HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/22/2018 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, October 22, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed
MEMBERS: Farr, Mark Freiberg, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE --ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the October 8, 2018 meeting
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. NOTERMANN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: Northwest quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
Request for:
• Guide Plan change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 8.34 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.54 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 8.34 acres
B. PETERSON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Location: Northeast quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
Request for:
• Guide Plan change from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential on 7.57 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 12.3 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 12.3 acres
C. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT GARAGE
Location: 14405 W 62nd St
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.05 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.05 acres
D. CODE AMENDMENT FOR SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND PAWN
SHOPS
Request to:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Sexually Oriented Businesses and Pawn
Shops
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Michael DeSanctis,
Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Matthew Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural
Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
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
Absent was commission members Mette and Higgins.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Freiberg moved seconded by DeSanctis to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Kirk moved seconded by Farr to approve the minutes of September 24, 2018.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
SMITH VILLAGE
Location: 16389 & 16397 Glory Lane
Request for:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 2
• Guide Plan change from Industrial and Church/Cemetery to Medium High
Density
• Residential on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.16 acres
• Zoning District Change from Pub and I-Gen to RM-2.5 on 7.16 acres
• Site Plan Review on 7.16 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into five lots and one outlot on 7.16 acres
Mark Nelson, of United Properties representing the development team, presented a
PowerPoint and explained the application. The 7.16-acre property located east of Eden
Prairie Road, north of Highway 212 and just north of the Minnesota River Bluff LRT
Regional Trail, would be developed into a multi-family unified residential project with
three product types. Common Bond proposed Trail Point Ridge along Eden Prairie Road
and included workforce housing in a four-story building with 58 units, ranging from one-
to three-bedroom units, and ninety percent having rents attainable for middle-income
workers.
Both surface and underground parking was proposed. United Properties Development,
LLC proposed a 100-unit three-, four-, and five-story building on the east side of the
property. The building included for-sale homes for active and independent seniors at least
62 years of age. Homes would be sold as a membership share of stock into the
cooperative. Both underground and surface parking were proposed. All of the homes
would be two-bedroom units and most included a den and/or sunroom. This proposed
building will include a number of amenities for the residents such as a craft room, fitness
center, great room, et cetera. For the Smith Village Townhomes, the Halley Land Corp.
proposed two three-unit townhome buildings along the regional trail. Each of the six for-
sale townhomes would be custom homes approximately 3,500 square feet with two- or
three-car garages.
Additional information and revisions to the original application have been provided
relating to the school bus drop-off and pick-up plan, landscaping, building placement on
site, and better integration of the site with the neighborhood. Nelson displayed the view
from the trail to show the limited visual trail impact. The owners of the Smith House
Coffee Shop raised new concerns in an email dated October 1, 2018. Those concerns
include the landscaping between the cooperative and the parking area; the trail
connection being adjacent to the site possibly causing the business to lose a parking stall;
the name "Smith Village"which would be the marketing name for only that part of the
development but could be changed; and the parking plan. Nelson displayed a view from
the Smith House and stated he would continue to work with staff on all of these concerns.
Additional concerns included would the development stand the test of time and be
sustainable; increased traffic along Eden Prairie Road, which was studied by a consultant
hired by the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 3
Farr asked if the applicant was prepared to accept the six staff conditions itemized in the
staff report, and Nelson replied he would.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant had continued to work with staff since the
September 10, 2018 presentation. The changes included providing access to the City's
future ground water storage tank area to the south of the site, landscaping revisions, et
cetera. A waiver is requested for the site landscaping. City code allowed developer to
count 25 percent of the planting beds toward the overall caliper inches. The proposed
landscaping was acceptable to staff and staff recommended approval of the waiver as
requested and with the final calculations. The building height waiver also required final
measurements. A small change in materials needed to be made to the facade to bring it
compliant with City code class materials. Letters from residents had been included in the
staff report, some stating concerns and providing additional comments, and three letters
of support were also provided. A PUD approval was usually requested when a mix of
uses was being provided and flexibility within the City code was needed, and this was not
atypical.
Inclusionary housing recommendations were still being revised at the September 10
meeting. Staff reviewed the original requests against the Code and recommended
Applewood include three units at 60 percent AMI, four units at 80 percent AMI, and
three at 100 percent AMI. Common Bond would seek TIF through a separate process.
Staff would continue to work with the developer on this. Changes that staff proposed to
the conditions of approval were: a revision of the plans to reflect the access by the water
storage tank and the attached easement language when the development agreement is
signed; the building setback along Glory Lane would be 16.7 feet; and fulfillment of
specifics of building height and landscaping caliper inches. When these are finalized,
staff would amend the waiver language. Staff recommended approval subject to the
conditions in the staff report.
Pieper asked if fees would be part of the discussion tonight. Klima replied staff did not
recommend approval the waiver of the park dedication or the Sac and Wac fees, which in
the case of Common Bond, maybe more appropriately addressed under the TIF
discussion.
Farr asked how much weight the issue of the water storage tank access should be given.
Klima replied as of the September 10 meeting the City had not received the information
regarding access. The applicant continued to work with the Public Works Director,
though the plans had not yet been revised to reflect this. A separate sketch was provided
in the packets, and the applicant and the Public Works Director were in agreement as to
the location and the language. Farr replied the blue line in the color sketch did not seem
to indicate the entire access. Rue replied the easement would extend down south of where
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 4
it appeared to end on the sketch, into the regional rail property. Farr observed a straight
line here whereas the plans indicated a more circuitous route, and urged a three-
dimensional solution to the access. Rue replied this was a 10 percent grade, sufficient for
access. Should the applicant desire an ADA-accessible trail, it would have to utilize
switchbacks. Three Rivers and the Hennepin Rail Authority were also involved in the
discussion. Kirk asked for and received confirmation the staff and developer have an
informal agreement which needed to be finalized on paper and in the plans.
John Pullis of 8101 Curtis Lane (Lake Park Townhomes) spoke in support, stating the
multi-generational, multi-income project was consistent with his and his wife's values,
she being a member of the Human Rights and Diversity Commission.
David Saltzman of 17635 Wiedman Way, and employee of Southwest Transit and
member of the Eden Prairie Housing Coalition, spoke in support, stating it made
excellent use of existing property and blended different types of housing. The affordable
workforce housing offered in Common Bond was especially desirable, since "limited
income" did not necessarily mean"poor"but stable and needed professions such as
teachers and fire fighters, et cetera. The Eden Prairie Housing Coalition was in support of
the mixed-use concept.
Donald Hanson of 7936 Timberlake Drive gave a PowerPoint presentation and spoke in
support of the project but with the same major concerns he raised at the September 10
meeting. He proposed to reduce the building height to three stories, removed the
townhome portion of the project, modify the mixed-use section from three elements to
two; and to model the project, especially the color scheme, after the Sterling Ponds senior
apartments. He invoked the "100 Year Rule,"the legacy of any project a century from
now, to prevent the unintended consequences of granted variances. He stressed lack of
sufficient setback, such as at Eden Gardens, preventing the widening of Eden Prairie
Road in the future, and proposed complementary colors to the sky to camouflage the
project's impact on the prairie (original landscape of Eden Prairie).
Cari Larsen of 17971 Junegrass Lane spoke in support of the project, stating the mixed-
use development was important for maintaining the availability of affordable housing.
Abdi Fatah Yusuf, a ten-year resident of Eden Prairie, spoke in favor of the Common
Bond project, stating affordable housing was difficult for residents to find.
Mike Bedglund of 10984 Jackson Drive and a thirty-year resident of Eden Prairie and a
real estate broker, spoke in support, stating change was the only constant and this was a
well-thought-out project that addressed specific needs, including affordable housing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 5
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
Pieper asked Nelson if he was prepared to address the residents' concerns, specifically
the use of Sterling Ponds as a model, the color scheme, and the reduction of a four-story
to a three-story. Nelson noted the four-story Trail Pointe Ridge apartment building had
gone through a multi-layered funding process that would be in jeopardy were it reduced;
also, the underground parking, more expensive than surface parking, maximized the
green space and storm water, making the marketing of a four-story development crucial.
The townhomes were also a driver of the development funding and could not be removed
from the plan. Nelson stated the existing color scheme utilized earth tones and attractive
materials.
Villarreal noted a condition required funding for the Trail Pointe Ridge and asked how
this would be done. Diana Dyste, project manager of Common Bond Communities, low-
income housing tax credit for a primary source of funding. Common Bond submitted an
application in June and expected grant award announcements in October or November.
Common Bond was also able to secure Hennepin County funding, and 70 percent of the
funding source was through equities secured from the tax credit.
Freiberg praised this unique collaboration among three developers and stated subjecting
the "100 Year Rule"to this project was not realistic, as one trying to imagine the future a
century ago would not be likely to imagine today's reality, and it was difficult to project
even ten years in the future. Rather, Eden Prairie had needs to be addressed today, and
this project addressed those for this site. Weber agreed, saying the project more than fit
the site and its advantages far outweighed its disadvantages. He saw no comparison to the
Sterling Heights development. DeSanctis also expressed support but stated he wanted to
see an aggressive landscaping plan. It fell under the 975 caliper inch requirement, and
there should be a concerted effort to increase the number of trees due to the proximity of
Highway 212 and the changes in our climate. Farr also expressed support. The coffee
shop owners' concern with the height could be mitigated by a three-dimensional shadow
study; the three clustered facades would have a blended, not an individual, architectural
style; and at the September 10 meeting Farr had suggested the applicant screen the
development with trees and shrubs to accommodate the waiver for the 35 foot setback to
20 feet, and he wished to see more consistency on this. Kirk also expressed support for
the project saying the compromises were good ones and in the right direction for Eden
Prairie.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 6
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to recommend approval of Smith Village
project based on information contained in the October 5 staff report and the plans stamp
dated September 24, 2018 with the following conditions: staff recommendation 2a:
easement language would be understood to be at the time of development agreement;
staff recommendation 2d: the building setback along Glory Lane would be 16.7 feet; and
there could be details in the waivers prior to City Council meeting. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
EDEN BLUFF 4TH ADDITION (CH ROBINSON)
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.67 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.67 acres
Brian Hennen, manager of Procurement and Real Estate for CH Robinson, gave an
overview of the application. The 11.67-acre property located on the corner of Liatris
Lane and Charlson Road, part of a larger CH Robinson office campus. In its continued
growth, CH Robinson delayed the building of a fourth office building, and there is no
timetable for it to be built. Their parking on campus was at capacity, driving an imminent
need for more parking spaces. Hennen held community meetings with the Hennepin
Village community in 2017 and 2018, and also hosted a meeting with Hennepin Village
board members. The current application represented a compromise.
Paul Holmes, Vice President/Principal of Pope Architects, displayed a PowerPoint and
detailed the application. The project for the Eden Bluff site had been approved in 2008.
The immediate need was for more parking, with a later timetable for the fourth building.
After neighborhood comment on the originally proposed three-story building, the future
building and the present parking application asked for a two-story, 80,000 square foot
building, expandable to the west to 120,000 square feet, and 175 surface parking stalls.
This plan had one access point to Liatris Lane in response to a traffic study done in
August, 2017. It included a dedicated right-turn and dedicated left-turn lanes onto
Charlson Road. The building height was 22.5 feet high to the roof and 30 feet high to the
parapet, and followed the Eden Prairie Design Guidelines adopted in 2016. Holmes
displayed the views of the trees planted in 2004 which were now essential screening, and
a view with the completed parking and future parking. The nearby townhomes would
look over the building site. Holmes displayed the drainage plan which collected storm
water into two undergrown containment vessels and drained into the pond. The landscape
plan would add trees to the screening between parking and the townhomes and in
planting islands, and would also be screened from Liatris Lane.
Klima presented the staff report. In 2006, a PUD was approved for Phases two through
four of the overall CH Robinson campus, which included this property. The approved site
plan for this property included a one-story 81,900 square foot L-shape building with 614
parking stalls. The 2006 approved plan also included access via two driveways onto
Liatris Lane and a shared driveway with the existing CH Robinson building to the east.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 7
An existing storm water management area was located along the south property line of
this lot. The current application included the construction of surface parking and
construction of a 120,000 square foot, two-story office building using a phased
development approach.
The project is proposed to be constructed in phases. The first phase included the
construction of a parking lot with 175 parking stalls on the east side of the site, west of
the existing CH Robinson building. The second phase proposed to include construction of
a new 80,000 square foot, two-story office building and an additional 607 parking spaces.
The proposed site plan would also include a potential third phase that could
accommodate a 40,000 square foot, two-story future expansion of the building. Full build
out of the building would bring the total square footage of the building to 120,000 square
foot.
As a part of the PUD process, the applicant was seeking one waiver from the City Code
to allow an off-street parking lot on the property without a primary structure and allowing
the parking lot to serve an adjacent lot. The applicant had identified a need for additional
parking for their current employees before the need for additional office space. The
proposal was to construct a portion of the parking on this property prior to constructing
the proposed new building. The proposed Phase I parking would ultimately serve the
overall campus and future building. Letters from the public were included in the packet
and available on the table for Commission members. Staff recommended approval of the
project subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Farr noted Phase One included no temporary storm water treatment other than the
existing ponds and asked if this would be adequate until the underground treatment plant
were constructed. Rue replied the pond was built in earlier phases and a trunk line fed it.
Underground infiltrations would be provided in the future.
Deane Conklin of 15529 Junegrass Lane, President of Hennepin Village Master Board
and President of the Heritage Townhome Subdivision Association, also a retired banker
at the Chase Manhattan Bank with an undergraduate degree in economics and an MBA in
Finance, raised his and current residents of Heritage Village objections to the project.
Most homeowners made their home purchases after 2006 and thus had been unaware of
the prior approvals, and were blindsided by the Eden Bluff business park PUD. He
displayed a 2006 color exhibit used in marketing homes by the prior developer that
showed a blank area with prairie grass on the development site, and stated no mention
was made of this future development to homeowners buying homes in this development.
Residents were concerned about property values, traffic, and safety. The Hennepin
Village Master Board considered the impact of this project on other homeowners, not just
those that would overlook the site. Citing the staff report, Conklin raised concerns about
land use and traffic impacts. The Traffic Impact Study was conducted during a non-
school vacation month in August, 2017, a month that did not include school bus
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 8
movement and not representative of either peak-use or normal levels. The queuing and
backup issues raised in the report and experienced at CH Robinson were a concern even
in the study month of August. The construction of a roundabout at Charlson Road and
Spring Road would mitigate backup issues. Conklin called for a refresh traffic study
based on a school day, work day weekday before any building permits. He suggested
leveraging the Grace Church parking lot with a shuttle. CH Robinson's CFO cycled to
work; Conklin asked if this and other out-of-the-box solutions would be considered by
CH Robinson and the commission members. He called for a four-way stoplight on
Charlson Road and Liatris Lane and the consideration of a roundabout at Charlson Road
and Spring Road before construction of the parking. Drainage and landscaping, especially
along the southern border, were also major concerns. Residents did not have the most up-
to-date information, and the Hennepin Village Board would entertain retaining an
engineer at its upcoming meeting on October 15. Conklin urged the developer to use the
City's geocoding software to inventory trees as Hennepin Village had been required to by
the Natural Resources Department of the Parks and Recreation Department. He urged a
requirement to use the geocoding software, an independent engineer retained by the
Hennepin Village board be allowed to review the drainage plan, and the aforementioned
traffic study refresh be added to the staff report as conditions of the development.
Victoria Pellar Price of 15487 Junegrass Lane spoke against the project, likening it to a
"shotgun wedding." She stated she, like others, was completely unaware of the prior
approval and stated the major objection was the fact their only entrance/exit point (at
Liatris exit) was being cut in half. This T-section was utilized by school buses,bicycles,
pedestrians, and parents with strollers and she stated the homeowners could not imagine
that street being turned into an access point for the CH Robinson parking lot. She was
concerned about safety and access in light of the increasing traffic, and called for no
approved expansion until a refreshed traffic study was done that reflected the school
calendar year. When Highway 61 closed, traffic accessed the area from Spring Road,
causing bothersome congestion. The top of Junegrass Lane was a steep incline and every
winter her and her neighbors' cars became stuck, forcing residents to back down the
street to Charlson Road to turn or to turn on Plumstone Road in order to reach their
homes. Given the existing traffic difficulties, she was concerned about the addition of
700 automobiles attempting to reach the CH Robinson site.
Kenneth Dedeker, Eden Prairie resident 10064 Indigo Drive and President of Prairie
View Townhome Association and Vice President of the Hennepin Village Master Board,
echoed Conklin concerns regarding traffic, particularly at peak workday hours. He also
called for a refreshed traffic study and a four-way stoplight. He complimented CH
Robinson for moving the access from Plumstone to Liatris, but reiterated that not enough
had been done.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 9
Charles Batchlor of 15211 Plumstone Drive expressed concerns about traffic, as he had a
son who caught the bus at Plumstone and Liatris, and stated the potential for loss of
property values at the construction of a parking lot and office building close to these
homes.
Kaju Kalidindi of 15457 Junegrass Lane echoed others' concerns and added if the Liatris
Drive access to CH Robison were to be reserved only for emergency vehicles, this would
lessen the congestion already seen by the residents. He was unsure how the drainage
would affect the homeowners, but wondered if the present drainage contributed to the
mosquito level in the area.
Venkal Marikondy of 15473 Junegrass Lane echoed others' concerns about the impacts
of traffic of this commercial construction on the residential area. He emphasized how
pervasive the apprehension among the residents was.
Vijama Ravella of 15099 Plumstone Drive objected to the development due to the
difficulty of getting to Charlson Road with the addition of half(350) of the projected
extra cars (700). He echoed the concerns about the necessity of pushing cars in the winter
due to the steep road and congestion, and asked for a creative solution. He was a new
resident and was disconcerted by the present level of traffic—seven bus stops on his
street. He urged the commission members to consider the safety of the residents.
Saidaar Bommareddy of 15172 Plumstone Drive expressed his concerns about buying a
home in an area that appeared to be completely different than what the development now
shows, due to him being unaware of the prior approvals and having never been told about
them by the seller. He expressed concerns that his property values have already gone
down due to the CH Robinson development, a trend he feared would continue. He also
called for a refreshed traffic study conducted during a peak use month. He invited the
commission members to witness the traffic for themselves on Liatris Lane, where a bus
stop could not be considered due to the traffic configuration.
Rebecca Prochaska of 15787 Porchlight Lane also called for a refreshed traffic study and
for alternatives such as using the parking at Grace Church with a shuttle service.
Venkal Chandue of 15371 Plumstone Drive stated the traffic was not a concern ten years
ago when he moved to Eden Prairie but already was a concern even before the
construction of this development. He was also concerned for the cyclists and pedestrians
using the roads.
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 10
Pieper noted the many concerns regarding traffic. Rue replied he assumed the August,
2017 traffic study took these concerns into account and utilized adjustment factors from
MnDOT which was typical in writing such a study, but he would check with the
consultant. A refresh was possible and even going beyond that to analysis and examining
alternatives was possible. The traffic study talked about two main concerns: the Spring
Road and Charlson Lane intersection and the roundabout at that intersection; and the
"office entrance" on the east side of the CH Robinson campus, north of Charlson and
Flying Cloud Drive. Distribution of traffic was talked about in the report, and the
majority of traffic to the office park was from Flying Cloud Drive. Therefore, most traffic
numbers were coming from the east and would not access the neighborhood. He
suggested some access improvements, such as the proposed channelized right turn at
Liatris, geometric improvements to discourage people turning left, and a median three-
quarter access to create more right turns.
Pieper asked Hennen to address the traffic and parking. Hennen replied 175 parking spots
followed the City's recommendation. CH Robinson was asked to do the study in July,
2017, so August was a choice. There was no timeline to build the building and Hennen
stated it could be deferred. The 175 parking spots would not be part of the entrance/exit,
but come out of the eastern side from Flying Cloud Drive.
Farr asked, given the delay of Phase II and Phase III, what the shelf life of the traffic
report was. Rue replied the study stated a projection of 2019 and presuming nothing
would change on the proposal, this report would have a long shelf life,but it did not look
at 2030 or 2040 as the comprehensive plan did, so could have a longer time horizon with
this improvement in mind. Farr asked if traffic report addressed the impact of the 175
parking stalls. Rue replied the traffic study dealt with the building of the 120,000 square
foot building rather than the interim traffic concern. Farr asked how to measure traffic
inconvenience and congestion at intersections and stop signs, and if the traffic report
stated there were acceptable levels of service after the Phase II and Phase III
development. Rue replied the study dealt with the two access intersections (Spring Road
and Charlson, and Charlson and the office park) which were of most concern, and the
latter was at maximum queue or desirable queue. The middle intersection of Liatris and
Charlson was not addressed by the study. Farr asked if there were neighborhood
complaints at other_intersections. Rue replied the summer of 2018 was a good test with
the closure of Flying Cloud Drive, causing more traffic on Charlson Drive. He expected
the study's numbers to be consistent with future traffic projections.
Pieper asked the process for the developer coming forward only to build the parking lot.
Klima replied staff always encourages sharing of the complete development proposal
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 11
rather than looking at it piecemeal. If it came in at Phase I, the question would arise about
subsequent phases. This entire plan had been approved in 2006. If the request was just to
complete the first phase, a PUD amendment would be needed to address the waiver to
allow the offsite parking, because the existing approval does not allow for offsite parking
(due to the property being in separate parcels). Moving the property line to accommodate
the different parcels would also involve time and process.
Villarreal asked what the process was if the applicant wanted to build the property to the
2006 agreement. Klima replied the process would go through a land alteration permit and
a building permit, and the 2006 conditions agreed to would have to be met. Villarreal
asked if there was a condition to redo a traffic study. Klima replied she was not sure of
specific development agreement language, but it was not a typical requirement to redo
any traffic study when the construction actually begins. Villarreal asked for and received
confirmation from Hennen that there were existing concerns with parking. Hennen
admitted the project was at capacity for parking. CH Robinson had hoped to break
ground before winter but was now looking at alternatives for parking until 2019.
Kirk noted for the residents, safety and traffic concerns were overwhelming. He
wondered how big the traffic problem were at 175 new spaces (in the near future) as
opposed to 700 (the total), and asked if the traffic study should be refreshed comparing
175 and 700. He also asked if the commission members could build into the approval of
this project a requirement for a new parking study prior to the implementation of Phase
II, the date range of which was presently unknown. Farr replied he was not sure time
would change findings or recommendations until traffic behaviors change. If the
assumptions stay the same, a refresh would not uncover new findings. Kirk replied even
if the data didn't support a refresh it raises yellow flags, and the perception of the
residents was there was a significant problem already. Farr stated a microanalysis of
school bus movements and cars at peak was probably not addressed by the traffic report.
Kirk agreed, and stated he and Farr both saw a need for a deeper dive into the traffic
improvements. Freiberg emphasized the issue of trust and added he would like to see a
traffic refresh both to shore up the confidence of residents and arrive at a compromise.
Kirk agreed, and asked if this was needed immediately. Freiberg replied it should be done
as soon as possible. Conklin interjected, but Pieper requested to continue the discussion
with the Commission. Hennen agreed a refreshed traffic study was possible. Discussion
followed on a timing of the refreshed traffic study as a condition in a motion for approval
of the project.
Farr observed the discussion was getting bogged down in traffic when Phase II and Phase
III had not been discussed. He stated staff appropriately guided the applicant toward a
waiver of the PUD since the original building plan overlapped with its current parking
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 12
request (175 stalls). Pieper asked for and received confirmation from Klima that there
were no waivers regarding building height. Klima replied the only waiver was being
sought for offsite parking. Farr noted the residents of the townhomes looking out to the
north would see more architecture than roof, since the project asked for a two-story
building rather than a one-story, and he had no problem with the height and orientation of
the building.
Villarreal noted the applicant was asking for approvals of future Phase II and III. The
concerns were the traffic study as it applied to the impact on the residential area, and a
better understanding of the landscaping and trees. He suggested requiring the applicant
complete a full tree inventory and to do temporary screening during construction. Kirk
agreed with that approach, and added Farr made a good point about the asset of the height
of the building—it was not necessarily an asset to the homeowners nearby but it was also
not a detriment. No one at this meeting was responsible for what was or was not
communicated to the residents when they were purchasing their homes,but there was,
since 2006, always a building and always a development project for this land, and the
information about this development(including the future building) was always available
to the public whether or not the public was aware of it. He emphasized the commission
was trying to find middle ground to give the public and the developer a win-win option.
Villarreal summarized the concerns: a second traffic study and a tree inventory plus
temporary screening during construction. Weber asked if the commission was requiring a
new traffic study before the construction of Phases II and III or even earlier. DeSanctis
argued the central issue here was requesting a second traffic study. That would show a
good faith effort but also address safety as well as the real time and immediate livability
of this community. Such a study would be commissioned during the peak period of use,
such as autumn or winter. Kirk asked if this should be commissioned before the
construction of 175 parking spots (immediate construction) or the 700 parking spots
(future construction). He added he would support doing such a study before the Phase II
implementation. Freiberg agreed, and requested it be done immediately. Discussion
followed on crafting a motion with conditions.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the Eden Bluff
Fourth Addition project based on information contained in the October 5, 2018 staff
report and plans stamp dated October 1, 2018 with the following amendments to the staff
recommendations: 1B: "revised landscape plan is required to include a landscape and all
parking lot islands required by City Code, and the revised landscape plan shall also
include a detailed plan for temporary screening between Phase I and Phase II parking
lots. The temporary screening shall be required to be installed during Phase I; further,
shall be planted permanently or temporarily at this time during the Phase I construction
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 8, 2018
Page 13
and relocated as required in the landscape plan during the Phase II construction. The
approximately 15 coniferous trees scheduled for the south side planting as a buffer for the
development shall be required to be installed during Phase I construction. The second
amendment to the staff recommendation would add condition 6: "The development
agreement shall require an updated traffic report to address the safety of the existing
residential neighborhood, both pedestrian and vehicular,prior to the application for a
building permit for the Phase II project." MOTION CARRIED 6-1 with one nay vote
by Freiberg.
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT
IX. MEMBERS' REPORTS
X. CONTINUING BUSINESS
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:09 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner
DATE: October 18, 2018
SUBJECT: Notermann Residential Development
LOCATION: Northwest Corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
APPLICANT: Stantec Consulting Services
OWNERS: Bert and Bonnie Notermann
REQUEST: • Guide Plan Change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 8.34
acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.54 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 8.34 acres
BACKGROUND .,'
The applicant is requesting a 2030 �d j ,,o
Comprehensive Plan amendment, - 4
rezoning and a MUSA extension for , ' ,
a 9.54-acre property north of the ; 't' 2
Lion's Tap Restaurant. The parcel is e _
located in the northwest corner of
the the intersection of Flying Cloud
Drive and Spring Road. f
'
The property is undeveloped and _',
includes potential bluff areas,
wooded areas,prairie remnants, and � .#; y " '4I. rr
''F
steep slopes. There are three single- :, • r� i '._ , . ^ '#
family homes and open space to the - 'r ,`' t ,
north,undeveloped land to the west, • , • , _ ',#41' ��
Lion's Tap Restaurant to the south 1 `�. Lion's i 4 .•
and a farm to the east. '�' ' 'ir.
` '�'
t�, � FLYiNG CLOUD .� .
1
.§. . . --� -.
Staff Report—Notermann Residential Development
October 18, 2018
With the realignment of Spring Road, Mr.Notermann acquired additional land on the west side of
the realigned Spring Road. Mr. Notermann has recently gone through the approval process for a
reguiding,rezoning and PUD to incorporate this property to the Lion's Tap parcel and redesign and
expand the existing parking lot. The project included minor adjustments for the guiding and
rezoning between the Lion's Tap property and the property that is the subject of this application. The
Lion's Tap application also included a plat to create a new an outlot for the subject property.
Attached to this memo are copies of the narratives for these applications and a letter from Jack Perry
of Briggs and Morgan,as attorney representing the property owner. Attached to Mr.Perry's original
letter were supplemental documents referred to in the letter. These supplemental documents are
lengthy and have not been included with the Planning Commission agenda materials. This
information is available at City Center for viewing.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The applicant did not submit a development plan or timeline for development of the property with
this application. It has been the City's practice to review rezoning requests simultaneously with a
development plan. When development plans are prepared for this property, all submittal
requirements of the City Code will need to be addressed. These include but are not limited to
environmental review, steep slopes, bluffs, tree removal and replacement, cultural/archeological
resources and floodplain information.
Due to the proximity to the Minnesota River and the potential presence of archeological resources on
the property,the City will require archeological studies of the property prior to the preparation of a
development plan. The preservation and protection of such resources is a goal for and promoted by
the City.
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND MUSA BOUNDARY
Approximately 1.2 acres of the property is currently guided Low-Density Residential with the
reminder guided Rural. The applicant is requesting a 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment to
reguide the Rural portion of the property to Low-Density Residential.
The 1.2 acre portion of the property in the northeast corner currently guided Low Density Residential
is located within the MUSA boundary; however, the remainder of the property is not within the
MUSA.The applicant is requesting to extend the MUSA boundary to include the entire lot.With the
reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road, municipal sanitary sewer and water will
become available for connection by the Lion's Tap Restaurant.As a result,municipal sanitary sewer
and water will be proximate to the subject property as well and is sized to accommodate additional
development.
2
Staff Report—Notermann Residential Development
October 18, 2018
Requested 2030 Guide Plan Amendment and
Existing 2030 Guide Plan and MUSA Boundary _I MUSA Boundar
_I 1
iii . i
1.!
ell w
illg
SITE
�r vrry ... FLy+Mo c�ovD DRIv�
G CLOUD DRi,- 'r
City of Ed-n Prairie Land Use Guide City of Ed n Prairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map+000-2030 Plan Map 000-2030
The City's goal for this corridor is to preserve and protect natural resources and maintain the natural
character along the Minnesota River.The Low Density Residential guiding allows up to 2.5 dwelling
units per acre. One of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a balance between
conservation/management of natural resources and the need for residential housing. This can be
accomplished through existing regulations at the time of development,such as tree preservation and
replacement,shoreland regulations and steep slope regulations.Due to the location of utility services
and the existing regulations to protect natural resources,staff is recommending approval of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendment to Low Density Residential and the extension of MUSA boundary.
3
Staff Report—Notermann Residential Development
October 18, 2018
Recommended Guide Plan Amendment and MUSA
: i II .
_ \
\
\
11111'
0
EL
Lu
Et
Ic-
I\
w
0
w 4
.6..
0
d-
i...i.1...,....
1111.11. .1 1 1:711)
a
1 . . . . . . .
____-1
7-i
F
City of Edr14111111111111111111-.'InHH
L:raiGriec 1:aHH1.1:1'dE D1:5:1le 11EG11luide 1 1 1 1 111111111P1P11111
Plan Map 000-2030Lcup
ZONING
The property is currently zoned Rural.The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to R1-13.5.
The R1-13.5 zoning district allows the development of single family homes with sanitary sewer and
water service with a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
Existing Zoning and MUSA Boundary Requested Zoning and MUSA Boundary
'I
\....
• 2 V / _J
II w
E I
1
z \ i
o o
w w
.....,,,,,,,,,,,...:.:::.0...iiiiiii .„.....„....„.......„....„
SITE ii ,,,,,,iiiiiHHiHiii'Q.
4111
::::::::::::::„,,,,„,„,„„,,,,,„,,, ,,,,::: :: •••.••:::::•.
_
FLYING CLOUD u.........„ FLYING CL 0
rcIVE U0 DRIVE
4
City of E.en Prairie Zoning Map City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
1
Staff Report—Notermann Residential Development
October 18, 2018
Without a development plan for the property, there is insufficient information to determine the
appropriate zoning for the property. A development plan that includes information such as
topography, soils reports, archeological studies, tree inventory, and bluff/steep slope analysis will
help inform the level of development that the site can support. It has been the City's practice to
simultaneously review a development plan when considering a rezoning request.This process allows
for a comprehensive review by both public officials and private property owners.
Staff recommends retaining the Rural zoning of the property until such time as a complete
development plan and associated information is provided for review. Without these details,
establishing an ultimate zoning of the property is premature as it is unclear what level of
development is appropriate and can be sustained by site conditions.
Recommended Zoning
(Retain Current Rural Zoning)
1w 1IV /
a
1
d
w
w
0
i o
I"""'I"'SlITE z
Q�
co
ITT FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
Staff also recommends adding the following language to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to formalize
the City's practice. The language underlines is proposed for addition.
MUSA LINE
There are 2,333 acres of land outside of the MUSA line.. The land is guided low density, water
and parks/open space. There are 243.13 acres guided rural residential, 509 acres guided water
and 1,711.85 acres guided parks/open space. The low density guide area is zoned rural with a 10
5
Staff Report—Notermann Residential Development
October 18, 2018
acre minimum lot size. No expansion of the MUSA Line is proposed. Any requests to expand
the MUSA require review through a public process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
LAND USE CATEGORIES
Low Density Residential: this category allows a gross residential density of between 1 and 2.5
dwelling units per acre. Typical development includes single family detached dwellings.
Corresponding zoning districts include Rural, R1-44, R1-22, and R1-13.5 districts. Attached
housing may occur in land guided low density provided it meets these density requirements and
transitions appropriately to adjacent developments. If a rezoning request is submitted without a
proposed development plan,the City may retain the Rural zoning of a property until such time as a
development plan and sufficient associated site information is provided to the City to determine the
appropriate zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following requests:
• Guide Plan Change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 8.34 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 8.34 acres
• Comprehensive Plan Text Changes as noted in the staff report dated October 18, 2018
Recommends denial of the following request:
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R 1-13.5 on 9.54 acres
6
Current (2030) Guide Plan Map:Notermann Residential Development
Address: Northwest Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
o
a
ct ---\ \Ai
w
\,... ..:44....\
O
6-
ocL
O
2
ellk_ -4"""... 11,i cl
SITE
FLYING CLOUD D . --
RIVE
City of Ed n Prairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map 000-2030
MUSA Boundary
1 Site Area N
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre - Community Commercial
177 Low Density/Public/Open Space - Regional Commercial
DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
7 Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre I2Z Town Center DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
n Medium Density Residential/Office - Park/Open Space DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
- High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Q Public/Quasi-Public DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
-Airport Golf Course
Office - Church/Cemetary »e._o4....:=..,......,®.L.=, ..,..ill._,A,,,o®
%/ Office/Industrial Open Water
K/ Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way 290 145 0 290 Feet
- Industrial CICityLimits
Requested Guide Plan Map and MUSA Boundary:
Notermann Residential Development
Address: Northwest Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
0
ct
•
11.1
�-
oc/
u)
SITE
FLYING CLO
U� DRIVE
City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map 2000-2030
MUSA Boundary
Site Area N
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre nip Community Commercial
17.7 Low Density/Public/Open Space Regional Commercial DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
Medium Densityresidential 2.5-10 Units/Acre ®Town Center DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-OS DATE Revised 06-01-07
DATE Revised 02-2306 DATE Revised 10-01-07
n Medium Density Residential/Office - Park/Open Space DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
I High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public
nAirport Golf Course
Office - Church/Cemetary
Y// Office/Industrial Open Water
290 145 0 290 Feet
f Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way _
Industrial QCityLimits
Recommended Guide Plan Map and MUSA Boundary:
Notermann Residential Development
Address: Northwest Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
\A /
•
; ' ±
SITE
FLYING Cho �
U� DRIVE
City of Ed - n Prairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map ' 000-2030
MUSA Boundary
Site Area N
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre nip Community Commercial
17.7 Low Density/Public/Open Space Regional Commercial DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
Medium Densityresidential 2.5-10 Units/Acre ®Town Center DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-OS DATE Revised 06-01-07
DATE Revised 02-2306 DATE Revised 10-01-07
n Medium Density Residential/Office - Park/Open Space DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
I High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public
nAirport Golf Course
Office - Church/Cemetary
Y// Office/Industrial Open Water
290 145 0 290 Feet
f Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way _
Industrial QCityLimits
Current Zoning: Notermann Residential Development
Address: Northwest Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
o
a
0A \\,
,:t
\14114.\ Q
a
z
w
a
w
---- I i -----4\Otl
Z
SITE //q�
co
FLYING CLOUp DRIVE
City of Ec,en Prairie Zoning Map
MUSA Boundary Rural 71 Regional Service Commercial
Site Area R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. - Regional Commercial N
PEI R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. ®TC-C
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. ®TC-R
^
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. I I TC-MU
DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
- RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. 7 Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min. DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
I7A Airport Office I General Industrial-5 Acre Min. DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
Office Public
Neighborhood Commercial ]Golf Course .._ ..o4...0�.o..m_...,®. a.,�.o..o. , .,,ita»e ,a
Community Commercial Water 290 145 0 290 Feet
- Highway Commercial Right of Way
-Airport Commercial -TOD-R Transit Oriented Development-Residential
Requested Zoning: Notermann Residential Development
Address: Northwest Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
o
\\\
0
ct
w
Et
Q
Et
EL
Z
w
0
w
O,
O
O
Ar
�Q
FLYING ni DRIVE �F-
City of Ec,en Prairie Zoning Map
MUSA Boundary Rural 71 Regional Service Commercial
Site Area R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. - Regional Commercial N
PEI R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. ®TC-C
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. ®TC-R
^
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. I I TC-MU
DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
- RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. 7 Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min. DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
I7A Airport Office I General Industrial-5 Acre Min. DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
Office Public
Neighborhood Commercial ]Golf Course »e.._24.....0=..m_...,®.o..o.=, .,,®t,®,aF,a
Community Commercial Water 290 145 0 290 Feet
- Highway Commercial Right of Way
-Airport Commercial -TOD-R Transit Oriented Development-Residential
Recommended Zoning: Notermann Residential Development
Address: Northwest Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
a
0
w
w
O
SITE Qcr
FLYING CLOUD p
RIVE
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
MUSA Boundary Rural - Regional Service Commercial N
Site Area R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. - Regional Commercial
R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. EN TC-C
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. EN TC-R
R1-9.5 One Famil -9,500 sf min. TC-MU DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
y DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-06 DATE Revised 06-01-07
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. - Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min. DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
®Airport Office - General Industrial-5 Acre Min.
Office - Public
Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course
Community Commercial Water 290 145 0 290 Feet
Highway Commercial Right of Way
-Airport Commercial TOD-R Transit Oriented Development-Residential
Stantec Consulting Services,Inc
Stantec 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113-3819
August 2,2018
City of Eden Prairie
Attention: Beth Novak-Krebs,AICP
City of Eden Prairie Planning Department
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55344-4485
Dear Ms. Novak-Krebs,
Reference: Re:Bert and Bonnie Notermanns' (Notermanns) request for the City of Eden Prairie's
(City) rezoning of their 9.54 acres(Property) from "R-Rural"to "R1-13.5," including the re-
guidance of the 8.34-acre portion of their Property from "Rural Residential"to "Low Density
Residential". The latter request includes the extension of the MUSA Line to include the entire
Notermann property.
Along with this letter we are transmitting the above referenced applications, supporting materials and a
check covering the application review fees, as reviewed, and confirmed with City staff. My clients had
previously submitted a letter, along with neighboring property owners, requesting that the City consider
the extension of the MUSA Line, as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update process. They never
received any acknowledgement of the receipt of that letter, nor did they get any response from the City.
The Notermanns have been repeatedly assured by City staff, over the course of several decades, that
municipal services will eventually be extended to serve the development of their property. They have held
the land and invested in reliance on those assurances. Most recently, the Notermanns initiated a petition
for the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the Lions Tap restaurant, which they also own.
The feasibility study completed along with the Eden Prairie Rd improvement project sized the pipe to
have the capacity to serve the Lions Tap, adjacent residential land owned by the Notermanns and other
neighboring properties. The Notermanns have agreed to pay assessments for their share of the cost of
these improvements. The design of the system includes lateral connections to serve future residential
development in the area north of the Lions Tap.
The Purpose section of the R-Rural Zoning District states as follows: "Prevent premature urban
development of certain lands which eventually will be appropriate for urban uses, until the
installation of drainage works streets, utilities and community facilities and the ability to
determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development possible".
The planned improvements to Eden Prairie Road and the completion of the extension of sanitary sewer
and related lift station and force main improvements are directly relevant to the conditions anticipated in
the above stated purpose statement. The policy language contained in the current Draft 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update limits the extension of the MUSA Line to serve "existing"failed on-site
sewage disposal systems. This dramatic change in position by the City, without any engagement, or
dialogue with the Notermanns, is unreasonable.
Given the fact that both the Planning Commission and the City Council voted unanimously to approve the
extension of the MUSA Line in 2013, and given that the request to address this issue in the context of the
2040 Plan was either ignored, or decided without any dialogue with the property owners, the Notermanns
are left with no recourse other than to submit these applications. They do not have any immediate plans
Design with community in mind
July 3,2018
Beth Novak-Krebs,AICP
Page 2 of 2
Reference: Notermann Applications
to proceed with the development of the residential portion of their land and are in fact, hampered in
pursuing its sale and development, until these policy issues can be resolved.
Given this fact, it is important to acknowledge that the City's Application Checklist for rezoning includes
numerous items that are related to proposed developments.We have included all the relevant
background information possible, absent those related to a specific development proposal. When the land
is developed, it will likely be pursued as a Planned Unit Development to maximize environmental
protection, creativity, and performance guarantees. It will require platting and review and permitting by the
watershed district. All of which will require new applications and review fees.
The Notermanns have the right to request these amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning
consistent with the requested land use designations without a development proposal. Any future
development proposal will be the subject of subsequent applications. We believe that our applications are
as complete as they can be without an actual development project. The Notermanns have submitted a
check for all the applicable fees, including those related to the review of actual development plans. We
respectfully request that any such fees that are not required, should be refunded at the conclusion of this
process.
Sincerely yours,
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
.-11‘4.4 Ft-tr-4-
J Iln W Shardlow FAICP
Senior Principal
Phone: (651)967-4560
Fax: (651)636-1311
John.Shardlow@Stantec.com
Attachment: Supplemental Materials and documents
cc. Bert&Bonnie Notermann,Jack Perry,Briggs&Morgan PA
da document2
Design with community in mind
2200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
B R I G G S FIc n612 977-8 55402
FAX 612-977-8650
URL Briggs.corn
July 13, 2018 Jack Y.Perry
(612)977-8497
jperry@briggs.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Julie Klima
Eden Prairie City Planner
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Re: Bert and Bonnie Notermanns' (Notermanns) request for the City of Eden
Prairie's (City) rezoning of their 9.54 acres (Property) from "R-Rural" to
"R1-13.5"
Dear Ms. Klima:
Per their attached application and corresponding fee (Attach. A(1)-(2)), Notermanns
hereby submit to City for its approval their requested rezoning of their Property from "R-Rural"
to "R1-13.5." Their rezoning request is, per its satisfaction of City's application "checklist" (id.),
complete and must be "approved or denied" within 60 days hereof. And, based upon the
following analysis, City's approval hereof is legally compelled.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. THE PROPERTY
Purchased by Notermanns on or about August 17, 1982, the Property is one undivided
parcel— i.e., "Lot 2" — "[t]ogether with an easement for ingress and egress over other land" —
i.e., Edstroms' adjacent property to the northeast. Attach. A(3). The Property is to the north and
west of Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property, which is on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive/Hwy. 61. Id.; Attach. B.
B. CITY'S 1984 VARIANCE TO PROVIDE FOR NOTERMANNS' RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY
Because of its 10-acre minimum for residential development in its "Rural Residential"
zoning district, City approved in 1984 of Notermanns' requested variance to provide for their
residential development of the less than 10-acre Property. Attach. C. In reliance upon City's
1984 variance, Notermanns have over the ensuing 34 years discussed with City's representatives
several different residential development plans for the Property, each of which has been
premised upon sanitary sewer and water service being extended thereto. In 2003, Notermanns
Briggs and Morgan,Professional Association
Affirmative Action,Equal Opportunity Employer
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 2
discussed with City two different residential development plans for the Property — i.e. (1)
Concept A with 18 dwelling units and (2) Concept B with 20 dwelling units. Attach. D. In 2006,
Notermanns discussed with City another residential development plan for the Property with only
eight dwelling units. Attach. E. Then, in 2015, Notermanns discussed with City yet two more
residential development plans for the Property — i.e., Concepts A and B, each with only four
dwelling units. Attach. B. And, consistent with its 1984 variance, City's representatives neither
(1) responded negatively to any of Notermanns' residential development plans nor (2) suggested
that Notermanns could not go forward with any one of their versions of their residential
development plans. To the contrary, City consistently assured Notermanns that the Property
would eventually be served by sanitary sewer and municipal water and, at that time, they would
be able to residentially develop their Property at urban densities.
C. CITY'S (1) "GUIDANCE" FOR AND (2) "ZONING" OF THE PROPERTY
BOTH COMPEL ITS APPROVAL OF NOTERMANNS' REQUESTED
REZONING FROM "R-RURAL" TO "R1-13.5"
1. Overview
Even though it has never been subdivided, City's "official controls" for the Property
separately "guide" and "zone" it as if it was, to the contrary, two divided parcels — i.e., (1) the
1.2-acre portion of the Property, which is along the northeastern-most portion of the Property
between Spring Road on the east and Koster's single-family residence on the west (Attach. B),
and(2) the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the Property, which is adjacent to the south and east of
the 1.2-acre portion of the Property (id.). But, because it is one undivided parcel (Attach. A(3))
and City has no authority to unilaterally subdivide private property through its "guidance" or
"zoning," the Property needs to be "guided" and "zoned" as one parcel. And, in order to comply
with its above-discussed 1984 variance and the case law precedent's required reading of land use
"official controls" in the light most favorable to the landowner (In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d
323, 328 (Minn. 2008) ("Because they are a derogate the common law, we construe zoning
ordinances narrowly against the government and in favor of the property owner")), City's
uniform "guidance" and "zoning" of the entire, undivided Property must be read to be to, as it
relates to City's separate "guidance" and "zoning" of the two undivided portions thereof, its least
restrictive "guidance" and "zoning" imposed thereon. Moreover, to the extent that there is any
inconsistency between its resulting "guidance" and "zoning" for the entire, undivided Property,
the "guidance" trumps any inconsistent "zoning." See Minn. Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2; Mendota
Golf LP v. Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 174-75 (Minn. 2006).
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 3
2. Standing alone, City's effective "guidance" for the entire, undivided Property
compels Citv's approval of Notermanns' requested rezoning from "R-Rural"
to "R1-13.5"
a. City's "guidance" for the 1.2-acre portion of the Property — i.e.,
"Low Density Residential" — necessarily extends to the entire
undivided Property, and it thus compels City's approval of
Notermanns' requested rezoning from "R-Rural" to "R1-13.5"
Per its "Land Use Guide Plan Map 2030" (2030 Plan Map) (Attach. C, Fig. 3.2), the 1.2-
acre portion of the Property is "guided" for "Low Density Residential 0-2_5 Units/Acre" (id.
(emphasis added)), with City's same "guidance" for the Koster and Edstrom properties which are
adjacent to the west and Peterson's property adjacent to the east (id.; Attach. B). And, per City's
existing 2030 Comprehensive Plan(2030 Plan), "Low Density Residential" means the following:
Low Density Residential: This category allows a gross residential density
between 1 and 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Typical development includes single
family detached dwellings. Corresponding zoning districts include the [(a)]
Rural, [(b)] R1-44, [(c)] R1-22, and [(d)] R1-13.5 districts. Attached housing
may occur in land guided low density, provided it meets these density
requirements and transitions appropriately to adjacent developments.
Attach. C at 2 (underlining in original; italics, bold and bracketed information added).
"[B]etween 1 and 2_5 dwelling units per acre" equates to up to three dwelling units on the
1.2-acre portion of the Property— i.e., "2.5 dwelling units per acre" x 1.2 acres. And, because
City's "zoning" for the 1.2-acre portion of the Property must comport to its "guidance" thereof
(Mendota Golf LP, 708 N.W.2d at 174-75), City's "zoning" of the 1.2-acre portion of the
Property must be to "R1-13.5." This is because the up to three dwelling units on the 1.2-acre
portion of the Property equates to the 1.2-acre portion of the Property being in the "R1-13.5"
zoning district. Moreover, this rezoning of the 1.2-acre portion of the Property is, as discussed
below, provided for and anticipated by City's "R-Rural" "zoning" of the 1.2-acre portion of the
Property.
Because (1) the Property is undivided, (2) City is without authority to subdivide it
through its "guidance" or "zoning" and (3) City's "guidance" must be read in the light most
favorable to Notermanns (In re Strasvold, 754 N.W.2d at 328), City's "guidance" for the 1.2-acre
portion of the Property must be uniformly read to extend to the entire, undivided Property. So
read, City's "Low Density Residential" "guidance" for the entire undivided Property equates to
up to 23.85 dwelling units thereon — i.e., "2.5 dwelling units per acre" x 9.54 acres. And, as
a in I et
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 4
with the 1.2-acre portion thereof, City's "zoning" of the entire, undivided Property must comport
to its "guidance" thereof. Mendota Golf L.P., 708 N.W.2d at 174-75. As a result, City's
"zoning" of the entire, undivided Property must be to "R1-13-5" because up to 23.85 dwelling
units thereon equates to the Property being in the "R1-13.5" zoning district.
There is, moreover, no approval from the Metropolitan Council needed for the entire,
undivided Property to be so rezoned. Rather the Metropolitan Council was statutorily required to
(Minn. Stat. § 473.175) and did review City's 2030 Plan, and was, per Minn. Stat. § 473.865,
provided with a copy of City Code, thereby effectively approving of City's "guidance" and
"zoning" for the Property. And City was, in turn, required to certify that its (1) 2030 Plan
"conforms with metropolitan system plans" and (2) City Code requirements "are not in conflict
with its comprehensive plan." Minn. Stat. § 473.864, subd. 2(a).
Relevant thereto, City, not the Metropolitan Council, controls the development within
City's alleged "bluffs" or "steep slopes," including the entire, undivided Property. Compare
Minn. Stat. § 462.353 (setting forth power of municipalities to plan for development) with Minn.
Stat. § 473.129 (setting forth powers of the Metropolitan Council). This is critical because (1)
City's "bluff' restrictions are, as discussed below, inapplicable to the Property, and (2) City's
"steep slopes" concerns, if any, with Notermanns'proposed residential development of the entire,
undivided Property can (and thus must) be, as also discussed below, addressed through City's
imposition of reasonable conditions to mitigate its concerns.
Also relevant thereto, City, not the Metropolitan Council, sets the criteria for determining
whether the MUSA is extended to the Property. This is, as discussed below, illustrated by the
Metropolitan Council's reliance upon its interpretation (albeit erroneous) of City's 2030 Plan.
This is otherwise proven by, for example, Chanhassen's recent effective elimination of the
Metropolitan Council's purported authority over its extension of the MUSA within its boundaries
by seeking its extension over the entire city in its 2040 comprehensive plan.
b. City's "guidance" for the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the Property
—i.e., "Rural Residential" —is ultra vires
Per City's 2030 Map (Attach. C, Fig. 3.2), the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the Property
is "guided" for "Rural Residential 0-.10 Units/Acre." Attach. C. Per City's 2030 Plan, "Rural
Residential" means:
Rural Residential: This category allows a gross residential density of.10 units
per acre. This land is outside of the MUSA.
Id. (underlining in original; italics added). So "guided," the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 5
Property is, despite City's 1984 variance for Notermanns' residential development,
undevelopable under any of Notermanns'proposed residential development plans.
Yet, as applied to the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the Property, this portion of City's
2030 Plan is ultra vires. This is because neither City's statutory authority under Minn. Stat. ch.
462 nor City's resulting "official controls" — i.e., City's 2030 Plan and City Code — provide
authority for it to unilaterally and without compliance with its own subdivision requirements
divide the undivided parcel — i.e., "Lot 2" — into two separately "guided" (and "zoned")
portions therein. And, without such authority, City's "guidance" (and "zoning") for the
remaining 8.34-portion of the Property is, as discussed above, per its least restrictive "guidance"
of any portion thereof—i.e., "Low Density Residential" on the 1.2-acre portion thereof.
Also problematic for its "Rural Residential" "guidance" of the 8.34-acre portion of the
Property, City has no rational basis for its more restrictive "guidance" for the remaining 8.34-
acre portion of the Property. City does not, for example, even try to reconcile this "Rural
Residential" "guidance" for the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the Property with either (1) its
above-discussed 1984 variance for the entire, undivided Property for Notermanns' residential
development or (2) its above-discussed "Low Density Residential" "guidance" for not only (a)
the 1.2-acre portion of the Property but also (b) the indistinguishable adjacent properties to the
north and east. There is, per the City Code, no material difference between the remaining 8.34-
acre portion of the Property and either (1) the 1.2-acre portion thereof or (2) the adjacent
properties which are all (a) "guided" "Low Density Residential," (b) outside of City's "bluff'
impact zone and (c) with readily-protected "slopes." As another example, City likewise does not
even try to reconcile this "Rural Residence" "guidance" with the "purpose" for its "R-Rural"
"zoning" for the entire, undivided Property which, as discussed below, is only to "[p]revent
premature urban development" until it is served by sanitary sewer and municipal water.
3. Standing alone, City's "zoning" for the Property — i.e., "R-Rural" — and
this zoning district's stated "purpose" —i.e., to "fplrevent premature urban
development . . . I,1 which eventually will be approved for urban uses" upon
its extension of sanitary sewer and water service thereto — compel City's
approval of Notermanns' requested rezoning because the Property is already
becoming serviceable by City's extension of sanitary sewer and municipal
water to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property
Per City's Zoning Map, the entire, undivided Property is within City's "R-Rural" zoning
district. Attach. B. This is the same zoning district for the adjacent properties to the west, north
and east. Id. And, per City Code § 11.10, subd. 2(c), the only "Permitted Use[]" for residential
development in City's "R-Rural" zoning district is as follows:
p al�'3ti17
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 6
C. Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of
not less than 10 acres.
(Emphasis added). Thus, per City Code § 11.10, subd. 2(c), the entire, undivided Property is not
developable because it is "less than 10 acres."
But City's "zoning" of the Property must be reconciled, if possible, with its above-
discussed 1984 variance for the entire, undivided Property for Notermanns' residential
development and "guidance" thereof. See Minn. Stat. § 645.26 (when possible, conflicting
provisions should be read to give effect to both). And City's "zoning" of the entire, undivided
Property can, in fact,be readily reconciled with both.
City Code § 11.10, subd. 1 ("Purpose") for City's "R-Rural" zoning district is the key.
Section 11.10, subd. 1 provides as follows:
The purposes of the R-Rural District are to: (1) Prevent premature urban
development of certain lands[,] which eventually will be appropriate for urban
uses, until [(a)] the installation of 1(i)1 drainage works1,1 [(ii)1 streets, [(iii)1
utilities, and [(iv)] community facilities and [(b)] the ability to objectively
determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development
possible; (2) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the
City; (3) Ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for each dwelling unit, and to
provide adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals.
(Emphasis and bracketed information added). And, because the Property is already becoming
serviceable by City's extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water to Notermanns' adjacent
Lion's Tap property, the continued "R-Rural" "zoning" of the entire, undivided Property is, per
the "purpose" for the "R-Rural" zoning district, no longer needed to "[p]revent premature urban
development." Instead, because City's sanitary sewer and municipal water lines being extended
to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property were designed with sufficient capacity to serve the
entire, undivided Property, with suitable lateral connections incorporated into the design, the
entire, undivided Property "will be appropriate for [residential] urban uses" (or residential "urban
development"). "[W]ill" has the same meaning as "must" and "shall." See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §
645.08(1) ("words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to
their common and approved usage"); Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) ("will" is a future-
tense definition of"shall"); Black's Law Dictionary 1102 (6th Abridged Ed.) (defining "will" as
"[a]n auxiliary verb commonly having the mandatory sense of'shall' or 'must' [;] [i]t is a word of
p al�'3ti17
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 7
certainty, while the word 'may' is one of speculation and uncertainty"); Minn. Stat. § 645.44,
subd. 16 ("'Shall' is mandatory"); Minn. Stat. § 645.15a("Must' is mandatory").1
Because of this "mandatory" (i.e., "will") language, City expressly anticipated such
"urban uses" (or residential "urban development") of the Property upon City's extension of
sanitary sewer and municipal water service thereto. And, lest it render the anticipatory "urban
use" (or residential "urban development") of the entire, undivided Property superfluous, City
cannot, therefore, unreasonably refuse Notermanns' requested connection to City's sanitary sewer
and municipal water service to the Property, especially given that services were specifically
designed to do so. Minn. Stat. § 645.15;In re Estate of Jotham, 722 N.W.2d at 454.
The Metropolitan Council is in the same position. This is because the Metropolitan
Council was required to and did previously review without objection City's "guidance" and
"zoning" for the Property. See above. Indeed, per Minn. Stat. §§ 473.856, 473.858, subd. 1,
473.864, subd. 2, and 473.865, subd. 2, City was required to "review and, if necessary, amend its
entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls" to ensure that:
(1) City's 2030 Plan (Attach. C), including its 2030 Plan Map (id.),
"conform[s] with metropolitan system plans" and
(2) City's City Code requirements "are not in conflict with its comprehensive
plan."
And, per Minn. Stat. § 473.864, subd. 2(a), City had to submit to the Metropolitan Council its
"written certification" of compliance therewith.
1 Even if the plain language is somehow found to be ambiguous and thus subject to the rules of
construction (Minn. Stat. § 645.16), the rules of construction compel the same result. First, the
language in the "purpose" for the "R-Rural' zone has to be read consistent with City's intent as
illustrated by its above-discussed 1984 variance and "guidance" thereof See Minn. Stat. § 645.16
("The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the
intention of the legislature"). Second, the language in the "purpose" for the "R-Rural" zone has
to be given meaning and cannot be read to be superfluous. See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ("Every law
shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions"); In re Estate of Jotham, 722
N.W.2d 447, 454 (Minn. 2006) (rejecting proposed interpretation of statute because it would
"run[]afoul of the rule of statutory construction that dictates that, if possible, no word or phrase
of a statute should be deemed superfluous or insignificant"). Third, the language in the
"purpose" for the "R-Rural" zone has to be narrowly construed against City and in favor of
Notermanns'unfettered use of the Property. In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d at 328.
BRIGGS
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 8
D. EACH OF CITY STAFF'S THREE SUGGESTED BARRIERS ARE EITHER
INAPPLICABLE OR READILY OVERCOME
1. FALSE BARRIER NO. 1: City's inapplicable regulation of"bluffs"
Per City Code § 11.50, subd. 8(F), "[s]tructures and accessory facilities, except stairways
and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones." But City Code § 11.50 is limited to
City's "Shoreland Management" area. And "shoreland" is, per City Code § 11.50, subd. 4(13),
defined as "[1]and located within the following distances from public waters: 1,000 feet from the
ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the
landward extent of a floodplain designated by code on a river or stream, whichever is greater."
(Emphasis added). Accordingly, the Property is not a City-defined "bluff."
There is no contrary interpretation of City Code § 11.50. And, as proof thereof, City has
authorized other residential development along the same alleged "bluff." See, e.g., Attach. H.
2. FALSE BARRIER NO. 2: Per City Code § 11.60 ("Sloped Ground
Development and Regulations"), any "steep slope"-related concerns
regarding residential development on the Property — e.g., erosion — can be
(and thus must) be addressed through the imposition of reasonable
conditions to address the underlying concerns at issue
Per City Code § 11.60, subd. 2(1), "steep slopes" are defined as follows:
Slopes of over 12% and of elevation difference of 30' or more in a given parcel.
And, per City Code § 11.60, subd. 3(A), "[n]o development shall be conducted on a steep slope
without first receiving a permit therefore from the Council." (Emphasis added).
Per City Code § 11.60, subd. 3(A)(1), "an application for a permit shall be made to the
City which shall contain a detailed plan for the development." And, per City Code § 11.60,
subd. 3(A)(4),
The review by the Planning Commission and the final decision by the Council
shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
(1) Whether the application is complete, accurate and in all respects conforms
with Item 1 of this Subparagraph A.
(2) Whether, and the degree to which, the proposed development will cause
and/or be affected by erosion problems.
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 9
(3) Whether any structures erected as part of the development will have
adequate foundations and underlying material.
(4) Whether, and the degree to which, the development will alter vegetation,
topography, or other natural features of the land.
(5) Any other factors relating to whether the proposed development will cause
any risk or harm to any persons,property or animals.
(Emphasis added). And, per City Code § 11.60, subd. 3(A)(5),
If the Council decides to authorize issuance of a permit, it may do so subject to
compliance with reasonable conditions which shall be specifically set forth in the
permit. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or
character of the proposed work, require the construction of other structures,
require replacement of vegetation or other natural features, establish required
monitoring procedures and maintenance activity, stage the work over time,
require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering, or require a
performance bond.
(Emphasis added).
Any "steep slope" related concerns regarding residential development on the Property —
e.g., erosion can be readily addressed with the imposition of reasonable conditions. See, e.g.,
Attach. H. And the law requires such conditional approvals if conditions could reasonably
address the underlying concerns at issue. RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 78
(Minn. 2015) (if applicant demonstrates imposition of reasonable conditions would eliminate
conflicts and concerns); Scott County Lumber Co. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727
(Minn. App.) (reversing the city council's decision for legally insufficient reasons where city
planner recommended granting the permit with 20 conditions dealing with dust, noise, and
traffic, and appellant agreed to take all action necessary to meet the conditions), review denied
(Minn. Mar. 23, 1988).
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 10
3. FALSE BARRIER NO. 3: The extension of the MUSA to the Property
a. City's Planning Commission and City Council's unanimous 2013
recommendation for the Metropolitan Council's extension of the
MUSA to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property
In 2013, Notermanns applied to the Metropolitan Council for a comprehensive plan
amendment for the extension of the MUSA, along with sanitary sewer and municipal water
service, to serve their adjacent Lion's Tap property. Attach. F(1)-(8). And City's Planning
Commission, as well as its City Council, unanimously recommended the Metropolitan Council's
approval of the requested extension. Id.
b. The Metropolitan Council's demonstrably misguided December 11,
2013 denial of Notermanns' requested extension of the MUSA to their
adjacent Lion's Tap property
On December 11, 2013, the Metropolitan Council declined the requested extension of the
MUSA to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property. Attach. F(9). Its explanation was, in full,
as follows:
The Notermann Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), as proposed,
does not qualify as a Minor CPA that could be reviewed administratively. It is
not consistent with [(1)] MUSA guidelines for residential units (the Rural
Residential portion), and [(2)] densities commensurate with urban services are
neither proposed nor would be supported by either the City's comprehensive plan
or regional system plans and policy. The MUSA line was established in its
current location to follow the Minnesota River bluff ridge so that undeveloped
land between the ridge and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge,
Recreation Area, and State Trail would remain guided for rural, as opposed to
urban-scale development.
The City's Comprehensive Plan language, which is not the subject of the proposed
CPA, includes the following:
Section 3.2-Future Land Use, on page 3-2, discusses the MUSA Line
and the Rural Residential land use designation. Under the MUSA Line
section, the Plan states that the "low density guide area is zoned rural with
a 10 acre minimum lot size. No expansion of the MUSA Line is
proposed." Further, under Residential Section, Rural Residential is
described as land that is "outside the MUSA Line".
p al�'3ti17
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 11
Section 6.3-Sanitary Sewer Plan Summary, on Page 6-15, states that the
"only part of the City that is not included in the MUSA is the Minnesota
Valley Wildlife Refuge and Minnesota River bluffs, and there is no
likelihood that development will occur in this area. Therefore there will
be no need for extension of the sewer system into this area in the future."
Section 6.3-Sanitary Sewer Plan Summary, on page 6-17 under Septic
Systems, addresses the remaining ISTS in the city. It does not address this
case, which appears to be somewhat unique.
(Bold and italics in original; underlining and bracket information added). Thus, in denying
Notermanns' requested extension of the MUSA to their adjacent Lion's Tap property, the
Metropolitan Council exclusively relied upon the request purportedly being "not consistent" with
City's 2030 Plan. More specifically, the Metropolitan Council's denial relied upon two
provisions of City's 2030 Plan— i.e., (1) "Section 3.2-Future Land Use, on pages 3-2" and (2)
"Section 6.3-Sanitary Sewer Summary, on Page 6-15" and its conclusory representation that
"[t]he MUSA line was established" "so that undeveloped land between the ridge and the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area, and State Trail would remain
guided for rural, as opposed to urban-scale development." But the Metropolitan Council's
reliance on its interpretation of City's 2030 Plan was demonstrably erroneous, and its conclusory
representation regarding the intransigence of the MUSA line location directly contravenes City's
"guidance" and "zoning" for the Property, which it previously reviewed and City previously
certified as compliant with the Metropolitan Council's plans.
First, as to Metropolitan Council's reliance upon "Section 3.2-Future Land Use" of
City's Plan, City's representation therein that "[n]o expansion of the MUSA Line is proposed" is
not the same as representing, as suggested by the Metropolitan Council, that "[n]o expansion of
the MUSA Line is [allowed or anticipated]." Indeed, in order to (as it must) reconcile "Section
3.2" with City's above-discussed 1984 variance for the residential development of the entire,
undivided Property and City's above-discussed effective "guidance" of the entire, undivided
Property as "Low Density Residential," which, as discussed above, equates to "R1-13.5" zoning,
"Section 3.2" must be read to provide for the extension of the MUSA from the 1.2-acre portion
of the Property to the remaining 8.34-acre portion thereof. As also required to reconcile
"Section 3.2" with City's stated "purpose" for the "R-Rural" zoning district (which provides that
such "lands . . . will be appropriate urban uses" upon the extension of sanitary sewer and
municipal water services thereto), "Section 3.2" must also be read to provide the extension of the
MUSA to the Property in order to avoid rendering this "purpose" superfluous.
Second, as to the Metropolitan Council's reliance upon "Section 6.3-Sanitary Sewer
Summary," City represents therein that "there is no likelihood that development will occur in
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 12
this area" and "[t]herefore there will be no need for extension of the Sewer System into this area
in the future." "[T]his area" is specifically limited therein to either (1) "the Minnesota Valley
Wildlife Refuge" or (2) "Minnesota River bluffs." But, as discussed above, the Property is
simply not within "this area" as it is so defined by City Code. And "Section 6.3" must be read,
as well, so as to reconcile it with, as discussed above, City's above-discussed 1984 variance for
the residential development of the entire, undivided Property and City's above-discussed
effective "guidance" and "zoning" of the entire, undivided Property as "Low Density
Residential" and "RI-13.5," respectively.
Third, the Metropolitan Council's conclusory representation that the entire, undivided
Property "would remain guided for rural, as opposed to urban-scale development," is, as well,
belied by City's above-discussed 1984 variance for the residential development of the entire,
undivided Property and City's above-discussed "guidance" for the entire, undivided Property as
"Low Density Residential." It is also in direct contravention of City's above-discussed "purpose"
for the "R-Rural" zone.
The Metropolitan Council otherwise concluded, as follows, with its "alternative path" for
extending sanitary sewer and water service to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property:
Having said that, it is a policy of the Metropolitan Council's Water Resources
Management Plan to "allow the community to connect a failing private
wastewater treatment system to the Metropolitan Disposal System, where there is
available capacity, at the community's expense." Our understanding is that the
Lion's Tap has been experiencing septic tank operational difficulties for many
years. What we suggest is for the City to withdraw the CPA and resubmit the
request with accompanying documentation that addresses the sewer issue in this
manner. This becomes a modification to your local sewer plan (text, maps, etc.),
based on this particular case. You may wish to address language in Section 6.3 as
well. This review could be done administratively.
Id. (emphasis added). And, shortly thereafter, the Metropolitan Council directed City to "process
an amendment to [its] Sewer Plan based on a policy that allows service to areas outside the
MUSA to serve failing septic systems." Id.
c. The Metropolitan Council's recent approval of City's sewer plan
amendment to bring sanitary sewer and municipal water service
across the Property and to Notermanns' Lion's Tap property
The Metropolitan Council has recently approved of the extension of sanitary sewer and
municipal water service parallel to the Flying Cloud Drive alignment to a lift station adjacent to
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 13
the Property and along the entire easternmost edge of the Property in the public right of way on
the west side of Spring Road. Attach. H(1)-(5). In response, Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap
property will be assessed in excess of $1 million for the extension of sanitary sewer and
municipal water service thereto. Attach. N. And, consistent with historic and ongoing
assurances to Notermanns that the Property would eventually be served by sanitary sewer and
municipal water, City's sanitary sewer and municipal water lines were specifically designed with
sufficient capacity to serve the entire, undivided Property, with suitable lateral connections
incorporated into the design.
E. CITY'S EQUITABLE REASONS FOR APPROVAL
1. City's long ago (and since repeated and unretracted) oral representations
and written reinforcements to Notermanns that they will be able to develop
the Property for residential purposes upon City's extension of sanitary sewer
and municipal water services thereto
City has made long ago (and since repeated and unretracted) oral representations to
Notermanns that they will be able to residentially develop the Property once City, as it is now
doing, extends sanitary sewer and municipal water service thereto. See, e.g., Attachs. D - E;
Attach. B. And City has subsequently confirmed the same with the following written
reinforcements thereof:
(1) City's above-discussed 1984 variance for Notermanns' residential
development of the entire,undivided Property(Attach. C);
(2) City's above-discussed receptivity to Notermanns' 2003, 2006 and 2015
residential development plans for the entire, undivided Property, each of which
was premised upon City's extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water service
thereto (Attachs. D-E and B);
(3) As approved of in 2009, City's 2030 Plan Map "guides" the 1.2-acre
portion of the Property for "Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre," which
"allows a gross residential density between 1 and 2.5 dwelling units per acre" —
i.e., up to three dwelling units for the 1.2-acre portion of the Property (or up to 30
dwelling units for the entire,undivided Property);
(4) As approved of in 2009, City's 2030 "Zoning Map" (Attach. N) shows the
1.2-acre portion of Property as being within the MUSA and all City property
within the MUSA is within one of City's "R1" zoning districts (i.e., City's "R1-
44," "R1-22," "R1-13.5" or "R1-9.5" zoning district), thus necessarily indicating
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 14
that the 1.2-acre portion of the Property, and thus effectively also the entire,
undivided Property, is already entitled to City's "R1-13.5" zoning district;
(5) City Code § 11.10, subd. 1's stated "purpose[] of the R-Rural District [is]
to . . . [p]revent premature urban development of [the Property][,] which
eventually will be appropriate for urban uses, until [(1)] the installation of [(a)]
drainage works[,] [(b)] streets, [(c)] utilities, and [(d)] community facilities and
[(2)] the ability to objectively determine and project appropriate land use patterns
makes orderly development possible," which effectively authorizes "urban uses"
(or residential "urban development") upon City's extension of sanitary sewer and
municipal water service to the entire, undivided Property(emphasis and bracketed
information added);
(6) Tax assessor's past and ongoing tax assessments on the Property,
including, for example, the 2013 assessed "market value" of "$524,800," with
2013 "Total Tax" of $9,137.62" (Attach. A(3)), which presupposes the entire,
undivided Property's "eventual[]" "urban uses" (or residential "urban
development") because it would have no market value otherwise per City's
"zoning" thereof as "R-Rural" with the only residential "permitted use[]" of
"[s]ingle family detached and accessory structures on parcels of not less than 10
acres" (emphasis added);
(7) City's Planning Commission and City Council's 2013 unanimous
recommendations to the Metropolitan Council to approve of Notermanns'
requested extension of the MUSA to their adjacent Lion's Tap property
(Attach. H);
(8) City's ongoing extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water service to
Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property, including its in excess of $1 million
assessment against this improved property(Attach.N);
(9) City's engineer's specific design of its sanitary sewer and municipal water
service to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property so that it had sufficient
capacity to serve the surrounding undeveloped property, including the entire,
undivided Property, with suitable lateral connections incorporated into the design
(id.); and
(10) City's assessment (albeit deferred) against the surrounding undeveloped
property, including the Property for their reasonable benefits from City's ongoing
extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water service to Notermanns' adjacent
BRIGGS
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 15
Lion's Tap property, even though there would be no benefit and the assessment
would be illegal if these properties could not be residentially developed due to the
assessor's discretionary decisionmaking (id.).
2. Notermanns' reliance upon City's above-discussed oral representations and
written reinforcements that they will be able to develop the Property for the
residential development of the Property upon City's extension of sanitary
sewer and municipal water services thereto
In reliance upon City's above-discussed oral representations and written reinforcements,
Notermanns (1)have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in real estate taxes on the Property
since their 1982 purchase thereof, including the 2013 property tax assessment of "$9,137.62"
(Attach. A(3)), (2) agreed to cooperative property exchanges with City and others for the re-
alignment of Spring Road's intersection with Flying Cloud Drive/Hwy. 61 (Attach. G), and (3)
approved of the in excess of$1 million assessment against their adjacent Lion's Tap property for
their connection to City's sanitary sewer and municipal water service (Attach. H(1)-(5)).
II.PROPOSED REZONING
A. NOTERMANNS' REQUESTED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM "R-
RURAL" TO "R1-13.5"
City Code § 11.03, subd. 2(B), Table 1 provides, as follows, City's five "residential
districts":
Residential Districts Minimum Zoning Area Minimum Lot Size
(Acreage/Sq. Ft.)
Rural 10 Acres 10 Acres
R1-44 44,000 44,000
R1-22 22,000 22,000
R1-13.5 13,500 13,500
R1-9.5 9,500 9,500
Per City Code § 11.11, subd. 1 ("Purposes") for City's "R-1" zoning district:
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 16
The purposes of the R-1 One Family Residential Districts are to (1) R1-44,
reserve appropriately located areas for single family living on large lots where
vegetation, slopes, water bodies or other significant natural features are best
preserved through large lot development; (2) R1-22, R1-13.5, R1-9.5, reserve
appropriately located areas for single family living at reasonable population
densities consistent with sound standards of public health; (3) Ensure adequate
light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling; (4) minimize traffic
congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of
buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; and, (5) Protect
residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt,
smoke, vibration, heat glare, and other objectionable influences.
(Emphasis added). And, per City Code § 11.11, subd. 2 ("Permitted Uses") for the "R-1" zoning
district,
A. R1-44. Single family, detached dwellings, and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service, except sanitary sewer and water service
shall not be required with respect to those lands which were situated
within an R1-22 District on July 1, 1982.
B. R1-22. Single family, detached dwellings, and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service, except sanitary sewer and water service
shall not be required with respect to those lands which were situated
within the R1-22 District on July 1, 1982.
C. R1-13.5. Single family, detached dwellings and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service.
D. R1-9.5. Single family, detached dwellings and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service.
(Emphasis added).
B. REZONING PROCESS
Per City Code § 11.78, subd. 1 ("Purposes") for "amendments" (or rezoning):
This Chapter may be amended and the boundaries of any district may be changed
in accord with the procedure described in this Section.
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 17
Per City Code § 11.78, subd. 2 ("Initiation"):
An amendment may be initiated by the Council, the Planning Commission, or by
petition of affected property owners. An amendment not initiated by the Planning
Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report
and may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the
recommendation of the Planning Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from
the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the Planning
Commission.
(Emphasis added). Per City Code § 11.78, subd. 3 ("Application and Fee") for "amendments":
Application for any changes must be made on forms provided by the City and
shall include all information and data requested. Application fee shall be
established by the Council by resolution.
And,per City Code § 11.78, subd. 4 ("Public Hearing") for"amendments,"
No amendment shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by
the Council. A notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten days prior to the day of
the hearing. When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries a notice
shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of
affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the
property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed
notice, the responsible person may use any appropriate records to determine the
names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and
addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible
person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to
give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not
invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this
Subdivision has been made.
III. ANALYSIS
In addition to its above-discussed 1984 variance for Notermanns' residential development
of the entire, undivided Property, the entire, undivided Property is (1) already partially (and thus
entirely) "guided" for "Low Density Residential," which equates to "R1-13.5" zoning, (2) already
partially within the MUSA, and (3) already effectively serviceable by City's ongoing extension
of the sanitary sewer and municipal water to their adjacent Lion's Tap property with sufficient
p al�'3ti17
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 18
capacity and lateral connections therefrom to the Property, including City's assessment (albeit
deferred) therefore against the Property. And the Property's "R-Rural" "zoning" specifically
recognizes that it "will be appropriate for urban uses" (or residential "urban development") upon
City's extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water service thereto.
Based upon these facts, Notermanns are entitled to their requested rezoning of the
Property from "R-Rural" to "R1-13.5" for two compelling legal reasons. First, City's effective
"guidance" of the entire, undivided Property is for "Low Density Residential," which equates to
and thus requires the requested rezoning to "R1-13.5." And, second, City's ongoing extension of
the sanitary sewer and municipal water service to Notermanns' adjacent Lion's Tap property with
sufficient capacity and lateral connections therefrom to the Property, including City's assessment
(albeit deferred) therefore against the Property requires, per City's "purpose" for its "R-Rural"
zoning district, the rezoning of the Property for "urban uses" (or residential "urban
development"). These facts also equitably compel City's approval. City's litany of words and
actions presupposing Notermanns' residential development upon City's extension of services
have been reasonably relied upon by Notermanns. Setting aside the legal implications for failing
to do so, City needs to equitably honor its decades-long messaging.
Moreover, though it has no direct bearing on City's approval of Notermanns' requested
rezoning, it is helpful to clarify that neither City nor the Metropolitan Council has a legal basis to
deny Notermanns' contemporaneously requested extension of the MUSA from the 1.2-acre
portion of the Property to the remaining 8.34-acre portion of the Property. Rather, as reflected in
its above-discussed three erroneous bases for its December 11, 2013 denial of Notermanns'
initially requested extension of the MUSA to their adjacent Lion's Tap property, the
Metropolitan Council's MUSA extension decision turns upon City's "guidance" and "zoning" for
the Property, compel the Metropolitan Council's approval not denial thereof. That is,
having already reviewed City's prior "guidance" for and "zoning" of the Property and without
any authority to control development within City's alleged "bluffs" (or "steep slopes"), the
Metropolitan Council's discretion has already been executed. Stated otherwise, City has with its
"official controls" effectively directed the Metropolitan Council's approval of Notermanns'
requested MUSA extension. Alternatively, City, like Chanhassen, has complete and unfettered
authority to eliminate altogether the Metropolitan Council's authority over its MUSA extensions.
as such, City cannot use the Metropolitan Council as its excuse for any MUSA extension denials.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, coinciding with City's ongoing extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water
service to their adjacent Lion's Tap property with sufficient capacity and lateral connections
therefrom to the Property, including City's assessments (albeit deferred) therefore against the
Property, Notermanns respectfully request that City formally approve of that which it has
al'3i��1
Julie Klima
July 13, 2018
Page 19
otherwise encouraged for literally decades. And, to be exceedingly clear, their requested
rezoning of the Property for residential development is to rezone it from the "R-Rural" to "R1-
13.5."
Sincerely,
/s/Jack Y. Perry
Jack Y. Perry
JYP/kg
Attachs. A-N
cc: Bert &Bonnie Notermann
John Shardlow, Stantec Consulting
Maren F. Grier, Briggs and Morgan, P.A.
10828135v20
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 1
Notermann Residential Development
Eden Prairie, MN
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Application
Introduction
Bert and Bonnie Notermann (the Notermanns)are requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment
of their 9.9 acres from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential, as described in this narrative and
attached materials. The property, no assigned address, is in the northwest quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive
and Spring Road.
h -
Reeder Podge7 ioor �14.. - 1- `` .
''hy Pulte Homes"� j joiti. w� ni 7
l 1/11^- (_ -
•
.. �� A
."
- � �F fir,. y - • a�i4%
tnis
`aye
Ga
r
Google
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Request Background
This narrative follows the items on the City's Development Review Process Handbook.
Application submitted by:
Name: John W. Shardlow, FAICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
On behalf of Bert and Bonnie Notermann
Address: 2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 2
Phone: 651-967-4560
This application is hereby made to reguide certain properties from Rural Residential to Low
Density Residential. It is also proposed the 9.9 acres of residential land be included in the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA).
Currently, the Notermann property (the site) is guided to be used as Rural Residential. However, the
property owner intends to develop this land as single family residential and committed to working with the
City to complete a successful and environmentally sound development for the community.
The purpose section of the Rural Residential Zoning Districts state that it is intended to maintain land in
low density development, until municipal utilities are available. The City has completed a feasibility study
and has approved a project to extend sewer and water to serve the adjacent Lions Tap parcel. This line
has been sized to serve the Lions Tap, the residential land that the Notermanns own and neighboring
properties.
The utility designs prepared by the City have been coordinated with Hennepin County Transportation
Department, as they have designed the upgrades for Flying Cloud Drive. They have also been
incorporated into the site plan and plat for the Lions Tap Parcel. This sewer line is designed with locations
for lateral hook up lines to serve this residential area. The Notermanns have agreed to accept an
assessment for approximately$1 million dollars for these improvements. This major investment is
indicative of their commitment to the Eden Prairie community.
Additional information regarding legal issues associated with this comprehensive plan amendment,
MUSA extension and rezoning is addressed in the attached cover letter.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Application Materials
ITEM D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING ACREAGE OF LAND AND STREET ADDRESS
Lot 2, Block 1, SPRING HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(see attached Title)
9.9 acres
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 3
ITEM E. LOCATION MAP
A location map is included following this application. The location map includes the following information:
• Local street system with names
• Surrounding existing land use patterns within '/4 miles of the site
• North arrow
• Project location
ITEM F. PROJECT NARRATIVE
General description of the request or proposal
As stated above, the Notermanns are requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment related to
their 9.9 acre site. The requested change is to Low Density residential and this requires an extension of
the Metropolitan Urban Services Line (MUSA). The City Council and Planning Commission both voted
unanimously to include the subject property in the MUSA. In its review of the proposed amendment, the
Metropolitan Council recommended serving the Lions Tap by approving an exception to the Eden Prairie
Local Sewer Plan, to serve a failing system outside the MUSA.
Not only have the Notermanns been consistently assured that their land will eventually be connected to
public infrastructure, for decades, by past public works directors, city engineers and planners, they have
paid taxes and invested in reliance on these assurances. Municipal sanitary sewer will soon be available
to serve this property, the Notermanns are paying a very significant percentage of the assessments and
they are entitled to benefit from these improvements.
The MUSA Line is a regional growth management tool and should not be used by the Metropolitan
Council to micromanage local planning decisions, or to attempt to act as though the proposed critical area
was approved for the Minnesota River Corridor. It wasn't approved when considered over a quarter of a
century ago. The City intentionally chose to regulate development in this area using its steep slopes
ordinance and only defined bluffs in the Shoreland District.
City Guide Plan framework
The City of Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan is the guiding policy document for future
development in the City. Currently, the site is guided for future development as rural. The Metropolitan
Land Planning Act mandates that local governments must act within six months of the adoption of a local
comprehensive plan, to ensure that its official controls (zoning)are not in conflict with the adopted plan.
The City of Eden Prairie adopted its 2030 Comprehensive Plan and zoned this land Rural residential. The
stated purpose of this district is to maintain low density development until services are available.
Municipal utilities are now available and the changes we are requesting through this application are
therefore consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Figure 1: 2030 Future Land Use Plan. As this figure illustrates, a small, 1.5-acre portion of the Notermann
property is within the current MUSA, although the land is all one parcel and has never been subdivided.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 4
I L?
1 I II
111111■11R
If sr Min
AideicW
Site Boundary
Extent of MUSA
Zoning classification(s)
The property is currently zoned R-Rural. An application is being submitted for the site requesting a
rezoning to R1-13.5 Single Family Residential.
Variances or PUD waivers requested (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Existing and proposed land uses of project site and adjacent properties
Adjacent land uses are farm to the south; commercial (Lion's Tap restaurant)to the south; residential and
vacant land to the west and north; farm across Spring Road to the east. When developed, the plans will
follow the City's zoning and development standards regarding noise, physical and environmental impacts.
Provide details about proposed sustainability components, elements, and features
No development plans are proposed at this time. When they are prepared these issues will be described
in detail.
Phasing and construction schedule
Not applicable.
Development method (i.e., sales, lease, owner occupied)
Not applicable.
Legal instruments, association documents, easements, covenants, and restrictions.
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile (i.e., square foot of building, site area, Floor Area Ratio, Base
Area Ratio, amount of parking, etc.).
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 5
As indicated on Sheet C1.01 attached, the site area is 8.33 acres with a lot density of one unit per 2.1
acres.
Signage (locations, sizes, materials, and details)
Not applicable.
Lighting (locations, type, and height) including photometric information
Not applicable.
Transportation capacity, impacts, Average Daily Trips, trip distributions, p.m. peak hour
movements, and sight lines at access points to public roads
Not applicable.
Level I Environmental Assessment
Not applicable.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Airport Zones (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Disposition of any excess land
Not applicable.
Limits of disturbance (including area and volume)
Not applicable.
Summary of the stormwater management report. Projects that have land disturbance of greater
than or equal to one acre (including projects of less than one area that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale) shall also include a summary of the information required in
part X of this handbook
When developed, the plans will follow the City's and watershed organization's standards.
Water and Wetlands (including discussion of any identified water resource features including type
of feature, shoreland classifications, flood elevations, and the determination of whether public or
private waters are present)
Please see Sheet C0.01 for Existing Conditions information.
Wildlife (identify habitats, type, location, impacts and any mitigating measures)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 6
Soils (including building or stormwater runoff management constraints and/or, special conditions
of construction)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented.
Existing structures (include historic features, e.g., foundations)
There are no existing structures on the property. Please see the attached report from the 106 Group for
context related to any historic features.
Steep slopes (slopes in excess of 12% and/or elevation difference of 30 feet or more) and bluffs as
defined in City Code Section 11.60
Please see attached Sheet C0.01.
Any other relevant issues associated with the project not already addressed
No other issues.
Ownership—Identify all owners legal and equitable of all encumbrances and easements upon the
land within the proposed PUD
Bert A. Notermann is the owner. Please see concept design packet for easements
Developer—Identify all parties involved in the development including their previous experience
and the nature and extent of their participation
Not applicable.
Financing the project—Identify the source and type of financing of project including public
financing
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile, including computations of gross/leasable square footage,
housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, person per unit, parking requirements, etc
Summary here.
As indicated on Sheet C1.01 attached, the site area is 8.33 acres with a lot density of one unit per 2.1
acres.
For telecommunication towers information related to height, setback, colocation requirements,
tower and antennae design, mechanical equipment location as outlined in City Code Section 11.06
Not applicable.
ITEM G. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP/CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
An existing conditions map is included following this application. The map includes the following
elements:
• Boundary lines, distances, and bearings
• Existing and proposed setbacks
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 7
• Easements
• Right-of-way/access/parking
• Footprint of existing and proposed structures
• Existing vegetation
• Existing topography
• Existing roadways, sanitary sewer and water main facilities
• Water resources
• Elevation of ground water
The map does not include the following items:
• Conservancy zone— N/A
• Historic features—Please see the attached 106 Group report
• Septic or well locations— N/A
• Native American burial mounds— Please see the attached 106 Group report
ITEM H. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
1. What impact does the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change have on the balance of
land uses in the City?
The request is to change the Guide Plan from Rural to Low Density. There are currently over 5,600 acres
of land guided and developed as Low Density Residential in the City. The Notermann 9.9 acres are a tiny
fraction of the land use balance, amounting to less than 2/10 of one percent of the low-density land use
category.
2.What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on surrounding land uses?
Adjacent land uses are farm and commercial (Lion's Tap restaurant)to the south; residential and vacant
land to the west and north; farm across Spring Road to the east. When developed, the plans will follow
the City's zoning and development standards regarding noise, physical and environmental impacts. They
will meet all applicable codes and ordinances and utilize sound site planning principals to maintain soils,
preserve trees and existing view corridors.
3. What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan change have on the site?
The property is currently undeveloped. There is a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees that occupy
about half of the sloping hillside that comprises the property. When redeveloped for Low Density
Residential uses, the plans will follow the City's zoning and development standards regarding potential
impacts.
4.What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan change have on city services, such as sewer,
water, storm water run-off, and roads?
If developed to its maximum density the property would accommodate up to 24 units of housing, which
would add approximately 6,000 gallons of sewer flow per day; 300 gallons of water usage per day per
household; and 240 total daily trips, of which there would be 36 trips each in the a.m. and p.m. peak. On-
site stormwater management will follow City standards and best practices to reduce impacts off-site. Due
to the conceptual nature of the residential project, a traffic study will be completed with future applications
Design with community in mind
® Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 8
to the City. It should be noted that the most recent concept plans prepared for the subject property
included far fewer that 24 units.
5. Does the proposed land use/Comprehensive Guide Plan change result in a better use of the
land?
Yes, the change will result in a better land use. The land is currently vacant, and future development as
residential homes will be an improvement for the future residents as well as an improvement to the
property tax base. Any new residents will also contribute to the local economy and support community
facilities.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application
Notermann Residential Development
Eden Prairie, MN
Rezoning Application
Introduction
Bert and Bonnie Notermann are requesting a rezoning of their 9.54 acres from R-Rural to R1-13.5, as
described in this cover letter and attached materials. The property, no assigned address, is located in the
northwest quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road.
Rezoning Request Background
This narrative follows the items on the City's Development Review Process Handbook.
Application submitted by:
Name: John Shardlow, FAICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
On behalf of Bert and Bonnie Notermann
Address: 2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113
Phone: 651-967-4560
This application is hereby made for rezoning certain properties R-Rural to R1-13.5.
Rezoning Request Application Materials
ITEM D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING ACREAGE OF LAND AND STREET ADDRESS
Lot 2, Block 1, SPRING HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(see attached Title)
9.9 acres
ITEM E. LOCATION MAP
A location map is included following this application. The location map includes the following information:
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 2
• Local street system with names
• Surrounding existing land use patterns within '/4 miles of the site
• North arrow
• Project location
ITEM F. PROJECT NARRATIVE
General description of the request or proposal
The property owner is requesting a rezoning from the R-Rural to R1-13.5 Single Family Residential to
allow residential development at a density and character consistent with the Low Density Residential
guidance in the City Guide Plan. An accompanying application requests a comprehensive plan
amendment from Rural Residential for portions of the property to Single-Family Residential and an
extension of the Metropolitan Urban Services Line (MUSA).
City Guide Plan framework
The City of Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan is the guiding policy document for future
development in the City. Currently, the site is guided for future development as rural. The Metropolitan
Land Planning Act mandates that local governments must act within six months of the adoption of a local
comprehensive plan, to ensure that its official controls (zoning)are not in conflict with the adopted plan.
The City of Eden Prairie adopted its 2030 Comprehensive Plan and zoned this land Rural residential. The
stated purpose of this district is to maintain low density development until services are available.
Municipal utilities are now available and the changes we are requesting through this application are
therefore consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
The northern 1.2-acre portion of the property is guided in the 2030 Plan as Low Density Residential while
the remaining 8.34 acres is guided Rural Residential. An accompanying application requests a
comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the entire property as Low Density Residential consistent with
the Peterson property to the east and Koster and Edstrom properties directly adjacent to the west. The
amendment also requests an extension of the Metropolitan Urban Services Line (MUSA).
Zoning classification(s)
Existing zoning: R-Rural
Proposed zoning: R1-13.5 Single Family Residential
Variances or PUD waivers requested (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Existing and proposed land uses of project site and adjacent properties
Adjacent land uses are agricultural to the south; commercial (Lion's Tap restaurant)to the south;
residential and vacant land to the west and north; agricultural across Spring Road to the east. When
developed, the plans will follow the City's zoning and development standards regarding noise, physical
and environmental impacts.
Provide details about proposed sustainability components, elements and features
Design details will be forthcoming when a development proposal is made.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 3
Phasing and construction schedule
Not applicable.
Development method (i.e., sales, lease, owner occupied)
Not applicable.
Legal instruments, association documents, easements, covenants, and restrictions.
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile (i.e., square foot of building, site area, Floor Area Ratio, Base
Area Ratio, amount of parking, etc.).
As indicated on Sheet C1.01 attached, the site area is 8.33 acres with a lot density of one unit per 2.1
acres.
Signage (locations, sizes, materials, and details)
Not applicable.
Lighting (locations, type, and height) including photometric information
Not applicable.
Transportation capacity, impacts, Average Daily Trips, trip distributions, p.m. peak hour
movements, and sight lines at access points to public roads
Not applicable.
Level I Environmental Assessment
Not applicable.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Airport Zones (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Disposition of any excess land
Not applicable.
Limits of disturbance (including area and volume)
Not applicable.
Summary of the stormwater management report. Projects that have land disturbance of greater
than or equal to one acre (including projects of less than one area that are part of a larger
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 4
common plan of development or sale) shall also include a summary of the information required in
part X of this handbook
When developed, the plans will follow the City's and watershed organization's standards.
Water and Wetlands (including discussion of any identified water resource features including type
of feature, shoreland classifications, flood elevations, and the determination of whether public or
private waters are present)
Please see Sheet C0.01 for Existing Conditions information.
Wildlife (identify habitats, type, location, impacts and any mitigating measures)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented.
Soils (including building or stormwater runoff management constraints and/or, special conditions
of construction)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented.
Existing structures (include historic features, e.g., foundations)
There are no existing structures on the property. Please see the attached report from the 106 Group for
context related to any historic features.
Steep slopes (slopes in excess of 12% and/or elevation difference of 30 feet or more) and bluffs as
defined in City Code Section 11.60
Please see attached Sheet C0.01.
Any other relevant issues associated with the project not already addressed
No other issues.
Ownership— Identify all owners legal and equitable of all encumbrances and easements upon the
land within the proposed PUD
Bert A. Notermann is the owner. Please see the attached concept plan for the location of encumbrances
and easements.
Developer— Identify all parties involved in the development including their previous experience
and the nature and extent of their participation
Not applicable.
Financing the project—Identify the source and type of financing of project including public
financing
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile, including computations of gross/leasable square footage,
housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, person per unit, parking requirements, etc
Summary here.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 5
As indicated on Sheet C1.01 attached, the site area is 8.33 acres with a lot density of one unit per 2.1
acres.
For telecommunication towers information related to height, setback, colocation requirements,
tower and antennae design, mechanical equipment location as outlined in City Code Section 11.06
Not applicable.
ITEM G. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP/CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
An existing conditions map is included following this application. The map includes the following
elements:
• Boundary lines, distances, and bearings
• Existing and proposed setbacks
• Easements
• Right-of-way/access/parking
• Footprint of existing and proposed structures
• Existing vegetation
• Existing topography
• Existing roadways, sanitary sewer and water main facilities
• Water resources
• Elevation of ground water
The map does not include the following items:
• Conservancy zone— N/A
• Historic features— Please see the attached 106 Group report
• Septic or well locations— N/A
• Native American burial mounds— Please see the attached 106 Group report
ITEM J. SITE/STREET PLAN
Please see attached Sheet C0.01.
ITEM K. GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN
Please see attached Sheet C3.01.
ITEM L. UTILITY PLAN
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 6
ITEM M. LANDSCAPE/TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Please see attached Sheet C3.02 and Sheet C3.02.
ITEM N. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM O. TREE INVENTORY
Please see attached Sheet C3.02 and Sheet C3.02.
ITEM P. WETLAND PLANS
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM Q. TRAFFIC STUDY/ANALYSIS
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM R. TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM PLAN)
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM U. LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Notermann Residential Development,Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 6
ITEM M. LANDSCAPE/TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Please see attached Sheet C3.02 and Sheet C3.02.
ITEM N. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM O. TREE INVENTORY
Please see attached Sheet C3.02 and Sheet C3.02.
ITEM P. WETLAND PLANS
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM Q. TRAFFIC STUDY/ANALYSIS
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM R. TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM PLAN)
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
ITEM U. LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This item is not included with the application. Please see the attached cover letter for additional
information.
Design with community in mind
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
DATE: October 18, 2018
SUBJECT: Peterson Residential Development
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
APPLICANT: Stantec Consulting Services
OWNERS: Sever& Sharon Peterson
Peterson Farm Holding No 3 LP
REQUEST: • Guide Plan Change from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential
on 7.57 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R 1-13.5 on 12.3 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 12.3 acres
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and a MUSA
extension for 12.3 acres of property located north of Flying Cloud Drive and east of Spring Road.
The parcel is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring
Road.
The property is currently used for agricultural purposes and includes potential bluff and steep slope
areas,wooded areas,remnant prairie,and floodplain. The area to the north and east is owned by the
City of Eden Prairie as park/open space. To the west of Spring Road is the Lions Tap and south of
Flying Cloud Drive is undeveloped property.
lit
14414
YING CLOUD
. ' �`
Staff Report— Peterson Residential Development
October 18, 2018
Attached to this memo are copies of the narratives for these applications and a letter from Jack Perry
of Briggs and Morgan,as attorney representing the property owner. Attached to Mr.Perry's original
letter were supplemental documents referred to in the letter. These supplemental documents are
lengthy and have not been included with the Planning Commission agenda materials. This
information is available at City Center for viewing.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The applicant did not submit a development plan or timeline for development of the property with
this application. It has been the City's practice to review rezoning requests simultaneously with a
development plan. When development plans are prepared for this property, all submittal
requirements of the City Code will need to be addressed. These include but are not limited to
environmental review, steep slopes, bluffs, tree removal and replacement, cultural/archeological
resources and floodplain information.
Due to the proximity to the Minnesota River and the potential presence of archeological resources on
the property,the City will require archeological studies of the property prior to the preparation of a
development plan. The preservation and protection of such resources is a goal for and promoted by
the City.
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND MUSA BOUNDARY
Approximately 4.73 acres of the property is currently guided Low-Density Residential with the
reminder guided Park/Open Space. The applicant is requesting a 2030 Comprehensive Plan
amendment to reguide the Park/Open Space portion of the property to Low-Density Residential.
While a portion of the property is guided Low Density Residential, all of the subject property is
located outside of the MUSA boundary. The applicant is requesting to extend the MUSA boundary
to include the entire 12.3 acres. With the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road,
municipal sanitary sewer and water will become available for connection by the Lion's Tap
Restaurant.As a result,municipal sanitary sewer and water will be proximate to the subject property
as well and is sized to accommodate additional development.
The City's goal for this corridor is to preserve and protect natural resources and maintain the natural
character along the Minnesota River.The Low Density Residential guiding allows up to 2.5 dwelling
units per acre. One of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a balance between
conservation/management of natural resources and the need for residential housing. This can be
accomplished through existing regulations at the time of development,such as tree preservation and
replacement,shoreland regulations and steep slope regulations.Due to the location of utility services
and the existing regulations to protect natural resources,staff is recommending approval of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendment to Low Density Residential and the extension of the MUSA
2
Staff Report—Peterson Residential Development
October 18, 2018
boundary.
Existing 2030 Guide Plan and MUSA Boundary
11-----\
ar
LYING CLOf
UD DRIVE
R111111111.111111111111..111 .
equested 2030 Guide Plan Amendment and
MUSA Boundary
/
. . . .SITE
ING CLOUD DRIVE . . . .
3
Staff Report— Peterson Residential Development
October 18, 2018
ZONING
The property is currently zoned Rural.The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to R1-13.5.
The R 1-13.5 zoning district allows the development of single family homes with sanitary sewer and
water service with a maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
Existing Zoning and MUSA Boundary
SITE
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE I
Requested Zoning and MUSA Boundary
LYING CLOUD
DRIVE
4
Staff Report— Peterson Residential Development
October 18, 2018
Without a development plan for the property, there is insufficient information to determine the
appropriate zoning for the property. A development plan that includes information such as
topography, soils reports, archeological studies, tree inventory, and bluff/steep slope analysis will
help inform the level of development that the site can support. It has been the City's practice to
simultaneously review a development plan when considering a rezoning request.This process allows
for a comprehensive review by both public officials and private property owners.
Staff recommends retaining the Rural zoning of the property until such time as a complete
development plan and associated information is provided for review. Without these details,
establishing an ultimate zoning of the property is premature as it is unclear what level of
development is appropriate and can be sustained by site conditions.
Recommended Zoning and MUSA Boundary
\a
1"1"/
FLYING DRIVE
Staff also recommends adding the following language to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to formalize
the City's practice. Language that is underlined is proposed for addition.
MUSA LINE
There are 2,333 acres of land outside of the MUSA line. The land is guided low density, water
and parks/open space. There are 243.13 acres guided rural residential, 509 acres guided water
and 1,711.85 acres guided parks/open space. The low density guide area is zoned rural with a 10
acre minimum lot size. No expansion of the MUSA Line is proposed. Any requests to expand
the MUSA require review through a public process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
5
Staff Report—Peterson Residential Development
October 18, 2018
LAND USE CATEGORIES
Low Density Residential: this category allows a gross residential density of between 1 and 2.5
dwelling units per acre. Typical development includes single family detached dwellings.
Corresponding zoning districts include Rural, R1-44, R1-22, and R1-13.5 districts. Attached
housing may occur in land guided low density provided it meets these density requirements and
transitions appropriately to adjacent developments. If a rezoning request is submitted without a
proposed development plan,the City may retain the Rural zoning of a property until such time as a
development plan and sufficient associated site information is provided to the City to determine the
appropriate zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following requests:
• Guide Plan Change from Park/Open Space to Low Density Residential on 7.57 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 12.3 acres
• Comprehensive Plan Text Changes as noted in the staff report dated October 18, 2018
Recommends denial of the following request:
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R 1-13.5 on 12.3 acres
6
Aerial Map: Peterson Residential Development
Address:NE Quadrant Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road,
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
T
irt*
f °y s � Ill
I1 1 I I 1J .-- :illik,„ </lit
MT.,..::-.,
--- . , - =0>4,2-711,
r -
ABA P
ri . RE-1 ,,,,, ,p ,r*
s , E.
.�e _, M�.
a m r r
/a
7414410- 6,
,
J ..
m
r s
YIN �: <�
GC
'se*a "! Viz'
a 0 2 -50 1,000 feet
W
Current (2030) Guide Plan Map:Peterson Residential Development
Address: Northeast Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
•iiili .U
I
' III
if/ cii
. . . ..
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE . . .
D
al
City of Eden ' rairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map 20 1 0-2030
MUSA Boundary
Site Area N
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Community Commercial
Y/A Low Density/Public/Open Space - Regional Commercial / ''/' 0
DATE Approvedised03-19-03 DATE Revised 103-01-07 E D E N
Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre �Town Center DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
n Medium Density Residential/Office - Park/Open Space DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
- High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public DArRevised o Revised 03-01-09 PRAIRIE
�.
Airport Golf Course j., °.,,. Dnr.i,:.�..,..,°.. .ro
Office - Church/Cemetary LIVE•woAK•oAenm
%/ Office/Industrial Open Water
Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way 390 195 0 390 Feet
- Industrial QCityLimits
Requested Guide Plan Map and MUSA:
Peterson Residential Development
Address: Northeast Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie MN 55344
1LT —..iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir _■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_ —M— ��
11111 =
BUIlinma l RAM '
iiiiiiiiiiiiirior
I
I
• •
• •
• •
• •
• •
• .
• • • • ,
. . . .SITE
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE . . . .
City of Eden ' rairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map 2010-2030
MUSA Boundary
Site Area N
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Community Commercial
Y/A Low Density/Public/Open Space - Regional Commercial / ''/' 0
DATE Approvedised03-19-03 DATE Revised 103-01-07 E D E N
Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre �Town Center DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
n Medium Density Residential/Office - Park/Open Space DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
- High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public DArRevised o DATE Revised 03-01-09
.ro PRAIRIE
Airport Golf Course °,',',.,.7..:°�.,,._ a.� .'°�.Ti..,.�.,° g LIVE•woAK•oAenm
Office - Church/Cemetary ...
%/ Office/Industrial Open Water
Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way 390 195 0 390 Feet
- Industrial CICityLimits
Recommended Guide Plan Map and MUSA Boundary:Peterson
Residential Development
Address: Northeast Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
I - , ►� ► 5,5344
T1
ji . . . •
• . . .SITE
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE • .
City of Eden rairie Land Use Guide
Plan Map 20 0-2030
MUSA Boundary
Site Area N
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Community Commercial
Y/A Low Density/Public/Open Space - Regional Commercial / 0
DATE Approvedised03-19-03 DATE Revised 103-01-07 E D E N
Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre �Town Center DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07
DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
n Medium Density Residential/Office - Park/Open Space DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08
High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public DArRevised o DATE Revised 03-01-09 PRAIRIE
Airport Golf Course �..,..,°... �.ro
Office - Church/Cemetary LIVE•woAK•oAenm
Office/Industrial Open Water
Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way 390 195 0 390 Feet
Industrial CityLimits
Current Zoning:Peterson Residential Development
Address: Northeast Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Off.
O
FLYING CLOUD . • .
DRIVE
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
MUSA Boundary Rural - Regional Service Commercial N
Site Area R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. - Regional Commercial
R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. EMI TC-C
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. ®TC-R + - #
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. 11 TC-MU DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07 E D E N
I RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
DATE Revised 02 To): DATE Revised 10-01-07
RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min. DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09
DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-09 PRAIRIE
®Airport Office General Industrial-5 Acre Min.
Office Publickl, LIVE•WORK•DREAM
FE Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course
380 190 0 380 Feet
Community Commercial Water
Highway Commercial Right of Way
Airport Commercial TOD-R Transit Oriented Development-Residential
Requested Zoning:Peterson Residential Development
Address: Northeast Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
� T
O).
O
FLYING CLOUD . .
DRIVE
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
MUSA Boundary Rural - Regional Service Commercial
Site Area R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. - Regional Commercial
R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. ®TC-C
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. ®TC-R 1,i.,
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. n TC-MU DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07 E D E N
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07
DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
8
rp tlATE Revised 0 306 m 03-01-09
RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min. DATE Revised
y" DATE Revised 06-23-06 PRAIRIE
DATE Revised 03-01-09
Airport Office General Industrial-5 Acre Min.
Office Public LIVE•WORK•DREAM
Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course
380 190 0 380 Feet
Community Commercial Water
Highway Commercial Right of Way
Airport Commercial TOD-R Transit Oriented Development-Residential
Recommended Zoning:Peterson Residential Development
Address: Northeast Corner of Spring Road and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
� T
O).
O
2
o-
FLYING CLOUD . .
DRIVE
City of Eden Prairie Zoning Map
MUSA Boundary Rural - Regional Service Commercial
Site Area R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. - Regional Commercial
R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. ®TC-C
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. ®TC-R I,i.,
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. n TC-MU DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06
DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07 E D E N
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, DATE Revised 11-07-06 DATE Revised 06-01-07
DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07
rp tlDATE Revised 0 3-06 03-01-08
RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min. DATE Revised
y" DATE Revised 06-23-06 PRAIRIE
DATE Revised 03-01-09
Airport Office General Industrial-5 Acre Min.
Office Public LIVE•WORK•DREAM
Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course
380 190 0 380 Feet
Community Commercial Water
Highway Commercial Right of Way
Airport Commercial TOD-R Transit Oriented Development-Residential
Stantec Consulting Services , Inc
Stantec 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul , MN 55113-3819
August 2 , 2018
File Number
City of Eden Prairie
Attention : Beth Novak- Krebs , AICP
City of Eden Prairie Planning Department
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie , Minnesota 55344 - 4485
Dear Ms . Novak- Krebs ,
Reference : Transmittal of Application by Sever Peterson , Peterson Family Farm , for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment , extending the Metropolitan Urban Services Line ( MUSA) to
include their property and reguide the land to Low Density Residential and rezone the property to
R - 1 - 13 . 5
Transmitted along with this letter are the applications and supporting materials associated with the above
described requests . The Petersons previously submitted a letter to the Planning Commission , C/O the
Planning staff , requesting that the City consider the extension of the MUSA Line to include their property ,
as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update process . Neighboring property owners also signed that
letter , the Notermanns and the Ryans . None of these property owners received any acknowledgement of
receipt of this letter , or any response to this request .
The Petersons have no immediate plans to develop their property . They do recognize that their plans will
likely change during the 2040 planning period . They have long supported the plans advanced by their
neighbors , Bert and Bonnie Notermann , the owners of the Lions Tap and adjacent residential land . A
portion of the Peterson Property has served as an overflow parking area for Lions tap employees and
customers .
Plans to extend municipal utilities to serve the Notermann property are also supported by the Petersons
and they assert that it is timely and appropriate to consider the future of their land , in the context of the
broader neighborhood , especially in the 2040 -time horizon anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan .
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of the Peterson property as Park and Open Space ,
although no implementation step has ever been taken by the City , or any other public entity to acquire this
property . We respectfully request that this designation be changed to Low Density Residential . Future
development of the Peterson Property will be subject to the City' s park dedication ordinance and the City
can decide then if it wants land dedication , or cash in lieu of land . If the City intends to acquire this land
for a public purpose , then the Peterson ' s request that the City proceed with acquisition .
While the Petersons have no immediate plans to sell , or develop their land , they know that it contains
steep topography , valuable trees , abuts Purgatory Creek and that any future development will need to be
planned to maximize these opportunities and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts . The
availability of municipal sewer and water will be critical to realizing the land ' s full potential while protecting
the environment and satisfying applicable regulations .
Design with community in mind
August 2 , 2018
Beth Novak- Krebs , AICP
Page 2 of 2
Reference : Transmittal of Application by Sever Peterson , Peterson Family Farm , for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment , extending the Metropolitan Urban Services Line ( MUSA) to include their property
and reguide the land to Low Density Residential and rezone the property to R- 1 -13 . 5
The attached applications are accompanied by a check for the full amounts required by the Application
checklist . These fees were confirmed with City staff . They include all the fees , including those that are
related to the review of actual development projects . We did this to avoid a finding of incompleteness in
the review of our submission , or counter- productive quibbling over these fees . We respectfully request
that any fees that are not used for their stated purpose be refunded to the Petersons at the end of this
process .
The City' s Application Checklist for rezoning assumes a development project . The Petersons have no
pending development plans and they assert their right to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and zoning consistent with the requested land use designations . Any future development of their property
will be subject to subdivision , potentially Planned Unit Development approval , watershed district permits
and all the applicable permits and approvals . If an actual development proposal was imminent , then items
L through Y and item W would be appropriate submittals . In the absence of a proposed development ,
they are not reasonable requirements and do not result in incomplete applications .
We look forward to working with the City to take the necessary steps to support the future of the Peterson
property and the environmental stewardship to guide its future use .
Sincerely yours ,
Stantec Consulting Services , Inc
Jo n W Shardlow FAICP
Senior Principal
Phone : (651 ) 967 -4560
Fax : ( 651 ) 636 - 1311
John . Shardlow@Stantec . com
Attachment : Supplemental Materials and documents
cc . Bert & Bonnie Notermann , Jack Perry, Briggs & Morgan PA
da document2
Design with community in mind
2200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
f Minneapolis , MN 55402
� it. 1/4 -) 4Sj DEC 612 - 977- 8400
FAX 612 - 977- 8650
URL Briggs . com
Received - Planning Dept
August 2 , 2018 Jack V . Perry
AUG 0 22018 (612 ) 977 - 8497
,, jperry@briggs . com
' `6 `t City of Eden Prairie ' .'�VIA H NB DELIVERY.
Julie Klima
Eden Prairie City Planner
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie , MN 55344
Re : Severin Ho Peterson and Peterson Farm Holidhng #3 LP ' s (Peterson) request
for the City of Eden Prraflrrie ' s (City) re7ondng of their 11203 acre property
(Property) from " litRulrrafl " to " R11305 "
Dear Ms . Klima :
Per his attached application and corresponding fee (Attach . A( 1 ) - (2 ) ; Attach F ( 1 ) ) ,
Peterson hereby submits to City for its approval his requested rezoning of his Property from " R-
Rural " to " R 1 - 13 . 5 . " His rezoning request is , per its satisfaction of City' s application " checklist "
( Ed ) , complete and must be " approved or denied " within 60 days hereof. And , based upon the
following analysis , City' s approval hereof is legally compelled .
10 FACTUAL ICE CCKGRO ND
A . ' II ' HE PROPIKR' II ' V
The Property is on the northeast corner of the intersection of Spring Road and Flying
Cloud Drive/Hwy . 61 . Id
Briggs and Morgan , Professional Association
Affirmative Action , Equal Opportunity Employer
f RFIGGS
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 2
Bo CITY ' S ( 1 ) " GUM 4 NCF " FOR AND (2 ) " ZONING " OF THE P !', OPF, !'‘. TY
BOTH COMPEL ITS gPPROVAL OF PETERSON ' S REQUESTED REZONING
14111MM " R= RUIR g 1 l " TO " R143 5 "
L Standing alone, City ' s " guidance " for the Property compels Cit, ' s approval.
of Peterson ' s requested rezoning from " RoRural " to 99R11 - 13 . 5 "
ao City ' s " guidance " for the 4 . 73 - acre portion of the Propertyi i. e. ,
" Low Density Residential " compels City ' s approval of Peterson ' s
requested rezoning from " R= 14ural " to " R1013 . 5 "
Per its " Land Use Guide Plan Map 2030 " (2030 Plan Map ) (Attach . B , Fig . 3 . 2) , the 4 . 73 -
acre portion of the Property is " guided " for " Low Density Residential 0 - 2 . 5 Units/Acre " ( id
(emphasis added) ) . And , per City ' s existing 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2030 Plan) , " Low
Density Residential " means the following :
Low Density Residential : This category allows a gross residential density
between 1 and 2. 5 dwelling units per acre . Typical development includes single
family detached dwellings . Corresponding zoning districts include the [ (a) ]
Rural , [ (b) ] R1 - 44 , [ (c) ] R1 -22 , and [ (d) ] R1 - 13 . 5 districts . Attached housing
may occur in land guided low density , provided it meets these density
requirements and transitions appropriately to adjacent developments .
Attach . B at 2 (underlining in original ; italics , bold and bracketed information added) .
Because City' s " guidance " must be read in the light most favorable to Peterson (In re
Strasvold, 754 N . W . 2d at 328 ) , City' s " Low Density Residential " " guidance " for the 4 . 73 - acre
portion of the Property equates to up to 11 . 825 dwelling units thereon i. e . , " 2 . 5 dwelling units
per acre " x 4 . 73 acres . And , because City' s " zoning " for the Property must comport to its
" guidance " thereof (Mendota Golf LP v. Mendota Heights , 708 N . W . 2d at 174 - 75 ) , City ' s
" zoning " of the Property must be to " R1 - 13 . 5 . " This is because the 11 . 15 dwelling units on the
Property equates to the Property being in the " R1 - 13 . 5 " zoning district . Moreover , this rezoning
of the Property is , as discussed below, provided for and anticipated by City' s " R- Rural " " zoning "
of the Property .
1 The same analysis necessarily extends to the remaining 7 . 57 - acre portion of the Property .
Though this portion of the Property is " guided " as " Park and Open Space , " City does not own it ,
and it has never offered to buy it . Accordingly , City cannot use this " guidance " to restrict
Peterson' s use thereof. This conclusion is consistent with the below discussion regarding the
zoning of the Property .
fi:%-.7 BRIGGS
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 3
There is , moreover, no approval from the Metropolitan Council needed for the Property
to be so rezoned . Rather the Metropolitan Council was statutorily required to (Minn . Stat .
§ 473 . 175 ) and did review City' s 2030 Plan, and was , per Minn . Stat . § 473 . 865 , provided with a
copy of City Code , thereby effectively approving of City' s " guidance " and " zoning " for the
Property . And City was , in turn, required to certify that its ( 1 ) 2030 Plan " conforms with
metropolitan system plans " and (2) City Code requirements " are not in conflict with its
comprehensive plan . " Minn . Stat . § 473 . 864 , subd . 2 (a) .
Relevant thereto , City , not the Metropolitan Council , controls the development within
City' s alleged " bluffs " or " steep slopes , " including the Property . Compare Minn . Stat . § 462 . 353
(setting forth power of municipalities to plan for development) with Minn . Stat . § 473 . 129
(setting forth powers of the Metropolitan Council) . This is critical because ( 1 ) City' s " bluff '
restrictions are , as discussed below, inapplicable to the Property, and (2) City' s " steep slopes "
concerns , if any , with Peterson' s proposed residential development of the Property can (and thus
must) be , as also discussed below, addressed through City' s imposition of reasonable conditions
to mitigate its concerns .
Also relevant thereto , City , not the Metropolitan Council , sets the criteria for determining
whether the MUSA is extended to the Property . This is , as discussed below, illustrated by the
Metropolitan Council ' s reliance upon its interpretation (albeit erroneous) of City' s 2030 Plan .
This is otherwise proven by , for example , Chanhassen' s recent effective elimination of the
Metropolitan Council ' s purported authority over its extension of the MUSA within its boundaries
by seeking its extension over the entire city in its proposed 2040 comprehensive plan .
2 . Standing alone, City ' s " zoning" for the Property i. e. , " R-Rural " and
this zoning district' s stated " purpose " i. e. , to " Fpl revent premature urban
development . . . L ,] which eventually will be approved for urban uses " upon
its extension of sanitary sewer and water service thereto compel City ' s
approval of Peterson ' s requested rezoning
Per City' s Zoning Map , the Property is within City' s " R-Rural " zoning district . Attach .
A(3 ) . This is the same zoning district for the adjacent properties to the west, north and east . Id.
And, per City Code § 11 . 10 , subd . 2 (c) , the only " Permitted Use [] " for residential development
in City ' s " R- Rural " zoning district is as follows :
C . Single family detached dwellings and accessory structures on parcels of
not less than 10 acres .
Attach . D (emphasis added) . Thus , per City Code § 11 . 10 , subd . 2 (c) , the Property is not
residentially developable because it is " less than 10 acres . "
:. ~ Zli V C GS
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 4
But City' s " zoning " of the Property must be reconciled , if possible , with its " guidance "
thereof See Minn . Stat . § 645 . 26 (when possible , conflicting provisions should be read to give
effect to both) . And City ' s " zoning " of the Property can , in fact, be readily reconciled with both .
City Code § 11 . 10 , subd . 1 ( " Purpose " ) for City' s " R- Rural " zoning district is the key .
Section 11 . 10 , subd . 1 provides as follows :
The purposes of the R- Rural District are to : ( 1 ) Prevent premature urban,
development of certain lands1 , 1 which eventually will be appropriate for urban
uses , until [ (a) ] the installation of Ri ) ] drainage works [ , ] [ (ii) ] streets , [ ( iii) T
utilities , and [(iv) ] community facilities and [(b) ] the ability to objectively
determine and project appropriate land use patterns makes orderly development
possible ; (2 ) Permit the conduct of certain agricultural pursuits on land in the
City ; ( 3 ) Ensure adequate light , air , and privacy for each dwelling unit , and to
provide adequate separation between dwellings and facilities for housing animals .
(Emphasis and bracketed information added) . And , because the Property is already becoming
serviceable by City' s extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water to Notermanns ' adjacent
Lion ' s Tap property , the continued " R- Rural " " zoning " of the Property is , per the " purpose " for
the " R- Rural " zoning district , no longer needed to " [p ] revent premature urban development . "
Instead , because City' s sanitary sewer and municipal water lines being extended to Notermanns '
adjacent Lion ' s Tap property were designed with sufficient capacity to serve the area, with
suitable lateral connections incorporated into the design, the Property " will be appropriate for
[residential ] urban uses " (or residential " urban development " ) . " [ W] ill " has the same meaning as
" must " and " shall . " See, e . g. , Minn . Stat . § 645 . 08 ( 1 ) ( " words and phrases are construed
according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage " ) ; Black ' s
Law Dictionary ( 10th ed . 2014 ) ( " will " is a future -tense definition of " shall " ) ; Black' s Law
Dictionary 1102 (6th Abridged Ed . ) (defining " will " as " [ a] n auxiliary verb commonly having
the mandatory sense of ' shall ' or 'must' [ ; ] [i ] t is a word of certainty , while the word 'may ' is one
of speculation and uncertainty " ) ; Minn . Stat . § 645 . 44 , subd . 16 ( " Shall ' is mandatory " ) ; Minn .
Stat . § 645 . 15a ( " ' Must' is mandatory " ) . 2
2 Even if the plain language is somehow found to be ambiguous and thus subject to the rules of
construction (Minn . Stat . § 645 . 16) , the rules of construction compel the same result . First, the
language in the " purpose " for the " R- Rural ' zone has to be read consistent with City ' s intent as
illustrated by its " guidance " thereof See Minn . Stat . § 645 . 16 ( " The object of all interpretation
and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature " ) . Second ,
the language in the " purpose " for the " R- Rural " zone has to be given meaning and cannot be read
to be superfluous . See Minn . Stat . § 645 . 16 ( " Every law shall be construed , if possible , to give
3 [ G S
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 5
Because of this " mandatory " ( i. e . , " will " ) language , City expressly anticipated such
" urban uses " (or residential " urban development " ) of the Property upon City' s extension of
sanitary sewer and municipal water service thereto . And , lest it render the anticipatory " urban
use " (or residential " urban development " ) of the Property superfluous , City cannot , therefore ,
unreasonably refuse Peterson' s requested connection to City ' s sanitary sewer and municipal water
service to the Property , especially given that services were specifically designed to do so . Minn .
Stat . § 645 . 15 ; In re Estate of Jotham, 722 N . W . 2d at 454 .
The Metropolitan Council is in the same position . This is because the Metropolitan
Council was required to and did previously review without objection City' s " guidance " and
" zoning " for the Property . See above . Indeed , per Minn . Stat . § § 473 . 856 , 473 . 858 , subd . 1 ,
473 . 864 , subd . 2 , and 473 . 865 , subd . 2 , City was required to " review and , if necessary , amend its
entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls " to ensure that :
( 1 ) City' s 2030 Plan (Attach . B ) , including its 2030 Plan Map ( Id ) ,
" conform [ s ] with metropolitan system plans " and
(2) City' s City Code requirements " are not in conflict with its comprehensive
plan . "
And , per Minn . Stat . § 473 . 864 , subd . 2 (a) , City had to submit to the Metropolitan Council its
" written certification " of compliance therewith .
Co EACH OF CITY STAFF ' S THREE SUCC ESTE II t AF RICERS ARE EITHER
IN 4 PP T1 IC g I:► 1, 1111, OR RE A DULY OVERCOME
10 1111 A, LSE B g RRI ER NO . 1 : City ° s inapplicable re_ulation of " bluffs "
Per City Code § 11 . 50 , subd . 8 (F) , " [ s ] tructures and accessory facilities , except stairways
and landings , must not be placed within bluff impact zones . " But City Code § 11 . 50 is limited to
City' s " Shoreland Management " area . And " shoreland " is , per City Code § 11 . 50 , subd . 4 ( 13 ) ,
defined as " [ l] and located within the following distances from public waters : 1 , 000 feet from the
ordinary high water level of a lake , pond , or flowage ; and 300 feet from a river or stream , or the
effect to all its provisions " ) ; In re Estate of Jotham , 722 N . W . 2d 447 , 454 (Minn . 2006)
(rejecting proposed interpretation of statute because it would " run [ ] afoul of the rule of statutory
construction that dictates that, if possible , no word or phrase of a statute should be deemed
superfluous or insignificant " ) . Third , the language in the " purpose " for the " R- Rural " zone has to
be narrowly construed against City and in favor of Peterson' s unfettered use of the Property . In
re Stadsvold, 754 N . W . 2d at 328 .
B R G
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 6
landward extent of a floodplain designated by code on a river or stream, whichever is greater . "
(Emphasis added) . Accordingly , the Property is not a City- defined " bluff "
There is no contrary interpretation of City Code § 11 . 50 . And , as proof thereof, City has
authorized other residential development along the same alleged " bluff " See, e . g. , Attach . D .
20 FALSE BA E !'• N ® a 20 Per City Code 11 . 60 ( " Sloped Ground
Devclop �nent an �gulations ") any " steep slope " orelatcd concerns,
warding residential development on the Proper — eago 9 erosion — can be
( and thus must) be addressed through the imposition of reasonable
conditions to address the underlying concerns at issue
Per City Code § 11 . 60 , subd . 2 ( 1 ) , " steep slopes " are defined as follows :
Slopes of over 12 % and of elevation difference of 30 ' or more in a given parcel .
And , per City Code § 11 . 60 , subd . 3 (A) , " [n] o development shall be conducted on a steep slope
without first receiving a permit therefore from the Council . " (Emphasis added) .
Per City Code § 11 . 60 , subd . 3 (A) ( 1 ) , " an application for a permit shall be made to the
City which shall contain a detailed plan for the development . " And , per City Code § 11 . 60 ,
subd . 3 (A) (4) ,
The review by the Planning Commission and the final decision by the Council
shall be based on consideration of the following factors :
( 1 ) Whether the application is complete , accurate and in all respects conforms
with Item 1 of this Subparagraph A .
(2 ) Whether , and the degree to which , the proposed development will cause
and/or be affected by erosion problems .
( 3 ) Whether any structures erected as part of the development will have
adequate foundations and underlying material .
(4 ) Whether , and the degree to which , the development will alter vegetation,
topography , or other natural features of the land .
( 5 ) Any other factors relating to whether the proposed development will cause
any risk or harm to any persons , property or animals .
83 0 G S
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 7
(Emphasis added) . And , per City Code § 11 . 60 , subd . 3 (A) ( 5 ) ,
If the Council decides to authorize issuance of a permit , it may do so subject to
compliance with reasonable conditions which shall be specifically set forth in the
permit . Such conditions may , among other matters , limit the size , kind or
character of the proposed work , require the construction of other structures ,
require replacement of vegetation or other natural features , establish required
monitoring procedures and maintenance activity , stage the work over time ,
require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering , or require a
performance bond .
(Emphasis added) .
Any " steep slope " related concerns regarding residential development on the Property —
e . g. , erosion can be readily addressed with the imposition of reasonable conditions . See, e . g. ,
Attach . H . And the law requires such conditional approvals if conditions could reasonably
address the underlying concerns at issue . RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington , 861 N . W . 2d 71 , 78
(Minn . 2015 ) ( if applicant demonstrates imposition of reasonable conditions would eliminate
conflicts and concerns ) ; Scott County Lumber Co . v. City of Shakopee , 417 N . W . 2d 721 , 727
(Minn . App . ) (reversing the city council ' s decision for legally insufficient reasons where city
planner recommended granting the permit with 20 conditions dealing with dust , noise , and
traffic , and appellant agreed to take all action necessary to meet the conditions) , review denied
(Minn . Mar . 23 , 1988 ) .
3 . FAR SE B RIMER NO . 30 The extension of the M1 I SA to the Property
ao City ' s Planning Commission and City Council ' s unanimous 2013
recommendation for the Metropolitan Council ' s extension of the
MUSA to Notermanns ' adjacent Lion ' s Tap property
In 2013 , Notermanns applied to the Metropolitan Council for a comprehensive plan
amendment for the extension of the MUSA , along with sanitary sewer and municipal water
service , to serve their adjacent Lion ' s Tap property . Attach . F ( 1 ) - ( 8 ) . And City' s Planning
Commission , as well as its City Council , unanimously recommended the Metropolitan Council ' s
approval of the requested extension . Id.
BFUGGS
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 8
b . The M etropolitan Council ' s demonstrably misguided December 11 ,
2013 denim of Notermanns ' requested extension of the MUSA to their
adjacent !Lion ' s Tap property
On December 11 , 2013 , the Metropolitan Council declined the requested extension of the
MUSA to Notermanns ' adjacent Lion' s Tap property . Attach . F (9) . Its explanation was , in full ,
as follows :
The Notermann Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment ( CPA) , as proposed ,
does not qualify as a Minor CPA that could be reviewed administratively . It is
not consistent with [ ( 1 ) ] MUSA guidelines for residential units (the Rural
Residential portion) , and [ (2 ) ] densities commensurate with urban services are
neither proposed nor would be supported by either the City' s comprehensive plan
or regional system plans and policy . The MUSA line was established in its
current location to follow the Minnesota River bluff ridge so that undeveloped
land between the ridge and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge ,
Recreation Area , and State Trail would remain guided for rural , as opposed to
urban- scale development .
The City' s Comprehensive Plan language , which is not the subject of the proposed
CPA , includes the following :
Section 3 . 2 - Future Land Use , on page 3 - 2 , discusses the MUSA Line
and the Rural Residential land use designation . Under the MUSA Line
section , the Plan states that the " low density guide area is zoned rural with
a 10 acre minimum lot size . No expansion of the MUSA Line is
proposed . " Further , under Residential Section , Rural Residential is
described as land that is " outside the MUSA Line " .
Sectioi 6o3 = Sanitary Sewer Plan Summary , on Page 6 - 15 , states that the
" only part of the City that is not included in the MUSA is the Minnesota
Valley Wildlife Refuge and Minnesota River bluffs , and there is no
likelihood that development will occur in this area . Therefore there will
be no need for extension of the sewer system into this area in the future . "
Section 6o3 , Sanitarry Sewer Phan Summary , on page 6 - 17 under Septic
Systems, addresses the remaining ISTS in the city . It does not address this
case , which appears to be somewhat unique .
le H2 1 G S
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 9
(Bold and italics in original ; underlining and bracket information added) . Thus , in denying
Notermanns ' requested extension of the MUSA to their adjacent Lion' s Tap property , the
Metropolitan Council exclusively relied upon the request purportedly being " not consistent " with
City ' s 2030 Plan . More specifically , the Metropolitan Council ' s denial relied upon two
provisions of City' s 2030 Plan i. e . , ( 1 ) " Section 302 ° 11H1uturre Land Use , on pages 3 - 2 " and (2 )
" Section 6o3 = Sanitary Sewer Summary , on Page 6 - 15 " and its conclusory representation that
" [t] he MUSA line was established " " so that undeveloped land between the ridge and the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge , Recreation Area, and State Trail would remain
guided for rural , as opposed to urban- scale development . " But the Metropolitan Council ' s
reliance on its interpretation of City' s 2030 Plan was demonstrably erroneous , and its conclusory
representation regarding the intransigence of the MUSA location directly contravenes City ' s
" guidance " and " zoning " for the Property , which it previously reviewed and City previously
certified as compliant with the Metropolitan Council ' s plans .
First , as to Metropolitan Council ' s reliance upon " Section 3o24uture Land Use " of
City' s Plan , City ' s representation therein that " [n] o expansion of the MUSA Line is proposed " is
not the same as representing, as suggested by the Metropolitan Council , that " [n] o expansion of
the MUSA Line is [allowed or anticipated] . " Indeed , in order to (as it must) reconcile " Section
3 . 2 " with City ' s above - discussed effective " guidance " of the Property as " Low Density
Residential , " which, as discussed above , equates to " R1 - 13 . 5 " zoning , " Sectios 3 . 2 " must be
read to provide for the extension of the MUSA to the Property . As also required to reconcile
" Section 3 . 2 " with City' s stated " purpose " for the " R- Rural " zoning district (which provides that
such " lands . . . will be appropriate urban uses " upon the extension of sanitary sewer and
municipal water services thereto ) , " Section 3 . 2 " must also be read to provide the extension of the
MUSA to the Property in order to avoid rendering this " purpose " superfluous .
Second , as to the Metropolitan Council ' s reliance upon " Section 6 . 3 - Sanitary Sewer
Summary , " City represents therein that " there is no likelihood that development will occur in
this area " and " [t] herefore there will be no need for extension of the Sewer System into this area
in the future . " " [T ] his area " is specifically limited therein to either ( 1 ) " the Minnesota Valley
Wildlife Refuge " or (2 ) " Minnesota River bluffs . " But , as discussed above , the Property is
simply not within " this area " as it is so defined by City Code . And " Section 6 . 3 " must be read ,
as well , so as to reconcile it with , as discussed above , City' s above - discussed effective
" guidance " and " zoning " of the Property as " Low Density Residential " and " R1 - 13 . 5 , "
respectively .
Third , the Metropolitan Council ' s conclusory representation that Notermanns ' adjacent
9 . 54 - acre Property ( and thus Peterson' s Property as well ) " would remain guided for rural , as
opposed to urban- scale development, " is , as well , belied by City' s above - discussed " guidance "
for Notermanns ' 9 . 54 - acre property , as well as Peterson' s Property , as " Low Density
83 G
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 10
Residential . " It is also in direct contravention of City' s above- discussed " purpose " for the " R-
Rural " zone .
The Metropolitan Council otherwise concluded , as follows , with its " alternative path " for
extending sanitary sewer and water service to Notermanns ' adjacent Lion ' s Tap property :
Having said that , it is a policy of the Metropolitan Council ' s Water Resources
Management Plan to " allow the community to connect a failing private
wastewater treatment system to the Metropolitan Disposal System, where there is
available capacity , at the community' s expense . " Our understanding is that the
Lion' s Tap has been experiencing septic tank operational difficulties for many
years . What we suggest is for the City to withdraw the CPA and resubmit the
request with accompanying documentation that addresses the sewer issue in this
manner . This becomes a modification to your local sewer plan (text , maps , etc . ) ,
based on this particular case . You may wish to address language in Section 6 . 3 as
well . This review could be done administratively .
Id. (emphasis added) . And , shortly thereafter , the Metropolitan Council directed City to " process
an amendment to [ its ] Sewer Plan based on a policy that allows service to areas outside the
MUSA to serve failing septic systems . " Id.
co The Metropolitan Council ' s recent approval of City ' s sewer plan
amendment to bring sat ► itary sewer and municipal water service
adjacent to the Property and to Notermanns ' Lion ' s Tap property
The Metropolitan Council has recently approved of the extension of sanitary sewer and
municipal water service parallel to the Flying Cloud Drive alignment to a lift station adjacent to
the Property and along the entire easternmost edge of Notermanns ' adjacent 9 . 54 - acre property in
the public right of way on the west side of Spring Road . Attach . H ( 1 ) - ( 5 ) . In response ,
Notermanns ' adjacent Lion ' s Tap property will be assessed in excess of $ 1 million for the
extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water service thereto . Attach . G . And , consistent
with its historic and ongoing assurances to ( 1 ) Notermanns regarding their 9 . 54 - acre property
and (2) Peterson regarding his Property would eventually be served by sanitary sewer and
municipal water , City' s sanitary sewer and municipal water lines were specifically designed with
sufficient capacity to serve the area, with suitable lateral connections incorporated into the
design .
BRUGGS
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 11
PROPOSE ]) REZONING
Ao NOT ERMAN NS ' REQUESTED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM f
RU I`\ L9v Tt " 111 13o5 "
City Code § 11 . 03 , subd . 2 (B ) , Table 1 provides , as follows , City' s five " residential
districts " :
Residential Districts Minimum Zoning Area Minimum Lot Size
(Acreage/ Sq . Ft . )
Rural 10 Acres 10 Acres
R1 - 44 44 , 000 44 , 000
R1 - 22 22 , 000 22 , 000
R1 - 13 . 5 13 , 500 13 , 500
R1 - 9 . 5 9 , 500 9 , 500
Per City Code § 11 . 11 , subd . 1 ( " Purposes " ) for City ' s " R- 1 " zoning district :
The purposes of the R- 1 One Family Residential Districts are to ( 1 ) R1 - 44 ,
reserve appropriately located areas for single family living on large lots where
vegetation , slopes , water bodies or other significant natural features are best
preserved through large lot development ; (2 ) R1 -22 , R1 - 13 . 5 , R1 - 9 . 5 , reserve
appropriately located areas for single family living at reasonable population
densities consistent with sound standards of public health ; ( 3 ) Ensure adequate
light , air , privacy and open space for each dwelling ; (4 ) minimize traffic
congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of
buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them ; and , ( 5 ) Protect
residential properties from noise , illumination , unsightliness , odors , dust , dirt ,
smoke , vibration, heat glare , and other objectionable influences .
(Emphasis added) . And , per City Code § 11 . 11 , subd . 2 ( " Permitted Uses " ) for the " R- 1 " zoning
district ,
Fla G S
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 12
A . R 1 - 44 . Single family , detached dwellings , and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service , except sanitary sewer and water service
shall not be required with respect to those lands which were situated
within an R1 - 22 District on July 1 , 1982 .
B . R1 - 22 . Single family , detached dwellings , and accessory structures with sanitary sewer and water service , except sanitary sewer and water service
shall not be required with respect to those lands which were situated
within the R1 - 22 District on July 1 , 1982 .
C . R1 - 13 . 5 . Single family , detached dwellings and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service .
D . R1 - 9 . 5 . Single family , detached dwellings and accessory structures with
sanitary sewer and water service .
(Emphasis added) .
B . REZONING PROCESS
Per City Code § 11 . 78 , subd . 1 ( " Purposes " ) for " amendments " (or rezoning) :
This Chapter may be amended and the boundaries of any district may be changed
in accord with the procedure described in this Section .
Per City Code § 11 . 78 , subd . 2 ( " Initiation " ) :
An amendment may be initiated by the Council , the Planning Commission , or by
petition of affected property owners . An amendment not initiated by the Planning
Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report
and may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the
recommendation of the Planning Commission or until 60 days have elapsed from
the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the Planning
Commission .
( Emphasis added) . Per City Code § 11 . 78 , subd . 3 ( " Application and Fee " ) for " amendments " :
Application for any changes must be made on forms provided by the City and
shall include all information and data requested . Application fee shall be
established by the Council by resolution .
LE3UUGGS
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 13
And , per City Code § 11 . 78 , subd . 4 ( " Public Hearing " ) for " amendments , "
No amendment shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by
the Council . A notice of the time , place , and purpose of the hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten days prior to the day of
the hearing . When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries a notice
shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of
affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the
property to which the amendment relates . For the purpose of giving mailed
notice , the responsible person may use any appropriate records to determine the
names and addresses of owners . A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and
addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible
person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings . The failure to
give mailed notice to individual property owners , or defects in the notice shall not
invalidate the proceedings , provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this
Subdivision has been made .
HL ' N kLYSIS
The 4 . 73 - acre portion of the Property is already " guided " for " Low Density Residential , "
which equates to " R 1 - 13 . 5 " zoning , and the entire Property is already effectively serviceable by
City' s ongoing extension of the sanitary sewer and municipal water to Notermanns ' adjacent
Lion' s Tap property with sufficient capacity and lateral connections therefrom to the area,
including City' s assessment (albeit deferred) therefore against several of the properties in the
area . Attach . G . Moreover, the Property ' s " R- Rural " " zoning " specifically recognizes that it
" will be appropriate for urban uses " (or residential " urban development " ) upon City' s extension
of sanitary sewer and municipal water service thereto .
Based upon these facts , Peterson is entitled to his requested rezoning of the Property from
" R- Rural " to " R1 - 13 . 5 " for two compelling legal reasons . First , City' s " guidance " of the 4 . 73 -
acre portion of the Property is for " Low Density Residential , " which equates to and thus requires
the requested rezoning to " R1 - 13 . 5 . " And , second , City' s ongoing extension of the sanitary
sewer and municipal water service to Notermanns ' adjacent Lion ' s Tap property with sufficient
capacity and lateral connections therefrom to the properties in the area, including City' s
assessment ( albeit deferred) therefore against several of the properties in the area requires , per
City ' s " purpose " for its " R- Rural " zoning district , the rezoning of the Property for " urban uses "
(or residential " urban development " ) .
Moreover, though it has no direct bearing on City ' s approval of Peterson ' s requested
rezoning , it is helpful to clarify that neither City nor the Metropolitan Council has a legal basis to
'Th_s) HG G S
Julie Klima
August 2 , 2018
Page 14
deny Peterson ' s contemporaneously requested extension of the MUSA to the Property . Rather , as
reflected in its above - discussed three erroneous bases for its December 11 , 2013 denial of
Notermanns ' initially requested extension of the MUSA to their adjacent Lion ' s Tap property , the
Metropolitan Council ' s MUSA extension decision turns upon City' s " guidance " and " zoning " for
the Property , compel the Metropolitan Council ' s approval not denial thereof That is ,
having already reviewed City ' s prior " guidance " for and " zoning " of the Property and without
any authority to control development within City ' s alleged " bluffs " (or " steep slopes " ) , the
Metropolitan Council ' s discretion has already been executed . Stated otherwise , City has with its
" official controls " effectively directed the Metropolitan Council ' s approval of Peterson ' s
requested MUSA extension . Alternatively , City , like Chanhassen , has complete and unfettered
authority to eliminate altogether the Metropolitan Council ' s authority over its MUSA extensions .
As such , City cannot use the Metropolitan Council as its excuse for any MUSA extension
denials .
IV0 CONCLUSION.
In sum , coinciding with City' s ongoing extension of sanitary sewer and municipal water
service to Notermanns ' adjacent Lion' s Tap property with sufficient capacity and lateral
connections therefrom to the properties in the area , including City' s assessments (albeit deferred)
therefore against several of the properties in the area, Peterson respectfully requests that City
formally approve of that which it has otherwise encouraged for literally decades . And , to be
exceedingly clear , his requested rezoning of the Property for residential development is to rezone
it from the " R- Rural " to " R1 - 13 . 5 . "
Sincerely ,
/s/ Jack Y Perry
Jack Y . Perry
JYP/kg
Attachs . A - K
cc : Severin H . Peterson
Mitch Michaelson
John Shardlow, Stantec Consulting
Maren F . Grier , Briggs and Morgan , P . A .
10884925vI
® Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 1
Peterson Residential Development
Eden Prairie, MN
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Application
Introduction
Severin H. Peterson of Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment of his 12.3 acres. The primary focus of this request is the extension of the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA), as described in this narrative and attached materials. The property, 15900
Flying Cloud Drive, is located in the northeast quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road.
owittli El.i.
' :- ..-`1C '=-=''__ , _
ei. ,1,10w.e, 0 ea + �P..'• Y .y ;`;�.'
by Pulte.Hgrri0 , y?M I '7A I L• . ^-'
F; ��,� _t fill}r le 1 L
a l Fred�rKk-Miller 'J 1 y ,
-N.V.,, i
t. ,, ,y. '7/. '4 17 .. 1 411Afir. tel;01
0[M - - • Lien5TBp - k .. .# c. F .
h
M T• • via
Google
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Request Background
This narrative follows the items on the City's Development Review Process Handbook.
Application submitted by:
Name: John Shardlow, FAICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
On behalf of Severin H. Peterson, Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP
Address: 2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113
Phone: 651-967-4560
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 2
This application is hereby made to reguide certain properties within Eden Prairie to be included
in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA).This application is also made to reguide certain
properties guided Park/Open Space to Low Density Residential.
Currently, the Peterson property (the site) is guided to be used as low density residential development
and park/open space. However, the Metropolitan Urban Service Area does not extend to include the site.
The Petersons have no immediate plans to develop their property. They are, however aware that the City
is in the process of preparing its 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update.
The Petersons are aware of the major investment that their neighbors the Notermanns are making to
extend municipal services to the neighborhood. While the Peterson property contains beautiful
topography, trees and abuts Purgatory Creek, they believe that the only way to put their land to a higher
use in the future will be with public sewer and water. The site conditions are simply not conducive to
private septic and drain fields.
Again, while there are no plans to develop their land in the near future, the infrastructure to be built in
their vicinity is sized to serve their property and at that time they will gladly pay their fair share of the
assessments for these improvements, and thereby reduce the City's share of the costs. Additional
information regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for this site is included in the
attached cover letter.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Application 3 of the
Materials
ITEM D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING ACREAGE OF LAND AND STREET ADDRESS
A survey will be completed at the time of any proposed development. Below is a description of the Metes
and Bounds:
• S 255.6 FT OF W 381.3 FT OF SW 1/4 OF
• Tract A
• Tract C
• THAT PART OF GOVT LOT 4 SEC 33 T 116
• N 200 FT OF S 456 FT OF THAT PART
ITEM E. LOCATION MAP
A location map is included following this application. The location map includes the following information:
• Local street system with names
• Surrounding existing land use patterns within '/4 miles of the site
• North arrow
• Project location
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 3
ITEM F. PROJECT NARRATIVE
General description of the request or proposal
Severin H. Peterson of Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP is requesting a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment of his 12.3 acres to be included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Currently,
the Peterson property(the site) is guided to be used as low density residential development and
park/open space. However, the Metropolitan Urban Service Area does not extend to include the site. The
availability of municipal sewer facilities would allow the property to be improved to accommodate a higher
use, with minimum environmental impact.
City Guide Plan framework
The City of Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan is the guiding policy document for future
development in the City. Currently, the site is guided for future development as low density residential and
park/open space but will not be served by municipal sewer(see Figure 1).
Figure 1: 2030 Future Land Use Plan
I I I I 1
r/tl�IIIIII I�I11
it �y .UIna
jlo
Site Boundary
Extent of MUSA
Zoning classification(s)
The property is currently zoned R-Rural. Another application is being submitted for the site requesting a
rezoning to R1-13.5 Single Family Residential.
Variances or PUD waivers requested (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Existing and proposed land uses of project site and adjacent properties
On Site:
• Current land use on the site is agricultural with open space, a single-family home, and agricultural
buildings (grain silos).
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 4
• Proposed land use on the site is single family residential development and park/open space. This
is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Neighboring Properties:
• Neighboring uses include a prairie bluff conservation area and single family residential
neighborhood to the north.
• The site is bordered to the south by Flying Cloud Drive. South of the roadway is currently being
used as open space and agricultural land.
• To the west, the site is bounded by Spring Road, across the road is the Lions Tap Restaurant.
Provide details about proposed sustainability components, elements and features
Design details will be forthcoming when a development proposal is made.
Phasing and construction schedule
Not applicable.
Development method (i.e., sales, lease, owner occupied)
Not applicable.
Legal instruments, association documents, easements, covenants, and restrictions.
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile (i.e., square foot of building, site area, Floor Area Ratio, Base
Area Ratio, amount of parking, etc.).
Not applicable.
Signage (locations, sizes, materials, and details)
Not applicable.
Lighting (locations, type, and height) including photometric information
Not applicable.
Transportation capacity, impacts, Average Daily Trips, trip distributions, p.m. peak hour
movements, and sight lines at access points to public roads
Not applicable.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 5
Level I Environmental Assessment
Not applicable.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement(if applicable)
Not applicable.
Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Airport Zones (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Disposition of any excess land
Not applicable.
Limits of disturbance (including area and volume)
Not applicable.
Summary of the stormwater management report. Projects that have land disturbance of greater
than or equal to one acre (including projects of less than one area that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale) shall also include a summary of the information required in
part X of this handbook
When developed, the plans will follow the City's and watershed organization's standards.
Water and Wetlands (including discussion of any identified water resource features including type
of feature, shoreland classifications, flood elevations, and the determination of whether public or
private waters are present)
A 100-year floodplain runs in a narrow band along the western boundary of the site and east of Spring
Street. Another band of identified hydric soils is west of the floodplain, primarily in the Spring Street right-
of-way. Please see the attached Existing Conditions maps for more information.
Wildlife (identify habitats, type, location, impacts and any mitigating measures)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented.
Soils (including building or stormwater runoff management constraints and/or, special conditions
of construction)
A 100-year floodplain runs in a narrow band along the western boundary of the site and east of Spring
Street. Another band of identified hydric soils is west of the floodplain, primarily in the Spring Street right-
of-way. Please see the attached Existing Conditions maps for more information.
Existing structures (include historic features, e.g.,foundations)
Buildings are contained in the far southwest corner of the site at the intersection of Flying Cloud Drive and
Spring Street. Included are a residential home and some farm outbuildings. See the attached Existing
Conditions maps for more information.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 6
Steep slopes (slopes in excess of 12% and/or elevation difference of 30 feet or more) and bluffs as
defined in City Code Section 11.60
The center of the site has an elevation of 862 feet and with a grade change to 720 feet adjacent to Spring
Street. The majority of the site contains slopes of 18 to 30 percent. Please refer to the Existing
Conditions maps for more detail.
Any other relevant issues associated with the project not already addressed
It is not timely to submit conceptual plans on this site without direction and support from the City on a
comprehensive plan amendment. The owners have no immediate plans to develop their land. Instead
they want to protect their future investment by ensuring that the City's official policy documents support
the extension of sanitary sewer within the planning period.
Ownership—Identify all owners legal and equitable of all encumbrances and easements upon the
land within the proposed PUD
Severin H. Peterson of Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP is the owner. When development plans are
submitted, appropriate analysis related to encumbrances and easements will be presented.
Developer—Identify all parties involved in the development including their previous experience
and the nature and extent of their participation
Not applicable.
Financing the project—Identify the source and type of financing of project including public
financing
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile, including computations of gross/leasable square footage,
housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, person per unit, parking requirements, etc
Summary here.
Not applicable. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be presented.
For telecommunication towers information related to height, setback, colocation requirements,
tower and antennae design, mechanical equipment location as outlined in City Code Section 11.06
Not applicable.
Design with community in mind
® Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 7
ITEM G. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP/CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
An existing conditions map is included following this application. The map includes the following
elements:
• Boundary lines
• Existing vegetation —based on aerial photo
• Existing topography
• Existing roadways
• Water resources
The map does not include the following items:
• Existing and proposed setbacks
• Easements
• Right-of-way/access/parking
• Footprint of existing and proposed structures
• Existing sanitary sewer and water main facilities
• Elevation of ground water
• Septic and well locations— N/A
• Pedestrian trails and sidewalks— N/A
• Native American burial mounds— N/A
It is not timely to submit conceptual plans on this site with the details requested above without direction
and support from the City on a comprehensive plan amendment. Once an amendment is successful, the
property owner intends to work with City staff on the best options to develop the site consistent with site
limitations. Please see the cover letter for further details.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment 8
ITEM H. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
1. What impact does the requested Comprehensive Guide Plan change have on the balance of
land uses in the City?
The property is currently guided Low Density Residential, and the request is to keep that designation but
include the property within the MUSA. While no change in land use designation is requested for parcels
already guided low density residential, it is requested that parcels that are currently guided park/open
space be reguided to low density residential. There are currently over 5,600 acres of land guided and
developed as Low Density Residential in the City. The Peterson's 12.3 acres is a tiny fraction of the land
use balance, amounting to approximately 2/10 of one percent of the low-density land use category.
2.What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change have on surrounding land uses?
Adjacent land uses are agricultural to the south, City park land to the north and east, commercial (Lion's
Tap restaurant) and residential to the west across Spring Road. The Peterson land has been guided Low
Density for many years. When developed, the plans will follow the City's zoning and development
standards regarding noise, physical and environmental impacts.
3. What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan change have on the site?
The property is currently developed as a working farm and there are no significant natural features. When
redeveloped for Low Density Residential uses, it will follow the City's zoning and development standards
regarding potential impacts. While the site does contain natural features, the property owner intends to
work with the City on a future concept plan that avoids any major impacts.
4. What impact does the Comprehensive Guide Plan change have on city services, such as sewer,
water, storm water run-off, and roads?
The property is anticipated to be developed with up to 30 units of housing, which would add
approximately 9,000 gallons of sewer flow per day and 300 total daily trips, of which there would be 45
trips each in the a.m. and p.m. peak. On-site stormwater management will follow City standards and best
practices to reduce impacts off-site.
5. Does the proposed land use/Comprehensive Guide Plan change result in a better use of the
land?
Yes, the change will result in a better land use. The land is currently actively farmed, and future
development as residential homes will be an improvement over the dust and noise of the farm operation
as well as an improvement to the property tax base. Any residential development will meet density
requirements and transition appropriately to adjacent developments.
Design with community in mind
® Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 1
Peterson Residential Development
Eden Prairie, MN
Rezoning Application
Introduction
Severin H. Peterson and Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP's (Peterson) are requesting a rezoning of their
12.3 acres from R-Rural to R1-13.5, as described in this cover letter and attached materials. The
property, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive, is located in the northeast quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring
Road.
i Rel'Rge .1 ca 4{ ii '"4 . ai r�i- l
by Putee771rSs #}~ j- . 7q r' ti
'� •d C'. Fredrick-Miller Spring
4 'I ._
ii ; _
Lions i$ YTS KK' nIl.:!,._,•
Ir y'L�,jerwa - '4
1 r�•q..
4.
P J
r _ - ake
V Via
Google
Rezoning Request Background
This narrative follows the items on the City's Development Review Process Handbook.
Application submitted by:
Name: John Shardlow, FAICP, Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
On behalf of Severin H. Peterson of Peterson Farm Holding#3 LP
Address: 2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113
Phone: 651-967-4560
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 2
This application is hereby made for rezoning certain properties R-Rural to R1-13.5.
Currently, the Peterson property (the site) is zoned to be used as R-Rural uses. However, the Petersons
are aware of the major investment that their neighbors the Notermanns are making to extend municipal
services to the neighborhood. While the Peterson property contains beautiful topography, trees and abuts
Purgatory Creek, they believe that the only way to put their land to a higher use in the future will be to
develop residential homes with public sewer and water. The site conditions are simply not conducive to
private septic and drain fields.
Again, while there are no plans to develop their land in the near future, the infrastructure to be built in
their vicinity is sized to serve their property and at that time they will gladly pay their fair share of the
assessments for these improvements, and thereby reduce the City's share of the costs. Additional
information regarding the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for this site is included in the
attached cover letter.
Rezoning Request Application Materials
ITEM D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING ACREAGE OF LAND AND STREET ADDRESS
A survey will be completed at the time of any proposed development. Below is a description of the Metes
and Bounds:
• S 255.6 FT OF W 381.3 FT OF SW 1/4 OF
• Tract A
• Tract C
• THAT PART OF GOVT LOT 4 SEC 33 T 116
• N 200 FT OF S 456 FT OF THAT PART
ITEM E. LOCATION MAP
A location map is included following this application. The location map includes the following information:
• Local street system with names
• Surrounding existing land use patterns within 1/4 miles of the site
• North arrow
• Project location
ITEM F. PROJECT NARRATIVE
General description of the request or proposal
Severin H. Peterson of Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP is requesting a rezoning from the R-Rural to R1-
13.5 to allow residential development at a density and character consistent with its current Low Density
Residential guidance in the City Guide Plan. Additional details can be found in the attached cover letter.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 3
City Guide Plan framework
The property is guided Low Density Residential in the 2030 Plan.
Zoning classification(s)
• Existing zoning: R-Rural
• Proposed zoning: R1-13.5
Variances or PUD waivers requested (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Existing and proposed land uses of project site and adjacent properties
On Site:
• Current land use on the site is agricultural with open space, a single family home, and agricultural
buildings (grain silos).
• Proposed land use on the site is single family residential development. This is consistent with the
2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Neighboring Properties:
• Neighboring uses include a prairie bluff conservation area and single family residential
neighborhood to the north.
• The site is bordered to the south by Flying Cloud Drive. South of the roadway is currently being
used as open space and agricultural land.
• To the west, the site abuts Spring Road, across the road is the Lions Tap Restaurant.
Provide details about proposed sustainability components, elements and features
Design details will be forthcoming when a development proposal is made.
Phasing and construction schedule
Not applicable.
Development method (i.e., sales, lease, owner occupied)
Not applicable.
Legal instruments, association documents, easements, covenants, and restrictions.
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile (i.e., square foot of building, site area, Floor Area Ratio, Base
Area Ratio, amount of parking, etc.).
Not applicable.
Signage (locations, sizes, materials, and details)
Not applicable.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 4
Lighting (locations, type, and height) including photometric information
Not applicable.
Transportation capacity, impacts, Average Daily Trips, trip distributions, p.m. peak hour
movements, and sight lines at access points to public roads
Not applicable.
Level I Environmental Assessment
Not applicable.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement(if applicable)
Not applicable.
Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Airport Zones (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Disposition of any excess land
Not applicable.
Limits of disturbance (including area and volume)
Not applicable.
Summary of the stormwater management report. Projects that have land disturbance of greater
than or equal to one acre (including projects of less than one area that are part of a larger
common plan of development or sale) shall also include a summary of the information required in
part X of this handbook
When developed, the plans will follow the City's and watershed organization's standards.
Water and Wetlands (including discussion of any identified water resource features including type
of feature, shoreland classifications, flood elevations, and the determination of whether public or
private waters are present)
Please see the attached Existing Conditions maps.
Wildlife (identify habitats, type, location, impacts and any mitigating measures)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented.
Soils (including building or stormwater runoff management constraints and/or, special conditions
of construction)
A 100-year floodplain runs in a narrow band along the western boundary of the site and east of Spring
Street. Another band of identified hydric soils is west of the floodplain, primarily in the Spring Street right-
of-way. See the Existing Conditions maps for more information.
Design with community in mind
Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 5
Existing structures (include historic features, e.g., foundations)
Buildings are contained in the far southwest corner of the site at the intersection of Flying Cloud Drive and
Spring Street. Included are a residential home and some farm outbuildings. See the Existing Conditions
maps for more information.
Steep slopes (slopes in excess of 12% and/or elevation difference of 30 feet or more) and bluffs as
defined in City Code Section 11.60
The center of the site has an elevation of 862 feet and with a grade change to 720 feet adjacent to Spring
Street. The majority of the site contains slopes of 18-30%. Please refer to the Existing Conditions maps
for more detail.
Any other relevant issues associated with the project not already addressed
Please see the attached cover letter for more details.
Ownership—Identify all owners legal and equitable of all encumbrances and easements upon the
land within the proposed PUD
Severin H. Peterson of Peterson Farm Holding #3 LP is the owner. When development plans are
submitted, appropriate analysis will be presented related to encumbrances and easements.
Developer—Identify all parties involved in the development including their previous experience
and the nature and extent of their participation
Not applicable.
Financing the project—Identify the source and type of financing of project including public
financing
Not applicable.
Housing or land/building use profile, including computations of gross/leasable square footage,
housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, person per unit, parking requirements, etc
Summary here.
Not applicable. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be presented.
For telecommunication towers information related to height, setback, colocation requirements,
tower and antennae design, mechanical equipment location as outlined in City Code Section 11.06
Not applicable.
Design with community in mind
® Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 6
ITEM G. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP/CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
An existing conditions map is included following this application. The map includes the following
elements:
• Boundary lines
• Existing vegetation —based on aerial photo
• Existing topography
• Existing roadways
• Water resources
The map does not include the following items:
• Existing and proposed setbacks
• Easements
• Right-of-way/access/parking
• Footprint of existing and proposed structures
• Existing sanitary sewer and water main facilities
• Elevation of ground water
• Septic and well locations— N/A
• Pedestrian trails and sidewalks— N/A
• Native American burial mounds— N/A
It is not timely to submit conceptual plans on this site with the details requested above without direction
and support from the City on a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request. Once an
amendment is successful, the property owner intends to work with City staff on the best options to
develop the site consistent with site limitations. Please see the cover letter for further details.
ITEM J. SITE/STREET PLAN
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM K. GRADING/DRAINAGE PLAN
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM L. UTILITY PLAN
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
Design with community in mind
® Stantec
Peterson Residential Development, Eden Prairie,MN-Rezoning Application 7
ITEM M. LANDSCAPE/TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM N. ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM O. TREE INVENTORY
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM P. WETLAND PLANS
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM Q. TRAFFIC STUDY/ANALYSIS
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM R. TRAFFIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TDM PLAN)
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
ITEM U. LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Not applicable at this time. When development plans are submitted, appropriate analysis will be
presented. Please see the cover letter for additional information.
Design with community in mind
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner
DATE: October 18, 2018
SUBJECT: SouthWest Transit Garage
LOCATION: 14405 62nd Street W
APPLICANT: Len Simich
OWNER: SouthWest Transit
120-DAY
REVIEW: February 8, 2019
REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.05 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.05 acres
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to
expand the existing parking on 62nd Street W
the property located at 14405 4
62nd Street W. The property is rfri _ ;';
located south of 62nd Street W �`' - ' 1 -
and just east of Indian Chief - 4 .
Road. The site includes an14 ? r ; — a
existing100,256 square foot
maintenance garage with - `. " ' t -�allit:de??' r .
warehouse and office space. - ,.- •,. .4-,r
Nine Mile Creek runs along the _ F '�
northeast side of the property. So thWest
Tr nsit
There are industrial uses to the G rah■
south and east and a golf course - -4,. xr- ,;>
f ff
west. V' •
'4r jr - �
`SITE PLAN '' ~
Parking stalls are currently
.
_located on the north, east and
south sides of the building. The n . �.
r
Staff Report—SouthWest Transit Garage
October 18, 2018
Page 2
existing parking area includes 72
02
parking stalls. The proposed plan c""" "`"° AC
naggrara„.RMOO,.a�
includes a reconfiguration of _ _-
existing parking and adding more r..� �
hard surface to create additional 1 r
C c ! Iiiob ,
stalls. There are no additions �• C
proposed for the building. The 1 „._ — �r e
proposal includes the installation '• e �1 "IL 1
of an above ground gasoline tank l • iC '
on the west side of the building e: ' ., .. 4 -+ Neilinik
near the existing gas pumps for c a. cc
fueling busses. f
J -
PARKING
a ll c :Art
•��' `"4
Future construction of the k ci
} "`=��"
Southwest LRT, the future l r t ,
demolition of the SouthWest , �` °��` `_ F
Transit corporate offices on ' -- _ '--
A '
Technology Drive, and the i --- :- —,•
relocation of SouthWest Transit d, ��� ���•= �
staff from the corporate offices to a .11<< _ r "r
•
this site initiated discussions i X f_ `'.-;.•
about expanding the parking on t - •. ,
this site. In addition, SouthWest `y --- I, r
Transit has added SW Prime ., to
service, on demand ride service 1 / a*
and has expanded special event
service, all of which have increased the demand for driver parking.
Based on the amount of office space and industrial/warehouse space in the building, City Code
requires 73 parking stalls. SouthWest Transit has identified a typical business need of 115 parking
stalls.During special events,the need increases to 140 to 187 stalls because of the number of drivers
needed. The proposed plan includes 144 parking stalls.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS
The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a
more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City;to allow variety in the types
of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of
land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in
environmental design. The applicant is requesting the following waivers:
2
Staff Report— SouthWest Transit Garage
October 18, 2018
Page 3
• Impervious Area
The property is located within a Shoreland area. City Code allows a maximum
impervious surface of 30%. In 2006 and 2014, Planned Unit Development waivers were
approved allowing an impervious surface beyond 30%. The site currently has an
impervious surface of 47.97%. With this proposed expansion of the parking on the
property, the applicant will be adding some additional pavement. Therefore, the applicant
is requesting a waiver for 48.99% impervious surface, which is a 1.02% increase from the
current percentage. The applicant is using some pervious pavers; however, the City
considers pervious pavement as an impervious surface.
The waiver is consistent with the land use designated in the Comprehensive Plan. This
area is industrial in nature, is near other industrial properties and is appropriate for more
intense uses that do not impact differing land uses. The waiver is in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the Shoreland ordinance. The proposed parking is not
closer to the creek than the existing parking. The environmental value of the creek will
continue to be protected by buffers and easements. The additional stormwater
management, the use of pervious pavers and enhanced landscaping will preserve and
enhance the quality of the public water while allowing for utilization of the property.
There are circumstances unique to the property such as steep topography, multiple street
frontages, the location of the creek and the location of the railroad that are not created by
the landowner. Approval of the waiver would be consistent with the essential character of
the locality and is a reasonable use of the property due to measures being taken to protect
and enhance the quality and character of the shoreland.
• Drive Aisle Width
City Code requires 25' wide drive aisles. One of the existing drive aisles is 24' 6"wide.
The only proposed change in this area is restriping a few stalls as accessible parking
stalls. This is an existing condition and still provides adequate room for maneuvering.
• Parking Stall Depth
City Code requires 19' deep parking stalls. Some of the existing parking stalls are only
18' deep. Other than the compact stalls, all of the new parking stalls meet City Code
requirements. This is an existing condition and the City has allowed 18' deep parking
stalls on other projects.
The site has 71 parking stalls over the number required by City Code. In these situations,
the City has allowed compact stalls even though they are smaller in size than a typical
parking stall.
3
Staff Report— SouthWest Transit Garage
October 18, 2018
Page 4
TREE REPLACEMENT
The project will require the removal of seven trees with only one of the trees being significant. City
Code allows the removal of less than 10%of significant and heritage trees within a period of 5 years.
One significant tree is less than 10%of the significant and heritage trees on this site;therefore,tree
replacement is not required.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
The applicant is adding parking lot islands with plantings. In addition, the applicant is moving
toward compliance by adding plantings to existing parking lot islands. Some of the island include
only trees. As required by City Code, shrubs, perennials, ornamental grasses and/or ground cover
must be added to the islands along with the trees. The proposed shrubs are native to Minnesota and
will provide spring, summer and fall color and interest.
DRAINAGE
The applicant continues to work with the City and the Watershed District on stormwater
management and erosion control.
WETLAND
There is a wetland on the property. The previous wetland delineation is over 5 years old so the
applicant has prepared an updated delineation and has submitted it to the City for review.Prior to the
1st reading by the City Council,the boundaries must be shown on the plans along with the wetland
buffer.
UTILITIES
There is a segment of water main in the southwest corner of the site that is not within a public
easement. The applicant is in the process of revising the existing Drainage and Utility Easement
language and revising a survey to make sure this portion of water main is in a public easement. This
must be completed prior to the issuance of a Land Alteration Permit.
SUSTAINABLE FEATURES
The applicant is installing pervious pavers in some of the parking stalls. The new parking lot
lighting will be LED and the landscaping plan includes native plantings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the following requests:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.05 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.05 acres
This is based on plans stamp dated October 10, 2018 and the following conditions:
4
Staff Report—SouthWest Transit Garage
October 18, 2018
Page 5
1. Prior to the 1st reading by the City Council, the applicant shall:
A. Revise the plans to show the wetland boundary and wetland buffer.
B. Revise the Lighting Plan so the lighting does not exceed .5 footcandles at the
property line.
C. Revise the Landscaping Plan to include shrubs,perennials, groundcover and/or
ornamental grasses in the islands that only have trees.
2. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, wetland,utility, street and erosion control plans
for review and approval by the City Engineer.
B. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval.
C. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
D. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by
the City.
E. Submit a landscaping letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the cost
of the landscaping.
F. Revise the existing Drainage and Utility Easement language and revise the survey to
make sure the portion of water main currently not in a public easement is covered by a
public easement.
3. The following waivers are granted through the PUD for the project as indicated in the
plans stamp dated October 10, 2018.
A. Impervious Surface. The City Code allows a maximum impervious surface of 30%.
The existing impervious surface area on the site is 47.97%. The applicant is requesting
to increase it to 48.99%.
B. Drive Aisle Width. City Code requires 25'wide drive aisles. One of the existing drive
aisles is 24' 6"wide.
C. Parking Stall Depth. City Code requires parking stalls to be 19' deep. Some of the
existing parking stalls are only 18' deep.
5
Aerial Map: SouthWest Transit Garage
Address:14405 62nd Street W
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
0. ' - '.• ., • ,M '- 4
• "�' • Count Road 62 - -
- — _
W 62nd Street
r C ,/
s.-.- . k.1% "it t •‘... :0,: ,,,,s,61 es I • Jr . . .. 4.,\. • :... T-' '' tit ' . •
zio'4 .. WI. i
• , f ,� - v
4
4 ."
-„ V lib 0,
I
!j 0
Ce. r
. . LY • q\cL. - / + ,,, 4tia
10 • `
ta .
► '�� 4 ' '4
• / .,:' 4% • •
4-. . 4,
. .
,,,, f,
ye. _ 1
. . i > ... vit,,, ,Iirl t..4 .. ..• yr-2 - ,4 4 \ `'.?" rf, ,i i A
I' .... Xrc,
o
1 I. 1 .
rF', 4,,11,,'•l„--,,
t t. %I '•'a I!
,,0 4
,310
0 180 360 0 R �,,- •,,,.''.. P..
j `J2'w '''
d
1 1 . it
STAFF REPORT:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
DATE: October 18, 2018
SUBJECT: Code Amendment—Sexually Oriented Businesses and Pawn Shops
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance temporarily prohibiting new adult use
establishments and pawn shops. Further, the Council approved a resolution authorizing the study
of those uses in order to determine amendments necessary to the City Code to protect the public
health, safety, welfare and provide for sound planning related to these uses.
Staff has researched current code language and other local communities and found that most
other communities surveyed(Chanhassen, Edina, Bloomington, Richfield, Minnetonka,
Plymouth, Maple Grove, Woodbury, Hopkins)require licensing of these businesses and direct
their locations to specific zoning districts. Many of the communities also provide distance
requirements from other uses such as daycares, schools, places of worship and residential uses.
EXISTING CITY CODE LANGUAGE
The City Code currently does not address adult use establishments/sexually oriented businesses
in any of the Chapters. Without specific definition and zoning district regulations, a business
could claim that it is a permitted use in any appropriate zoning district under the general retail
definition currently provided in City Code.
Chapter 5 (Business Licensing) does address licensing requirements for pawn brokers. This
section of the City Code establishes a definition for pawnshop and precious metal dealer.
Further, Chapter 5 requires that pawnshop and precious metal dealers be located in the Regional
Commercial and Regional Services zoning districts. Staff is also proposing that a distance
requirement of 1,000 feet from any other pawnshop or precious metal dealer.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
Pawnshops
Staff is proposing that Chapter 11 (Zoning)be amended to include the definitions for pawnshop
and precious metal dealer as defined in Chapter 5.
"Pawnshop" —means the location at which or premises in which a pawnbroker regularly
conducts business.
"Precious Metal Dealer" — means any person engaging in the business of buying
secondhand items containing precious metal, including, but not limited to, jewelry,
watches, eating utensils, candlesticks, and religious and decorative objects.
Staff is further recommending that Chapter 11 be amended to add pawn shops and precious metal
dealers as permitted uses within the Regional Commercial and Commercial Regional Services
zoning districts subject to the licensing requirements in Chapter 5.
Sexually Oriented Businesses
The Police Department and legal staff are drafting licensing requirements for sexually oriented
businesses. These code amendments will be placed in Chapter 5 and reviewed by the City
Council. Staff is proposing that the definition of sexually oriented businesses be added to
Chapter 11 as noted below.
A. "Sexually oriented business"means:
1. a business that meets any of the following criteria, measured on a daily, weekly,
monthly, or yearly basis:
a. has more than 25% of its inventory, stock-in-trade, or publicly displayed
merchandise in sexually oriented materials;
b. devotes more than 25% of its floor area (not including storerooms, stock
areas, bathrooms, basements, or any portion of the business not open to the
public)to sexually oriented materials; or
c. derives more than 25% of its gross revenues from sexually oriented
materials; or
2. a business that engages for any length of time in a sexually oriented use as defined
in subsection C below or any other use that has an emphasis on specified sexual
activities or specified anatomical areas.
B. "Sexually oriented materials" means visual, printed, or audio materials, and other objects
or devices, that:
1. contain, depict, simulate or describe specified sexual activities or specified
anatomical areas; or
2. are marketed for use in conjunction with, or are primarily used only with or during,
specified sexual activities; or
3. are designed for sexual stimulation.
C. "Sexually oriented use" means any of the following activities and businesses, even if the
activity exists for only a short time:
1. "Adult body painting studio"means an establishment or business that provides the
service of applying paint, ink, or other substance, whether transparent or non-
transparent, to the body of a patron when the person is nude.
2. "Adult bookstore" means an establishment or business used for the barter, rental,
or sale of items consisting of printed matter, pictures, slides, records, audio, video,
or other digital media, movies, or motion picture film if it meets the criteria
established in subsection A above.
3. "Adult cabaret" means a business or establishment that provides dancing or other
live entertainment distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on: (1) the
depiction of nudity, specified sexual activities, or specified anatomical areas; or(2)
the presentation, display, or depiction of matter that seeks to evoke, arouse, or
excite sexual or erotic feelings or desire.
4. "Adult companionship establishment" means a business or establishment that
provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or
specified anatomical areas.
5. "Adult conversation/rap parlor" means a business or establishment that provides
the services of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or
specified anatomical areas.
6. "Adult health/sport club" means a health/sport club that is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or specified anatomical
areas.
7. "Adult hotel or motel"means a hotel or motel that presents material distinguished
or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to
specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.
8. "Adult massage parlor/health club" means a massage parlor or health club that
provides massage services distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.
9. "Adult mini-motion picture theater" means a business or establishment with a
capacity of less than 50 persons that as a prevailing practice presents on-premises
viewing of movies,motion pictures,or other material distinguished or characterized
by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.
10. "Adult modeling studio" means a business or establishment that provides live
models who,with the intent of providing sexual stimulation or sexual gratification,
engage in specified sexual activities or display specified anatomical areas while
being observed,painted,painted upon, sketched, drawn, sculptured,photographed,
or otherwise depicted.
11. "Adult motion picture arcade"means any place to which the public is permitted or
invited where coin or slug-operated or electronically, electrically, or mechanically
controlled or operated still or motion picture machines, projectors, or other image-
producing devices are used to show images to five or fewer persons per machine at
any one time, and where the images so displayed are distinguished or characterized
by an emphasis on depicting or describing specified sexual activities or specified
anatomical areas.
12. "Adult motion picture theater" means a motion picture theater with a capacity of
50 or more persons that as a prevailing practice presents material distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or specified anatomical
areas for observation by patrons.
13. "Adult novelty business" means an establishment or business that has a variety of
items for sale if it meets the criteria established in subsection A.1.a above.
14. "Adult sauna" means a sauna that excludes minors by reason of age, and that
provides a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of bathing,
relaxation, or reducing, if the service provided by the sauna is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on specified sexual activities or specified anatomical
areas.
15. "Adult steam room/bathhouse facility" means a building or portion of a building
used for providing a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of
pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing, if the building or portion of a building
restricts minors by reason of age and if the service provided by the steam
room/bathhouse facility is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.
D. "Specified anatomical areas"means:
1. less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic area, buttock,
anus, or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
2. human male genitals in a state of sexual arousal, whether or not completely and
opaquely covered.
E. "Specified sexual activities"means:
1. Actual or simulated: sexual intercourse; oral copulation; anal intercourse; oral-anal
copulation;bestiality; direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals; flagellation
or torture in the context of a sexual relationship; the use of excretory functions in
the context of a sexual relationship; anilingus; coprophagy; coprophilia;
cunnilingus; fellatio; necrophilia; pedophilia; piquerism; or zooerastia;
2. Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation, arousal, or
tumescence;
3. Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, or
masturbation;
4. Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, pubic regions, buttocks, or female
breasts, except touching the buttocks of a person receiving a massage if done upon
the person's request and only for medical purposes such as relieving pain or muscle
soreness;
5. Situations involving a person or persons, any of whom are nude, who are clad in
undergarments or in sexually revealing costumes and engaged in the flagellation,
torture, fettering,binding, or other physical restraint of any person;
6. Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other sexually oriented contact with an animal
by a human being; or
F. Human excretion, urination, menstruation, or vaginal or anal irrigation.
Staff is also recommending that sexually oriented businesses be allowed as a permitted use in the
I2 and I5 zoning districts subject to the retail space regulations of these zoning districts. The I2
and I5 zoning districts allow 15% of the gross floor area of buildings to be utilized for retail
purposes. In the case of a multi-tenant building, the 15%retail area is cumulative for the entire
building rather than 15%per individual tenant. Staff is also proposing that distance requirements
of 1000 feet be provided for sexually oriented businesses from any place of worship, day care
facility, school, residential use or other sexually oriented business.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the code amendment to sexually oriented businesses and pawn
shops as represented in the October 18, 2018 staff report and draft ordinances.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.02 AND 11.30,RELATING TO SEXUALLY
ORIENTED BUSINESSES; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02, is hereby amended by inserting a definition for
Sexually Oriented Business as follows: (items to be renumbered)
"Sexually Oriented Business"—As defined in City Code Section 5.77, Subdivision 2.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.30, Subdivision 2, is hereby amended by adding the
following new subsection P:
P. Sexually oriented businesses within the I-2 and I-5 Zoning Districts, subject to the
limitations contained in Subdivision 5 of this Section. The sexually oriented
business, together with other commercial uses permitted under this Section, may
not exceed 15% of the gross Floor Area Ratio of the building they occupy.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.30, is hereby amended by adding the following new
Subdivision 5:
Subd. 5. Sexually Oriented Businesses.
A. Purpose and Findings. The purpose of this Subdivision is to control, through zoning
regulations, sexually oriented businesses,which have a direct and detrimental effect on the
character of the City's residential and commercial neighborhoods. The City Council makes
the following findings regarding the effect sexually oriented businesses have on the
character of the City's neighborhoods.
1. Sexually oriented businesses can exert a dehumanizing influence on persons
attending places of worship; children attending day care facilities; and students
attending public or private schools.
2. Sexually oriented businesses can contribute to an increase in criminal activity in
the area in which such businesses are located, taxing city crime-prevention
programs and law-enforcement services.
3. Sexually oriented businesses can significantly contribute to the deterioration of
residential neighborhoods and can impair the character and quality of the residential
housing in the area in which such businesses are located, thereby exacerbating the
shortage of affordable and habitable housing for City residents.
4. The concentration of sexually oriented businesses in one area can have a
substantially detrimental effect on the area in which such businesses are
concentrated and on the overall quality of urban life. A cycle of decay can result
from the influx and concentration of sexually oriented businesses. The presence of
such businesses is perceived by others as an indication that the area is deteriorating
and the result can be devastating. Other businesses move out of the vicinity and
residents flee from the area. Declining real estate values, which can result from the
concentration of such businesses, erode the city's tax base and contribute to overall
urban blight.
B. Permitted Use. Sexually oriented businesses are a permitted use in the I-2 and I-5 Industrial
Park Districts as identified on the Zoning Map of the City of Eden Prairie subject to the
restrictions contained in this Subdivision. Sexually oriented businesses are prohibited in all
other districts.
C. Performance Standards. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the following
performance standards:
1. No sexually oriented business may be located closer than 1000 feet from any other
sexually oriented business. Measurements will be made in a straight line, without
regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point of the property
line of the building occupied by the sexually oriented business to the nearest point
of the property line of the building occupied by the other sexually oriented business.
2. No sexually oriented business may be located closer than 1000 feet from any place
of worship, day care facility, or school. Measurements will be made in a straight
line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point of
the property line of the building occupied by the sexually oriented business to the
nearest point of the property line of the building occupied by the place of worship,
day care facility, or school.
3. No sexually oriented business may be located closer than 1000 feet from any
residential use. Measurements will be made in a straight line, without regard to
intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point of the property line of the
building occupied by the sexually oriented business to the nearest point of the
property line of the building occupied by the residential use.
D. Licensing. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the licensing requirements
of City Code Section 5.77.
E. Sign Regulations. In addition to the sign regulations contained in Section 11.70, the
following sign regulations apply to all sexually oriented businesses in the City. Where a
provision of this subsection E conflicts with a provision of Section 11.70, the more
restrictive provision will apply.
1. All signs shall be wall signs. Free-standing signs, readerboard signs, and dynamic
displays are prohibited.
2. The amount of allowable sign area is 10%of the wall area that the sexually oriented
business occupies of the wall to which it is affixed or 30 square feet, whichever is
less.
3. No merchandise, photos, or pictures of the products or entertainment on the
premises may be displayed in window areas or any area where they can be viewed
from the sidewalk or public right-of-way adjoining the building in which the
sexually oriented business is located.
4. No signs may be placed in any window. A one square foot sign may be placed on
the door to state hours of operation and admittance to adults only.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the
Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim
herein.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day
of , 2018 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 2018.
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on .
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTIONS 11.02 AND 11.25, RELATING TO
PAWNSHOPS AND PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS; AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.02, is hereby amended by inserting definitions for
Pawnshop and Precious Metal Dealer as follows: (items to be renumbered)
"Pawnshop"—As defined in City Code Section 5.71, Subdivision 2.
"Precious Metal Dealer"—As defined in City Code Section 5.71, Subdivision 2.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.25, Subdivision 2, is hereby amended by adding the
following new subsection K:
K. Pawnshops and precious metal dealers within the C-REG and C-REG-SER
Districts, subject to the limitation contained in Subdivision 4 of this Section.
Section 3. City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.25, is hereby amended by adding the following new
Subdivision 4:
Subd. 4. Pawnshops and Precious Metal Dealers.
A. No pawnshop or precious metal dealer may be located closer than 1000 feet from any other
pawnshop or precious metal dealer. Measurements will be made in a straight line, without
regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point of the property line of the
building occupied by the pawnshop or precious metal dealer to the nearest point of the
property line of the building occupied by the other pawnshop or precious metal dealer.
B. All pawnshops and precious metal dealers shall comply with the licensing requirements of
City Code Section 5.71.
Section 4. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the
Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim
herein.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day
of , 2018 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 2018.
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on .
PROJECT PROFILE - OCTOBER 22, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 22, 2018
1. NOTERMANN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2018-15)by Stantec Consulting Services,
Inc. (BETH)
Proposal to change the guiding and zoning on the property described below
Location: Northwest quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
Contact: John Shardlow, 651-967-4560
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Rural to Low Density Residential on 8.34 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.54 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 8.34 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council _
Date Submitted 08/02/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/04/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 08/23/18 Resident Notice Date 10/05/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline 12/21/18 Meeting Date 10/22/18 1"Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 08/09/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
2. PETERSON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (2018-16)by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
(JULIE)
Proposal to change the guiding and zoning on the property described below
Location: Northeaset quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road
Contact: John Shardlow, 651-967-4560
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Parks/Open Space to Low Density Residential on 7.57 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 12.3 acres
• MUSA Boundary extension on 12.3 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 08/02/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/04/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 10/05/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date 10/22/18 Pt Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 08/09/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
1
3. SOUTHWEST TRANSIT GARAGE (2018-19)by Len Simich. (BETH)
Location: 14405 W 62nd St
Contact: Len Simich, 952-814-5800
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.05 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.05 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 08/31/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/04/18 Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 10/12/18 Resident Notice Date 10/05/18 Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline 02/08/19 Meeting Date 10/22/18 1"Meeting Date N/A
Initial DRC review 09/06/18 2nd Meeting Date N/A
4. CODE AMENDMENT FOR SEXUALLY ORIENTATED BUSINESSES AND PAWN SHOPS
(2018-04)by City of Eden Prairie (PLANNING STAFF)
Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Adult Businesses and Pawn Shops
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Adult Businesses and Pawn Shops
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 03/16/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/04/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 10/22/18 1"Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review N/A 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
CONSERVATION COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 13, 2018
2
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING- NOVEMBER 13, 2018
1. SMITH VILLAGE (2018-12)by United Properties. (BETH)
Proposal for construction of 100 unit senior cooperative, 58 unit workforce apartment building and 6 custom
for-sale townhomes
Location: 16389 & 16397 Glory Lane
Contact: Mark Nelson, 952-820-8727
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Industrial and Church/Cemetery to Medium High Density
Residential on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.16 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.16 acres
• Zoning District Change from Pub and I-Gen to RM-2.5 on 7.16 acres
• Site Plan Review on 7.16 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into five lots and one outlot on 7.16 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 06/08/18 Notice to Paper Date 08/23/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/25/18
Date Complete 08/14/18 Resident Notice Date 08/24/18 Resident Notice Date 10/26/18
120 Day Deadline 12/11/18 Meeting Date 09/10/18 Pt Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 06/14/18 Continued to 10/08/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
2. EDEN BLUFF 4th ADDITION (CH ROBINSON) (2017-12)by Pope Architects. (ANGIE)
Proposal to construct surface parking on 11.67 acres. Subsequent phases propose to include the construction
of a 120,000 sq.ft. two-story office building with additional parking.
Location: Charlson Rd&Liatris Ln.
Contact: Paul Holmes—651-642-9200
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.67 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.67 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 06/26/17 Notice to Paper Date 09/20/18 Notice to Paper Date 10/25/18
Date Complete 08/28/18 Resident Notice Date 09/21/18 Resident Notice Date 10/26/18
120 Day Deadline 12/25/18 Meeting Date 10/08/18 Pt Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 06/29/17 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
3
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT- NOVEMBER 13, 2018
1. LINCOLN PARC APARTMENTS/CASCADE AT TOWN CENTER (2018-08) by Magellan
Investment partners. LLC (JULIE)
Proposal for improvements and upgrades to Lincoln Parc Apartments and conversion of a portion of the
ground floor uses from retail/office to residential.
Location: 8090 Eden Road.
Contact: Mark Thieroff, 612-337-6102
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.83 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.83 acres
• Zoning District Change from C-COM to TC-MU on 4.83 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 05/11/18 Notice to Paper Date 06/07/18 Notice to Paper Date 06/27/18
Date Complete 06/01/18 Resident Notice Date 06/08/18 Resident Notice Date 06/29/18
120 Day Deadline 11/14/18 Meeting Date 06/25/18 1st Meeting Date 07/17/18
Initial DRC review 05/17/18 2nd Meeting Date 11/13/18
2. ABRA AUTO BODY (2018-10)by Oppidan Inc. (JULIE)
Proposal for construction of a new Abra Auto Body and Glass building.
Location: 13045, 13075 & 13105 Pioneer Trail.
Contact: Paul Tucci, 952-294-0353
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Community Commercial to Industrial on 2.98 acres
• Zoning District Change from C-COM to I-2 on 2.98 acres
• Site Plan Review on 2.98 acres
• Preliminary Plat of three lots into one lot on 2.98 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 05/18/18 Notice to Paper Date 07/19/18 Notice to Paper Date 08/02/18
Date Complete 06/29/18 Resident Notice Date 07/13/18 Resident Notice Date 08/03/18
120 Day Deadline 12/12/18 Inform Meeting Date 07/23/18 Pt Meeting Date 08/21/18
Initial DRC review 05/24/18 Notice to Paper Date 07/26/18 2nd Meeting Date 11/13/18
Resident Notice Date 07/27/18
P.H. Meeting Date 08/13/18
4
3. KOPESKY 2ND ADDITION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (2016-19)by
City of Eden Prairie. (JULIE)
Amend Development Agreement regarding construction of trail.
Location: 18340 82nd St. W.
Request to:
• Amend existing Development Agreement
Application Info Planning Commission City Council _
Date Submitted N/A Notice to Paper Date N/A Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A Notice to Paper Date N/A 1st Meeting Date N/A
Initial DRC review N/A Resident Notice Date N/A 2nd Meeting Date 11/13/18
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2018
IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED
1. RESEARCH RELATED TO FIREARM SALES (2018-13)by City of Eden Prairie (PLANNING
STAFF)
Research regulations relating to Firearm Sales
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request:
• To Research regulations relating to Firearm Sales
Application Info Planning Commission City Council _
Date Submitted 03/16/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 00/00/18 1st Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 00/00/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
5
2. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23)by SW Metro Transit Commission
(JULIE)
Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres
• Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on
11.38 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/15 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 00/00/17
3. OAK POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE PLAN (2018-21)AND VARIANCE# 2018-02 by
Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. (ANGIE)
Location: 13400 Staring Lake
Contact: Jay Pomeroy, 763-544-7129
Request for:
• Variance from Shoreland Code to allow impervious surface to exceed the City Code
requirement of 30%.
• Site Plan Review on 23.05 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 06/20/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date 00/00/18 1"Meeting Date N/A
Initial DRC review 07/12/18 2nd Meeting Date N/A
6
4. CASTLE RIDGE (2018-20)by Senior Housing Partners (JULIE)
Proposal for a mixed—use senior housing, market rate apartments, hotel and commercial/retail project.
Location: 615-635 Prairie Center Dr.
Contact: Jon Fletcher, 651-631-6120
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.75 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 19.75 acres
• Zoning District Review on 19.75 acres
• Site Plan Review on 6.94 acres
• Preliminary Plat of four lots into seven lots on 19.75 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/04/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date 00/00/18 1st Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 10/11/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
4. VARIANCE# 2018-05 by Tyler and Katie Bishoff. (ANGIE)
Location: 7194 Emerald Lane
Contact: Tyler and Katie Bishoff, 740-504-3847, 614-595-1914
Request for:
• Variance from the City Code requirement for rear yard setbacks
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/12/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18 Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18 Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline 00/00/18 Meeting Date 00/00/18 1st Meeting Date N/A
Initial DRC review 10/18/18 2nd Meeting Date N/A
APPROVED VARIANCES
7
TELECOMMUNICATION
1. TELECOMMUNICATIONS #2018-11TM by Buell Consulting, for Verizon Wireless c/o—Renee
Fontaine) (STEVE)
Request: To upgrade antenna on Water Tank
Location: 6341 Baker Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Contact: Renee Fontaine, 773-530-1708.
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 07/05/18 Notice to Paper Date N/A Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 09/21/18 Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
90 Day Deadline 12/20/18 Meeting Date N.A _st Meeting Date N/A
2nd Meeting Date N/A
8