buildable lot.
Powell asked for the history on the transfer of ownership for this outlot.Franzen explained
that much of the common area land in Edenvale went into tax forfeiture when the Association
was dissolved. In some case land was sold directly to individuals.The City had first option
to purchase property.After that time, anyone could purchase it from the County by going
through the public process.Powell said it seems strange that the Association would sell
property that was dedicated as open space and that the City would allow or support this.
Franzen said that is at the City's discretion of converting open space to a lot since it was part
of an approved plan.He added that the lot conforms to city code and zoning in the area.
Robertson explained that the Association was served by the Courts and there was no response
on the service. They also went to the Secretary of State's office and the Association had not
filed anything with them to remain active for the last eight to ten years.
Powell said he realizes they have no control over what happened 15 or 20 years ago but that
he is not supportive of allowing outlots that were public to go private.Powell said the
proponent has rightful use of the property but he cannot support the conversion of open space
to housing.
Stoelting indicated that the proponent has gone through the legal process and he said he does
not know that they can dispute the process he has followed. The proponent has also held a
meeting with the neighbors and they do not object to the proposal. Stoelting said he
personally has no problem with the request.
Koenig said she does not question what the proponent has done but does have questions
about the procedure and what will happen when other areas in Associations that dissolve
become available. She asked if they would have to go through a similar process.Franzen
explained that they will find other situations coming forward in the future. They need to look
at each request and determine what makes it different from other sites and to decide whether
or not the City should approve the request or not allow it. They would need to look at the lot
size and setbacks to determine whether or not it should be allowed on an individual basis.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2006
Page 5
Kirk said that there are circumstances surrounding each individual outlot that they could face
that would guide the Commission in different directions.Each case will stand on its own. He
indicated that he would support the proposal being made today.
Motion:by Duckstad,seconded by Koenig,to close the public hearing.The motion carried,
8-0.
Motion:by Duckstad,seconded by Stoltz,to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of
27,979 square feet into one lot based on plans stamp dated June 7,2006,and the staff report
dated June 9,2006.The motion carried,7-1 with Powell voting nay.
C. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BUS GARAGE ADDITION by Southwest Metro
Transit Commission.Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.1 acres.
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.1 acres.
• Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 to Zoning District on 10.1 acres.
• Site Plan Review on 10.1 acres.
Location of the property is 14405 62 a Street West.
Dave Simoneau,Director of Operations&Maintenance for South West Metro Transit,
explained that transit is growing 20 to 25 percent per year.They currently have 56 buses and
have maxed out their bus storage and maintenance facility. Simoneau indicated that they are
trying to maximize the use of this site and this proposal will carry them through 2009.
Eric Jansen of LSA Design,explained that this plan focuses on getting enough buses on the
site that addresses the needs of the southwest metro.Jansen presented an overview of the site
stating that this would be a stand-alone bus storage facility on the south part of the site. The
site expansion would accommodate straight in and straight out for 22 buses. They are also
proposing to add an employee parking lot on the west part of the site and to add a fueling
canopy to the existing fuel island.Jansen further explained that another major piece of this
project is the capturing of additional storm water in the pond on the east end of the site.This
will be a pre-manufactured building with concrete block and the colors will be similar to the
existing building.
Franzen presented the staff report indicating that staff is recommending approval according to
the recommendations on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
Koenig asked how much this project would encroach on the shoreland area.Franzen
explained that they would be approximately 50 feet from the creek and there is a 25-foot
wetland buffer.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2006
Page 6
Stoelting said staff has indicated that some waivers need to be approved. He asked Franzen to
address those waivers.Franzen reviewed the waivers with the Commission and presented the
various reasons for the waivers.
Stoltz stated that the proponent has indicated that this project will carry them through 2009.
He asked what they would do when they outgrow this facility. Simoneau responded that part
of the issue right now is to accommodate the real-time growth.Eventually,they will have to
look at communities where their service takes them and they may need to look at something
west of Eden Prairie. Simoneau explained that they are in the process of looking for land
further west.They will continue to use this facility but will have to expand in other areas.
Motion by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig,to close the public hearing. The motion carried,8-0.
Motion by Stoltz, seconded by Powell,to recommend approval of the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 10.1 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review
with waivers on 10.1 acres,Zoning District Amendment within the 1-2 Zoning District on
10.1 acres, and the Site Plan Review on 10.1 acres based on plans stamp dated May 24,2006,
and the staff report dated June 9,2006. The motion carried,8-0.
VII. MEMBERS'REPORTS
Kirk presented an update to the Commission on the Way Finding Committee.
Stoelting said the Commission had received an invitation to the Going Green workshop.The
workshop will be held on Tuesday,June 27,from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the Minnesota
Arboretum.
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
Franzen said they are attempting to reschedule the Other Cities Bus Tour. He asked that the
Commission members indicate which dates they are available.
Franzen stated that the next meeting of the Commission is June 19 and they have two items for
that meeting.There will be a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop on July 18
beginning at 5:00 p.m.relative to the Guide Plan update.Also,on June 19 the consultant will
give a presentation to the Commission relative to the Guide Plan updates.
Franzen indicated that homeowners have difficulty coming up with hardships or unique
circumstances for requesting a variance.He said he is proposing to modify the variance
application to give the homeowners insight as to what they should include in their description for
requesting the variance. They should look at things such as the impact on tree loss,the impact on
wetland,small size variance,unusual size of lot,improving visual impact of home,utility
easements impacting the location of the addition,etc. Franzen said he would try to have a
revised application put together as soon as possible.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2006
Page 7
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS'REPORT
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Pitzrick, seconded by Kirk,to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried,8-0.The
meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.