The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission - 12/12/2016 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 12, 2016, 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION John Kirk, Jon Stoltz, Charles Weber, Travis Wuttke, Ann MEMBERS: Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Tom Poul STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. MINUTES A. Approval of the Minutes for the November 14, 2016 meeting IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS V. PUBLIC MEETINGS A. ERS ESTATES APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION Location: 12551 Beach Circle Request for: • Appeal of staff determination that the legal non-conforming status of a second dock located at 12530 Beach Circle has ceased VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. PLANNERS' REPORT A. 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, December 12, 2016 MONDAY,December 12, 2016 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes: A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2016 V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS A. ERS ESTATES LAKE ACCESS &DOCK Request for: • Appeal of staff determination that the legal non-conforming status of a second dock located at 12530 Beach Circle has ceased. Earlier this year, the property owner of 12551 Beach Circle sought confirmation from City staff that the non-conforming use of a second dock serving property not abutting the lake remained as a protected non-conforming use. In 1965, the property was sold by the original developer along with a non-exclusive easement over the southeasterly 20 feet of the property located at 12530 Beach Circle for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a dock on the shore thereof. The property remained under the same ownership until 2005 when it was sold to ERS Development LLC. As part of the 2005 transaction, the deed conveyed the 12551 Beach Circle property along with the non-exclusive easement noted above. The 1965 easement document allowed for the placement of a dock at the 12530 Beach Circle property. The owners of 12530 Beach Circle also have installed a dock to Bryant Lake from their property resulting in two docks on this parcel. The use of the second dock at 12530 Beach Circle has been a non-conforming use since at least 1996 when the City Code regulations were adopted limiting docks only to lots abutting the lakeshore and limiting docks to one per lot. ERS Development states that the property at 12551 Beach Circle has been vacant since its purchase in 2005 and that there has been no use of the access easement or dock. ANNOTATED AGENDA December 12,2016 Page 2 City Code Section 11.75 states the following with regard to non-conforming uses. "Non- conforming uses may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: A. A non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or B. The non-conforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril ........... " In this case, ERS Development states that the use has not been continued since purchase of the property in 2005, noting"with no one living in the home, there has been no need to access the lake or install a dock". ERS Development alleges that because there was no intent to abandon the non-conforming use. City Code Section 11.75, Subd. 1.A does not require intent to abandon a non-conforming use but rather provides that termination of a non-conforming use occurs upon discontinuance of said use for a period of more than one year, which is the case here. Staff recommends that the staff determination that the nonconforming status of a dock located at 12530 Beach Circle serving property at 12551 Beach Circle has ceased be upheld. MOTION: Move to uphold the determination of staff that the non-conforming status of a dock located at 12530 Beach Circle serving property at 12551 Beach Circle has ceased. OR MOTION: Move to overturn the staff determination that the non-conforming status of a dock located at 12530 Beach Circle serving property at 12551 Beach Circle has ceased. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT A. 2017 WORK PLAN MOTION: Move to approve the 2017 work plan. IX. MEMBERS' REPORT X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,NOVEMBER 14, 2016 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Stoltz, John Kirk, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins, Charles Weber, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Tom Poul CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner Rod Rue, City Engineer Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Vice Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Kirk, Stoltz and Weber were absent. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Higgins, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 24, 2016 MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes. Motion carried 6-0. IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS V. PUBLIC MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PRESTIGE DAYCARE Request for: • Site Plan Review on 3 acres of un-platted land within the 35 acre parcel of Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC) owned property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 2 John Fanning, representative for Shinobee, presented the proposal. Mr. Fanning said Prestige Daycare is a national daycare facility. They plan to construct an 11,026 square foot single story building on 3 acres of land. The property is being leased from Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC), and it is a 50 year lease. The facility has capacity for 175 kids but it will typically operate at 150 kids. The interest of this location was because there are not a lot of child care operations in the area. Mr. Fanning said they have been working hand in hand with the City in regards to this proposal. Vice Chair Pieper asked Klima to review the staff report. Klima stated this proposal is for a site plan approval with no variance requests. Staff recommendation is for approval. Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Wuttke asked about the site lighting and its impact to the airport. Mr. Fanning said they are working with the FAA on this and will have to go through an approval process with them. Farr asked why the driveway is situated off of Park Road. Rue said it was to keep traffic off of Mitchell Road for safety reasons and to align the access point with the existing access for the church. Higgins commented there is a lot of traffic in this location, especially on a daily basis because of the events taking place at the church. She suggested the City look into this a bit more once the project is developed. She suggested there may have to be a little more traffic control. Vice Chair Pieper asked if there were traffic concerns from the City. Rue said the City has no concerns. Farr asked about site plan circulation; will the parents be dropping off the kids or will buses be used. Ifparents are dropping them off, will they accompany the children out of the car?. Mr. Fanning said the parents will have to bring the children into the facility as most of the kids will be pre-kindergarten. He also said there may be buses dropping off kids from school. MOTION: Poul moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Poul moved, seconded by Freiberg, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review on 3 acres of un-platted land within the 35 acre parcel of Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC) owned property based on the revised plans dated 10/24/16,prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and received by the City and stamp dated 10/26/16 and in the information included in the staff report dated November 9, 2016. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14, 2016 Page 3 VII. PLANNERS' REPORT Klima said the November 28th Planning Commission meeting is cancelled. VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS X. NEW BUSINESS XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Farr, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0. Vice Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. STAFF REPORT: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner DATE: December 7, 2016 SUBJECT: Appeal of Staff Determination regarding non-conforming use status BACKGROUND The City of Eden Prairie has received an application appealing a staff determination regarding a non-conforming use located on Beach Circle. Earlier this year, the property owner of 12551 Beach Circle sought confirmation from City staff that the non-conforming use of a second dock serving property not abutting the lake remained as a protected non-conforming use. This confirmation was sought due to the 12551 Beach Circle property being marketed for sale. At that time, City staff conferred with the City Attorney and provided a determination to ERS Development that the non-conforming use status of the easement had been lost due to the discontinuance of the use. ERS Development LLC has filed an appeal of that determination. The duties of the Board of Adjustment include hearing all appeals where it is alleged that there is any error in any determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the land use regulations. PROPERTY& CITY CODE HISTORY In 1964, the property at 12551 Beach Circle was originally platted. In 1965, the property was sold by the original developer along with a non-exclusive easement over the southeasterly 20 feet of the property located at 12530 Beach Circle for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a dock on the shore thereof. The property remained under the same ownership until 2005 when it was sold to ERS Development LLC. As part of the 2005 transaction, the deed conveyed the 12551 Beach Circle property along with the non-exclusive easement noted above. The 1965 easement document allowed for the placement of a dock at the 12530 Beach Circle property. The owners of 12530 Beach Circle also have installed a dock to Bryant Lake from their property resulting in two docks on this parcel. In 2006, ERS Development subdivided its property. This subdivision resulted in an additional parcel located south of the existing 12551 Beach Circle property. The parcel created in 2006 does not have rights to the easement described above nor is this appeal seeking rights for the most recently created lot. Rather, this appeal applies only to the non-conforming rights of property at 12551 Beach Circle. During the review of the 2006 subdivision application, it was noted by the City of Eden Prairie in the staff report that"the existing lot has an easement to the lake across a property to the northeast and a dock. This dock is non-conforming. The use of this dock may continue. In order to have a dock a lot must abut the lake. The proposed second lot is not entitled to an additional dock on the lake. " The use of the second dock at 12530 Beach Circle has been a non-conforming use since at least 1996 when the City Code regulations were adopted limiting docks only to lots abutting the lakeshore and limiting docks to one per lot. ERS Development states that the property at 12551 Beach Circle has been vacant since its purchase in 2005 and that there has been no use of the access easement or dock. City Code Section 11.75 states the following with regard to non-conforming uses. "Non- conforming uses may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: A. A non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or B. The non-conforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril ........... " In this case, ERS Development states that the use has not been continued since purchase of the property in 2005, noting"with no one living in the home, there has been no need to access the lake or install a dock". ERS Development alleges there was no intent to abandon the non- conforming use. City Code Section 11.75, Subd. 1.A does not require intent to abandon a non- conforming use but rather provides that termination of a non-conforming use occurs upon discontinuance of said use for a period of more than one year, which is the case here. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the staff determination that the nonconforming status of a dock located at 12530 Beach Circle serving property at 12551 Beach Circle has ceased be upheld. ATTACHMENTS 1. Appeal Application Information submitted by ERS Development 2. City Attorney Opinion Letter 3. Location Map 4. ERS Development Comments 5. Bruce Paradis Comments g:\planning\projects\active files\boa-zoning appeal 12551 beach cir\staff report 12.07.16.docx BECK OFFICE 2600 US Bancorp Center Peter K Beck 800 Nicollet Mall Attorney at L a«' peter@peterbecklaw.com Minneapolis,MN 55402 612-991-1350 www.peterbecklaw.com October 11, 2016 Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Re: Lot 2,Block 1 ERS Estates Dear Planning Commissioners: Earlier this year ERS Development LLC ("ERS"), owner of the property located at 12551 Beach Circle and described as Lot 2, Block 1 ERS Estates (the "Property") submitted a letter to the City requesting confirmation of the right of the Property to access Bryant Lake via an existing 20-foot easement over Lot 8, Block 1, the Cove, and to place a dock on the easement extending into Bryant Lake. ERS was advised by City Staff that the Property has lost its legal nonconforming status for the dock use as a result of the discontinuance for more than a year of this use. This letter is submitted in support of ERS's appeal of this determination. Although ERS also owns Lot 1, Block 1 ERS Estates,the appeal and this letter relate only to Lot 2. The Property was originally platted in 1964 as part of Lot 10, Block 1, The Cove. Lot 10, Block 1 was sold in 1965 by the developer of The Cove,Thomson and Scroggins,Inc.,to Curtis D. and Barbara G. Turner. The Deed, a copy of which is attached, conveys Lot 10, Block 1, The Cove: Together with a non-exclusive easement over the Southeasterly 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, The Cove, for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a dock on the shore thereof. ERS acquired Lot 10,Block 1, The Cove, from Mrs. Turner in 2005. The deed from Mrs. Turner, also attached, conveys Lot 10, Block 1: Together with a non-exclusive easement over the Southeasterly 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, The Cove, for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a boat dock on the shore thereof. In 2006, ERS subdivided Lot 10, Block 1, The Cove into two parcels: Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates. The Staff Report on the subdivision request, which is attached,recognizes the right to access and place a dock on the lake, with the following language: The existing lot has an easement to the lake across a property to the northeast and a dock. This dock is nonconforming. The use of this dock Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie October 11, 2016 Page 2 may continue. In order to have a dock a lot must abut the lake. The proposed second lot is not entitled to an additional dock on the lake. To be clear, ERS is not requesting access to or a dock on the lake for Lot 1,Block 1 ERS Estates, the proposed second lot referenced in the Staff Report. Although ERS also owns Lot 1, Block 1,ERS Estates,the appeal relates only to Lot 2 and ERS is only seeking confirmation of the right recognized in the 2006 Staff Report for Lot 2, Block 1 to access the lake via the existing 20-foot easement and place a dock on the lake. ERS Development is an investment entity owned by Dr. Elmer Salovich, a retired orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Salovich purchased Lot 10,Block 1, The Cove,in 2005 for$930,000 for the purpose of subdividing Lot 10, remodeling the home and selling the two new lots, Lot 1 as a buildable lot and Lot 2 with the renovated and remodeled home. The purchase price he paid, and the amount he invested in the subdivision and remodeling, was based on the rights to access the lake and have a dock,which rights are expressly granted in his deed to the Property and confirmed in the 2006 Planning Department staff report. Subsequent to acquiring Lot 10, Block 1, The Cove, Dr. Salovich subdivided Lot 10 and began renovating the home on Lot 2 and preparing it for sale. No one has lived in the home since Mrs. Turner moved prior to Dr. Salovich's acquisition in 2005. With no one living in the home, there has been no need to access the lake or install a dock. However, there has never been any intent by Dr. Salovich to abandon the right to access the lake and install a dock, and Dr. Salovich has taken no action which would indicate he no longer claims a right to access the lake and install a dock. Under Minnesota law, abandonment of a nonconforming use right requires two factors: (1)intent to abandon; and(2) an overt act or failure to act indicating the owner no longer claims a right to the nonconforming use. See, County of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Minn. App. 1991); and Haefele v. City of Eden Prairie, 2000 WL 1869574 (Minn. App.). In this case, neither of these factors is present. Use of a dock in Minnesota is necessarily seasonal. Every dock goes in and out dependent on the season and the needs of the property owner for a dock that season. In this case, with no one occupying the home on the Property, there was no need for a dock and therefore,Dr. Salovich did not install a dock. However,Dr. Salovich never intended to,and never did,abandon his right to access the lake via the easement and install a dock. In fact,his actions since acquiring Lot 10,Block 1 The Cove make clear that there has never been any intent to abandon the rights of Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates to access the lake and install a dock. These actions include his original $930,000 acquisition of Lot 10, Block 1, The Cove, his subdivision of that lot and agreement that only Lot 2,Block 1, of the new subdivision would retain the access and dock rights, and his investment in renovating and remodeling the home for sale as a home with deeded access and dock rights to the lake. The mere fact that a dock was not installed while the home was being remodeled and unoccupied is not evidence of an intent to abandon the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie October 11, 2016 Page 3 right to access the lake and put in a dock. The$1 million plus investment made in the Property to sell it as a lot with deeded access and dock rights on the lake is clear evidence of Dr. Salovich's intent to preserve, and not abandon, his access and dock rights. Without these rights, the total value of the Property,regardless of the condition of the home,is likely less than$500,000. Nobody would invest$1 million in the Property without intending to keep the lake access and dock rights. Dr. Salovich has recently completed an extensive remodeling of the home, which took much longer than planned, and has listed the home for sale. However, he has been unable to sell the Property due to the uncertainty regarding the lake access and dock rights. He has been advised that a taking of these deeded rights by the City will cause an approximately$400,000 to $500,000 loss in value to the Property. For these reasons, Dr. Salovich requests that the Planning Commission grant the appeal and confirm that the nonconforming use rights of the Property recognized by the City in 2006 have not been abandoned since then and remain in effect. Very truly yours, PETER K. BECK ATTORNEY AT LAW PLLC P B Peter K. Beck PKB:tk cc: Dr. Elmer Salovich, ERS Development LLC - . • 2011-Worronl Deed. - •.9.1Cd_at7p,t9.-431.4 Teno ,,,_.._,. -_, __-�Toren 1;Io.li .... Unlrorm onnvcy,nolnelonke(039_„ : • �7( • 803160 IJ1 ,7Jttbeitture, alatto arty ...._..»»«,»....,».»».».»..», .day of_.....M...r. rely_._.»-.-......,....._, 196 _,.., . . .•• Lctwcat Thomson and Scrogginsl Ync-........_.-..._..»..».__..._._»__.r...__,»»,,,.,,......_»......»_.__».»»»»......»..» .».: • a aorpot'alion.antler the laws of the,Stale of,.,.kl iiemat.a.•».....:......,..»..,_._..._.,, pru'Ly a/ tho lust purl, tut! '__. ;,_Cy is,U,t_Tuner, and Barbara C, Turnar,,hit&band and wife__,_r,,,_,,,,,-,,,,__ ,__ »,,,, ' of the County of»•„Fe.Dne.Qin ,.......---.:-..............—,....„-and Slate of,..».........Mlnsoa»:_t ,., -,parties---.-.-- arties»of lha scoon• _d part, Wiftteggetij, That tkt.said party o tiro /invl purl, la considera1iwn of Mu attar of.....,...„--.. ,»»�_...• • : :_• ne O Dollar and other,good„and„valuable„eoneiderations»_,..,,,»,,,,, _._.MAMA; ••• . to It'in,hand paid by tho said parties of the sccotul part,the reee%pt-Whereof is hereby ttvldnwtulurly,'crl.,does . ,, lto'oby Grant,•11ar;ain,Solt arttt Convey unto the mid parl-tat of the scrotal part.WI Mai tenants and twt . :,i as tenants In cunt.ntun, Mal'assigns, ill-0sart+teor of said parties,and the heiA and assigns of Zhu stet- + • ' vivo',hbrcecr, all•lire,Iraat,_...or parea..._._of loud Lying out bring to the County uf. liennepitL.:._,_.,.,. } » and Shiro of Minnesota,described as follows,to-wit: • : Lot 10i :Block 1, The•Cove, according to the recorded . :: plat thereof. . }• t t. , Together with:•anong gyp s've,easement over the Southeasterly• - 0 G,�N• r; f '' o SS 20'".fewt eF:lot B,/Tfie=. o'�7ve„for the:purpose o£ access to : t,j0(f•� � `:r, •: ,, ,p. (9 Bryant.?s:Long:lake-and forl,the purpose of maintaining.a•boat • ' ' ;:�.-•° 1,a • dock-on the";shore thereof. : • • �p q ' t� --, • DEED TAX Y• :r::; •�::x-. .Subject to;:restrictions:'atid easeme'iti'c ;c,TReord, r .�� • , • DEED TAX ' �i: TAX • rsr,zh 5).07, ..c..r� DEED - :. • _ .;I•.; :, • " gym, , _.4 'f'r T • The State Deed Tax'due hereon is $9,35. . • , 's• =`1 ••'.TiLo. at1e'(nib,to Matt Hie asiattit, 2'oget/ear with all the heradltamants and appurtenances theta.. • . -:/ _'..' unto;todongat.g•or In anyigiso appal to the said•ptei tics of Mc second part,thou asslgits, the sea'=: . (/::r•;''''?;•. "utvor of'said pa7.tics,anti the hULTs''<ti d wthi_aits of his sttivlVo7;7 ot'ruer,the said parties of tiro se0o7id•part•' V, - .Js•;:,•••.?:'. ;•--ta7catg as joint irritants•anti not as t-07Laitts in t'a7rtllWOn. ....+?. ::>`, ...'....• '. ': '✓17tt1 the satirparti of;thy fit part,,fen•itsol/,and tts sucucasorq, boss aouetiant tuft/r,tho said podia. - '':; :;.,:•,.'.•• of::tlw second:put,•their,.asiigns the•Rip'vivor of'said parties,and the holy&and asst¢ns of the satutvor, ' ; • 1:!:-• '•{ 'I •that:it is well seized in:fee of tho.Lunde and promises aforesaid,and has.good right to soil and convey Ma • . !;ir� acme•in•manna; and'•fortts aforesaid, am? that the saute'aro Eras front all Inoambrattoes.except as `,, .;hereinabove set'forth• • °.} ✓1nd thus abtat bai'gaiitutt'dnrL;gi:datctl-langs ana pimmskcs, in the gatot and peaecablo possession of -to said.partias of tho pecontl.pa7t,`thou].tissvgns,this survivor of said pta•itos, and'the hilts and assigns of , • .r• _'-thc.suivtuoiy,-against,all,par'soits'Iawfully'ulaiming oi'_to claim tlta whole o'-any part thereof, subject a=� '''`'' Co'i to i Wives,s any;hetsinbo m e 7itentionctl,,tlw said party of tho first part will Warraut and ;.»y:, Daft ::rt•1:4a4s',".: ' _ _ ".;t:- }' •. 43:,,t,4.•�- ',T >_ • •3lli.�cgtimoli 1Ibt:ct:of, 2'lte said 72rst party has caused thaw ' • p''/-- ,a :,'l: p{'osmtis to be e.l eatctud in its corps•ate na7no,by.Gts..Y..ipe �y �rr"f,,t el�t=1+1 President and its..•Secretary„-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;and Its corporate coal to • {• ' «"01;i I ''''1 rs -E be ho'sttnto a/flrod tho clay and yam'/11r'at abova writtot. F" t• :'F - •• .4 p.......... •i�S06 ,•?, Thomas 1 n rpg ins. Inuit. —.t • t.'ll n..•,In 1'resenao of • • " ti ;HE ^� i G(. /l' Its _ Vice ».»Pr esidcnt. :1 ± tL . Its»..•_.»._»_ Seeee,...... ..».•._.•., -_..»»•. . t • 1_60 1 • i • - . ... . . ___ _..... r- • a'tate a nn of i, 163. Cotcnty of,_..,.W..0 RP•,e i-m,.. ........_...._._. - i' On this....—.........1.9..._.:.....: -.-..—..aay of,_.........--., nC.h -.-,10..0. -,before mc,a llotirY.ruts.C,.,.._,.,.._....M._„.___.m-,......_......-.--,.- auithin and for said County,personally appeared ai, tut d.,,•1}....ThonA.Q.KL_ ._. .___ ....,..and_,,. ,1a.,S4 Sgrogginsa.-Jr.,_..-.,,,„,._,...-. ' to ma personally hnnwn.,mho, Lein onch by ma Zii1y sworn- each....au say that thoy are raapeatively - i' tho....,.ViCe_._.._....Prasidont anti the,..,.,».,.._...,_S..GX.etIl3.x.,....._...,".„_....—,,.-of tha corporation 71a7)1etl in.tha . 1 foragoinl.instrunwnt,and that the seal.afflactZ to said insh.uinont is tha corporate seal of said corpora- t lion, antl'thot sold inshacmcnt was signed and seal ad in behalf of satd corporation by authority of its ' iBaaaal of.",DLrroh-ar-p--..,_..._ „..•_— ._--sand satd...._ ..IIichard.11.-Thoma EL,.........;..._ ,..,,,..:.onui - . , i •M•....>L• .:,.9aL•ogglns;.,,J• r..,..... ......,........acicnowlea cci said inslrtcmont to ha tha free act and deed of said • comporatlo .: . 'i• ) :=.Notarj%uldie......,,....,�11vPri2a:cryad.,a .,,_.,..-.,...County,':ifinn. ; •,dfy aoirtnl.issiml.o cpa•ee_............,..: t„.M..........,19.W...... , lT' t A.BtlRt Cuao2,6 _ • .::•'a� ".='a"larDn#1 :r� _.:nl[ERIIMREVENUE=. - ,Ii .:, • • , . : .>M; �,>�','t-ter,.t, �'; 7-.1 u0tif litARY.-: w .,• ••...:.......•:••••.,.. • :05 .uwuiu 10357 L•am;,. -- • - ^!'f •. - _ _ .).-1..'.:1...,.-fi.4-1.1,.•-•., :.\..)\ i•• i , ;• . .• • . . •.•-• • �. �'' ., . . _, ,., .T. E° Z. ' '%;'... .1 '.. * q';• 144,,, .., %I.,' •• if,... • < .;• '• '`: •�t. -mil 8„^ •—= - '': .�'i'i'r.„,.. R:.-:;1 : ---.: t., = ••.,,-• A A'r-y.::p.•p: - .- '°• m . .<• `�0,'•1 .1• ap.-:.""c> _ .r c�•Z .; '.°.;•,, \ ,..r. .... . F .. i. • • 1 • r ,Q A " A q % . . N: P. q • 4 Al �, Ey 1 :a t • ;T • = F oo t H d o o 3 0 ',i• Z-„ .. I• .�.% •1L ,,. a Q'' a Cy c ° ' 1 a "'� .. b ~ H rd ns o N H 4: • E Doc No 4413949 08/08/2007 03:00 PM Certified filed and or recorded on above date: Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Michael H.Cunniff, Registrar of Titles TransiD 333427 Deputy 55 New cert Cert Fees 1194756 $1.50 AF • 764599 $10,50 STATEFEE $54.00 TDOCFEE • r , _ > • $0.00 TSUR . $2.00 COPY $68.00 Total • • Form No. 1-M - WARRANTY DEED lndividual(s)to Individual(s) DEED TAX DUE: $3,162.00 • Date: November 30,2005 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Barbara C. Turner, a single person, Grantor, hereby conveys and warrants to Elmer R. Salovich,Grantee,real property in Hennepin County,Minnesota,described as follows: Lot 10, Block 1,The Cove,Hennepin County,Minnesota, Together with a non-exclusive easement over the Southeasterly 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, The Cove, for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a boat dock on the shore thereof. PIN: 02-116-22-3 3-0002 • - together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of record, if any check box if applicable: ❑ The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the described real property • I] A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document. ❑I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I certify that the status and nu r of vi 11s on the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate. Barbara C.Turner Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here STATE OF MINNESOTA . ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The instrument was acknowledged before me on November 30,2005,by t arbara C. 'urner,a sing pe sen. \ NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL(OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK): j /` Gf GI.A' OF NOT "'Y PUBLIC OR OTHER OFF IAL J rr� $'r aJAMES A. LUNDBERG r heck here if part or all of the land is Regisy red(Torre s) •r,,et rt�`J NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA l ID . t v, # My Commloelon Explroe Jen.31,2010 Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to(include name and address of GGrantee)P:/�f�f THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY(NAME AND ADDRESS): Elmer R.SaIOVICJ] {/ / ��`�r '4" International Closing Services, Inc. �. —Brac j le c7-� a �j �� 6600 France Avenue South,Suite 640 iclmair-Pr M eaeto.55344 ^" Edina,Minnesota 55435 /2 J : 41 File No.: 57743 � / / ✓/ STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Regina Herron,Planner I THROUGH: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: March 10,2006 SUBJECT: ERS Estates APPLICANT/ OWNER: ERS Development,LLC LOCATION: 12551 Beach Circle REQUEST: 1. Preliminary Plat of 1.33 acres into two lots • I} } Staff Report—ERS Este 3 March 10,2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows this site and adjacent properties as Low Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. The property and surrounding zoning is R1-22. There is an existing house and garage located on the property. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposal is to plat the property into two single-family lots. Lot one is 32,145 square feet and lot two is 25,867 square feet, exceeding the minimum 22,000 square foot requirement. The lots on Beach Circle average range from 47,000-68,000 square feet. Lot dimensional and frontage requirements also conform to the R1-22 zoning district. The existing and proposed house pads meet City Code for R1-22 setback requirements. GRADING AND TREE LOSS The plan shows tree loss based on proposed house pads. The primary trees species on this property are oalc trees totaling 286 diameter inches of significant trees on the property. Tree loss due to construction has been calculated at 51%, or 148 caliper inches. Tree replacement is 102 caliper inches. The tree replacement plan shows 108 caliper inches meeting this requirement. SHORELAND ORDINANCE The lot is not adjacent to Bryant Lake and provision of the Shoreland Ordinance relative to lot size,dimension and setbacks do not apply. The existing lot has an easement to the lake across a property to the northeast and a dock. This dock is non-conforming. The use of this dock may continue.In order to have a dock a lot must abut the lake. The proposed second lot is not entitled to an additional dock on the lake. UTILI'17ES 0 Public water is currently not available to the property. A well will be needed. Sewer is available to the site from Beach Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following request: 1. Preliminary Plat of 1.33 acres into two lots. This is based on plans stamp dated March 8,2006,the Staff Report dated March 10,2006 and the following conditions: 1. Prior to release of the final plat,the proponent shall: Staff Report—ERS EstL s {' March 10,2006 Page 3 A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility,and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District. B. Pay all City sewer and water assessment and connection fees. 2. Prior to grading permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. B. Install erosion control on the property, as well as tree protection fencing at the grading limits in the wooded areas for trees to be preserved as part of the development. Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading. 3. Prior to building permit issuance for the property,the proponent shall: A. Provide a tree replacement surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the tree replacement for 102 caliper inches. B. Pay the Cash Park Fee. • GREGERSON, ROSOW, JOHNSON & NILAN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID H.GREGERSON* 100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH ROBERT I.LANG(1922-2012) RICHARD F.ROSOW+ SUITE 1550 ROGER A.PAULY(RETIRED) MARK J.JO HNSON*t N MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55401 JOSEPH A. ILANLAN*j' #Also admitted in Illinois DANIEL R.GREGERSON* TELEPHONE:(612)338-0755 *Also admitted in Wisconsin JOSHUA A.DOROTHY!' FAX:(612)349-6718 tAlso admitted in North Dakota SARAH E.SCHWARZHOFF WWW,GRJN.COM +MSBA Board Certified Real Property Specialist DANIEL A.ELLERBROCK# JENNIFER M.SPALDING T.JAMES POWER Writer's Direct Dial:612-436-7477 MARGARET L.EvavoLD* Writer's E-mail:rrosow@grjn.com JACOB T.MERKEL June 29, 2016 Julie Klima Via Email Only City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates Our File No.: 1610.001/ERS Estates Dear Julie: The City recently received a letter from an attorney for ERS Development, LLC ("ERS"), regarding property located at 12551 Beach Circle in Eden Prairie, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates (the "Property"). Although the letter states that ERS is the owner of the Property, county property records indicate that the Property is owned by Elmer R. Salovich, the manager of ERS. The letter asks the City for "formal confirmation" of the Property's right to continue a legal nonconforming use. You have asked us to provide a legal opinion on whether the City should provide such confirmation. Facts The Property was originally platted in 1964 as part of Lot 10, Block 1, the Cove ("Lot 10"). When the developer of The Cove first conveyed Lot 10 to the initial purchasers in 1965, the deed provided that the conveyance was: Together with a non-exclusive easement over the Southeasterly 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 1, The Cove, for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a boat dock on the shore thereof. Lot 10 does not abut Bryant Lake, so the easement provided the lot with lake access. Salovich acquired Lot 10 from the original purchaser in 2005. The 2005 deed contains identical easement language. Julie Klima June 29, 2016 Page 2 In 2006, Salovich subdivided Lot 10 into two parcels, known as Lots 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates. A staff report accompanying the 2006 subdivision request addressed the easement: The existing lot has an easement to the lake across a property to the northeast and a dock. This dock is non-conforming. The use of this dock may continue. In order to have a dock a lot must abut the lake. The proposed second lot [Lot 1] is not entitled to an additional dock on the lake. (Staff Report to Planning Commission dated March 10, 2006). At the time Salovich acquired the Property, the previous owner had presumably been continually using the access easement and the dock. The house located on the Property has been vacant since Salovich's purchase of the Property in 2005 and, consequently, there has been no use of the access easement and the dock. ERS states in its letter that "[w]ith no one living in the home, there has been no need to access the lake or install a dock." ERS/Salovich recently completed a lengthy renovation of the house and received an offer to purchase the Property. The purchase, however, is contingent on the new property owner's right to access Bryant Lake and use the dock in accordance with the easement. ERS has asked the City for "formal confirmation" of the right of the Property to access the lake and maintain the dock. Discussion The dock use granted by the easement has been a nonconforming use since at least 1996, the date of the current Code provision limiting docks only to lots that abut the lakeshore. See City Code § 9.60, subd. 11.I; see also City Code § 11.02(43) (defining "non-conforming use"). While we have not conducted historical research on the issue, it is apparent that the City's dock limitation was adopted at some point between the granting of the easement in 1965 and 1996. Both ERS and the City agree that the Property's right to maintain a dock on Bryant Lake constitutes a nonconformity. ERS contends that, even though nobody has used the access easement or installed a dock on Bryant Lake since Salovich acquired the Property in 2005, it has the right to continue the nonconforming use because it never had any intent to abandon the easement rights. ERS frames its argument in terms of"abandonment" of the nonconformity. The City Code and state law, however, do not require a showing of"abandonment" to terminate a nonconforming use, let alone intentional abandonment. Rather, the Code provides that "non-conforming uses may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, unless . . . [a] non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of more than one year." City Code § 11.75, subd. 1 (emphasis added); see also Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. le(a) (same). Julie Klima June 29, 2016 Page 3 In setting forth its abandonment argument, ERS cites County of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. App. 1991). The Peterson case, however, does not support ERS's contention that "intent to abandon" is the proper standard to apply in this case. In Peterson, the county sought to require property owners to conform the use of their property to the current county zoning ordinance on the basis that a prior legal nonconforming use had been discontinued or abandoned. Id. at 468. As in the present case, both the applicable statute and the county zoning ordinance provided for the termination of a nonconforming use if the use was "discontinued" for a period of one year. Id. at 469-70 (citing Minn. Stat. § 394.36, subd. 1 (1990); Isanti County Zoning Ordinance § 16, subd. 5(1) (1982)). The district court found that the use had been legally discontinued and abandoned. Id. at 470. The property owners appealed, arguing that a nonconforming use could be terminated by abandonment, but not by mere discontinuance. Id. at 469. The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the unambiguous language of the statute and the zoning ordinance only required a showing of discontinuance. Id. at 470 ("This court cannot amend these unambiguous provisions by placing upon counties the burden of having to prove that a landowner intended to abandon a discontinued nonconforming use."). The court, despite already finding that the discontinuance terminated the use, went on to address the merits of the parties' arguments concerning abandonment. Id. at 470. In its letter, ERS correctly cites the Peterson court's recitation of the standard for abandonment of a nonconforming use. Id. ERS fails to recognize, however, that abandonment was not the relevant inquiry in Peterson. The court's abandonment discussion does not impact its ultimate holding that "appellants forfeited the right of nonconforming use by discontinuing it for longer than one year." Id. at 471. Because the Code and the statute in the present case speak in terms of "discontinuance," Peterson compels the conclusion that abandonment, intentional or not, is irrelevant. ERS also cites Haefele v. City of Eden Prairie, No. CO-00-830, 2000 WL 1869574 (Minn. App. Dec. 26, 2000), in its discussion of the abandonment standard. Haefele involved the City's attempt to terminate a nonconforming use. Id. at *1. At the time, the City Code prohibited reinstatement of nonconforming uses "after abandonment." Id. at *4 (citing City Code § 11.75 (1982)). The Haefele court, citing Peterson, concluded that the property owner did not abandon the nonconforming use. Id. The abandonment analysis in Haefele is not relevant to the issue in the present case because the Code no longer require a finding of"abandonment." The City amended the Code in 2005 to instead provide that a nonconforming use is terminated if it is discontinued for more than one year. Because discontinuance is the applicable legal standard, whether ERS/Salovich intended to abandon the use is not relevant. Conclusion A property owner is permitted to continue a nonconforming use unless such use is discontinued for a period of more than one year. The property owner's intent surrounding its Julie Klima June 29, 2016 Page 4 failure to use the nonconformity is irrelevant, as is whether the use was "abandoned." Salovich has not used the easement to maintain a dock on Bryant Lake for ten years. It is our opinion that Salovich has discontinued the nonconforming use and that any future use of the Property must conform to the Code. Because it does not abut the lake, the Property may not maintain a dock on the lake. The City should decline to provide the "formal confirmation" requested by ERS. The City may instead inform ERS/Salovich that the property has lost its legal nonconforming use status by virtue of discontinuance of the nonconforming use for a period of more than a year. Very truly yours, GREGERSON, ROSOW, JOHNSON&NILAN, LTD. Richard F. Rosow RFR Area Location Map - ERS Development LLC Site Addresses: 12530 and12551 Beach Circle, Eden Prairie, MN Bryant Lake Beach Road 12530 Beach Circle / 12551 Parcel Created 2006 494Alided 11111 100 200 400 Feet I I I I I I STATEMENT OF DR. ELMER SALOVICH 1. I am the sole owner of ERS Development, which is the sole owner of 12551 Beach Circle,which is legally described as Lot 2,Block I ERS Estates. ?. I purchased Lot 10,Block 1,The Cove,including the home located at 12551 Beach Circle, in 2005 for$952,937. The deed to Lot 10, Block 1.The Cove included: . . . a nonexclusive easement over the southeastly 20 feet of Lot 8,Block 1, The Cove, for the purpose of access to Bryant's Long Lake and for the purpose of maintaining a boat dock on the shore thereof. 3. Following my purchase of Lot 10,Block 1,I met with City of Eden Prairie planning staff to talk about the size of the dock allowed. I was told that the legal requirements for the dock were the same as those for any other lake in the state of Minnesota. I explained to the staff that my chief concern at that time was to rehabilitate the house,as no one would be using the dock until the house was rehabilitated. 4. I subsequently began renovating the home, which was uninhabitable when I acquired Lot 10. This renovation project took much longer than expected, nearly ten years, for a number of reasons. The final cost for the renovation ended up being $1,198,662, for a total investment in Lot 10, Block 1,The Cove, to date, of over$2,150,000. 5. To recover some of my costs for Lot 10 and renovation of the home, in 2006, I subdivided Lot 1.0, Block 1, The Cove, into two parcels, Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates. The staff report on that subdivision request stated: The existing lot has an easement to the lake and across a property to the northeast and a dock. The dock is nonconforming. The use of this dock may continue. In order to have a dock, a lot must abut the lake. The proposed second lot is not entitled to an additional dock on the lake. 6. No one from the City told me, in connection with the subdivision request in 2006, nor at any time since then, that in order to maintain the dock rights recognized in the 2006 staff report it would be necessary to put a dock in the lake each year, even though the property was vacant. 7. It would never have occurred to me that failing to put a dock in the lake each year while the property was vacant would result in the loss of the deeded right to access the lake and maintain a dock on the shore thereof. It was always my belief that I had a legal right, as the owner of the property, to install a dock whenever I wanted to and that the right to access the lake and install a dock was a property right that went along with purchase of the property. 8. To date I have not been able to sell Lot 1, Block 1, ERS Estates, which does not have any access or dock rights to the lake. 9. I have also been unable to sell Lot 2, Block 1, ERS Estates, with the renovated home, because of the uncertainty regarding the right to install a dock. I had an offer earlier this year for the property, but it was contingent on confirming the right to install a dock. This offer was revoked when City staff took the position that the lot does not have the right to a dock, 10. When I purchased Lot 10, Block 1, The Cove, in 2005, I did so on reliance on the lake access and dock rights granted by the deed. 11. When I invested an additional $1,198,662 in the property to renovate the home. 1 did so in reliance on the lake access and dock rights granted by the deed and confirmed by the City when I subdivided Lot 10 in 2006. 12. Renovation of the home was ongoing from 2006 until 2016, at which time I began my efforts to sell the property. Throughout this time period, there has been no one living on the property and,therefore,no need to incur the additional cost of putting a dock in and out each spring and fall. 13. I have never intended to abandon or give up the rights to access or maintain a dock on the lake,which are property rights granted in my deed and confirmed by the City in 2006. 14. If the City takes my deeded right to install a dock on the lake, I will incur an additional loss on this property of$400,000 or more. 15. I believe that my renovation of what was a dilapidated home on the property at 12551 Beach Circle has improved the neighborhood significantly. I would never have incurred the cost of this renovation unless I had been assured,by the deed of the property and the 2006 staff report at the time I subdivided the property,that I have the right to access the lake and maintain a dock. Elmer Salovich, M.D. 3 Julie Klima From: Bruce Paradis Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 4:04 PM To: Julie Klima Subject: RE: Bryant Lake Easement Julie, Greetings. We just received the notice from the City regarding the Zoning Appeal scheduled for Dec 12, and I plan to attend. We strongly encourage the Board to uphold your original decision... 'the use of a 2nd dock at 12530 Beach Circle (my residence) is no longer protected as a non-conforming use'. No dock or lift has been in use since 12551 Beach Circle was sold to ERS Development, 10 years ago. The non-exclusive easement for this dock is shared with the 12550 Beach Circle property.This property owner also abandoned the use of a dock 10 years ago. We recently purchased this foreclosed property, and as the owner of this affected property, We would also encourage the Board to uphold the original staff decision. Please share this with the Board. If I can assist further, please ask. Thank you, Bruce and Lisa Paradis 12530 Beach Circle Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1 PLANNERS REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner DATE: December 7, 2016 RE: 2017 Planning Commission Work Plan BACKGROUND Please find attached a draft copy of the proposed 2017 Planning Commission Work Plan. Historically, the Planning Commission meetings have been largely reflective of the project or land use development applications that have been submitted to the City for review. Due to upcoming significant planning efforts, such as the Comprehensive Plan update and LRT related initiatives, planning staff is suggesting that the Commission identify issues that will provide further education and support for the Commission as these initiatives continue to advance. It is staff's intention to schedule these items for review as time permits when agendas may be light with development applications. The topics identified are recommendations based on feedback received from Planning Commission members and potential areas of interest. The work plan is intended to serve as a general guide for Commission discussion. The Commission may wish to revise the work plan to reflect additional or modified topic areas. ACTION REQUESTED Move to accept the 2017 Work Plan as presented or with modifications. g:\planning\planning commission\work plans-planning commission\2017 work plan cover memo.docx 2017 Planning Commission Work Plan The Planning Commission meets the second and fourth Mondays of the month. The City Staff Liaison to the Planning Commission is Julie Klima, City Planner. Charter Statement To provide for an open process and a balanced review of development proposals and land use requests, both private and public, with regard to the City's Strategic Plan, Comprehensive Guide Plan, and City land use. Roles and Responsibilities A. To review and recommend revisions to the Comprehensive Guide Plan as prescribed by law. B. To conduct public hearings as may be required to gather information necessary for the drafting of recommendations to the Council concerning requirements of law and as defined in Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code. C. To provide an opinion on whether specific proposed developments conform to the principles and requirements for the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the City Code provisions. D. To make recommendations to the Heritage Preservation Commission with respect to the relationship of proposed Heritage Preservation designations to the comprehensive plan of the City, to provide its opinion to the Heritage Preservation Commission as to the effect of proposed designations upon the surrounding neighborhood and any other planning consideration which may be relevant to the proposed designation, and to give its recommendation of approval, rejection or modification of the proposed designation to the Council. E. To review and recommend on additions to or modifications of park and trail and leisure uses of land. F. To achieve balanced growth by utilizing the Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Guide Plan to review land development while respecting the natural environment and private property rights. G. To perform other duties which may be lawfully assigned to it. Membership Seven to Nine members: Five representatives with experience in the areas of Heritage Preservation, Transportation, Environment, Housing, Leisure Services and two to four at-large members representing a spectrum of interests including Architecture, Land Development, Real Estate, Public Safety, Economic Growth and Landscape Architecture. Term Lengths/Dates Typically three-year terms, with exceptions as determined by the City Council. Terms start on April 1, terms end on March 31. Chair and Vice Chair Annually appointed by the City Council 2017 Goals and Work Plan 1st Quarter (January—March 2017) o Comprehensive Guide Plan Update Review& Discussion o Code Amendments (ongoing) 2nd Quarter (April—June 2017) o Comprehensive Guide Plan Update Review& Discussion o Code Amendments (ongoing) 0 3rd Quarter(July—September 2017) o Comprehensive Guide Plan Update Review& Discussion o Code Amendments (ongoing) 4th Quarter(October—December 2017) o Comprehensive Guide Plan Update Review/Discussion o Code Amendments (ongoing) o 2018 Work Plan The topics identified in the work plan are intended to be reflective of city led initiatives or topic areas that the Commission seeks additional information on to support its roles and responsibilities. These timelines are intended to serve as a general guide and may be adjusted depending upon time availability and priorities. These topics may be added to agendas as allowed by statutory review of project and land use applications. Time Commitment The time commitment per meeting may vary depending upon the number and complexity of agenda items scheduled. Planning Commission members are expected to review all staff reports and plan materials provided with the agenda packets prior to the scheduled meeting. Planning Commission members are encouraged to contact planning staff prior to the meeting with any additional comments or questions. g:\planning\planning commission\work plans-planning commission\2017 planning commission work plan.docx PROJECT PROFILE - DECEMBER 12, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 12, 2016 1. ERS ESTATES LAKE ACCESS & DOCK (2016-18)by ERS Development LLC (JULIE) Application to appeal staff determination regarding non-conforming status of a dock Location: 12551 Beach Circle Contact: Peter Beck 612-991-1350 Request for: • Appeal of staff determination that legal non-conforming status has ceased Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/11/16 Notice to Paper Date N/A Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Date Complete 11/01/16 Resident Notice Date 11/21/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 120 Day Deadline 02/28/17 Meeting Date 12/12/16 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 Initial DRC review 10/13/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION - DECEMBER 19, 2016 CONSERVATION COMMISSION - DECEMBER 20, 2016 MEETING DATE CHANGED FROM DECEMBER 13 TO DECEMBER 20 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT - JANUARY 3, 2017 1. PRESTIGE DAYCARE (2016-12)by Shingobee (ANGIE) Proposal to construct a daycare facility Location: 15219 Pioneer Trail—Southeast Quadrant of Mitchell/Spring Rd&Pioneer Trl Contact: Stacy Gleason 763-479-5647 Request for: • Site Plan Review on 3 acres of un-platted land within the 35 acre parcel of Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC) owned property Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 08/26/16 Notice to Paper Date 10/26/16 Notice to Paper Date 11/16/16 Date Complete 09/13/16 Resident Notice Date 10/28/16 Resident Notice Date 11/18/16 120 Day Deadline 01/11/17 Meeting Date 11/14/16 1st Meeting Date 12/06/16 Initial DRC review 09/01/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 1 PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 9, 2017 1. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO TOWERS AND ANTENNAS (2016-20) (STEVE) Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11,relating to Cell Towers and Antennas Contact: Steve Durham, 952-949-8491 Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 12/05/16 Notice to Paper Date 12/22/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/17 Date Complete N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 01/09/17 1st Meeting Date 00/00/17 Initial DRC N/A 2nd Meeting Date review CITY COUNCIL CONSENT - TBD 1. PRAIRIE BLUFFS SENIOR LIVING(2015-17)by Albert Miller (BETH) Proposal to develop a 3 and 4 story, 138 unit senior housing and assisted living project Location: 10217, 10220, 10240, 10280 Hennepin Town Road and two additional parcels (PID 36-116-22-11-0026 & 36-116-22-11-0003) Contact: Albert Miller—612-386-6260 Request for: • Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Office to High Density Residential on 4.74 acres. • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.74 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.74 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural and Office to RM-2.5 on 4.74 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.74 acres • Preliminary Plat of six lots into one lot and one outlot on 4.74 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 07/13/16 Notice to Paper Date 08/04/16 Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16 Date Complete 08/02/16 Resident Notice Date 08/05/16 Resident Notice Date 09/23/16 120 Day Deadline 01/30/17 Meeting Date 08/22/16 1st Meeting Date 10/4/16 Initial DRC review 07/28/16 2nd Meeting Date 2 IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED 1. 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 Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15 Date Complete 00/00/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15 120 Day Deadline 00/00/15 Meeting Date 12/07/15 1st Meeting Date 01/05/16 Initial DRC review 00/00/15 2nd Meeting Date 2. HY-VEE CONVENIENCE STORE (2016-11)by Hy-Vee, Inc. (BETH) Proposal to construct a 7,905 square foot convenience store with gas pumps and drive thru for a coffee shop Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Hennepin Town Road. Contact: John Brehm—515-267-2800,jbrehm@hy-vee.com Request for: • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.96 acres • Site Plan Review on 3.96 acres • Preliminary Plat to combine one lot and one outlot on 3.96 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted ' 08/26/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Date Complete 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 120 Day Deadline 00/00/16 Meeting Date 00/00/16 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 Initial DRC review 09/01/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 3. KOPESKY 2ND ADDITION (2016-19) by HTPO (ANGIE) Proposal for an 8 lot single family subdivision Location: 18340 82nd St W. Contact: Charles Howley—952-829-0700 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review with waivers on 4.14 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.14 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 4.14 acres 3 • Preliminary Plat of one lot into 8 lots on 4.14 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/28/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16 Date Complete 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 Resident Notice Date 00/00/16 120 Day Deadline 00/00/16 Meeting Date 00/00/16 1st Meeting Date 00/00/16 Initial DRC review 11/03/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16 APPROVED VARIANCES TELECOMMUNICATION PROJECTS 4