Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 02/24/2025Agenda Eden Prairie Planning Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Monday, February 24, 2025 City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ATTENDEES Planning Commission Members: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan City Staff: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources MEETING AGENDA I. Call the Meeting to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Minutes A. Approval of the minutes for Planning Commission Meeting held on February 10, 2025. V. Public Hearings A. 12251 Sunnybrook Rd. (2025-01) 1. Request for approval for rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on .78 acres VI. Planners Report VII. Member’s Reports VIII. Adjournment UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2025 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Trisha Duncan, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Acting Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission member Pieper and Weber were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Grote to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of January 27, 2025. MOTION CARRIED 6-0 with one abstention (Grote). V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE #2025-02BOA – 9030 HIGH POINT CIRCLE Jeremy Leiferman of Citadel Deck Company, and Jason Aaronson, owner at 9030 High Point Circle, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The applicant was requesting to build a standard-sized deck that would encroach into the rear yard setback. The existing deck followed the property setback but its irregular size, due to conformity to the 20-foot setback rule, rendered it largely unusable. Leiferman displayed aerial views of the current property line and the location of the setback line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2025 Page 2 Barnhart presented the staff report. The applicant was requesting a 17-foot setback, less than the 20-foot setback required by City Code. This application met the five criteria the City must find when granting a variance: the improvement or use was consistent with Comprehensive Plan; improvement was in harmony with the purpose and intent of the variance; the unique characteristics of this property and practical difficulties with the Ordinance that made a reasonable use problematic, which was the case here; the practical difficulties within the scope of the improvement of pursuing alternative designs; preservation of neighborhood character; and improvement and reasonable use of property. It was not practical to shift the door as a viable alternative to the deck setback variance. Given that the open space goals of the rear yard setbacks were in part satisfied with the preserved outlot, the proposal fit with the overall goals of the Ordinance. Staff recommended approval. MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Duncan to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Duncan found this application to be straightforward and Sherwood agreed. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the variance to allow a deck 17 feet from the rear property line in the R1-13.5 Zoning District as represented in the February 10, 2025, staff report. Motion carried 7-0. HIGHWAY 5 BUSINESS CENTER (2025-03) Request for • Zoning District Changes from I-General to Flex Service on 3.98 acres • Site Plan Review on 3.98 acres • Preliminary Plat combining several tracts into one lot on 3.98 acres Evan Mattson of Endeavor Development at 5800 American Blvd West, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He introduced Endeavor Development as a local developer that had acquired property from MnDOT in 2024. The applicant was requesting a rezone to Flex Service and also preliminary plat approval. The request was consistent with the 2040 guidance of Flex Service and a preliminary plat was requested because the property was reclaimed from MnDOT right-of-way and was not currently platted. The proposed development would build a 51,966 square foot building. Mattson displayed elevations showing the materials: three complementary paint tones (cream, tan, and charcoal), stone veneer, and a metal canopy and bronze window frames. He displayed exterior and interior renderings. Farr asked for and received confirmation the design included the same potential for a mezzanine as in the other project by this applicant. Mattson replied the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2025 Page 3 project could accommodate one and the parking required but there were no plans for a mezzanine at this time. Taylor asked for confirmation on the number of tenants at this building, with the response from Mattson being likely one. . Barnhart presented the staff report. He stated there was no tenant identified as yet. The building was identical to but smaller than the Nexus II building approved last month and the Nexus I building reviewed last summer. This project did not require any waivers and met required setbacks, number of parking spaces, landscaping, and materials. This would be the City’s first Flex Service zoning project incorporating that new zoning district standard. Staff had done a careful review of the perceived impact on streets near Highway 5, as this will be a visually prominent building. Trees would be removed and landscaping requirements implemented, but this project would effect a significant difference from the site as it currently appears. The staff report included similar buildings to demonstrate the change to this area which can be hard to visualize. Staff had carefully examined the screening of the dock doors. It was inevitable that this would be visible to commuters on Highway 5, although the landscaping plan would blunt this effect along the infiltration basin, and there would be a mix of trees at the southeast corner near the retaining wall. Parking would be analyzed when the tenant came in, but was configured based on the applicants assumed use distribution. It did meet City Code. Staff recommended approval. Farr noted on the preliminary plat the property line was set back from both Venture Lane and Wallace Road and asked why the right-of-way was located so asymmetrically. Barnhart replied this was the boundary line of the property as purchased from MnDOT, and staff had not proposed moving or vacating the right-of-way, but did recognize it was larger than typical easements. Where normally 10 feet was required for utilities, this had been reduced to five feet to also accommodate landscaping. Farr noted also there was no site lighting plan in the staff report. He asked for and received confirmation there were several light poles in the western parking lot, and wall mounted lights on the other three sides of the building. Barnhart replied a photometric plan had been received by staff. The glare concern could be put in the development agreement; the photometric plan would not illustrate this potential for glare. Taylor asked for and received confirmation there were plans for future solar panel installation, but not solar panels actually being installed with this development. Barnhart replied the building was designed to accommodate solar if desired by the tenant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2025 Page 4 MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Duncan to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Grote asked how old the standard was that allowed for two EV charging stations in new development, and if this could be increased in the future. Barnhart replied he was not sure when the standard was created, but there was a PUD requirement for a certain amount of EV potential. The applicant elected to apply this; it was not a requirement in this case, and the applicant could elect to add more EV charging stalls as needs warranted. Sivilay added he had visited the site and the only entrance and exit was on Venture Lane or through Martin Drive to Mitchell Road, yet there were loading docks on the west side of the building. He asked if the trucks would enter via Wallace Road rather than Venture Lane. Schulze replied the study did not go into that level of details but did indicate 50 percent would go west to Highway 5, and 50 percent going to Martin Drive or Wallace Road, and perhaps 20 percent of these going all the way to Mitchell instead of Highway 5, et cetera. Farr asked for and received confirmation there were different levels of preparedness, from EV-ready conduit, wiring and conduit and box, and an EV charger installed with all piping and wiring, plug-in ready. This project would provide the conduit. He asked if there would be sufficient electrical service to provide power in the future for EV charging stations. Mattson replied the service would offer 1,600 amps, large for a building of this size. Typically, 2,000 amps per 100,000 square feet was provided, placing this application over the standard metrics, and he was confident there would be sufficient capacity. Farr commended the project as an exemplary test case for the new Flex Service district without variance, considering the site’s challenges. Kirk agreed, adding that while driving down Eden Prairie Road to Highway 5, he was surprised by the new, brightly-lit car wash recently approved, despite of course knowing about this development. Therefore, he found staff’s comments about preparing residents for marked changes at this site were well taken. Eden Prairie was changing and evolving, and this location was a logical one for this continued evolution. He praised the preparation and forethought by staff, the applicant, and the developer. Grote asked if there had been comments from residents to the west, which existed within the mailing distribution list. Barnhart replied there had not been. Duncan agreed with Farr that this was a very well thought out project which avoided waivers. MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval of the Zoning District Changes from I-General to Flex Service on 3.98 acres; Site Plan Review on 3.98 acres; and Preliminary Plat combining several tracts into one lot PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2025 Page 5 on 3.98 acres as represented in the February 10, 2025 staff report. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Planning Commission Staff Report Date: February 24, 2025 Location: 12251 Sunnybrook Road Subject: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 From: Ben Schneider, Planner I Applicant: Cameron Serk Review period expires: May 22, 2025 ITEM DESCRIPTION Request to rezone existing single-family lot from Rural to R1-13.5 REQUESTED ACTIONS • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .78 acres BACKGROUND The applicant currently resides in a single-family home located at 12251 Sunnybrook Road. The lot is unplatted, and the home was initially constructed in 1973. The property is zoned Rural (R) and is guided Low Density Residential. The subject lot abuts Creekwood Park to the west and the south and is adjacent to a single-family lot zoned R1-13.5 to the east. The neighborhood as a whole is mostly comprised of other lots zoned R1-13.5, represented in yellow in the graphic below. The properties zoned Rural are shown in beige and the green parcels are zoned Public. Subject Property Staff report – Zoning District Change – 12251 Sunnybrook Road February 24, 2025 Page 2 The homeowner is unable to move forward on a planned home addition due to the underlying setbacks of the Rural Zoning District. Therefore, they are requesting a zoning district change to R1-13.5. This proposed zoning district change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would also be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The setbacks of the R1-13.5 zoning district would accommodate the proposed home addition. When the home on the subject property was originally constructed in 1973, it was not eligible to be rezoned to an R1 district because it was not initially hooked up to city water and sewer services. However, the home eventually did connect to these utilities in 1993, which means the lot is eligible for a rezoning to a single family (R1) zoning district. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS Notably, the adjacent lot to the east, 12205 Sunnybrook Road, went through a similar process in 2010. That lot was also zoned Rural and rezoned to R1-13.5 to accommodate a proposed garage addition. In the review of this most recent request, staff has begun researching similar situations in the City where a property is zoned Rural and connected to city utilities. City staff will consider the results of this research to determine any broader, appropriate next steps. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following request: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on .78 acres. Legend – Zoning Districts Shown Existing Proposed Rezoning Request – 12251 Sunnybrook Road