Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 04/12/2021AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 12, 2021 - 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Rachel Markos, Robert Taylor STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER A. Robert Taylor III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. MINUTES A. Approval of the Minutes for the March 22, 2021 meeting VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BOA 2021-01 – 8500 FRANLO ROAD Request for: • Variance from the front yard setback to place a new sign VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner RE: Planning Commission Meet ing for Monday, April 12, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________ MONDAY, April 12, 2021 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBER A. ROBERT TAYLOR III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, March 22, 2021 MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated March 22, 2021. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BOA 2021-01 – 8500 FRANLO ROAD Request: • To construct a monument sign with a zero (0) foot front yard setback. The variance request is to reduce the required front yard setback from 10 feet to zero (0) feet. The proposed variance is intended to locate the sign on top of a landscape berm so the sign will be visible from the public right -of-way. Variances may be granted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and meet statutory criteria. The proposed variance meets the general purposes and statutory criteria as identified in the Staff Report dated 04-12-2021. Staff recommends approval. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to approve Variance Request #2021-01 based on information outlined in the Staff Report dated April 12, 2021, and Findings and Conditions of Final Order #2021-01. VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT ANNOTATED AGENDA April 12, 2021 Page 2 VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner ; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of March 8, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS NOBLE HILL (2021-02) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Dean Lotter, manager of Land Planning and Entitlement for Pulte Homes presented a PowerPoint and gave some background on the company, presented the plan, and summarized the homes to be built. The previous 2030 City Comprehensive Plan had this site slated for three different uses, low density residential, medium density residential, and office. Historically it had been a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 2 private residence and a tree farm, and it was currently zoned as Rural. Future guidance as to zoning was low density residential. The Standal Property was divided into parcels one, two and three, none of which included the Fredrick Miller Spring, its source, or the watershed of which the spring was a part. Sand Prairie habitat would also be protected as part of the development. Lotter showed where Riley Creek was on parcel three and stated this would be protected. The Pulte Plan would preserve over a third (31 percent) of the site as open space, which protected all the sensitive areas mentioned. Gonyea had previously proposed a very similar development. The present proposal would have 50 instead of 59; it would preserve 14 percent more trees; and the impervious surface would be reduced by 5 percent. There would also be more tree planted (250) than Gonyea planned (215). No trees would be removed from Hennepin Village Property. Phase One was plantings on the perimeter of the property. Lotter displayed the Noble Hill home design. The houses would be between 3,100 and 6,000 square feet not including the basements and would have three bedrooms and three-car garages. Lotter gave the preliminary timeline: The PUD preliminary plat would be approved March/May. The final plat was to be approved in June. Site development work would begin in summer or fall of 2021, homes would be sold beginning fall/winter of 2021, and the full build of the neighborhood would be completed by the end of 2024. Lotter explained the waivers being requested were consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Fredrick Miller Spring would not be impacted. It would protect sensitive areas, with 31 percent of that land being open space. A PUD typically included only 10-15 percent. Farr asked how the neighborhood meeting went. Lotter replied he did hold one in February. 15 or 16 people attended virtually. Lotter had run through a similar presentation as the one given tonight. Questions were predominantly about saving trees, including a stand of pine trees in block two which would be removed. June Grass Lane was renamed from the Lark Sparrow Lane cul-de-sac. He also presented how the view sheds would appear to neighbors. A row of 10-foot trees would be planted above a retaining wall. A lot of views from existing homes would be effectively screened. Mette asked for and received clarification that nothing would change the Fredrick Miller Spring or how it operated either during construction or after the development was complete. Lotter explained the source of the spring was on the west side of the road. The pipe was brought under the road to the east. DeSanctis asked if the possible impact on pollinators, flowering plants, and insects had been studied. There was a unique combination of pine and deciduous PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 3 trees on the property. Lotter replied he recognized Outlot D, which would be preserved. The site would be walked; it had previous been walked with Alliant Engineering that worked with the previous applicant. A survey would be done this spring that would look at all the sensitive vegetation particularly the Kittentail vegetation, which might not exist where the homes were to be built. This was one of the conditions of approval in the staff report. Higgins asked Lotter to give some indication of what the reasons were for the various retaining walls in the development . There was a substantial number of them, and the homeowners would presumably have the responsibility for maintenance. Lotter responded the site itself had 100 feet of topographic relief from east to west. The grade changes were substantial and posed a challenge for appropriate draining and basins. The goal was to not have the streets at a sharp grade. The retaining walls would allow different grades and elevations to be maintained over time. The number of retaining walls in the present application was a 30 percent decrease over the original plan. Klima presented the staff report. This included a rezoning request from Rural to R1-9.5. A project very similar to this one had been reviewed and recommended for approved by the Planning Commission, but that had eventually been withdrawn before City Council review. This plan included the design of outlots to handle water treatment and the connection to a trail. Outlots A and C were proposed to be owned by the applicant and included stormwater management facilities. Outlot B, which included a trail connection, would be deeded to the City. Outlot D with its stormwater management facilities and environmental features would also be deeded to the City for preservation. The developer has had conversations with Hennepin Village and would continue to do so regarding a trail connection between that project and Noble Hill. The Homeowners’ Association was set to meet with the developer on April 1. An endangered species review had been conducted and a few species could be impacted. Therefore, a field assessment would be conducted this spring. The development agreement would include language that addressed how the endangered species would be addressed and a timeline for specialized treatment if any were found to be present in the field assessment. Pulte Homes sustainable features included: home energy rating system (HERS) score, an archeological review was prepared as a part of the Gonyea project, and staff asked the State Archeologist to review this. The State Archeologist concluded this report was still relevant. Hennepin County, the airport, and the Watershed District were also contacted, and the Airport did comment, asking the City to reconsider single-family residences on this property, or notify future residents of the Flying Cloud Airport and that noise attenuation be extended to these homes. In addition to the neighborhood meeting, 35 written comments were received from both Eden Prairie residents and those outside of Eden Prairie. Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 4 also fielded two phone calls. In addition, a number of residents had signed up to speak tonight. The majority of comments were regarding the spring, which was designated as a local heritage site and is not part of this development but on a parcel of land owned to the City. Staff recommended approval of the applications as proposed. Kirk requested additional City staff from City Engineering and the Parks and Recreation Department to comment on the spring. Matt Bourne reiterated that there were no changes proposed for the spring. The water under question was on the west side of Spring Road and development on the east side and the other side of the creek would have no impact. Rue added an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was done approximately 10 years ago. Back then there had been a proposal to make road connections in this area and various alternative had been discussed. Language in the EAW showing no impact from the proposed road extensions was provided in the current staff report. Gooding asked if this project was approved, what would be the costs for maintenance, which would lie on the private homeowners’ association, and what the liability for them (likely significant) if something happened to the proposed multiple retaining walls. Klima replied the development agreement would include language stating the multiple retaining walls would be maintained by the HOA rather than by the City. How those HOA documents were drafted to specifically assign financial responsibility would not be included in the development agreement. This would be a private matter between the HOA and the property owners, and the City would not maintain those retaining walls long term. Farr asked for and received clarification the street connection to the east of June Grass Lane was a right of way but connected to a private street. He asked if this was why the City could not force a connection at this time. Rue replied the public right of way went up the property line of Hennepin Village to an outlot owned by the association. Best case scenario had the developer working with the HOA on a connection, where there were drainage and utilities easements. The easement was maintained by the City but the street was not. Farr asked for and received confirmation the City intended to reduce cul-de-sac lanes by having this connection. Farr asked for and received confirmation the walking path with the pedestrian bridge leading up the hill over Riley Creek to a bluff overlook on the south side of Hennepin Village was a City trail and would remain open to the public. Rue added t he only change would be a trail going from this proposed development to the existing asphalt path along the existing trail corridor. Farr asked if there had been a discussion regarding boulder retaining wall material matching the previous proposal. Klima replied City staff would continue to work with the developer on the materials detail. Farr then stated he sensed skepticism regarding government and applicant’s comments the protection of the spring and stormwater management on the part of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 5 the public present tonight and asked for staff to speak to the rigor of the watershed district review process. Rue replied staff had had conversations with the developer, the engineer, and the watershed district. Any application to the watershed district would likely be concurrent with this one. The requirements from the watershed and the City were rigorous. There were four ponds on this site in series, meaning one treated pond would drain into the next before the water discharge d into the creek. There would be a number of best management practices (BMPs) in place. DeSanctis asked if there had been planning regarding the possibility of a 100-year flood and creating a buffer against a 5/6/7-inch rain accumulation. Rue replied part of the analysis going into these developments, particularly with a creek, included an inundation model which was more than a 100-year event; it actually modeled and planned for protection against a 500-1,000-year event with 10 inches of rain. Rebecca Prochaska, 15781 Porchlight Lane, Eden Prairie, distributed and displayed a PowerPoint and explained her request for the commission to deny the rezoning on the strength of 1,087 signatures on a petition, and the area’s uniquely significant ecological area which only occurred in one-quarter of Eden Prairie and which was designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) of international significance. She stated the building of 50 new homes would remove 456 trees and significantly impact the environment, safety, and community. She explained the impacts on the Fredrick-Miller Spring, which while not directly affected would be placed at high risk, and on the Riley Creek Watershed, which was in a denigrated state. Trees and natural heritage species, both plant and animal, would also be adversely affected, and there were at least two plants that were 1) a special concern species, Evening Primrose, and 2) a threatened species, Kittentail. By definition a heritage tree was irreplaceable. Facts were from the USGS Agricultural website. Another concern was potentially unsafe traffic patterns due to inadequate sight-distance. There was extensive metrowide and statewide support for the commission to deny this rezoning. She urged the commission to retain the site’s Rural zoning. Gle nn Elo , 9755 Cupole Lane, Eden Prairie, and treasurer of the Board of Directors of Hennepin Village Master Association, spoke on the proposed pedestrian/biking trail connecting Hennepin Village to this development via June Grass Lane. The trail as currently proposed would provide emergency vehicle access to this development via June Grass Lane at Hennepin Village. The trail would be 10-12 feet wide and would prohibit nonemergency vehicular traffic. He expressed concern the width of the trail would encroach on sub-association owned property on both sides of the trail and would affect there Hennepin Village development where it cross. He concluded an easement should be purchased by the developer, or June Grass Lane be made a full, City-maintained street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 6 Hennepin Village was not willing to assume any costs or responsibilities for this trail. Chesney Enqu ist, 4549 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis, who traveled regularly to the spring for her physical and mental health, stated every body of water was connected, including the body of water that was human beings. She urged the commission to adopt an attitude of gratitude toward the important bodies of water in Eden Prairie, including the spring. She expressed concern for the health of the spring, the environment, the community, and the animals. She thanked the commission for its stewardship thus far and looked forward to future conversations. Russ Enquist, 4549 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis, founder of Bee Safe Minnesota, stated road salts, pesticide and herbicides runoff would adversely affect the spring. He and his wife educated children on the importance of pollinators and the current mass extinction. He asked the commission to be a hero and not to rob the children’s future. Ronald A Seeley, 609 Market Street South, Shakopee, stated there were five topics in question: the rezoning, effect on the endangered flora , the loss of 450 trees, the water movement vulnerable to intrusive houses, and the effect of this development on antlered animals. Maggie Schmitz, 15605 Lund Road North, Eden Prairie, stated she and her partner chose to build lives in Eden Prairie in part due to the spring. She asked the commission review the EAW conducted in 2007, because the commission did not have all the information. This development was not the road development proposed in 2007. She stated also a wildlife study needed to be done in spring. An EIS was not required because there were less than 1,000 houses to be built, but she urged that one be done in this special situation. Patricia Oen, 7926 South Bay Curve, Eden Prairie, stated she and her husband Dan were 32-year residents of Eden Prairie. She urged the Planning Commission to retain the current Rural zoning. The bottom line was the possible risk to this unique treasure that was a part of the community. She displayed a book by Murray Wirtenburg stating the spring was known about for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived. It was visited by people from all over the Metro Area, even from Northfield. Damage to the spring would be an incalculable loss and while there was no direct threat, there was also no guarantee it would not be affected. Impervious surfaces would impact the entire watershed including the spring. The development would benefit only a few people, meaning this would privatize the benefits but socialize the losses, which was a risk she did not think the commission should take. She added today was World Water Day with the theme of “The Value of Water.” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 7 Ted Hanners, 6 Crestview Terrace, Chaska, stated the bottom line for him was that the term “develop” was a politically correct way of saying “mass killer.” He stated the spring was also “developed.” Sophia, 8800 Tretbaugh Drive, Bloomington stated the world was losing 137 species of plant, animals and insects every day due to deforestation, which in Minnesota was mostly due to the building of roads, houses and buildings. Dramatic decrease in forest caused climate change, soil erosion, increased greenhouse gases, and more adverse effect. She had hope for the future. Pollution and deforestation were huge problems many people did not look at. She stated when one took something small it turns into something bigger. Sever Peterson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated the property in question was his uncle’s farm. He spoke in favor of this project . He stated he appreciated the comments and concerns raised tonight from those who visited the spring and valued it , but he believed in landowner rights, which were what financed the ability to take care of these treasures. The City needed that tax base. Commission member Farr had mentioned expertise, and he had confidence in City staff. Sanie Seeborn, 5148 42nd Avenue South, Minneapolis, stated she had been visiting the spring for most of her life, as had her grandparents and parents, and she now brought her children. This was a big opportunity to lead by example. Some pollinators had a less than 24-hour lifespan, and a field study in April might miss them. Pollinators were fed by the spring. People visited the spring even from out of state. She urged the commission to expand on science, conservation, and teaching about the environment. The people were looking for change. Donald Callahan, 414 Ash Street South, Sauk Centre, asked for clarification as there seemed to be three proposals. He asked for and received confirmation that the commission members and staff had visited the site of the proposed development. He asked where the development was in relation to the spring. Klima pulled up the satellite view of the site and explained the three properties of the development and that the majority of the construct ion would take place on parcels one and two . Mr. Callahan pointed out some empty lots to the northeast and asked why this was not developed instead of the forested area in the watershed. He stated it would then destroy the watershed. He also urged low - income housing be constructed Theresa Hallo nen, 853 Winnetka Avenue North, Golden Valley, stated she had stood outside the spring for three days straight and asked people if they knew about this development . Only one in twenty did. This was her sole source of water. She displayed a list of names she had collected against this proposal. All bodies of water are connected, and this development would contribute salt and chemicals to the spring and the environment. She asked why a huge sign was not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 8 displayed at the spring about this development or why a greater effort to inform the public was not done. Bruce Ferris, 6931 Autumn Terrace, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 25-year resident of Eden Prairie, having left Florida. He did not notice an improvement in the city despite all the developments. He displayed an August 2010 copy of Money Magazine which listed Eden Prairie as number one and displayed a photograph of the prairie bluff area and noted the irony. He acknowledged the importance of property rights but spoke against another misplaced, copycat development on a beautiful piece of land. Deborah Ramo s, 520 2nd Street Southeast #414, Minneapolis, introduced herself as an indigenous Latinx person who also visited the spring. She stated she saw the spring, the creek, and the hill as a system of life. She asked if the developers had heard of Line Three, the pipeline proposed to be built through the Mississippi River headwaters, wetlands, and creek tributary, and of the Standing Rock Community that protested in 2016 against the pipeline. She stated this elitist housing development would impact much more than the people who would live in it, contributing to climate change and effecting native lands and plants and animals. She stated no one had the right to own land and do with it as they saw fit, as the earth was a living entity. She urged the commission to live in harmony with the earth. Matthew Mueller, an Eden Prairie resident at 8673 Grier Lane, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 29-year resident. He shared two quotes about the spring, one from City Manager Scott Neal and another from the Minnesota Department of Health on the recharge area of springs possibly being affected. He asked if the commission had researched the possible effect on the recharge area of this spring. David Smith, 9500 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was not opposed to landowners’ right to sell, but to the rezoning of this site. He asked if there were other sites in Eden Prairie to develop instead of this one. As a public-school teacher at all five public schools, he was concerned about the quality of life and green natural areas in this site. He encouraged denial of the application. Mitch Michaelson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, stated he was a 39- year resident. He voiced support for this proposed project citing three areas: landowner rights, the process of decision, and the City of Eden Prairie. He stated the Standel family wonderful neighbors, stewards of the land, and wonderful citizens of the community. He strongly supported their ability and wish to sell their land. He commended the decision-making process of staff, government agencies and commission members. He supported the guidance of the City in infrastructure and planning. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 9 Paige Carlson, 5320 Washburn, Minneapolis, stated the completed EAW had not been done for this housing development but for a road extension in 2007, and the two developments were not comparable. She added Bourne’s statement that it should not impact the spring did not mean it would not impact it, and Rue did not address real steps for protection. She asked if the spring and wildlife were affected, who would be held accountable, and what the City was leaving its children. Matt Quinnell, 412 East 1st Street, Chaska, stated the City water piped into his house in Chaska was undrinkable. His disclosed his parents owned the retaining wall company that has built the retaining walls for this developer, and he was taking a risk in speaking tonight. He understood the handling of water flow. His point of contention with Pulte, based on his previous work with them, was in the handling of runoff. He added this appeared to be “political theatre” and he hoped Pulte will make a more serious and concise effort to deal with runoff in this and all other future developments. He offered to answer any questions regarding the retaining walls, and quoted, “Our ability to measure has exceeded our ability to understand.” Michel Maske, 5820 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, spoke in opposition to the development. He asked if there were any provisions or verbiage to address unintended effects, and what the community could do to offset the potential tax revenue if this development was not approved. Jessica Schultz, 8056 Rose Street, Victoria, asked what could be done to prevent pesticides and herbicides runoff from this development. Sheree Bermel, 24 Bayview Circle, Chaska stated she was previously a resident of Eden Prairie and had just learned about this development. She stated the community needed more notice. She wondered about cash compensation for this development and if the City received cash compensation for an approval. This development was within 20 miles of 20 golf courses that could be developed instead. She suspected the motive behind this proposal was the tax incentive it brought with it and did not believe this development would not adversely affect the spring or contribute to the deterioration of Riley Creek. She thanked the speakers for coming and urged the commission members to deny the application. Justin D’Angelo, a Chaska resident , asked the rigorous metrics mentioned by Rue be made public, or an independent study be done. There were 1,037 signatures for this and counting. He added Eden Prairie should c hange its nature-based logo on its signage if this development was approved. Scott Haddamann, 10002 Indigo Drive in Eden Prairie, stated he was a 31-year resident, and his wife was a 34-year resident. Woods and bluffs had been lost in previous developments. He stated Beth Novak-Krebs received a letter from him PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 10 and five of his neighbors. He passed around his cell phone with a photograph off his back deck showing 51-year -old heritage trees. He agreed with property owner rights but they did not have to affect his property owner rights. He stated he had researched the area before he bought the home, and this site had been slated for development for a long time. A similar crowd to the crowd tonight showed up in opposition for the last developer. The neighborhood meeting held was not well publicized if there were only 15 people that showed up, and the proposal one year later was the same except for nine fewer houses. Now he would get to look at shingles, siding, and chimneys. He saw all the animals on the first speaker’s slide plus a few she had not included from his back deck every day. He expected to lose one-fifth of his retirement money. The landowner didn’t have a right to make a profit on what he wished because he needed it rezoned, while affecting other landowners’ property values. He saw this as a tax grab that would have a domino effect. Any tax benefit would be erased with the neighborhood loss of value. The houses on either side of him went up for sale last year due to this fear. He concluded by saying he hoped the previous speaker was wrong about “political theatre.” Rachel Octonaus, Chanhassen, stated she lived near Riley Creek by Lake Susan and had been getting water at the spring since young. As a nurse she thought the water in Chanhassen was not safe to drink. She did not believe that 50 houses were worth the risk and asked the commission members to consider nature and what this community was all about . Jeff Buroviack,Borowiak, Minneapolis, stated he did not believe the EAW was accurate. He had a degree in biology from Carleton College, and stated the east side of the valley was part of the whole ecosystem. Damage to one side of a valley affected the other, and this was seen in Colorado. The Christmas tree farm was old and hopefully not loaded with pesticides, which would run downhill to the ground water. There would be a constant flow downhill from roofs from this new development. The wilderness area next to a housing development would be profoundly disturbed. He urged the commission members to find a way for the elders to buy out of that property without developing it; perhaps it could be augmented by organic farming. This was not an environmentally sustainable development . Mapurah Parduh, Shakopee, urged the commission members to consider the long- term impact of having too much impervious surfaces. She was also concerned about the possible contamination of the spring. Her culture taught her to take only what was needed from nature. Ingrid DeFrien, Bloomington, stated she is a former Eden Prairie resident and nature was being lessened and this was an opportunity to stop that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 11 Dave Knotting stated he drove an hour-and-a-half each way to get this water, which he shared with friends and family. He could not tell his two brothers, who had health benefits from this water, they could no longer get the spring water due to this development. He saw a connection between the increase in autism and the increase of toxins in the environment. He urged the commission to preserve this body of water that so many people depended on. John Richardson, a contractor and builder, stated this particular development did not make sense. He did not believe that adding these homes would not be an adverse environmental impact. He commended the vibrant impact of the objections and stated he found the claim of no impact on this spring to be foolish. He agreed the landowners should be able to sell the land, but rezoning it endangered the land. He was in favor of building good quality homes but opposed building homes in this instance. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. Kirk stated there was an assumption people make that commissioners work for the City. He emphasized commission members actually were volunteers that were not paid by the City or by any other entity. In addition, the Planning Commission members did not make the final decision; they could only make recommendations to the City Council, which did make that decision. He urged the passionate activists in the public to serve on a commission themselves and channel their energies toward helping Eden Prairie be a better place. Mette stated she was a user and advocate of the spring and would never support a proposal that impacted it. She did read the EAW done for the proposed extensions of Spring Road. The groundwater flow had not changed since then. She was taking in the information and attempting to make a decision of fact. The zoned Rural use allowed for low-density housing and agricultural uses, including a farm using fertilizer, and stables which could have manure smell and runoff, which neighbors would not like. This proposal had storm water draining and filtering that would protect Riley Creek. It was an improvement from the last proposal, and she saw sufficient evidence it would not affect the spring. Riley Creek could potentially be impacted but the runoff would be treated and mitigated. The commission’s job was to review the proposal and make sure it was taking all required measurements the commission required to protect the site, and therefore she saw no reason to deny this application. DeSanctis noted the City’s Aspire Comprehensive Plan called for more affordable housing but this development was building homes in the upper $600,000.00 range, out of reach of most people. He stated he was impressed by the spirit of the public coming together to speak to the community’s physical and emotional wellbeing and agreed there was no guarantee the watershed would not be sullied. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 12 He stated he could not support this development or rezoning plan in its current form and was o pposed to this development plan. Gooding stated this was a difficult piece of land for development. The topography was poor, and he d idn’t like the extensive use of retaining walls, which could become a long-term headache for homeowners. He thought the loss of trees should not be taken lightly and was concerned about sightlines. He had not yet read the EAW, but he could not support the application. Markos stated she had reviewed the Gonyea development and was surprised and impressed by the input from the community. She did not think a proper EAW had been done to this site for this development, despite the due diligence by Pulte. She agreed with Mette the zoning came with its own environmental challenges, but she could not support making this change to the site at this time. She urged the commission to do more work before approving this development. Higgins stated she had deeply considered the public’s opposition, but the development had pulled back on building on every space that could have been developed. The public had raised concerns she had not considered, but it was time for this development to move forward, and she did support it. The area to the east was the largest housing project in Eden Prairie and she lived closed to it, and it was 20 years old. She understood the concerns of the public, the adjacent development, and the need for access of emergency vehicles. She stated she would support this proposal. Farr stated he was a 40-year resident of Eden Prairie who went to the spring every week and drank from its water every day. It was a great source of pride for the City and the Metropolitan area. Commission members were charged to protect the City’s resources and were passionate in protecting the spring, and the City had invested in land preservation as a top priority. Eden Prairie had an extraordinary percentage of land set aside for parks, streams, lakes, and various natural features already invested. All development had impacts; the commission members had to find a tipping point, and to do so he turned to science and technology. Even preservation could be damaging if not handled properly. Soil conditions were taken into account by the experts in water runoff. Gravity prevailed and the spring was upland from this development. He saw no adverse effect on the spring or its source. The watershed district had significantly more stringent regulations than those imposed on Riley Creek, which accounts for its deterioration, which was a fact. He believed in property rights, and it was not in the purview of the commission to decide land could not be owned. This parcel could be developed with more units per acre, but it was not going to be. He thought that science prevailed with the water management plan, and staff would monitor how the contractor built this project, which he would support. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 13 Kirk stated the commission’s job was balance of many conflicting points of information. Tax base had nothing to do with his decision; he wanted what was best for the community. He had been on this commission for 13 years and found staff to be credible with a high level of expertise. The commission and rules and codes and laws to follow regarding landowner rights. There were things the commission could and could not do, because otherwise someone could sue the City. He also seriously considered community input, and many times it had changed his perspective. Lastly, he drew upon his own set of values. He had voted for the Gonyea development and would support this one. There were no guarantees, but he believed the evidence was strong the stream would be safe. The public input was important to him and made this a tight call, but the balance was for him to support this proposal. He added he would like to see what more the commission can do to educate the community. Pieper asked staff to review the next steps for the watershed. Rue replied the watershed would review all of the applicant’s calculations, treatments, removal of phosphorus, preexisting and subsequent conditions, probably concurrently with the City’s review. Kirk added he had attended a number of the watershed district meetings, which had a parallel public hearing process similar to this process in Eden Prairie. The watershed regulations were strict , and the developer had to follow them by law. He was confident that in the vast majority of the time the development could actually improve the water quality. Lotter stated the watershed permit had been applied for last week and that approval process was running concurrently with this one. Klima stated it was typical for the City to condition that the developer to provide a watershed district permit to the City before the City issued a land alteration permit. Pieper noted this was a very difficult decision. He found this a better development than last time, with fewer houses, and low density. He also had memories of visiting the spring and assured the public he would never do anything detrimental to it. While he was not an environmental expert, he found it followed Aspire 2040 and was in support of recommending this project to the City Council. MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Farr to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres, Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres based on plans stamp dated Feb 19, 2021 and the staff report dated March 18, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 5-3 (Markos, DeSanctis, Gooding opposed). VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2021 Page 14 VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I DATE: April 12, 2021 SUBJECT: Variance Request #2021-01 APPLICANT: Margaret Thompson and Joel Johnson OWNER: Eden Hills Condominium Homeowner’s Association LOCATION: 8500 Franlo Road 120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD: June 29, 2021 REQUEST: • To construct a monument sign with a zero (0) foot front yard setback. City Code requires a 10 foot front yard setback. BACKGROUND The subject property is zoned RM-2.5 and is classified by the Comprehensive Guide Plan as Medium High Density Residential. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 10 foot sign setback requirement to construct a monument sign for the condominium association. The proposed sign will not have footings and will be located on a small concrete pad north of the existing driveway, shown by a red dot in the provided image. There is a berm along the full length of the subject property’s front lot line to provide parking lot screening. There is approximately 17 feet of City owned right of way between the subject property’s front lot line and the curb. The existing sign south of the driveway will be removed, noted by a blue dot in the provided image. The existing sign location is within the 10 foot sign setback; locating the new sign in the same location as the existing sign would also prompt a variance request for setbacks as records indicate a variance was not granted when the original sign was installed. The new location is preferred to increase visibility of the sign Staff Report – Variance #2021-01 January 11, 2021 Page 2 for vehicles traveling either north or south on Franlo Road. The existing sign is only visible to vehicles traveling south on Franlo Road as demonstrated in the applicant’s photos. VARIANCE REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a zero (0) foot setback from the front lot line to construct a monument sign. City Code requires a 10 foot front yard setback for all signs. EVALUATING VARIANCES AGAINST STATUTORY CRITERIA Variances may be granted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Furthermore, variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed request is not in conflict with the goals and intent of the land use identified in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The variance request aligns with standards of the Medium High Density Residential guiding. Granting the variance does not change residential land use of the property. 2. Harmony with the Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance The request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The intention behind the 10 foot sign setback requirement is to ensure signs do not impede traffic sightlines or project into the right of way. There is 17 feet of City owned right of way between the subject property’s front lot line and the curb, which ensures the sign will not impede traffic sight lines if located at the property line as requested. 3. Unique Circumstance The variance request is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the current landowner. The berm along the front lot line was installed when the condominium building was constructed. Berms were typical in developments in Eden Prairie throughout 1980s and 1990s to provide parking lot screening. Additionally, there is 17 feet of City owned right of way between the subject property’s front lot line and the curb. Based on the setback requirements, this would mean any sign on this property would be at least 27 feet from the curb. Having a sign located so far from the street limits its visibility to emergency services, visitors, and deliveries. 4. Alteration of the Essential Neighborhood Character The variance would not be out of character within the neighborhood. Most of the neighboring land uses are multifamily residential and have monument signs in prominent locations to provide wayfinding for guests, deliveries, and emergency services. The sign is a similar style Staff Report – Variance #2021-01 January 11, 2021 Page 3 to neighboring properties, and the location will not be out of place due to the large strip of right of way between the curb and the subject property’s front lot line. 5. Reasonable Use of Property The use of the property, a condominium building, is not proposed to change as part of this application. The land use is a permitted and reasonable use. All multifamily buildings in Eden Prairie are allowed one (1) monument sign per site entrance. The proposed sign design meets City Code requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The granting of the variance is in harmony with intent and general purposes of the ordinance and the nature of the variance requested is consistent with the comprehensive guide plan. Staff recommends approval of the following request: 1. Approve Variance Final Order #2021-01 subject to plans stamp dated March 1, 2021 and March 19, 2021 and based on the information outlined in the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 12, 2021. The Commission may choose from one of the following actions: 1. Approve Final Order #2021-01 as presented. 2. Approve Final Order #2021-01 with modifications. 3. Continue Variance Request #2021-01 for additional information. 4. Deny Final Order #2021-01. DA R N E L JOINERFRANLOM E D C O M SHANNON CARDIFFJOY KATHRYNTIFFANY Eden Lake¯ Location Map: Variance Request #2021-01Address: 8500 Franlo RoadEden Prairie, MN 55344 0 310 620155 Feet Project SiteFlyingCloudPrairieCenter Eden LakeCity of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map 2010-2040 ¯ DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctness of the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages, including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information it contains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie. M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map was Updated/Created: April 18, 2008 Guide Plan Map: Variance Request #2021-01Address: 8500 Franlo RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Rural Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Migh Density Residential High Density Residential Mixed-Use Town Center Transit-Oriented Development Regional Commercial Commercial Office Industrial Flex Tech Flex Service Eco Innovation Industrial Airport Public / Semi-Public Parks & Open Space Golf Course Utility & Railroad Right-of-Way 390 0 390195 FeetFRANLOROADFLYINGCLOUDDRIVEPRAIRIECENTERDRIVE Project Site Date Approved: 10-01-2019 JOINERFRANLOPRAIRIE CENTERM E D C O M SHANNON GRIERCARDIFFJOY WILDERFLYING CLOUDPRAIRI E C E N T E R City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinance and attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. ¯ Up dated through approved Ordinances #26-2008 Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Date: March 1, 2020 0 0.10.05 Miles DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctness of the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages, including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information it contains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed. Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialZoning.mxd Map was Updated/Created: June 11, 2008 Zoning Map: Variance Request #2021-01Address: 8500 Franlo RoadEden Prairie, MN 55344 Rural R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Airport Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Airport Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial TC-C TC-R TC-MU TOD-E TOD-R Transit Oriented Development - Residential Transit Oriented Development - Residential TOD-MU Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Parks and Open Space Golf Course Water Right of Way Project Site PRA I R I E C E N T E R FRANLOGRIERM E D C O M JOY PRA I R I E C E N T E R ¯ Aerial Map: Variance Request #2021-01Address: 8500 Franlo RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 0 310 620155 Feet Project SiteFlyingCloud VARIANCE #2021-01 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER #2021-01 APPLICANT: Margaret Thompson and Joel Johnson ADDRESS: 8500 Franlo Road OTHER DESCRIPTION: Legal Description – see attached Exhibit B VARIANCE REQUEST: • To construct a monument sign with a zero (0) foot front yard setback. City Code requires a 10 foot front yard setback. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (Yes No ). 2. Variance #2021-01 is: _____ granted _____ modified _____ denied 3. Findings and conditions are attached as Exhibit A. 4. This order shall be effective fifteen days after the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or on April 27, 2021; however, this variance shall expire one year after the date of the approval unless the applicant has commenced the authorized improvements or use or has received an extension of the time period as provided below. The applicant may submit a request for a one-time extension of up to one year from the original expiration date. Said extension shall be requested in writing to the City Planner at least 6 0 days prior to the expiration of the approval. The requested extension shall be reviewed by the City Planner. If the facts and circumstances under which the original variance was granted have not materially changed, the City Planner may approve the extension. If there has been a material change in circumstance since the granting of the variance, the City Planner shall submit the request for review and consideration by the Board. 5. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council Review. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT S AND APPEALS N/A = Not Applicable BY:________________________________________________ Planning Commission Chair – Andrew Pieper Date: 04-12-2021 EXHIBIT A – FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS VARIANCE #2021-01 FINDINGS “Practical difficulties” is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. The three practical difficulties include reasonableness, uniqueness, and maintaining the essential character of the neighborhood. Additionally, the variance must demonstrate harmony with other land use controls. 1. Reasonable use of the property - The first factor is the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. The use of the property is not proposed to change as part of this application. The land use is a permitted and reasonable use. The proposed use is consistent and in harmony with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and is a reasonable use of the property. 2. Unique circumstances - The second factor is that the property owner’s situation is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the property owner. There is a landscape berm along the full length of the front lot line to provide parking lot screening consistent with City Code requirements. Additionally, there is 17 feet of City-owned right of way between the curb and the property’s front lot line. Based on the setback requirements, this would mean any sign on this property would be at least 27 feet from the curb, which would be located behind the landscaping berm. Having a sign located so far from the street limits its visibility to emergency services, visitors, and deliveries. 3. Essential character of neighborhood - The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. The variance would not be out of character within the neighborhood. Most of the neighboring land uses are multifamily residential and have monument signs in prominent locations to provide wayfinding for guests, deliveries, and emergency services. The sign is a similar style to neighbo ring properties, The granting of the variance is in harmony with intent and general purposes of the ordinance and the nature of the variance requested is consistent with the comprehensive guide plan. CONDITIONS: • Subject to the information provided in the Staff R eport dated April 12, 2021, and plans stamp dated March 1, 2021 and March 19, 2021. EXHIBIT B – VARIANCE REQUEST #2021-01 Legal Description: THE NORTH 302 FEET OF THE EAST 322 FEET OF TRACT B, LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT A, R.L.S. NO. 168 AND THE SOUTH 150 FEET OF THE NORTH 452 FEET OF THE EAST 322 FEET OF TRACT B LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT A, R.L.S. NO. 168 Eden Hills Condominium 8500 Franlo Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Feb. 22,2021 TO: Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 Dear Planning Commission Members, We, the Board of the Eden Hills Condominium Association, are requesting a variance from the set-back requirement in place by the City of Eden Prairie at 8500 Franlo Road. Our aim is to place a new sign (Photo attached Exhibit A) on a grass berm in the front of our property. The city has 17’ of easement from the curb right now. If we were to adhere to your 10’ set-back requirement from the property line our sign would not be visible to anyone coming down the street as it would be on the back side of the berm, adjacent to our driveway. I have included some pictures that show the actual berm (Exhibit B-1); back side view from Driveway, (Exhibit B-2); Side view from street, (Exhibit B-3); Object depicting proposed placement of sign from street side (Exhibit B-4); picture with an object showing proposed placement from driveway side (Exhibit B-5); and picture showing where sign would be placed if adhering to the 10’ setback. (Exhibit B-6) You can see from the pictures provided that our desired placement is at the 17’ easement site but will leave more than enough space for snow removal by the city, and yet, will allow people coming to our building to see the address. 
 The stone sign that we are requesting is in line with the surrounding properties as you can see from accompanying photos. The townhouse project directly across from us has a stone address sign (Exhibit C-1) at their entrance. The Senior Living Facility has a combination stone and material sign (Exhibit C-2) at the front of their Eden Hills Condominium 8500 Franlo Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 property. The back of the Hennepin County Library is the other building, also across the street from us where they have added a stone raised growing area and tables on the back side that faces us across the street. Our current sign (ExhibitD-1) is also in the 17’ easement area and has a flourishing evergreen tree background that obscures it to some degree. Additionally, this sign is not visible if someone is coming from the South because it is angled to the North. Our proposed sign would be visible to people approaching from both North and South as well as being more visible for Emergency Vehicles. The way the sign will be constructed is there will be a cement slab just below grade which will provide support for the rock, which is a composite material, and will have mulch around it. There are no footings required for the sign. Upon completion of the proposed new sign, the old sign will be removed and properly disposed of. That you for your consideration of this request. 
 Margaret Thompson Board Member of Eden Hills Condominium Association 8500 FRANLO ROAD PHOTOS Exhibit A Proposed Sign Exhibit B-1 Berm from Street (Boulders next to Building) Exhibit B-2 8500 FRANLO ROAD PHOTOS Exhibit B-2 Backside of Berm from Driveway Exhibit B-3 Side View of Berm Street Side Exhibit B-4 Street View with Object depicting proposed sign placement 8500 FRANLO ROAD PHOTOS Exhibit B-5 Object showing proposed placement of sign from Driveway side Exhibit B-6 Object depicting sign placement @10’ Setback (Driveway Side) Exhibit C-1 Signage across Street 8500 FRANLO ROAD PHOTOS Exhibit C-2 Senior Living Signahge next door Exhibit D-1 Existing Sign South side of Drivewa From:HERBERT weisman To:Sarah Strain Subject:Fw: Sign Variance at 8500 Franlo Road Date:Thursday, March 18, 2021 7:20:41 PM From: HERBERT weisman <herbertweisman@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:59 PM To: sstrain@edpenprairie.org <sstrain@edpenprairie.org> Subject: Sign Variance at 8500 Franlo Road Dear Ms. Strain: Our names are Dr. and Mrs. Herbert Weisman. We are owners of a condominium at 8500 Franlo Road #307. At our last home owners meeting, the Board brought up replacing our address sign, and that it would require a variance from the City of Eden Prairie. We sincerely hope that the City will grant this variance. Historically, this is the original sign that was placed when this complex was built. It allows people coming from both directions on Franlo Road to see our address and entrance to the complex. The new sign will be substantially the same as the existing sign. It is our understanding that current regulations would require us to move this sign west about 15 feet. If this were done, a berm that is north of it, and the wooded area south of it would block people from seeing it in the new proposed location. Since the present location has not created a problem in nineteen years, we request that the City approve the variance allowing us to keep its present location. Thank you, Dr. Herbert and Mrs. Herbert N. Weisman, 8500 Franlo Road #307, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 From:Maureen Saunders To:Sarah Strain Subject:Signage for 8500 Franlo Road Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:54:03 AM Sarah.....We are residents at 8500 Franlo Road. We are eager to see the new sign installed and hope that the planning commission will approve it. Thanks......Maureen and Chet Saunders Sent from my iPad From:PAT LINDSLEY To:Sarah Strain Subject:Eden Hills Condos Variance request Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:36:16 PM I am a resident of the Eden Hills Condos at 8500 Franlo Road, Eden Prairie. I am writing to support the Condo Association's request for a sign variance for the Condo property. My Condo unit at Eden Hills is #105 my Phone is 952-479-7308. From:ORLANDO LOGELIN To:Sarah Strain Cc:Orlando Logelin Subject:New Address Sign Date:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:18:30 PM Sarah Strain This email confirms our request to remove the old existing address sign and a new stone sign be installed entitled 8500 Franlo Road. Orlando & Marcy Logelin Unit 301 8500 Franlo Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 From:Ferris Fletcher To:Sarah Strain Subject:BOA 2021 - 01 - 8500 Franlo Road Project Date:Saturday, March 27, 2021 4:00:43 PM Sarah Strain sstrain@edenprairie.org March 27, 2021 Dear Sarah Strain and Eden Prairie Planning Commission, I am writing with a positive comment about the BOA 2021-01 - 8500 Franlo Road project. I have lived at 8500 Franlo Road for nearly five years, and for that entire time span, we have been struggling with how to create signage for our driveway entry. When we started enquiries, we found out that our current sign was never permitted and would have required a variance. Our driveway presents a challenge because any sign would require a variance to be seen from both directions on Franlo Road. It seems that the monument sign that is proposed would deviate less from the regulations than other options. I believe that it is aesthetically pleasing and that it will last longer than a traditional sign attached to two poles. It also mirrors the monument sign for the townhouses across the street from our entry. I would be grateful if the planning commission would approve this request so that our five year quest to have a legitimate entry sign will be ended. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Ferris Fletcher 8500 Franlo Road Apt 211 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 getferris@hotmail.com From:Haskins To:Sarah Strain Subject:Sign at Eden Hills Condo Date:Sunday, March 28, 2021 11:57:35 AM Hello, I am writing in favor for the variance to place a new sign at Eden Hills Condominiums. A lot of hard work and thought has gone into this project and I think this new sign will enhance the presentation of our building . I hope the planning commissions will approve our request. Thank you jean Haskins Homeowner. From:City of Eden Prairie To:Sarah Strain Subject:April 12th Planning Commission Meeting Date:Wednesday, March 31, 2021 10:59:48 AM Message submitted from the <City of Eden Prairie> website. Site Visitor Name: Steven C. Frank Site Visitor Email: scfrank2@comcast.net Hi Sarah-I was on the Planning Commission for 3 years and now live in the Eden Hills Condominium Building on Franlo Road. I know that on the 12th of April the Planning Commission will review a variance request for a new stone sign for our Building. I just wanted to offer my very strong support for the granting of our variance request. Our current sign is run down and was never permitted. The new sign in boulder form would dramatically improve the quality of our sign and should not create any problems for future City right-of-way needs. If Franlo Road should need to expand using the right-of-way, the boulder could be moved by our Association. I thank you for your work and sure wish you can recommend to the Planning Commission that the variance request be approved! Thanks so much! Steve Frank From:Cammy Bahner (CMBA) To:Sarah Strain Subject:BOA-2021-01 8500 Franlo Road Date:Tuesday, April 6, 2021 2:29:03 PM Hi Sara. We are owners at 8500 Franlo Rd. We are NOT in favor of the monument sign. It looks more like a gravestone than a sign for a condominium. Best regards, Cammy & Aaron Bahner 1 PROJECT PROFILE – APRIL 12, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 12, 2021 1. BOA 2021-01 – 8500 FRANLO ROAD by Eden Hills Condominium (SARAH) Proposal for a variance to front yard setback. Location: 8500 Franlo Road Contact: Margret Thompson, 952-829-5390: maggiet41@me.com Request for: • Variance from the front yard setback to place a new sign. Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 03/01/21 Date Complete 03/01/21 120 Day Deadline 06/29/21 Initial DRC review 03/04/21 Notice to Paper Date 03/24/21 Resident Notice Date 03/25/21 Meeting Date 04/12/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 1st Meeting Date 00/00/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION – APRIL 19, 2021 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – APRIL 20, 2021 1. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS by City of Eden Prairie (BETH) Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums Contact: Beth Novak- Krebs, 952-949-8490 Request for: • Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/08/20 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 09/09/20 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 09/28/20 Notice to Paper Date 03/31/21 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 04/20/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 2. 7076-7078 SHADY OAK FAÇADE REMODEL (2021-03) by SOT G OWNER LLC (SARAH) Proposal for exterior renovations Location: 7076-7078 Shady Oak Road Contact: Caroline Heinlein; 612-843-2236 Request for: • Site Plan Minor Amendment Review on 6.31 acres 2 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 03/15/21 Date Complete 03/29/21 120 Day Deadline 07/27/21 Initial DRC review 03/18/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 Meeting Date 00/00/21 Notice to Paper Date 03/31/21 Resident Notice Date 04/01/21 1st Meeting Date 04/20/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – APRIL 20, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 26, 2021 Canceled CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – MAY 4, 2021 1. NOBLE HILL – (2021-02) by Pulte Homes (BETH) Proposal for 50 single family homes Location: 9955 and 9875 Spring Road Contact: Paul Heuer: Paul.Heuer@PulteGroup.com Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 50 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 01/19/21 Date Complete 02/19/21 120 Day Deadline 06/18/21 Initial DRC review 01/21/21 Notice to Paper Date 03/03/21 Resident Notice Date 03/04/21 Meeting Date 03/22/21 Notice to Paper Date 04/14/21 Resident Notice Date 04/15/21 1st Meeting Date 05/04/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – MAY 4, 2021 1. CHASE BANK – (2020-12) by The Architect Partnership (SARAH) Proposal to demo an existing building and construct a 3,300 square foot building for a bank with drive thru Location: 928 Prairie Center Drive Contact: Terron Wright: wright@tapchicago.com Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.61 acres • Planned Unit Development Review with waivers on 0.61 acres • Site Plan Review on 0.61 acres 3 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 11/04/20 Date Complete 02/21/21 120 Day Deadline 05/21/21 Initial DRC review 11/05/20 Notice to Paper Date 02/17/21 Resident Notice Date 02/18/21 Meeting Date 03/08/21 Notice to Paper Date 03/17/21 Resident Notice Date 03/18/21 1st Meeting Date 04/06/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 10, 2021 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION – MAY 17, 2021 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – MAY 18 , 2021 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – MAY 18, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 24, 2021 1. HOLIDAY CONVENIENCE STORE & AUTO CARE WORLD SERVICE CENTER– (2021-01) by R.J. Ryan Construction (BETH) Proposal to construct two commercial buildings totaling 16,380 square feet. Location: Northwest corner of Hennepin Town Road and Pioneer Trail Contact: Aaron Waller: awaller@rjryan.com Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.96 acres • Site Plan Review on 3.96 acres Preliminary Plat of 2 lots on 3.96 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 01/11/21 Date Complete 03/29/21 120 Day Deadline 06/26/21 Initial DRC review 01/14/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 Meeting Date 00/00/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 1st Meeting Date 00/00/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED 1. MORIMOTO CITY HOMES (2021-04) by Hennepin CityHomes LLC (BETH) Proposal to construct 16 townhomes Location: 9360 Hennepin Town Rd Contact: Steve Furlong; 651-235-6429 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.84 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.84 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to RM-6.5 4 • Site Plan Review on 2.84 acres • Preliminary Plat to divide one lot into 16 lots and 3 Outlots on 2.84 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 03/19/21 Date Complete 00/00/00 120 Day Deadline 00/00/21 Initial DRC review 03/25/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 Meeting Date 00/00/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 1st Meeting Date 00/00/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 2. CROSSTOWN CORE INDUSTRIAL CENTER (2020-11) by Sambatek, Inc. (BETH) Proposal to construct a 64,000 square foot speculative industrial building. Location: 10250 Crosstown Circle and 6534 Flying Cloud Drive Contact: Erik Miller; 763-259-6687 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.0 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.0 acres • Zoning Change from OFC, RURAL and C-HWY to Industrial on 5.0 acres • Site Plan Review on 5.0 acres • Preliminary Plat of 2 parcels into 1 Lot on 5.0 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/05/20 Date Complete 00/00/00 120 Day Deadline 00/00/21 Initial DRC review 10/08/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 Meeting Date 00/00/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 1st Meeting Date 00/00/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 3. PIONEER PRESERVE (2020-09) by Metro Development LLC (SARAH) Proposal to build 8 townhome units Location: South west corner of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road Contact: Melanie Emery, 651-248-8457 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.66 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.66 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to RM on 3.66 acres • Site Plan Review on 3.66 acres • Preliminary Plat of 9 lots on 3.66 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/18/20 Date Complete 00/00/20 120 Day Deadline 00/00/21 Initial DRC review 09/24/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 Meeting Date 00/00/21 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/21 Resident Notice Date 00/00/21 1st Meeting Date 00/00/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 4. CODE AMENDMENT FOR LIGHTING by City of Eden Prairie (SARAH) Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting Contact: Sarah Strain, 952 -949-8413 5 Request for : • Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/08/20 Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A Notice to Paper Date 09/09/20 Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 09/28/20 Notice to Paper Date 09/30/20 Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 00/00/21 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/21 5. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23) by SW Metro Transit Commission (JULIE) Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Request for: • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres • Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 11.38 acres • Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 00/00/15 Date Complete 00/00/15 120 Day Deadline 00/00/15 Initial DRC review 00/00/15 Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15 Meeting Date 12/07/15 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15 1st Meeting Date 01/05/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 VARIANCES ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TELECOMMUNICATION 1. TELECOMMUNICATIONS – (2021-03TM) by Kendall Communications LLC on behalf of T- Mobile/Sprint (STEVE) Location: 6341 Baker Road Contact: Rick Helmbright, 614-928-1108: rick@kendallcommuications.net Request for: • Brief description of work to be completed: Equipment change out Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 02/18/21 Date Complete 00/00/21 60 Day Deadline 04/20/21 Initial DRC review 02/25/21 Notice to Paper Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date N/A Notice to Paper Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date N/A 2nd Meeting Date N/A