HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/27/2020AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 27, 2020 - 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS:
John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole
Mette
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 January 13, 2020 meeting
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE #2020-01
Location: 12200 Singletree Lane
Request for:
To decrease the front yard setback from thirty five (35) feet to five (5) feet
To increase the Base Area Ratio from .20 to .214
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ANNOTATED AGENDA
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, January 27, 2020
_______________________________________________________________________________
MONDAY, January 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, JANUARY 13,
2020
MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated January 13, 2020.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE #2020- 01
Location: 12200 Singletree Lane
Request for:
• To decrease the front yard setback from 35 feet to five (5) feet
• To increase the Base Area Ratio from .20 to .214
The variance request has two parts and is prompted by right-of-way acquisition required as part of
the Town Center Light Rail Station construction and Eden Road extension. The northern property
line at the time the existing structure was constructed was considered a rear lot line, and the structure
met all setback requirements. With the extension of Eden Road, the northern property line will be
considered a front lot line, and the setback will be decreased with the new right-of-way. One
proposed variance is for a five (5) foot front yard setback from the northern property line. The
second proposed variance is to allow up to 0.214 Base Area Ratio. The existing PUD Waiver
granted for the site allowed up to 0.206 Base Area Ratio.
MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing.
MOTION 2: Move to approve of Variance Request #2020-01 based on information outlined in
the Planning Department Staff Report dated 01-27-19 and Finding and Conditions of Final Order
#2020-01.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT
ANNOTATED AGENDA
January 27, 2020
Page 2
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2019 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Kristin Harley, Recording
Secretary
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 members Kirk, Weber and Villarreal were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Farr to approve the minutes of December 9,
2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT- PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING CURRICULUM
Klima presented a PowerPoint and explained the curriculum. Staff had identified the
creation of a curriculum for new Planning Commission members. There was the potential
for six openings on the commission. Staff was looking for feedback on this curriculum,
but no formal action at this meeting. Staff would incorporate the feedback into a revised
curriculum.
The curriculum was broken in five sections: the commission’s role, legal aspects, City
Code, Regulations and Policies, Meeting Procedures, and Application Review.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 13, 2020
Page 2
Klima presented the organizational chart. She explained the commissions were all
advisory instruments to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s composition was
seven to nine members, each with a typical term of three years. The City Council looked
to appoint commissioners with varying backgrounds and experience. The Planning
Commission also served as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, granting it the power
to approve zoning variances without a recommendation to the City Council. It also
measured projects against compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, considered resident
comments and public testimony, assessed a project’s impacts, ensured compliance with
zoning standards and design guidelines, and provided expertise as applicable or relevant.
Legal training was included as a refresher section; each commission member receives in
the legal aspects of a commissioner’s roles from the City Attorney. The commission had
zoning and regulatory power at the local level, following state and federal laws. Other
regulators such as MnDOT, the DNR, the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin Council, and
Watershed Districts coordinated with application review. The Pyramid of Discretion
outlined the relationship of the more or less public participation at the creative/legislative
level (such as the Comprehensive Plan), moving through the quasi-judicial level which
included variances, conditional use permits or subdivision applications, to the
regulatory/administrative level (building permits, plan reviews). The 60-Day Rule was a
statutory process giving the City a timeline to review an application. This could be
extended an additional 60 days (for a 120-Day Review). If the City missed this deadline,
the application was automatically approved. Written findings of fact was required if an
application was denied.
Farr asked if a deeper dive on the processes of denials from the Planning Commission
versus the City Council was necessary. Klima agreed a variance review denial would
require a finding of fact. A zoning change or subdivision denial would indeed require a
findings of fact carried to the City Council. These situations are infrequent and staff
would guide the Planning Commission through those instances.
Regulations, City Code and Policies included the Comprehensive Plan, the blueprint for
the City (usually renewed every 10 years); Zoning Regulations (City Code Chapter 11);
Subdivision Regulations (City Code Chapter 12); and Design Guidelines;
Mette asked if Design Guidelines were regularly reviewed. Klima replied there was no
set schedule; the Design Guidelines were three years old. Staff remained mindful of
changes in trends and would raise the issue. However, the Work Plan could include a
review schedule. Mette agreed perhaps a 10-year review could be a good idea, of Design
Guidelines and also of variances in past projects over the previous 10 years. Klima
agreed.
Meeting procedures required regular Planning Commission meetings that were always
open to the public, along with Council Workshops. Robert’s Rules of Order was the
standard etiquette of all commissions in Eden Prairie. Klima described the process of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 13, 2020
Page 3
making a motion. She recommended that new commissioners watch the video of at least
one meeting. Discussion followed on how formal the language for this should be. Klima
urged the commission find the level of formality its current members found most
comfortable. Mette asked for other reasons for abstaining. Klima stated a financial
conflict of interest, such as with a former employer, or a nearby property where the
project is a neighbor’s, might give rise to an abstention, especially if a quorum already
exists to approve or deny a motion. In most cases an abstaining commissioner should also
abstain from the conversation and inform staff beforehand. She explained valid versus
invalid findings of fact.
DeSanctis asked if staff looked at grants or tax incentives to lower our carbon footprint
that could be built into the review process. Klima replied staff worked with a variety of
entities to promote the City’s efforts on sustainability. This was a different level than the
Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Some might find their way into Code, but
financial incentives was a City Council discussion, and other incentives could be the
result of a partnership with another entity. There was a variety of ways to address this,
rather than writing it into the City Code.
Land Use Applications: these included site plans, subdivisions, plats, code amendments,
Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning, Planned Unit Development (PUD), and
conditional use permits. The Planning Commission factored in many considerations in
reviewing subdivisions, variances, PUDs, PUD waivers versus variances, site plans, and
City Code/Text Changes. Discussion followed on including some language on the outside
time commitment which could include site visits. Klima agreed to include this. DeSanctis
asked if plan reviews could be made electronic, and Klima replied the City was exploring
this option. The feedback she had received in the past encouraged her to continue to send
the commission members the full size plan sets, as opposed to the 11”x17” plan sets sent
to the City Council. Mette added she agreed with both suggestions. Mette also suggested
including language that described what did not fall under the Planning Commission’s
umbrella. Pieper concurred with the suggestions. Klima agreed and gave the example of
financial considerations: these were handled by the City Council. She agreed to give
examples in the curriculum. Farr noted the applications were heavy on civil design, and
these could be ignored in favor of relevant drawings. Most of the submittals were
difficult documents that commissioners were not mandated to read anyway. Klima agreed
to include a slide to show which documents were being reviewed by staff or other
departments, and did not require detailed review by a commissioner.
Klima went through the development review and approval process. She went through the
approval or denial of variances and how they differed from waivers. She explained the
PUD process. She explained Conditional Use Permits, which were used less frequently in
Eden Prairie than variances and waivers. She explained the process of a project after
review and decision or recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Mette asked to add the various roles of the Planning Commission (chair and vice-chair, et
cetera) to the slide about the commission’s composition, and how each was determined.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 13, 2020
Page 4
Pieper added it might be helpful to include language on reappointment and how many
years one could serve on the commission. Higgins noted the rule might have changed
since she joined the commission. Mette also suggested updating planning terms:
Comprehensive Guide Plan and Aspire 2040. She expressed concern that Comprehensive
Plan, Guide Plan, and Aspire 2040 were used interchangeably. Farr suggested adding
language to describe what could be included under the Members’ Report portion of the
agenda, and set out preliminary plat versus final plat. DeSanctis asked for a definition of
“small” cell towers. Klima agreed to get an answer to DeSanctis’s question and
incorporate these suggestions. Pieper suggested including a bullet point about the Work
Plan under commission roles, as well as the Commission Banquet. He suggested having a
link to this under the Planning website after this was complete. Klima agreed the polished
version could be available to the public online. The commission members commended
Klima’s effort on this curriculum draft.
Klima thanked the commission members for their feedback.
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I
DATE: January 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Variance Request #2020-01
APPLICANT: City of Eden Prairie
OWNER: BW Bowling Properties
LOCATION: 12200 Singletree Lane
REQUEST:
• To decrease the front yard setback to five (5) feet. City Code minimum front yard setback is
35 feet for the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District
• To increase the Base Area Ratio to .214. The maximum permitted for the site by PUD waiver
is .206.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is currently zoned C-Reg-Ser and is classified by the Comprehensive Guide
Plan as Town Center. In 1993, site was developed as a family recreation center as part of a Planned
Unit Development (PUD). The 1993 PUD included waiver requests for side yard setback and
maximum Base Area Ratio (BAR) building requirements.
The Town Center Light Rail Station will be located immediately north of the subject property. As
part of the SWLRT construction, the City of Eden Prairie applied for and received grant funding
to construct the station and extend Eden Road. To construct the station and Eden Road extension,
the City needs to acquire about 20 feet of right-of-way along the entire northern property line from
the subject property, about 7,795 square feet in total. The acquisition of this right-of-way will
create non-conformities on the site, prompting the variance request.
VARIANCE REQUEST: There are two requests:
1.) At the time the building was constructed on the subject property, the north property line was
considered a rear property line. A rear yard setback of approximately 26 feet was provided and
is the current condition on the site, which is above the minimum district requirement of 10 feet.
With the extension of Eden Road, the northern property line will be considered a front yard as
it will front a public street. The applicant is proposing to decrease the front yard setback from
the minimum 35 feet to five (5) feet. The proposed variance requests a five (5) foot front yard
setback.
2.) Due to the right-of-way acquisition, the overall lot size of the subject property is decreasing.
The decrease in lot size increases the BAR, even though there are no proposed additions to the
building. The Waiver granted in the 1993 PUD allowed up to .206 BAR, an increase from the
Staff Report – Variance #2020-01
January 27, 2020
Page 2
C-Reg-Ser maximum of .20. The proposed BAR after the right-of-way acquisition is .214. The
proposed variance requests a .214 BAR.
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 requests are consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Guide
Plan. The variances requested align with standards of the Town Center District and do not
grant site conditions that would be inconsistent with Town Center building and lot dimensional
standards. The Town Center District has higher BAR allowance and decreased front yard
setbacks to accommodate a higher density, pedestrian environment that will complement the
multi-modal nature of the Town Center Station Area as the SWLRT begins operation.
2. Harmony with the Purpose and Intent of the Ordinance
The request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The requested
variances will not alter the existing structure or the existing use of the property as a family
recreation center.
3. Unique Circumstance
The subject property currently conforms to C-Reg-Ser District standards. However, the City
needs to acquire right-of-way from the property to construct the Eden Road extension and the
Town Center LRT station. The right-of-way acquisition will decrease the lot size and alter the
property lines, creating non-conformities with C-Reg-Ser District standards. These non-
conformities are not caused by the current property owner and are unique due to the major
infrastructure investments in this area occurring with the SWLRT.
4. Alteration of the Essential Neighborhood Character
The variances would not be out of character within the neighborhood. There are no structural
changes being proposed to the site. With SWLRT construction and other infrastructure
improvements, other properties in this area are decreasing in size as right-of-way is acquired,
altering setbacks and BAR.
5. Reasonable Use of Property
The current use of the property, a family recreation center, is not proposed to change as part of
this application. The land use is a permitted and reasonable use.
Staff Report – Variance #2020-01
January 27, 2020
Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The granting of the variances is in harmony with intent and general purposes of the ordinance and
the nature of the variances requested are consistent with the comprehensive guide plan.
Recommend approval of the following requests:
1. Approve Variance Final Order #2020-01 subject to plans stamp dated January 3, 2020 based on
the information outlined in the Planning Department Staff Report dated January 27, 2020.
The Commission may choose from one of the following actions:
1. Approve Final Order #2020-01 as presented.
2. Approve Final Order #2020-01 with modifications.
3. Continue Variance Request #2020-01 for additional information.
4. Deny Final Order #2020-01.
VARIANCE #2020-01
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER #2020-01
APPLICANT: City of Eden Prairie
OWNER: BW Bowling Properties
ADDRESS: 12200 Singletree Lane, Eden Prairie, MN
OTHER DESCRIPTION: Legal Description – see attached Exhibit B
VARIANCE REQUESTS:
• Variance to decrease the front yard setback to five (5) feet. City Code minimum front yard setback is 35
feet for the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District
• Variance to increase Base Area Ratio from .206 to .214. The maximum permitted for the site by PUD
waiver is .206
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 #2020-01 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 February
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: 01-27-2020
EXHIBIT A – FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS VARIANCE #2020-01
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 and the structure are not proposed to change and will be the same as existing conditions.
The proposed use is consistent and in harmony with the Comprehensive Guide Plan and is a
reasonable use of the property. The variances requested align with performance standards of the
Town Center District and do not grant site conditions that would be inconsistent with Town
Center building and lot dimensional standards.
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 these variance
requests, the unique circumstance is the major infrastructure investment occurring in this area to
construct the Eden Road extension and the Town Center LRT station and the right-of-way
required for these improvements.
3. Essential character of neighborhood - The third factor is that the variances, 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 structural or land use changes proposed as part of these variance requests. The
variances are not granting site or building dimensions that are outside of the dimensional
standards allowed in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
The granting of the variances is in harmony with intent and general purposes of the ordinance and
the nature of the variances requested are consistent with the comprehensive guide plan.
CONDITIONS:
• Subject to the information provided in the Staff Report dated January 27, 2020.
• Subject to plans stamped “Received City of Eden Prairie dated January 3, 2020”
EXHIBIT B – VARIANCE REQUEST #2020-01
Legal Description:
Lot 2, Block 1, EDEN PRAIRIE MAKETCENTER, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PRAIRIECENTER
D
R EDENRD
CASTLEM O OR
SINGLETREE LN GLENLNC O M M O NWEALTHR E G I O N A L C E N T E R R D
MIDDLESET
RD
Lake Idlewild
¯
Location Map: Variance Request #2020-01Address: 12200 Singletree LaneEden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
0 390 780195 Feet
SITE
¯
Aerial Map: Variance Request #2020-01Address: 12200 Singletree LaneEden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
0 390 780195 Feet
SITE
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 w ill 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 w as Updated/Created: April 18, 2008
Guide Plan Map:Variance 2020-01Address: 1220 Singletree LaneEden Prairie, MN 55344
Bowlero Property
<all other values>
Rural
Low Density Residential
Medium D ensity Residential
Medium Migh D ensity Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed-Use
Town C enter
Transit-Oriented D evelopment
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
Singletree Lane Eden RoadGlenLaneRegional Center Road
Prairie Center DriveFlyingCloudDrive
E D E N
GLENS IN G L E T R E E
FLYING CLOUDR EG I O N A L C E N TE RPRAIRIE CENTERSINGLETREE
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 C enter w ill prevail.
¯
Shoreland Management Classifications
100 - Year Floodplain
Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD
NE
RD
Up dated through approve d Ordin ances #26-2008
Ordinan ce #33 -2001 (BFI Additio n) approve d, but not shown on th is map edition
Date: March 1, 2009
0 0.150.0 75
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 T he 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 #2020-01Address: 12200 Singletree LaneEden Prairie, MN 55344
Bowlero Property
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.
A - OFC Airport Office
OFC Office
N-C om Neighborhood Commercial
C-C om Communi ty Commercial
C-H wy H ighway Commercial
A - C Airport C ommercial
C-R eg-Ser R egional Service Commercial
C-R eg Regional Commercial
TC -C Town Center Commercial
TC -R Town Center Residential
TC -MU Town Center Mixed Use
I-2 Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min,
I-5 Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min.
I-Gen General Industrial - 5 Acre Min.
PUB Public
GC Golf Course
Water
Right of Way
SITE