HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 7.27.2020AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 27, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Rachel Markos, Lisa Toomey 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the July 13, 2020 meeting V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PRAIRIE HEIGHTS (2020-06)
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres
B. VARIANCE #2020-02
Location: 16740 Rogers Road
Request for:
• To decrease side yard setbacks from 10ft to 7ft for a shed
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
A. ELECTIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, July 27, 2020 _______________________________________________________________________________ MONDAY, July 27, 2020 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, JULY 13, 2020 MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated July 13, 2020.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PRAIRIE HEIGHTS (2020-06)
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres
The applicant is proposing to create 24 single family lots and 4 outlots. Three of the outlots are intended for stormwater management purposes, and 1 outlot is proposed to remain wooded and undisturbed by this development. All outlots will be deeded to the City. The properties are currently
zoned Rural and are requesting to be rezoned to R1-9.5. The rezoning request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The lots would be accessed by extending Surrey Street to the west and creating a right-in, right-out intersection on Pioneer Trail. A cul-de-sac would also be created to the south of the Surrey Street extension.
As part of the PUD, the applicant is requesting waivers for minimum lot size, minimum lot width,
and front yard setback. Staff recommends approval.
MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing.
MOTION 2: Move to approval for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres, Zoning District Change
ANNOTATED AGENDA July 27, 2020 Page 2
from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres and Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres based on Plans stamp dated July 16, 2020 and the Staff Report dated July 27, 2020.
B. VARIANCE #2020-02
Location: 16740 Rogers Road
Request for:
• To decrease side yard setbacks from 10ft to 7ft for a shed
The variance request is to decrease the side yard setback from the required 10 feet to 7 feet. There
are existing structures, egress windows, and mature trees on the site limiting the location of the shed. The applicant would like to preserve the mature trees on the site and is requesting the variance to encroach 3 feet into the side yard setback. 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 07-27-2020 Staff recommends approval. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to approve Variance Request #2020-02 based on the Staff Report dated July 27, 2020 and Finding and Conditions of Final Order #2020-02.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2020 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,
Lisa Toomey, William Gooding
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission member DeSanctis was absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Toomey to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of June 22, 2020.
MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
THE LOFTS AT ANDERSON RESERVE (2020-02) Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Medium Density to Medium High Density on
2.85 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.85 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.85 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 2.85 acres
• Site Plan Review on 2.85 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 1 lot on 2.85 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 2
Peter Worthington of MHF Properties displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the
application. MWF Properties had been developing affordable housing for 20 years. The development would be a three- story building with parking. Amenities included direct access to Hennepin Town Road but not neighborhood streets, easy access to Anderson Lake Parkway and Highway 169, a Southwest Transit park-
and-ride, Metro Transit but stop, a grocery stores and other shops, and Anderson
Lake Regional Park within walking distance, and a short drive to Eden Prairie Center. Sustainability features included LED lighting, low flow fixtures, recycling chute and central recycling collection. The development met the guidelines for 2020 Minnesota Overlay to Enterprise Green communities. It would utilize Excel
Energy Design Assist Program to envelope, HVAC and lighting. There would be
EV charging stations, rainwater harvesting for irrigation, a solar ready roof structure and electrical system and Energy Star appliances. There would be 52 apartments: 13 one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom, 14 three-
bedrooms apartments. Affordability is proposed with the project. Specifically, 47
of the units for residents who earned 60% of less of AMI and 5 units would be for residents who earned 80 percent or less of AMI. Worthington displayed an example of resident occupations of current properties which included realtor, delivery driver, teacher, hair stylist, and U.S. Postal worker. The apartment would
have on-site property management with an on-site caretaker and maintenance
staff. It was required for the property to place at least $28,350 into the property annually. There was a stringent approval process, including a criminal background check on every tenant and all would have to show ability to pay rent. There was also identity and employment verification, banking and rental history.
The preliminary development schedule: land use approvals in August, 2020, the
closing and start of construction would take place in April 2021, and construction would be complete in March, 2021. Worthington expected the building to be full by September, 2021.
He went through the issues raised by neighbors during the outreach phase: there
were objections to multi-family developments, but the development needed 52 units according to scored criteria to remain competitive. Removal of trees, the possibility of apartment residents cutting through the neighborhood to Jerry’s Foods and looking into house windows were also raised. Worthington saw no
incentive to cut through the neighborhood at the path along the sidewalk was
shorter. Noise and light were further concerns; disruptive behavior would be taken care of by on-site management. There was no evidence this development would affect property values.
Mette asked if the developer reached out to the neighboring property owner to south to purchase that land as well. Worthington replied due to the wetlands and shape of the land that parcel was not developable. This parcel would remain green space and this was why the building was oriented as it was. Mette urged Worthington to consider this option if the density was an issue, and in order to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 3
preserve the trees. Worthington replied buying more land would not solve the
problem of density and configuration. There was also a cost issue. Mette asked for and received confirmation the developer was applying for 9percent tax credits. Klima added the vacant property to the south was owned by the Preserve and not available for inclusion. It had been set aside as open space as part of the density
allowed as part of the Preserve project.
Klima presented the staff report. The project included a 52-unit property at 18.25 units per acre. This exceeded the Comprehensive Plan allowance of 5-14 units per acre. In the Aspire 2040 Plan this parcel was identified as an infill property and
the City looked at how to accommodate that need. This property was guided for
medium-density development. There were site-specific conditions: the property ran along a major collector roadway, the configuration of property was long and narrow with wetlands on the site, and it did not connect to the residential area next to it. All of these were considered in the appropriate land use designation. The
applicant requested the medium-high density allowing for vertically and
horizontally stacked units. The property was currently zoned rural which is a typical zoning designation for a property that has not yet been developed; If the property were to be rezoned with consistent the current comprehensive plan guiding, it would be rezoned to RM-6.5.
Staff provided other projects similar in nature in the staff report related to height, unit count, density, property size and proximity to single family development. The site had wetland on the east and west sides, and a woodchip trail was proposed along the western edge. The architecture met the City’s requirements and the
design guidelines, and the material were in compliance with the exception of one
of the façades, which 73 percent instead of 75 percent Class One and would have to be revised. The project included an affordability component with the majority of units being
available at 60 AMI and a small amount at 80 AMI. The traffic analysis showed
an increase of approximately 285 trips per day. There were waivers requested for density and site area (18.25 units per acre, and 2387 square feet instead of 2500 as allowed by Code). Another was for group usable open space which was a routine waiver seen with multi-family developments in Eden Prairie and which suggested
to staff the Zoning ordinance might be outdated. The group usable open space
proposed with this project was in line with other recently proposed developments. The third waiver requested was for the parking lot, specifically the parking stall length (18 feet instead of 19 feet) and drive aisle width (24 feet instead of 25 feet). This also has been requested for many other projects. The landscaping did
meet Code requirements but the tree replacement did not; the applicant could meet this requirement by providing a payment in lieu of replacement. The developer did conduct outreach in two ways: a website to share information at which residents could submit questions, and a Zoom meeting. Multiple emails
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 4
were received and included in the staff report, also six emails received since the
commissioners’ packet went out that were available on the table for Commissioners at this meeting. Mette asked for a specific percentage that made up the tree replacement
calculation. Klima replied it was based on the size of the trees onsite. Twelve
inches or more in diameter was required to be replaced and 30 inches or more was designated as a heritage tree requiring additional replacement requirements. Farr asked if the City would ordinarily locate this medium-high density next to
single-family use. Klima replied there was an infill map in the Aspire 2040
document. There were roughly 30 parcels identified as infill and there could be a medium-high development next to a single-family development, but she would have to research this to confirm. Farr noted the speech limit on Hennepin Town Road was 45 mph and asked if this development would trigger a reexamination of
that. Rue replied this was a straight road with good sightlines, so it would not.
Erin Pomerantz, resident at Clark Circle, stated she was opposed to the rezoning. The Guide plan designated this property as medium density, and her petition collected 450 signees against this development. She stated she knew the lot
needed to be developed but preferred townhomes or duplexes. She was also
concerned about the environmental impact on wildlife. Over 40 houses would back up against this development, and there were deer and fox in the green space. She encouraged the developer to conduct an environmental impact study and save the heritage trees, adding they were a sound barrier near Highway 169.
Townhomes would allow these trees to remain. She was also concerned about a
connection of a sewer line from the building to the Clark Circle sewer line. And about snow removal. Mike Amundson stated he lived nearby and was concerned about traffic, adjacent
property values, the safety of the neighborhood, and the privacy of the backyards
of the adjacent properties. He wished a berm or fence at the perimeter to ensure no shortcuts. He was also concerned about the fate of heritage trees for a development that seemed out of place in the neighborhood. If the building was a no smoking building, he was concerned there would be smoking outside.
Increased noise during construction and due to new neighbors in a relatively small
area was also a potential detriment. The building seemed too large for the site and appeared “crammed in.” Jeremy Simonson, resident at Clark Circle, stated he was opposed to the project
and the rezoning and to any potential waivers to the RM-2.5 multifamily zone. The placement of this property was unique relative to the single-family homes, but the apartment horseshoe layout design not different than other apartments. The City did a lot of work on the zoning recommendations and he did not want those changed. This was a sizeable building with parking benches in the western
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 5
part of the property and walking trails. He did not think this fit with the
neighborhood. The potential of the wetland being deeded to the City would lower the 2.85 acres, creating an even smaller profile on which to build, and he thought the land was better suited to townhomes or duplexes. He stressed that fencing and berming was imperative and asked what the parties’ responsibilities for the
deeded property, and who would be allowed to access that property. The tree
replacement plan did not meet Code and he objected to the cash payment instead and asked that those funds be allotted for a park and require the developer to adhere to the Code.
Matthew Eich, resident at Hampshire Lane, expressed concern this development
would end up being Section 8 housing. The values of homes in the area ranged from $250,000.00 to $280,000.00 and the development could affect property values. He asked for the long-term goal of development.
Kay Paulson, resident at Sherwood Place, stated it was difficult to make a left-
hand turn on Linden Drive in the morning and evening, and expressed concern about additional traffic. In autumn of 2019 a large senior housing had been put in a mile away and she worried about the greater impact that plus this development would contribute. She was opposed to the rezoning and urged the commission to
keep the site at medium density and allow townhouses and duplexes instead.
Stephanie MacPhail, resident at Squire Lane, stated she often walked past this property and was concerned for wildlife. There was a need for green space and trees provided positive health impacts. The trees were one reason for buying
homes in this area. She questioned the need for a development on this site in the
first place. She was also concerned about adverse effects of runoff and the removal of mature trees. She cited an Audubon 2019 report concluding three billion birds had disappeared due to pesticides, window collisions, climate change and loss of habitat. This development part of the problem in her opinion. The
continuing fracturing of habitat led also to more coyote interactions. She made a
request: April was prime nesting season, and asked if the construction timeline could be changed, and bird-safe glass be incorporated into the design. She added three stories was high for the area and asked the developer to plant only native plants and to not use pesticide on the landscaping.
Jamie Jensen stated he lived in the Preserve area for 36 years. His biggest concern was this development seemed to put five pounds of potatoes in a four-pound bag. Social distancing was mandated but now the City had a proposal for housing density. Population density did not help pandemic management. No one knew
how long the current pandemic would last or what would happen with the next pandemic. It did not seem to be a healthy and smart thing to do, and he encouraged the commission members to consider this when voting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 6
MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. Worthington stated his firm conducted the Critical Habitat assessment, which identified three potentially threatened species: a snake, a bat, and a bumblebee.
However, the habitats suitable for these species did not exist on this site.
The landscaping would include bee-friendly plants. No Environmental Impact Statement was required for this development. He was not knowledgeable on the landscaping plan but the landscape architect would work with the City on appropriate plantings. The development would have a strong water management
plan, with two underground filtration vaults that would discharge in a controlled
rate into the existing wetlands. There would also be rainwater harvesting for an irrigation system. The wetland outland was being deeded to the City per City requirements. Klima agreed the City would take control of this property for preservation and maintenance.
Worthington stated the most significant loss of trees would be along the north line where the parking lot was, and this was necessary for the development. There would be a seven-foot tall, solid fence along the north edge. This would also help with sound.
Kirk stated he had a lot more confidence in the City’s ability to maintain wetlands than any property owner and found this is a positive step. Worthington stated other buildings by his firm had located buildings closer to
other residential areas, and the management would not tolerate disruption from
residents. He did not think residents would cut through other properties more than anyone else would. This would not be a Section 8 housing, though it would accept Section 8 vouchers. The target rent level was 60 percent AMI, which was $49,000.00 for a family of two and $62,000.00 for a family of four.
There would 285 trips/day total, which meant peak hour trips would total 19 trips in the weekday morning and 23 in the afternoon. Toomey asked when the traffic analysis was conducted, and Worthington replied
it was in the spring. It was an analysis the development would generate, not a
counter placed on the street to measure actual current trips. Higgins asked how school buses would accommodate the children living in this development. Worthington replied he had not discussed this yet with the schools. Until the tenants were in place, this was speculative.
Worthington stated this development had to compete with many groups for the tax credits. His firm did not build townhomes or duplexes, which could not generate the required density for the tax credits.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 7
Markos asked for and received confirmation the number of units for surface
parking was based on how many were needed that could not be accommodated underground. Farr stated he was torn. He liked the development model but good points had been
brought up. The potential congestion was manageable. He approved of the
building design and found an affordable development a positive step. It checked all of the boxes of the Aspire 2040 Plan. Unique screening solutions would help the proximity of this development to the single-family homes. He was not in favor of the higher density and wished to keep the guided land use for this site. He
urged the developer to reduce the number of units from 52 to 40. This number of
units would look the same but be shorter and improve the look. He noted that the homeowners’ association did not make an offer for the land to protect it from development. = Kirk concurred and stated Farr’s remarks echoed his own comments. There were
a lot of positives in this development, which was much needed. It would not be a
blight, and would fit in well, but he shared Farr’s concerns regarding density. Drainage, however, would improve with this development. Having the City controlling these wetlands would ensure they were more protected than ever. He stated this supported the Aspire 2040 plan. The density, however, was a “bridge
too far,” and he urged the developer to find the best solution, because this was not
it. Mette stated she too liked the proposal. She added residents often did not appreciate what it took for a developer to go for the tax credit program. She was
confident this would be a great project and well-maintained. There needed to be a
fence along the north parking lot for screening. The spruce trees being planted there would help. This development would not contribute to congestion, and the question of avoiding Highway 169 by cutting through this development was a separate discussion. Density was the biggest issue, and at most medium density
should be kept at this site. The entire neighborhood seemed to be in opposition to
this development in its current form. She understood this could shut down this project and urged a creation solution be found. Pieper agreed he was also torn on this development. He agreed the drainage issue
and wetland management would improve. He agreed with the need for more
affordable housing, but he wished to stick with the guidelines of the Aspire 2040 Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 13, 2020
Page 8
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Farr to recommend the project maintain consistency with the Aspire 2040 guidelines of medium-density residential with a density of 5-14 dwelling units per acre. In order to maintain consistency, the plan must be redrawn using the standards of the RM-6.5 Zoning District. Because the
redraw would require rezoning and different waiver requests, further staff analysis
would be required. MOTION CARRIED 7-1 with one nay vote (Higgins). VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Toomey to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I
Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner
DATE: July 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Prairie Heights
LOCATION: 12701 Pioneer Trail and PID 27-116-22-14-0035
REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres 120 DAY REVIEW
PERIOD
DEADLINE:
October 16, 2020
BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to develop 12701 Pioneer Trail and vacant lot 27-166-22-14-
0035 to the west into 24 single-family lots. The parcels are located about 1/3 mile east of the Pioneer
Trail and Flying Cloud Drive intersection. The properties are a total of 9.6 acres with about 0.28
acres located north of Pioneer Trail. 12701 Pioneer Trail currently contains a single family home,
which will be demolished before construction begins. The properties are bordered by single-family
development to the east, MAC airport property to the south and west, and residential and industrial uses to the
north across Pioneer Trail.
GUIDING AND ZONING The properties are currently zoned Rural. The applicant is requesting to rezone the properties to R1-9.5. Residential zoning
of surrounding properties includes R1-
13.5 to the east and RM-6.5 to the north.
The properties are guided for Low
Density Residential, which allows a maximum of five (5) dwelling units per acre. The proposed project density is
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 2
2
2.58 units per acre, consistent with current guiding.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The proposed preliminary plat includes 24 single family lots and four (4) outlots. The lots are located
along the extension of Surrey Street and a new cul-de-sac extending to the south from Surrey Street,
proposed to be called Liberty Court. About half the lots will have driveway access off of Surrey
Street and the other half will have driveway access off of Liberty Court. Proposed Outlot A will encompass the portion of the property north of Pioneer Trail, and the applicant is proposing to preserve the existing trees on that portion of the property. Proposed Outlot B is located just south of
Pioneer Trail in the northcentral portion of the property, proposed Outlot C is located on the west
side of Liberty Court behind the proposed lots and proposed Outlot D is located along the east
property line. Outlots B, C, and D will include stormwater management facilities. The applicant is
proposing to deed all four (4) outlots to the City of Eden Prairie. The lots range in size
from 6,947 square feet
to 17,200 square feet.
Eleven of the lots do
not comply with the minimum lots size requirements of the R1-
9.5 zoning district.
Therefore, the applicant
is requesting a PUD
waiver for lot size, discussed more below. All of the proposed lots
meet side and rear lot
setbacks. The applicant
is also requesting PUD
waivers for front yard
setbacks and minimum lot width.
The preliminary plat
also shows a ghost or conceptual plan for potential future development of 12661 Pioneer Trail,
located northeast of the project area. The ghost plat includes four (4) long, narrow lots that front
Surrey Street. Hennepin County has noted that access off of Pioneer Trail will not be allowed if this parcel develops or is subdivided in the future. This lot currently has a driveway off of Pioneer Trail. The applicant has shown an example of how access to the parcel can be provided from the Surrey
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 3
3
Street extension. The lots shown on the ghost plan are just short of the required lot width and would need to seek a PUD waiver to proceed as shown or be revised to meet City Code. If this parcel is
subdivided or develops in the future, a separate review process will be required. Approval of this
project and plan does not include approval of any development or future configuration of 12661
Pioneer Trail. It should be noted that there are emergency overflow concerns as shown in the ghost
plan, which will be addressed in reviewing any future development or configuration of this lot. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a
more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the
types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and
intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and
flexibility in environmental design. As a part of the PUD process, the applicant is seeking a waiver to City Code requirements as
outlined below.
A. Minimum Lot Size – City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet. Eleven
of the lots have smaller areas, ranging from 6,947 square feet to 8,860 square feet. All other lots meet or exceed minimum lot size requirements. The waiver would allow Lots 1-3, Lot 5, Lots 7-8, Lot 10, Lot 12, Lots 18-19, and Lot 21 Block 2 to have lots sizes less
than 9,500 square feet. The lot sizes are reasonable given the existing topography of the
site. The proposed lot sizes are similar to other recently approved single family homes in
the R1-9.5 district and are intended to better fit the proposed villa style home. Further, the
project meets the overall density guided for the site in the Comprehensive Plan, even with smaller lot sizes.
B. Minimum Lot Width - City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet at the street
right-of-way and a minimum width of 55 feet for those lots entirely on the circular
portion of the cul-de-sac. Fifteen out of the 24 lots do not meet the minimum lot width
standards. Although the lots are narrow at the street, the lots are deeper than the minimum requirement in the R1-9.5 zoning district. These lots can accommodate the proposed villa style home products. The waiver allows Lot 1 Block 1, Lots 1-3, Lot 5, Lot 7, Lots 12-15,
and Lots 19-22 Block 2 to have lot widths between 35.8 feet and 56.32 feet and Lots 8, 9,
and 10, Block 2 to have lot widths between 32.5 and 50 feet.
C. Front Yard Setback – City Code requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Most of the lots have a 25 foot setback, and seven (7) lots have 20 foot front yard setbacks. The waiver
allows 20 foot front yard setbacks for Lot 4 and Lots 17-22 Block 2 and a 25 foot setback
for all other lots. The front portions of the lots are more level while the backyards are
steeper due to existing topography and to accommodate stormwater management. Lots 1
and 2 in Block 1 are closer than the required setback to provide additional space between
the homes and Pioneer Trail.
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 4
4
TREE REPLACEMENT
The project site requires 869 caliper inches of tree replacement based on the proposed significant and
heritage tree removals. The applicant is proposing to save 126 inches of heritage trees on the site.
Prior to 1st Reading at City Council, the applicant will need to submit a revised Tree Replacement
plan using the correct replacement formula and adjust proposed plantings accordingly. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS A five (5) foot sidewalk is proposed along the south side of the Surrey Street extension, which will
connect to the existing sidewalk along Surrey Street. The existing trail along the south side of
Pioneer Trail will be retained. A pedestrian crosswalk will be installed across the new Surrey Street
connection.
STREETS AND TRAFFIC As part of the proposed plat and development, Surrey Street will be extended to connect to Pioneer
Trail. This connection will be a right-in, right-out only access. This connection is being made to help
alleviate traffic concerns in the neighborhood. Since Pioneer Trail is a County roadway, the applicant
is working with the County on the design of the intersection and turn lane. The 24 single-family, villa
style homes are expected to generate approximately 322 trips in a day and 30 in the peak hour. The transportation system in and around the project area is anticipated to accommodate the additional traffic. The traffic data used for this analysis was obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Residents from the surrounding neighborhood have raised concerns about traffic volumes and
turning movements at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Woodridge Drive at certain times of the
day. Although the intersection is not located in the immediate project area, the traffic study analyzed this intersection and determined that the delays experienced during peak times are within the typical range of operation for a through/stop sign intersection along a divided, four (4) lane county road.
A road stub is also being included at the end of the proposed Liberty Court cul-de-sac to provide
future access to the MAC property to the south if future development occurs on the MAC property.
There are no plans to develop this land in the near future. If Liberty Court is extended in the future to
the MAC property, the retaining wall along the south property line will need to be removed and graded out. This removal and grading work will be MAC’s responsibility.
If the MAC property does develop, it is anticipated that a full access intersection will be constructed
at a different point along Pioneer Trail west of the project area. The right-in, right-out access
proposed with this project would likely be closed and become a half cul-de-sac. The applicant has
accounted for the potential cul-de-sac in design dimensions for the right-in, right-out. The full access intersection off of Pioneer Trail would serve the Prairie Heights development through the connection and expansion of the road stub. The applicant, MAC planners, and City and County staff have briefly
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 5
5
discussed the potential to construct the full access intersection concurrently with the proposed development.
Construction traffic is proposed to enter the site using the existing driveway off of Pioneer Trail
on the north side of the project area.
DRAINAGE There are two (2) stormwater management areas on either side of the cul-de-sac behind the lots.
There is another stormwater management area along the north edge of the property along Pioneer
Trail. The stormwater management areas will be treating stormwater from the project area. These
basins will treat stormwater that is not currently being treated. The applicant is required to comply
with Watershed District and City of Eden Prairie requirements prior to issuance of a Land Alteration
Permit. There are no wetlands on the properties. The emergency overflow of the infiltration basin in Outlot D roughly follows the direction of
existing drainage. However, this causes the emergency overflow to be directed toward existing
structures. The risks of flooding from surface runoff, including discharges over the emergency
overflow capacity in large events, needs to be understood and must not increase beyond existing
conditions. Prior to the 1st reading at City Council, the applicant must provide the results of model scenarios comparing flow reaching the existing catch basin and existing emergency overflow between 9708 and 9724 Tree Farm Road for back-to-back 100 year flood events to proposed
conditions.
The applicant must add a catch basin along the curb and gutter of the turn lane on Pioneer Trail as
they continue to finalize design with Hennepin County. SUSTAINABILIY FEATURES
The stormwater management is proposed to be infiltration basins planted with native species. The
homes will be designed with energy saving features and appliances. The applicant is proposing to
wire the garages for electric vehicles.
ARCHITECTURE The applicant has provided examples
of the building design expected with
the villas. The picture to the right
shows the general style of the villas.
The Development Agreement will
include language to provide for diversity in design, materials, and color to help ensure neighboring parcels are
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 6
6
not identical, similar to language included in the Development Agreements for the Villas at Smith Village and Stable Path.
AIRPORT
The properties are located just east of the Flying Cloud Airport. Due to the proximity to the airport,
the properties are located in Airport Safety Zone C. Airport Safety Zone C encompasses all properties within one (1) mile of the airport that are not part of runway approach zones. Restrictions in Safety Zone C are height and radio or electrical interference. The proposed single-family villas are
below the maximum height permitted and do not pose a hazard for radio or electrical interference,
consistent with airport zoning requirements. The applicant has also noted homes will have interior
noise mitigation plans to reduce airport noise. The Development Agreement will include language
regarding noise mitigation and airport disclosure requirements.
UTILITIES Public sanitary sewer and water are proposed to be extended along the Surrey Street extension and
new Liberty Court cul-de-sac.
LIGHTING Street lights are proposed at the intersection of Surrey Street and the new Liberty Court cul-de-sac and at the end of Liberty Court close to the right-of-way stub.
SIGNS
There are no monument signs proposed for this development. Any sign proposed in the future will
require review and approval through a sign permit to ensure compliance with Section 11.70 of City
Code. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 4, 2020. About 40 neighbors attended the
meeting. The two (2) primary concerns raised at the meeting were increased traffic in the
neighborhood and construction traffic. To address these concerns, the applicant is proposing to
connect the Surrey Street extension to Pioneer Trail at the time of initial grading to provide options
for traffic movement. The applicant is also proposing to use the existing driveway off of Pioneer Trail on the north side of the site for construction access rather than having construction traffic traveling through the existing neighborhood.
As of July 21, 2020, staff has not received any comments on the proposed project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 7
7
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres
This is based on plans stamp dated July 16, 2020, and staff report dated July 27, 2020 and the following conditions:
1. Prior to the 1st reading by the City Council, the applicant shall:
A. Revise the Preliminary Plat to include a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along
Pioneer Trail on Lot 22.
B. Revise the Site Plan to add R1-9.5 to the Proposed Zoning and include contours 250
feet beyond the property lines. C. Revise the Demolition Plan item number 6 to read “Contact the City of Eden Prairie Public Works Department”.
D. Revise the Tree Replacement Plan to use the correct constant to calculate tree
replacement requirements and provide a phasing plan for tree installation, with Phase
1 being trees in outlots/backyards and phase 2 trees being in front yards and areas
surrounding building pads. E. Revise the Tree Replacement Plan to remove proposed plantings from drainage and utility easements.
F. Provide the results of model scenarios comparing flow reaching the existing CB and
existing EOF between 9708 and 9724 Tree Farm Road for back-to-back 100 year
flood events for existing and proposed conditions.
G. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to restore any disturbances to the drainage and utility easement between 9692 and 9708 Tree Farm Road with sod. H. Revise the Basin Cross Sections to increase the orifice diameter to 8-inches minimum
or an alternative weir wall design for OCS 500 and OCS 600.
I. Revise the Basin Cross Sections so FES 300 in Basin B is re-aligned to direct flow
into the basin rather than into the side slope.
2. Prior to release of the Final Plat, the applicant shall: A. Sign special assessment agreement for City trunk sewer and water assessment fees. B. Submit a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit (“security”) that guarantees completion
of all public utility improvements equivalent to 125% of the cost of the
improvements.
3. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall:
A. Submit detailed stormwater runoff, wetland, utility, street, and erosion control plans
for review and approval by the City Engineer.
B. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval.
Staff Report – Prairie Heights Development
July 27, 2020 Page 8
8
C. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. D. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by
the City.
E. Submit a tree replacement letter of credit or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the
cost of the tree replacement. A surety will be required for each phase of tree
replacement as shown on the Exhibit B Plans. F. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 125% of the cost of the land alteration.
4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fees
B. Provide recorded copies of any Home Owner Association documents or private
covenants and agreements to the City following recording of the final plat. C. Revise Utility Plan to stub sewer and water services to the north ROW of Surrey Street for the future connections to the 12661 Pioneer Trail property.
D. Revise the Utility Plan such that the sanitary sewer can be extended to the MAC
property in the future, terminating in the same location as the watermain.
E. Revise the Utility Plan to reflect the correct configuration of the existing
watermain on Surrey Street. 5. The following waivers are granted through the PUD for the project as indicated in the
plans stamp dated July 16, 2020.
A. Minimum Lot Size – City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet.
Eleven of the lots have smaller areas, ranging from 6,947 square feet to 8,860 square feet. The waiver would allow Lots 1-3, Lot 5, Lots 7-8, Lot 10, Lot 12, Lots 18-19, and Lot 21 Block 2 to have lots sizes less than 9,500 square feet.
B. Minimum Lot Width - City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet at the
street right-of-way and a minimum width of 55 feet for those lots entirely on the
circular portion of the cul-de-sac. The waiver allows Lot 1 Block 1, Lots 1-3, Lot 5, Lot 7, Lots 12-15, and Lots 18-22 Block 2 to have lots widths between 35.8 feet and 56.32 feet and Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2 to have lot widths between 32.5 and
50 feet
C. Front Yard Setback – City Code requires a 30 foot front yard setback. Most of the lots have a 25 foot setback, and seven (7) lots have 20 foot front yard setbacks. The waiver allows 20 foot front yard setbacks for Lot 4 and Lots 17-22 Block 2
and a 25 foot setback for all other lots.
P I ONE ER TRLCREEKKNOL
L
RDT
R
A
V
O
I
SRD
WOODRIDGEDRFLYING CLOUD DRSURREYST
TREEFARMRDWOODRIDGECIRNEMECKNOLLSRDGREYWI
DGEONPLJ
E
D
LIC
K
A
C
TCREEKWOODDR CARTWAYCURVYORKSHIRE
LN
OXBOWDR
¯
Location Map: Prairie HeightsAddress: 12701 Pioneer Trail and PID #27-116-22-14-0035Eden Prairie, MN 55347
0 560 1,120280 Feet
PROJECT SITE
Staring Lake
City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map 2010-2040
¯
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof 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 itcontains. 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: Prairie HeightsAddress: 12701 Pioneer Trail and PID #27-116-22-14-0035Eden Prairie, MN 55347
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 790 0 790395 Feet
Date Approved: 10-01-2019
PROJECT SITE
Shoreland Management Classifications
100 - Year Floodplain
Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD
NERD
Staring Lake
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail.
¯
Ordinance #19-2018 and 20-2018 approved, but not shown on this map editionOrdinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition
Date: March 1, 2020
0 0.30.15
Miles
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof 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 itcontains. 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: Prairie HeightsAddress: 12701 Pioneer Trail and PID #27-116-22-14-0035Eden Prairie, MN 55347
RuralR1-44 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 OfficeOfficeNeighborhood CommercialCommunity CommercialHighway CommercialAirport CommercialRegional Service CommercialRegional Commercial
TC-CTC-RTC-MUTOD-ETOD-R Transit Oriented Development - ResidentialTOD-MUIndustrial Park - 2 Acre Min,Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min.General Industrial - 5 Acre Min.PublicParks and Open SpaceGolf CourseWaterRight of Way
PROJECT SITE
Shoreland Management Classifications
100 - Year Floodplain
Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD
NE
RD
¯
Aerial Map: Prairie HeightsAddress: 12701 Pioneer Trail and PID #27-116-22-14-0035Eden Prairie, MN 55347
0 560 1,120280 Feet
PROJECT SITE
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I
DATE: July 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Variance Request # 2020-02 APPLICANT: Marla and Eric Ekman
LOCATION: 16740 Rogers Road REQUEST: Variance requesting a 7 foot setback variance for construction of a shed. City Code requires a 10-foot setback from side lot lines.
120 DAY REVIEW PERIOD EXPIRES: October 24, 2020 BACKGROUND The property is zoned R1-13.5 and is 13,500 square feet. There are two (2) existing accessory
structures on the site, both of which meet setback requirements, and there are many mature trees on the property. The property is adjacent to Cedar Ridge Elementary School. VARIANCE REQUEST The variance request is to construct an 8 ft. by 12 ft. shed within a side yard setback. The R1-
13.5 zoning district requires a 10 foot side yard setback for detached accessory structures. There are exiting accessory structures on the site, and there many mature trees on the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a shed with a seven (7) foot side yard setback, encroaching three (3) feet into the required setback.
The applicant has reached out to two (2) different shed companies for consultation on the location of a small standard 8 ft x 12 ft. shed. Both companies point to the proposed location as the only possible location in the yard given the existing structures, egress window, and mature trees. The only way for the proposed shed to meet setback requirements would be to remove
trees. The applicants would like to save the mature trees on the site both as a natural asset and
for screening of/from Cedar Ridge Elementary School. 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 the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of
Staff Report – Variance #2020-02
July 27, 2020
Page 2 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.”
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The existing and proposed land use is low density residential. Granting the variance would not change the residential land use of the property.
In harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance: The requested variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. A shed is a permitted structure and accessory use on a residential property. Unique Circumstances:
The unique characteristics of this site include the location of existing structures, egress windows, and mature trees. Additionally, the site overlooks Cedar Ridge Elementary school, and the trees on the site help provide screening of/from the school.
Reasonable use of the property:
Another review criteria is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. This means that a landowner would like to use the property in a particular way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. A shed is a permitted and reasonable use of the
property. An 8 ft. x 12 ft. shed is also a reasonable size.
Alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood: Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed 7 ft. setback is along the east side of the yard, and there are no structures close to the lot line on
neighboring lot that may create crowding.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the staff report dated July 27, 2020.
REQUESTED COMMISSION ACTION
The Commission may wish to choose from one of the following actions: 1. Approve Final Order #2020-02. 2. Approve Final Order #2020-02 with modifications.
3. Continue Variance Request #2020-02 for additional information. 4. Deny Final Order #2020-02.
BRAXTON DRROGERS RD
P IO N E E R T R L GOULD RDK E N N IN G R DDOUGLAS DRTRENTON LN
SYLVAN RDG
MCGUFFEY RDWAVERLY CTRALEIGH LN
SHETLAND RD¯
Location Map: Variance Request #2020-02Address: 16740 Rogers RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota 55347
0 310 620155 Feet
SITE
Cedar Ridge Elementary Schoolt
ROGERS RD
BRAXTON DRP IO N E E R T R L GOULD RDK E N N IN G R DDOUGLAS DRGATEWAY LNSYLVAN RDG
R A L E IG H L N MCGUFFEY RDWAVERLY CTDEWEY CT
City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map 2010-2040
¯
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof 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 itcontains. 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 2020-02Address: 16740 Rogers RoadEden Prairie, MN 55347
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
340 0 340170 Feet
SITE
DATE Approved 10-01-19
P IO N E E R T R LBRAXTON DRROGERS RD GOULD RDK E N N IN G R DDOUGLAS DRGATEWAY LNSYLVAN RDGMCGUFFEY RDWAVERLY CTRALEIGH LN
SHETLAND RDCity of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail.
¯
Up dated through approved Ordinances #26-2008Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map editionDate: March 1, 2020
0 0.10.05
Miles
DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof 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 itcontains. 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 #2020-02Address: 16740 Rogers RoadEden Prairie, MN 55347
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
SITE
BRAXTON DRROGERS RD
P IO N E E R T R L GOULD RDK E N N IN G R DDOUGLAS DRTRENTON LN
SYLVAN RDG
MCGUFFEY RDWAVERLY CTRALEIGH LN
SHETLAND RD¯
Aerial Map: Variance Request #2020-02Address: 16740 Rogers RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota 55347
0 310 620155 Feet
SITE
VARIANCE #2020-02 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER #2020-02
APPLICANT: Marla and Eric Ekman
ADDRESS: 16740 Rogers Road
OTHER DESCRIPTION: Legal Description – see attached Exhibit B
VARIANCE REQUESTS:
• Variance to decrease the side yard setback to seven (7) feet. City Code minimum side yard setback is 10 feet for the R1-13.5 Zoning District
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 #2020-02 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 August
11, 2020; 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 60 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 ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS N/A = Not Applicable BY:________________________________________________ Planning Commission Chair – Andrew Pieper Date: 07-27-2020
EXHIBIT A – FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS VARIANCE #2020-02 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 and will be the same as the existing 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. In this variance request,
the unique circumstance is the location of existing structures, egress windows, and mature trees.
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. There are
no land use changes proposed as part of this variance request. Granting the variance will not alter
the character of the neighborhood, as there are no structures close to the lot line that may create crowding. 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 Report dated July 27, 2020.
EXHIBIT B – VARIANCE REQUEST #2020-02 Legal Description:
Lot 7, Block 5, CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Attn: Eden Prairie Planning Commission
We are reaching out to you today to request a variance for a backyard shed we would like to have built
on our property. We have detailed out below, including pictures, showing why a variance approval is
needed. We promise to use the shed in a reasonable manner and are requesting this variance due to
circumstances unique to the property. If granted, we will not alter the essential character of what is
being requested.
We understand that the current requirement is that a shed be at least 10ft from the property line.
Currently on the left side of our yard we have a play structure. In the center of the back of the yard we
have a Sport Court. This leaves just the area on the right that is available for the shed. There is
approximately 15ft of usable space between the trees and the fence line. Standard Sheds are a
minimum of 8ft wide. This would give us 7ft from the fence line (vs. the 10ft requirement). Shed would
have a treated flooring system that is anchored on each corner with a cable soil anchor.
We also considered other options behind the garage, however based on a garage back door and an
egress window, it is not possible to place there. We consulted with two different shed companies (Tuff
Shed & The Shed Shop USA) to try to find other locations and possible dimensions. After meeting with
both companies, it was determined that there wasn’t another location available in our yard.
Additionally, it is not recommended to go with a smaller width than 8ft wide to be a functional shed.
The dimensions of the Existing and proposed set backs are as follows:
- Playset is 16ft long by 14ft wide. It sits 19.5ft from the fence on the left and 13.8ft from fence in
back. There are trees between the playset & fence so cannot shift playset over as this was the
recommended placement from Crown of MN. There is 9ft between the playset & the Sport
Court
- Sport Court is 26ftx26ft with a 2ft bump out where hoop is. There is 12.5ft from Sport court to
fence & 10.5 ft from bump out to fence. There is 8.2ft between the Sport Court and proposed
Shed
- Proposed Shed is 8ft Wide 12ft long. This allows 7ft between shed & neighbor’s fence. There is
15.9ft between proposed shed and back fence.
There are no structures on the adjoining property next to where the proposed shed is.
This is why we are requesting a variance to be accepted to have a shed 7ft from our neighbor’s fence.
This would allow us to have an 8ftwide shed by 12ft long. Please refer to the attached pictures
demonstrating the practical difficulties, unique circumstances, and neighborhood character.
Thank you for your kind consideration,
Marla & Eric Ekman
16740 Rogers Road
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Pictures showing the practical difficulties and unique circumstances which make it difficult to
follow the 10ft requirement from fence for the shed. (SEE EDITS BELOW IN GREEN)
Left side of backyard with playset:
Middle of the backyard with sport court:
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Right side of backyard showing sport court & proposed shed location on right:
Picture of proposed site with flags showing only a 5ft wide shed (which is not recommended to be built
by Tuff Shed or the Shed Shop USA as 5ft is not wide enough to be functional)
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Side of house behind garage showing that there is no space for a shed here:
Close up for Egress Window:
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Other side of house (cannot do shed here due to windows etc:
Picture’s Showing proposed Shed & Measurements:
Another view of proposed shed:
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Picture of proposed Shed design: Note that colors/slight design details may change. Dimensions would
stay the same:
Survey showing location for proposed Shed:
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Details of above dimensions:
- Playset is 16ft long by 14ft wide. It sits 19.5ft from the fence on the left and 13.8ft from fence
in back. There is 9ft between the playset & the Sport Court
- Sport Court is 26ftx26ft with a 2ft bump out where hoop is. There is 12.5ft from Sport court to
fence & 10.5 ft from bump out to fence. There is 8.2ft between the Sport Court and proposed
Shed
- Proposed Shed is 8ft Widex 12ft long. This allows 7ft between shed & neighbor’s fence. There
is 15.9ft between proposed shed and back fence.
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
EDIT: Picture showing the 9ft between playset & Court:
EDIT: Picture Showing 8ft 2” between Court and proposed Shed
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
EDIT: Picture showing proposed shed between court and Tree which makes it not possible to move Shed
over more without cutting down the tree:
Edit Showing neighbor’s yard (showing no additional structures next to the fence:
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
Picture showing 19.5ft between fence and playset:
Original Survey:
Pictures for requested Variance at 16740 Rogers Road
PLANNERS REPORT:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I
DATE: July 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
BACKGROUND On January 21 2020, Rod Fischer and Scot Adams spoke at the City Council Open Podium
session about electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Their message was to encourage the
City to continue to prioritize EVCSs. They spoke to the City Council about the City of St. Louis
Park’s recent ordinance that requires EVCSs in certain developments. Based on the Open
Podium discussion, the City Council recommended that the Planning Commission review this
topic.
Staff has reviewed St. Louis Park’s ordinance at the direction of the City Council to inform and
guide the Planning Commission’s discussion. To guide this discussion, this Planner’s Report will
provide a summary of St. Louis Park’s ordinance, questions from City Council from the Open
Podium discussion, and an overview of EVCS ordinances or requirements in other Twin Cities
communities.
ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE REVIEW The City of St. Louis Park has a Climate Action Plan, and their discussion around EVCS started
as part of the feedback from public engagement around the Climate Action Plan. Planning
Commission interest and market trends also helped to start the conversation. St. Louis Park used
policy guides as the basis of their ordinance as few communities had adopted EVCS ordinances
at the time. St. Louis Park adopted their EVCS ordinance in April 2019 after a year of study and
revisions. Staff clearly stated throughout the process and at adoption that the EVCS ordinance is
subject to revisions as technology and the market changes.
St. Louis Park’s EVCS ordinance uses the following definition, which is industry terminology
and standards that is important for this discussion:
• Charging Levels: The standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an
electric vehicle’s battery is recharged. The terms 1, 2, and DC are the most common
charging levels, and include the following specifications:
o Level 1 is considered slow charging with 120v outlets. A Level 1 charging station
can completely charge a car in about eight (8) hours.
o Level 2 is considered medium charging with 240v outlets, charging head and cord
hard-wired to the circuit. A Level 2 charging station can completely charge a car
in about two (2) hours.
o DC is considered fast or rapid charging. Voltage is greater than 240. A DC or fast
charging station completely charge a car in about 20 minutes.
The EVCS ordinance breaks requirements down into three (3) tiers, which are applicable to all
new and reconstructed parking lots in all zoning districts available to the general public. EVCS
spaces are intended to be signed for exclusive use by electric vehicles:
• Lots with 14 or fewer spaces are not required to install EVCS.
• Lots with 15 – 49 space are required to have one (1) Level 2 station with at least one (1)
handicapped accessible parking space having an EVCS. Lots for multi-family residential
uses are required to have five (5) percent of the required parking be Level 1 charging
stations with at least one (1) handicapped accessible parking space having an EVCS.
• Lots with 50 or more spaces are required to have at least one (1) percent of the required
parking be Level 2 charging station with at least one (1) handicapped accessible parking
space having an EVCS. Lots for multi-family residential uses are required to have 10
percent of the required parking be Level 1 charging stations with at least one (1)
handicapped accessible parking space having an EVCS. Multi-family residential lots
must also have one (1) Level 2 station for guest parking.
In addition to the above requirements, both multi-family residential and non-residential parking
lots are required to install wiring for the electrical capacity to accommodate future EVCSs for at
least 10 percent of the required parking for the lot. There is no threshold in code for when
additional stations should be installed, leaving the future installation up to the property owner
and market demands. There is currently no requirement for single-family homes, but the
ordinance does include guidelines specifying where EVCSs may be located on a single-family
lot, such as in a garage or on an exterior wall adjacent to a parking space.
The ordinance also includes definitions of public and private stations. The main intention behind
these definitions is to prevent a single-family home from installing an EVCS and renting out
time/space to electric vehicle motorists. In St. Louis Park’s code, this would be considered a gas
station, which is not a permitted use in the single-family zoning district.
To help ensure that EVCSs do not preclude new construction or redevelopment, the St. Louis
Park ordinance includes a cost cap. If the cost of installing the required EVCSs exceeds five (5)
percent of the total project cost, the project applicant may request a reduction in the EVCS
requirements. The applicant must submit cost estimates to city staff or City Council in order to
be considered for a reduction.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
One question raised by City Council during the open podium discussion was whether or not
businesses were required to offer the charging stations free of charge. The St. Louis Park
ordinance allows property owners to collect fees for the use of EVCSs. In their discussion, the
St. Louis Park City Council said offering free charging may incentivize driving and
purchasing/leasing electric vehicles initially but will eventually stop being an incentive. All of
the city owned EVCSs in St. Louis Park are free. The St. Louis Park Facilities Manager
researched fee and free EVCSs and found it was more cost effective in both dollars and staff
time to maintain free charging stations.
EVCS IN OTHER TWIN CITIES COMMUNITIES
Two (2) other cities in the metro-area currently list EVCSs in their ordinance or as a requirement
for development.
Bloomington: The City of Bloomington passed an EVCS ordinance in December 2019. Now,
multi-family residential projects, excluding townhomes, are required to install EVCS at a rate of
one (1) stall per 50 units. The ordinance notes the EVCS spaces may count toward the parking
requirement. There are eight (8) multi-family zoning districts in Bloomington’s City Code,
including mixed-use districts. Bloomington may be encouraging EVCSs in other districts
through PUDs, but it is not specifically outlined in their City Code. Bloomington has more
zoning districts and specificity in uses of zoning districts than St. Louis Park.
Golden Valley: The City of Golden Valley includes EVCSs as one of 17 options for
developments that are applying for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). While EVCSs are not
required, developments need to include a certain quantity or quality of these 17 amenities to be
considered for a PUD. Golden Valley has a similar number of zoning districts and specificity in
uses of zoning districts as St. Louis Park.
All three (3) cities above have more specific criteria for obtaining a PUD than in Eden Prairie.
Other communities may work with developers to install EVCSs through PUDs even if it is not
specifically listed in City Code, similar to recent developments in Eden Prairie.
EVCS IN EDEN PRAIRIE Eden Prairie currently does not require EVCSs as part of development projects. However, staff
has been working with recent developments to include EVCSs as part of Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals in the Development Agreement. The list below includes projects with EVCSs and the number of EVCS spaces:
• Applewood Pointe - 1 space
• Castle Ridge (Presbyterian Homes) Senior Living – 8 spaces
• Central Middle School – 1 space
• Eden Prairie Library – 1 space
• Golden Triangle Industrial
Development – 1 space
• Paravel – Conduit for 2 future spaces
• Southview Senior Living – 1 space
• Eden Ridge – 10 electric vehicle-
ready garages
• Villas at Smith Village – 6 electric vehicle-ready garages
ATTORNEY REVIEW The City Attorney has weighed in on the legal standing of requiring EVCS for developments.
Currently, State of Minnesota Building Codes do not require the voltage necessary to supply an
EVCS in single-family developments. While cities can may recommend developers install EVCS
in single-family developments, they cannot enforce or require EVCS at this time. It is anticipated
that the State Building Code will be updated in the next few years to include increased voltage
requirements for single-family garages. Once this change has been made, it is the City Attorney’s
opinion that ordinances requiring EVCS in single family developments will become enforceable
at that time.
The following language is from the Development Agreement Amendment for the Villas at Smith
Village, the most recent project approved with an EVCS component, as approved by the City
Attorney:
Electric Vehicle Ready Garages: Developer has volunteered to furnish and install for each home
all necessary circuit breakers, electrical wiring and receptacles required to support one Level II
electric vehicle charging station. This voluntary undertaking includes installing a 4-wire, 240
volt 40 amp circuit with a NEMA 14-50 outlet receptacle from the main electrical panel to an
outlet box on the front wall of the garage adjacent to a vehicle parking stall. This paragraph...is
not subject to the enforcement provisions contained in this agreement.
Based on current legal standings and building codes, the City could require EVCS in surface
parking lots and multifamily development.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting the Planning Commission to discuss EVCSs in Eden Prairie and provide any
thoughts or feedback. No motion is requested at this time.
1
PROJECT PROFILE – JULY 27, 2020
PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2020
1. PRAIRIE HEIGHTS (2020-06) by Norton Homes LLC (SARAH & BETH)
Proposal for 24 single family detached villas Location: 12701 Pioneer Trail and 27-116-22-14-0035 Contact: Pat Hiller; 763-559-2991
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 05/18/20
Date Complete 06/18/20 120 Day Deadline 10/16/20 Initial DRC review 05/21/20
Notice to Paper Date 07/08/20
Resident Notice Date 07/09/20 Meeting Date 07/27/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. VARIANCE #2020-02 by Marla and Eric Ekman (SARAH)
Proposal for a variance from the City Code requirements regarding side yard setbacks for an accessory structure Location: 16740 Rogers Road
Contact: Marla and Eric Ekman; 952-454-4890
Request for:
• To decrease side yard setback from 10ft to 7ft for a shed
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 06/23/20
Date Complete 06/26/20
120 Day Deadline 10/08/20
Initial DRC review 06/25/20
Notice to Paper Date 07/08/20
Resident Notice Date 07/09/20
Meeting Date 07/27/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 10, 2020
1. ASPIRE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 (2020-03) by City of Eden Prairie (SARAH) Proposal to amend Comprehensive Plan Aspire Eden Prairie 2040 to guide property to Parks and Open Space from Industrial Flex Tech.
Location: Intersection of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive Contact: Sarah Strain, 952-949-8413
2
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Industrial Flex Tech to Parks and Open Space
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/20
Date Complete 00/00/20
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 00/00/00
Notice to Paper Date 07/22/20
Resident Notice Date 07/23/20
Meeting Date 08/10/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. ASPIRE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3 (2020-04) by City of Eden Prairie (JULIE)
Proposal to amend Comprehensive Plan Aspire Eden Prairie 2040 to guide property to Parks and Open Space from Low Density Residential.
Location: Outlot A, Highland Oaks Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space
• Rezone Outlot A from R1-9.5 to Parks and Open Space Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/20
Date Complete 00/00/20 120 Day Deadline 00/00/20 Initial DRC review 00/00/00
Notice to Paper Date 07/22/20
Resident Notice Date 07/23/20 Meeting Date 08/10/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – AUGUST 18, 2020
1. FLYING CLOUD COMMONS (CASTLE RIDGE RETAIL) (2019-21) by Oppidan Investment Company (JULIE) Proposal for retail area as Phase 3 of the Castle Ridge redevelopment project
Location: 615-635 Prairie Center Drive
Contact: Oppidan Investment Company, 952-294-1259
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.27 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.27 acres
• Site Plan Review on 5.479 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one outlot into 3 lots and 2 outlots on 7.27 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/14/19
Date Complete 04/20/20
120 Day Deadline 10/31/20
Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 05/05/20
Resident Notice Date 05/06/20
Meeting Date 05/26/20
Notice to Paper Date 07/29/20
Resident Notice Date 07/30/20
1st Meeting Date 08/18/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
3
2. THE LOFTS AT ANDERSON RESERVE (2020-02) by MWF Properties LLC (BETH) Proposal for a 52- unit multi- family apartment building Location: 9360 Hennepin Town Road Contact: Peter Worthington; 612-259-7110
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Medium Density to Medium High Density on 2.85 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.85 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.85 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 2.85 acres
• Site Plan Review on 2.85 acres
• Preliminary Plat to create 1 lot and 2 outlots on 2.85 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 03/10/20
Date Complete 05/19/20 120 Day Deadline 09/15/20
Initial DRC review 03/19/20
Notice to Paper Date 06/25/20
Resident Notice Date 06/26/20 Meeting Date 07/13/20
Notice to Paper Date 07/29/20
Resident Notice Date 07/30/20 1st Meeting Date 08/18/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – AUGUST 18, 2020
1. TARGET REMODEL (2019-19) by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. (SARAH)
Proposal for façade improvement and site improvements Location: 8225 Flying Cloud Drive Contact: Ryan Hyllested, 612-568-0698
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.6 acres
• Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 10.6 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.6 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/10/19
Date Complete 10/28/19 120 Day Deadline 08/23/20
Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 10/30/19
Resident Notice Date 10/31/19 Meeting Date 11/18/19
Notice to Paper Date 12/17/19
Resident Notice Date 12/18/19 1st Meeting Date 01/07/20
2nd Meeting Date 08/18/20
2. HIGHLAND OAKS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (2020-07) by Highland Oaks LLC (JULIE)
Proposal for amendment to the Development Agreement to remove trees Location: 7120 Gerard Drive Contact: Highland Oaks, 952-345-0543
Request for:
• Development Agreement Amendment
4
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 05/29/20 Date Complete 06/05/20 120 Day Deadline 10/02/20
Initial DRC review 06/04/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 Meeting Date 00/00/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 08/18/20
IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED
1. TILLER CORPORATION PLANT 912 (2019-24) by Tiller Corporation (JULIE)
Proposal to relocate the plant processing and stockpile areas within the site Location: 6401 Industrial Drive Contact: Michael Caron; 763-425-4191
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Public to Industrial on 4.49 acres
• Zoning District Change from Public to Industrial on 5.58 acres
• Site Plan Review on 13.21 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/08/19
Date Complete 00/00/20
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 11/14/19
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
Meeting Date 00/00/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20
Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. 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 TELECOMMUNICATION