Planning Commission - 11/26/2012 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Steven Frank, Matt Fyten, John Kirk, Katie
Lechelt, Jacob Lee, Jerry Pitzrick, Kevin Schultz,
Jon Stoltz, Travis Wuttke
STAFF MEMBERS: Regina Rojas, Planner II; Rod Rue, City Engineer
Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Fyten called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Frank, Pitzrick, Schultz and
Stoltz were absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Lechelt, seconded by Wuttke, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 22, 2012
MOTION by Wuttke, seconded by Lechelt, to approve the minutes. Motion
carried 3-0. Kirk and Lee abstained.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance#2012-05,by Dan & Kristie Marvin
Location: 6921 Beach Road
Request for:
Permit a shoreland setback for an in-ground pool of 56'10" from the
Ordinary High Water Level OHWL of Bryant Lake (DNR classified
Recreational Development Waters.) City Code requires a 100' setback from
the OHWL.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2012
Page 2
• Permit within the shoreland setback extension of an existing underground
tunnel to connect to the existing boat hour 40'0" from the OHWL of Bryant
Lake and within the Shore Impact Zone (DNR classified Recreational
Development Waters.) City Code requires a 100' setback from the OHWL
and no building within a Shore Impact Zone.
• Permit a shoreland setback for an Arbor 68'0" from the Ordinary High
Water Level OHWL of Bryant Lake (DNR classified Recreational
Development Waters.) City Code requires a 100' setback from the OHWL.
• Permit a shoreland setback for an in-ground spa 89'6" from the Ordinary
High Water Level OHWL of Bryant Lake (DNR classified Recreational
Development Waters.) City Code requires a 100' setback from the OHWL.
Peter Eskuche, architect for the project,presented the proposal. He stated they
would like to build a new residence on the property, which is 100 percent
conforming to the setback requirements. They would also like to build a
swimming pool with a shoreland setback of 56 feet 10 inches; extend an
existing underground tunnel to the existing boat house with a shoreland setback
of 40 feet, and an arbor structure with a shoreland setback of 68 feet. Mr.
Eskuche utilized the overhead projector to show where these structures would
be located on the property.
Vice Chair Fyten asked Rojas to review the staff report. Rojas stated this
project meets the three part test for practical difficulty and staff recommends
approval of the project.
Lee asked if there would be any risks associated with the pool being so close to
the water. Rojas said the pool needs to meet building code requirements. The
contractor needs to provide information showing that the pool will not be
affected by the water level.
Wuttke asked,in regards to the tunnel,how high it is in regards to the water
level. Mr. Eskuche stated the water level is 855.3 and it is not higher or lower
than the boat house. They are not constructing a new tunnel but just extending
it. Rue said there should be no issue with the existing structure. Rojas stated
the DNR did receive a copy of the construction plans and did not provide
comments.
Vice Chair Fyten opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION by Wuttke, seconded by Lechelt, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION by Wuttke, seconded by Lee, to recommend approval of the Final
Order 2012.05. Motion carried 5-0.
B. RILEY VIEWS by Hunter Emerson, LLC
Location: 9400 Lake Riley Road; 18600 & 18700 Pioneer Trail.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2012
Page 3
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 13.4 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 13.4 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.4 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 13.4 acres into 28 lots, 2 outlots and road right of way
Scott Carlston, of Hunter Emerson,presented the proposal. He had a
PowerPoint presentation that he was going to show but decided to just hand out
the presentation to the Commission members. The packet contained such things
as the housing types and a map. He stated this project is similar to the Stone
Gate Development, which is across the street. The development will contain 28
lots. There is one main entrance in this development and they do not anticipate
any traffic backup on Pioneer Trail.
Vice Chair Fyten asked Rojas to review the staff report. Rojas stated staff
recommendation is for approval based on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report.
Vice Chair Fyten opened the meeting up for public input.
Paul Shunacker, is here on behalf of his parents who live at 9450 Lakeland
Terrace. He stated they have two lots. They are concerned about privacy along
the LRT line. They are requesting the project proponent put up arbor along the
LRT side. Mr. Shunacker said his parents would like to see spruce or pine
along the lot lines. They would also like to see the creek protected.
Mr. Carlston said he would be happy to do those things and would like to put 10
inch trees up if possible, versus 3 inch trees. Rojas said these items would be on
the revised final plans prior to going to the City Council. She pointed out the
creek is a dedicated outlot to the City.
Mr. Carlston introduced Randy,his engineer on site. Mr. Carlston utilized the
overhead projector to show where each of the waivers would be located. Randy
said the lot depth is less than 150 feet from the road. In some areas, we do not
even have that, and that is the reason for the setback. There is a corner lot that
is less than 90 feet, and that is the result of the City requesting an extra right-a-
way. The cul-de-sac length is due to the access road.
Lee asked, in regards to the cul-de-sac, could we change this into a long horse
shoe and come out unto Pioneer Trail and then we would not need a cul-de-sac.
Rue said that due to the site lines and topography in the area, it would be too
expensive to have another road and that is when we allowed them to have an
extra-long cul-de-sac. We would like this connection constructed at a later date
and those details are in the staff report.
Lechelt asked Lee what he was concerned with in regards to the waivers. Lee
said he has a concern with the third request, the 30 to 25 feet. Wuttke asked if
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2012
Page 4
this would be an average for all of the lots. Mr. Carlston explained this property
is a narrow piece of land and they thought the 25 feet should be consistent
throughout the whole property.
Wuttke asked what was staff s idea about using Abre Court for a western cut
through for traffic, and would there be any concern with this. Rue said there is
not a lot of concern with cut through traffic and pointed out they are providing
emergency access through Crestview Terrace.
Kirk pointed out by the time the Crestview cut through is done, Pioneer Trail
will be re-developed and stated he believes emergency access is important.
Vice Chair Fyten asked Kirk if he was comfortable with the 25 foot setback.
Kirk said he was comfortable with this setback.
Charlie Stone, 9430 Riley Lake Road, in the Stone Gate Development, asked
the developer if this project was going to be done in one phase and if there will
be a holding pond. And if there will be a holding pond will there be a fountain
in the holding pond. He stated he is president of the Stone Gate Development
Association and asked about a tenant who built a retaining wall inside an
easement. They notified the City and the City did not do anything. If this
would happen again, would the City do anything? Also, in regards to the traffic
study,he stated they have a lot of traffic parking in the area around the 4th of
July.
Mr. Carlston addressed Mr. Stone's questions and said, in regards to the
fountain at Stone Gate, the neighbors down the way were complaining because
they were paying for it to run and they could not see it. Because of the
complaining they will not be putting up a fountain in this construction. In
regards to the retaining wall, the City was out many times to try and work
something out with the resident. He said he was not sure what the resolve was
with the City. In regards to the trailer parking, there is a parking lot at Lake
Riley for this. Fox stated in regards to Riley Park, there are 15 spots dedicated
for trailer parking. We only regulate that there be no parking along Riley Lake
Road. In regards to parking on Pioneer Trail, certain segments are available for
parking, but that is up to the county in regulating this.
Judy McKloskey, of 18776 Pines Way, said she is glad that the road across from
Crestwood Terrace is not going to go through at this time. She said she is
relieved and that is why she is here tonight.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Wuttke, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Wuttke, to recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development concept Review on 13.4 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 13.4 acres, Zoning District
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 2012
Page 5
Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 13.4 acres into
28 lots, 2 outlots and road right of way based on plans stamped dated November
19, 2012 and the staff report dated November 21, 2012. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
Rojas said the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for December 10th
Currently there are no public hearings scheduled.
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT
A. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE—LIGHT RAIL
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
Wuttke asked,in regards to parking boats or trailers, could the city put signage around
areas to keep spaces available for the residents in their area. Rue said it is a balance as
to what the neighborhood wants. He stated signs can be put up,but they are not
selective, meaning if a no-parking sign is up, the residents cannot park their either.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Wuttke, seconded by Lechelt, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
5-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.