HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 11/19/2018 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,November 19, 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 22, 2018 meeting
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE #2018-05
Location: 7194 Emerald Lane
Request for:
• Variance requesting a 7.1-foot setback variance for construction of a deck. City Code
requires a 30-foot setback for lot lines that abut a public right-of-way.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 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;
Ric Rosow, City Attorney
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
A. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Absent was commission members Mette, Villarreal and Weber.
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
D. MINUTES
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of October 8,
2018 with the following changes: on page 12, the motion to approve the Eden Bluff
Fourth Addition project should be changed from"landscape and all parking lots"to
"landscape in all parking lots", and in the statement regarding temporary screening be
corrected to flow correctly instead of being accidentally switched. MOTION CARRIED
6-0.
E. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
F. PUBLIC MEETINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 2
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
John Shardlow, a planner with Stantec Consulting, presented a PowerPoint and
presented the application. He introduced the property owners Bert and Bonnie
Notermann and legal counsel Jack Perry of Briggs and Morgan. The applicant
requested a 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and a MUSA
extension for 9.54 acres of property located north of Flying Cloud Drive and west
of Spring Road. The parcel is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of
Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road. Shardlow stated the applicant accepted the
recommendations of the staff report and would bring a more detailed development
plan during the future application for zoning approval. There would also be a
future application for a Planned Unit Development(PUD). The building envelope
he displayed in a graphic indicated the current setback requirements. The
Notermanns, owners since 1970, had always intended to develop the property
when public utilities became available, services that were assured by the City
would be available. They petitioned for water and sewer and worked with the City
on numerous design alternatives. The site was consistent with the statement in the
Rural District section of the City Code and with the plans recently approved for
the Lions Tap site.
Klima presented the staff report. The request was to amend the Comprehensive
Guide Plan from Rural to Low-Density Residential on approximately 8 acres,
extend the MUSA line to serve that additional 8 acres, and to rezone the entire
property, approximately 9.5 acres, from Rural to R 1-13.5. Staff recommended
approval of the re-guiding and the MUSA line extension. However, staff
recommended the zoning request wait for a development plan to be submitted as
it was typical of the City's practices to simultaneously review a development plan
when considering a rezoning request. This process allowed for a comprehensive
review by both public officials and private property owners.
Staff recommended 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 would be
premature as it is unclear what level of development was appropriate and could be
sustained by site conditions. Staff also recommended text amendments to the
2030 Comprehensive Plan to formalize the City's practice.
Farr asked what the initial trigger was for the utility extensions. Rue replied this
area had a long history. A feasibility study was done in 2013 for the north side of
Eden Prairie Road, which was the first stage; this site was contracted for
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 3
improvement in 2016 and was planned to be completed at some future time. The
Notermanns' petition for sewer and water to serve the Lions Tap and the
surrounding residential areas precipitated this second stage of the development.
Each improvement situation was unique; this goal was to serve the Lion's Tap
with sewer and water lines, which included potential benefits to areas outside the
MUSA line to serve those properties when and if the MUSA line was extended.
This was an effort to prevent precluding it from happening in the future.
Farr asked when the MUSA line had to be extended. Rue replied as part of the
whole process, the Lions Tap site was outside the MUSA line, so there was an
approval to grant this property outside the MUSA line with water and sewer.
Dean Edstrom of 10133 Eden Prairie Road stated he was a 45-year resident who
was dedicated to protecting the bluffs, which were the inspiration for the City's
name. While he thought the City had done a good job thus far, this development
would cause a great change to the bluff, which has few residential buildings. He
recommended an outright denial of the application, as the guide plan change and
extension of the MUSA line represented a domino effect. He objected to the 19-
page legal brief submitted by Mr. Perry that compelled the commission to
approve the application in any case. If the commission was compelled by the legal
brief to approve this application the commission then had no discretion, and
neither did the City Council or the Metropolitan Council. He stated this was
essentially a threat of litigation against the City. Edstrom disagreed with the brief
entirely and recommended this issue be referred to the City Attorney for further
discussion so the commission could make a decision without being so compelled.
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Higgins asked for Rosow's thoughts on the legal brief. Rosow replied he
consulted with staff on the recommendations and found them to be fully
supported in law. He found it neither appropriate nor necessary to comment on
Mr. Perry's letter other than to say there are some things Rosow disagreed with.
Kirk added the ordinances had several aspects that allowed the City to protect the
bluffs. He asked Rosow to expand on these. Rosow mentioned the steep slope and
cultural heritage aspects as examples, and stated the ordinance did give the City
authority to regulate development as staff recommended. The PUD process would
involve collaboration with the City. Staff was not attempting in its
recommendations to avoid arguments or litigation but was recommending the best
process for moving forward with development on this property. According to
Rosow, Mr. Perry may have thought, given the history and the possibility of a
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 4
negative reaction, he had to argue strongly when he in fact did not, and the City
was not reacting to this, but taking a proactive approach. Rosow stated he was
confident staff found a supportable approach under the law.
Farr asked for assurance the improvements would be given due process despite
the legal tensions. Klima replied she and the applicant expected any development
would come through a PUD process to ensure flexibility in this unique situation,
and there would need to be special consideration given to the protection of the
bluff areas, trees, and other natural areas. This would be a public process should
those applications be received by the City. Farr recalled a document that
mentioned using the ridgeline of the bluff as a line of distinction between
developable and"undevelopable" land. Klima replied it was a fair assumption this
language was found in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Prior to its adoption, a
MUSA expansion took place in the 1990s. In order to expand the MUSA line, the
ridgeline was a best estimate as to where development could be accommodated.
In the Aspire 2040 process, 20 to25 properties were found to be bisected by the
MUSA line, which followed the ridgeline, and each property was unique.
Farr asked in the commission's discretionary judgment, if a development proposal
application were to be denied, would there be a lawsuit against the City. Rosow
replied the Comprehensive Plan, which was the founding document, proposed to
low-density residential. The zoning is recommended to be unchanged until the
owner was prepared to develop the property. If the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning were contrary, this would present the City with a choice: amend the
Comprehensive Plan or rezone the property. To amend the Comprehensive Plan
there must be a reasonable basis for denial. The court would give deference to a
City Council's judgment based on one reasonable basis only, not requiring
multiple reasons. If there is an unreasonable basis without a factual basis for
denial, it was fine for residents to have an opinion again the development but the
commission must find a basis for acting on it.
Shardlow replied Mike Franzen was the City Planner in 2013, and he and
Shardlow agreed they would deal with the commercial part first, then the
residential portion. There was approximately 1.5 acres of land in the extreme
northeast corner of the property within in the MUSA line. Franzen's
recommendation was three lots within the 1.5 acres and one outside for four lots
total. This was the steepest area. Taking access directly from Spring Road to
service these lots would have been an incredibly steep cute. A PUD would save
the trees and have less of an environmental impact. The Notermanns did
commission a study and concluded the site had a naturally occurring landform and
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 5
not an indigenous mound or sacred area; however, it could have a protective
covenant anyway. The Notermanns and Petersons had not received a response to
their letter requesting an opportunity to discuss the future use of their properties
as part of the 2040 Aspire Comprehensive Plan draft. They were concerned the
current language could prohibit development beyond the MUSA line, which
drove the language of the current application.
Edstrom asked to comment further. Pieper replied the public hearing was closed
and the commissioners would question the applicant.
Farr asked the reason staff was recommending amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan rather than to the zoning ordinance itself. Klima replied staff recommended
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency between it and the
zoning ordinance. While the current Comprehensive Plan said the rural district, as
well as the other districts, were corresponding to the low-density residential
districts, the additional details proposed tightened the consistency.
Kirk replied he was very familiar with the unspoken "red line" at the top of the
bluff and did fear a slippery slope, as the bluffs were a very unique part of Eden
Prairie. It hinged on the definition of"protect,"which for Kirk meant a very
carefully controlled development, not a prohibition of development outright. The
legal discussions were well addressed by the City Attorney. In his opinion the
City did have the ability, through ordinances and the PUD process, to have some
reasonable control over the bluff The applicant also indicated a willingness to
show this. Finding a reasonable solution could be uncomfortable but he was
confident a compromise could be found.
Farr echoed Kirk's trepidation, saying he had spent three days imagining the site
plan which the commission did not have. However, this was private property held
by people who served the community well, and the City needed residential
housing. Freiberg asked if the PUD approach would give the City more control
over development in this area and lead to a compromise. Kirk replied the PUD
process was an absolute necessity to give a reasonable position based in law. The
applicant was showing cooperation with the City and respect for its needs relative
to the bluffs. DeSanctis replied in an era where climate change has become
salient, removing trees from a steep slope would have a negative impact on a
sacred area to Eden Prairie, especially with increase of heavy rains seen recently
in Minnesota.
Higgins stated she was on the Eden Prairie Historical Society Board of Directors,
and these two areas along Flying Cloud Drive and Spring Road were owned by
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 6
people whose history in Eden Prairie was integral. This presented an opportunity
to develop reasonably although there were many unknowns. Staff and legal
counsel were advising a PUD process to ensure the best possible outcome. Pieper
asked if the public hearing should be reopened.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to reopen the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Dean Edstrom of 1133 Eden Prairie Road stated he understood the applicant's
understanding of the staff report and the legal opinion. He asked Rosow to give
advice on whether or not the prior staff conversations were actually legally
binding; his understanding was they were not.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Farr asked the value of the natural resources in a development. Bourne replied the
applicant was aware of the necessity of protecting the natural resources in these
areas. Kirk noted the commission was being asked to vote on a policy change that
had been evolving over the last 10 to 15 years: whether or not to allow
development in this area of Eden Prairie. Hypothetically, if the commission
recommended approval and the applicant came back with an unreasonable
development, he wished to retain the City's ability to prohibit such a
development. Pieper asked Rosow's opinion. Rosow replied the PUD process
gave the City considerable control and the real fear was an unreasonable
development, which made it difficult to reach consensus, not a development that
was reasonable but not entirely within the commission's vision.
Farr asked for and received clarification the motions first would amend the
Comprehensive Plan and secondly deny the rezoning request, and asked if content
was missing to vote directly on the application. Klima explained the motion
incorporated all three of the bullets points on the staff report: to change the
guiding in the Comprehensive Plan, to extend the MUSA boundary, and to
address the zoning change proposal (with a denial).
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Freiberg to recommend approval of the
Notermann residential development 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment based
on the information contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 7
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend denial of the
request to rezone property from Rural to R1-13.5 based on the information
contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
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
John Shardlow, a planner with Stantec Consulting, presented a PowerPoint and
explained the application. He introduced Siever Peterson, owner of the property,
and explained the Petersons had no near future plan for development. The
intention was to anticipate such a development with access to municipal utilities
that would support better options with less adverse environmental impacts, such
as grading and this was driven by the update of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant was 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. No
development plan or timeline for development of the property was submitted. It
has been the City's practice to review rezoning requests simultaneously with a
development plan. The City's goal for this corridor was to preserve and protect
natural resources and maintain the natural character along the Minnesota River.
The Low Density Residential guiding allowed up to 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
One of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan was to maintain a balance between
conservation/management of natural resources and the need for residential
housing. Due to the location of utility services and the existing regulations to
protect natural resources, staff recommended approval of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan amendment to Low Density Residential and the extension of
the MUSA boundary.
Without a development plan for the property, there was insufficient information to
determine the appropriate zoning for the property. A development plan that
included information such as topography, soils reports, archeological studies, tree
inventory, and bluff/steep slope analysis would help inform the level of
development that the site can support, and again, review of a development plan
would be simultaneous with considering a rezoning request. This process allowed
for a comprehensive review by both public officials and private property owners.
Staff recommended retaining the rural zoning of the property until such time as a
complete development plan and associated information was provided for review.
Without these details, establishing an ultimate zoning of the property was
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 8
premature as it is unclear what level of development is appropriate and can be
sustained by site conditions. Staff also recommended text amendments to the
2030 Comprehensive Plan to formalize the City's practice.
Joel Wiegert of 10131 Eden Prairie Road spoke against a possible "snowball
effect" of making decisions based on hypothetical developments. While he did not
doubt the reasonableness of the applicant in this case, he was concerned about
subsequent developers. He might not in fact object to the future development on
this or any other parcels, but he suggested holding off all Comprehensive Plan and
zoning change until the actual development plan is brought forward.
Shardlow replied the MUSA line was a regional growth management tool of the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act, and ten-year municipal planning schedules
served to determine which areas would be urbanized within each planning period.
Cities have routinely extended their MUSA lines without specific development
plans in preparation for at least forty years. The applicant was not anticipating
immediate development but was expecting it in the near future.
Farr asked the applicant and commission to ponder an alternative use to a low-
density single-family residential development on the northeast corner. He also
asked if the graphic in the staff report was accurate. Rue replied the exhibit shown
in the staff report was not up to date and displayed the old Spring Road
alignment; the new Spring Road alignment went straighter south and would
remove a portion of the northeast corner. Page three of the report did show the
current alignment. The gray area on that graphic appeared wider than a normal
right-of-way width because there was a storm water facility and a retaining wall.
Kirk noted the Lion's Tap site was very unique and would not attract additional
commercial development to that corner. If there would be additional development
there he would rather see residential than commercial. DeSanctis asked if the
proposed intersection would be signaled or signed. Rue replied there would be a
stop sign on Spring Road, as existed today. Farr asked if the access to this
property was solely from Spring Road and if the distance between the intersection
and northern property line was sufficient for safety. Rue replied he would expect
any development on that site would line up with the recently approved driveway
for the recently approved Lion's Tap project. There was also Riley Creek dividing
that property, so there would be restrictions for development, along with some
steep slopes on the eastern portion. There was much less developable land than
would be suggested by the graphic in the staff report. Farr noted with the setbacks
there was probably not much developable land left.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 9
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg to recommend approval of the
Peterson residential development 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendments based
on the information contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend denial of the
request to rezone the property from Rural to R1-13.5 based on the information
contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
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
Rosow departed the meeting.
Gary Hay of Hay Dobbs, P.A. introduced SouthWest Transit CEO Dave Jacobson
and Mike Dartt, SouthWest Transit Facilities Manager. He displayed a
PowerPoint and explained the application. SouthWest Transit had two offices
located in Eden Prairie: the corporate office on Technology Drive, and the Eden
Prairie Garage. The development proposed to build expanded parking which
would be developed on its current ten-acre garage site. The development would
include 80 percent bus storage, 15 percent maintenance facility, and 5 percent
office space. The current 78 parking stalls would need to be expanded.
DeSanctis noted in the Comprehensive Plan the City was concerned about the
silhouette and profile along Highway 62 and asked what would be altered. Hay
replied very little along Highway 62 would be altered. Only the driveway would
be seen and the parking would be out of sight behind the entrance. DeSanctis
asked if large-caliper trees would be added to the location. Hay replied there were
no specific plans for this, but trees would be planted. A rock island at the entry
was being converted to trees. DeSanctis asked how many staff would be relocated
with the corporate office. Hay replied 10 staff. DeSanctis asked for and received
confirmation this would have a negligible effect on the traffic flow on the
frontage road.
Farr stated he would not want the storage water to overflow too quickly and
breach the retaining wall. Hay replied the engineers worked with Nine Mile to
prevent this. He explained the parking locations. Farr asked if any consideration
had been made to share the parking resources to prevent empty parking surfaces
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 10
at night. Hay replied this was considered; however, storage was full when the
drivers arrived in the morning, and in the evening the vehicles would have to be
moved to park the buses for the night.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant proposed to expand the existing
parking on the property located at 14405 62nd Street West, located south of 62nd
Street Wes and just east of Indian Chief Road. The site included an existing
maintenance garage with warehouse and office space. The existing site included
72 parking spaces; City Code requires 73 parking stalls. Due to the future
demolition of the SouthWest Transit corporate offices on Technology Drive, the
relocation of SouthWest Transit staff from the corporate offices to this site and
expanded transit services, SouthWest Transit identified a need for expanded
parking on this site.
The applicant proposed to add 72 parking stalls to bring the total to 144. The site
plan proposed additional parking on the north, east and south sides of the
property. Because the property was a shoreland district, the applicant requested a
waiver to the maximum impervious surface allowed in the shoreland district. Staff
recommended approval of the application.
Farr had a question regarding the fuel gas tank for diesel fuel, and saw no
jurisdiction or regulatory review of adding the aboveground grade fuel station,
and asked if there compliance issues to consider regarding groundwater concerns.
Klima there may be additional reviews aside from the aboveground review from
the Fire Department or county hazardous materials department.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins to recommend approval of the
SouthWest Transit Garage project based on information contained in the October
18, 2018 staff report and plans stamp dated October 10, 2018. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
D. CODE AMENDMENT FOR SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND
PAWN SHOPS
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Sexually Oriented Businesses
and Pawn Shops
Klima presented the staff report. At the City Council's annual goal-setting and
visioning session held in late winter there was discussion on such sensitive uses
such as pawn shop and sexually-orientated businesses and what ordinances did or
did not exist. Pawn shops were regulated under Chapter 5 of the City Code. There
were at present no pawn shops or precious metal business in Eden Prairie, but
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 11
Chapter 5 includes restrictions as to which zoning districts in which they would
be allowed. Eden Prairie was one of few communities that had nothing on the
books regarding sexually oriented businesses. The City Council adopted a
moratorium on both uses in June of 2018 to allow staff to research and study the
issues, and come back with recommendations.
Staff proposed that Chapter 11 (Zoning)be amended to include the definitions for
pawnshop and precious metal dealer as defined in Chapter 5. Staff further
recommended 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. The Police Department and legal staff were drafting licensing requirements for
sexually oriented businesses. These code amendments would be placed in Chapter
5 and reviewed by the City Council. Staff proposed that the definition of sexually
oriented businesses be added to Chapter 11 and 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 allowed
15% of the gross floor area of buildings to be utilized for retail purposes. In the
case of a multi-tenant building, the 15 percent retail area would be cumulative for
the entire building rather than 15 percent per individual tenant. Staff also
proposed that distance requirements of 1,000 feet be provided for sexually
oriented businesses from any place of worship, day care facility, school,
residential use or other sexually oriented business. Staff recommended approval.
DeSanctis asked on what criteria the 1,000-foot buffer, which he thought was
arbitrary and insufficient, was based upon. Klima replied staff looked at other
regional communities, and some had no distance requirements, others ranged
from 250 feet to 1,000 feet. None exceeded 1,000 square feet. Freiberg asked if
there are currently or proposed to be any of these businesses in Eden Prairie.
Klima replied there were a variety of factors as to why Eden Prairie did not
emerge as a possible audience for these businesses; it could be Eden Prairie's
property values did not align with such businesses, or there was not a market for
such services.
Pieper asked for and received confirmation there were no current applications for
either type of business. Klima reiterated this was a purely proactive change. Kirk
asked for comparisons to other communities for the distance requirement for
pawn shops. Klima replied only one community, Maple Grove, was found to have
a distance requirement; theirs was 750 feet.
DeSanctis reiterated the need for the greatest possible distance for sexually
oriented businesses and schools, day cares, and places of worship. Klima replied
the 1,000 foot was the maximum utilized in other communities researched.
Freiberg replied he would be in favor of whatever the maximum would be. Farr
stated he also preferred the most distance possible, and at 1,000 feet, signage was
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 12
illegible unless it violated City code in using a very large font. He added he found
the route, rather than the distance of separation, to be of upmost importance—if
the children had to pass such a business on their way to school, distance was a
poor metric. However, this was very difficult to regulate. DeSanctis added
legislating a greatest possible distance could become in effect a legislation of
what kind of businesses existed in Eden Prairie.
Kirk agreed Eden Prairie should be on the upper end of the regional norms for the
sexually oriented businesses, but was surprised at the metric for the pawn shops.
Pieper asked if there was a law regarding selling illegal drugs near schools. Klima
replied this was not included in the research. Pieper also agreed with Eden Prairie
being at the upper limits for a distance buffer.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the
Code amendment of sexually oriented businesses and pawn shops based on
information contained in the October 18, 2018 staff report. MOTION CARRIED
6-0.
H. PLANNERS' REPORT
Klima announced earlier this spring when the City Council adopted the moratoriums on
sexually oriented businesses and pawn shops, it also adopted a moratorium on the retail
sale of firearms.; however, staff was directed to research any studies on the effects or
impacts of firearms retail sales and also provide the opportunity to get input from the
community. Both were completed. There is no real research locally or nationally on
firearm sales impacts. The City used City Connect to gain community feedback on 1)
concerns about firearms sales, 2) specific areas where such sales should take place and 3)
support for distance requirements, with mixed responses without a single directive. Staff
did not have a recommendation Staff sought feedback or reaction from the commission to
carry forward to the City Council on a future work session to which the Planning
Commission members would be invited.
DeSanctis asked for and received clarification this discussion pertained to new firearms
dealers, and not existing retail outlets such as Gander Mountain or Walmart.
I. MEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CONTINUING BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 22, 2018
Page 13
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angie Perera, Planner I
DATE: November 13, 2018
SUBJECT: Variance Request#2018-05
APPLICANT/
OWNER: Tyler&Katie Bishoff
LOCATION: 7194 Emerald Lane
REQUEST: Variance requesting a 7.1-foot setback variance for construction of a
deck. City Code requires a 30-foot setback for lot lines that abut a public
right-of-way.
BACKGROUND
The property is zoned R1-13.5. The R1-13.5 zoning district requires a 30 ft. setback for lot
lines abutting a public right-of-way. A home with an attached deck was constructed on this site
in 1985. According to building permit files, the house was proposed to be setback 32.9 ft. from
the south lot line complying with setback requirements. A 10 ft. x 10 ft. deck was also
approved with the building permit for new home construction but was not depicted on the
certificate of survey. This approach was commonly used during that timeframe. At its closest
point, the existing deck is at a 22.9 ft. setback from the south lot line of the property.
For residential properties zoned R1-13.5, City Code requires a 30-ft. setback from lot lines
abutting a public right-of way. Since this property is a corner lot and the south lot line abuts a
public right-of-way, a 30 ft. setback is required from the south lot line. Because the deck has
become dilapidated and unsafe, the applicant is proposing to replace the deck. The variance
request is for a 7.1 ft. setback variance from the south lot line, which would maintain the
current existing setback at 22.9 ft. from the south lot line.
VARIANCE REQUEST
The existing deck is legally non-conforming since it does not comply with setback
requirements of the City Code. Since the deck is legally non-conforming, the deck can be
replaced in its current location, with the same dimensions, and with the same existing setbacks
upon approval of a building permit and without the need for a variance.
The applicant proposes to widen the deck along the rear of the home to increase the size of the
Staff Report—Variance #2018-05
November 13, 2018
Page 2
deck from a 10 ft. x 10 ft. deck to a 10 ft. (deep)x 20 ft. (wide) deck to make the space
more usable. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the deck at a setback of 22.9 ft. from the
south lot line, at its closest point, which would maintain the same setback of the existing deck
at its closest point. The expanded area would meet the setback requirements.
EVALUATING VARIANCES AGAINST STATUTORY CRITERIA
Variances may be granted when they are "in harmony with the general purposes and intent of
the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan."
Furthermore, variances may "be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that
there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties,"
as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes
to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of
the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and
the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality."
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The existing and
proposed land use is residential which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Granting
the variance would not change the residential land use of the property.
In harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance:
The requested variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. A deck is a
permitted structure and use on a residential property.
Unique Circumstances:
Unique circumstance, meaning the problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not
caused by the current landowner. The property is a corner lot, and abuts the public right-of way
on three sides of the property (the north, east, and side lot lines) and therefore requires a 30-ft.
setback from all three lot lines which is a larger setback than other residential lots that do not
abut the public right-of-way. Properties zoned R1-13.5 typically require a 30-ft. front lot line
setback, a 10 ft. minimum side yard setback on one side and a 15-ft. setback on the other side
lot line (for interior lots), and a 20-ft. rear lot line setback. This proposal is consistent with
other properties in the area.
Reasonable use of the property:
Another review criteria is that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the
variance. This means that a landowner would like to use the property in a particular way but
cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to
any reasonable use without the variance. A deck is a permitted and reasonable use of the
property. The proposed deck would not be setback any closer to the rear lot line than the
existing deck. A 10 ft. x 20 ft. deck is also a reasonable size.
Staff Report—Variance #2018-05
November 13, 2018
Page 3
Alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood:
Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed 22.9 ft.
setback is in character with some of the surrounding residential properties that only require a
20 ft. setback from the rear lot line when such rear lot lines do not abut the public right-of-way.
In addition, a 10 ft. x 20 ft. deck would not be out of character in comparison with other
existing decks in the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the request subject to the staff report dated November 13, 2018 and
plans stamp dated received 10/12/18.
REQUESTED COMMISSION ACTION
The Commission may wish to choose from one of the following actions:
1. Approve Final Order#2018-05.
2. Approve Final Order#2018-05 with modifications.
3. Continue Variance Request#2018-05 for additional information.
4. Deny Final Order#2018-05.
Guide Plan Map - Variance Request # 2018-05
Address: 7194 Emerald Lane,
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
-- - 1- 1- 1. ....oimmi. --- ......•-qiiiiiqu-i
%Almon I'll 11
1. **IPII/# Ni
• T 4 S
. 2s\lo
os io. 4
arra" :.11,. .-IN i--i Eli 11 _______
iss'llail
7194 Emerald Lane
.*
'pi At
- i-.--
el .Aih, mi
',eW
iit __ _ _ , .4
. . Iv 11FP mar'
W_ 110 .
■
1
aliii4vAy4H
ilk
II ET Hi r6 '
%lir
IIW aui3O
Legend
n Lakes I-Industrial Streams N
n Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre I Neighborhood Commercial
Principal Arterial
I Community Commercial Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre
—A Minor Arterial
®Low Density/Public/Open Space Regional Commercial
RI
=Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre®Town Center —B Minor Arterial
®Medium Density Residential/Office MA Park/Open Space —Major Collector EDEN
=High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre I Public/Quasi-Public m Minor Collector
-Airport I 1 Golf Course
Date Revised 03-01-2014 PRAIRIE
Office I-Church/Cemetary
17- Office/Industrial 1 Open Water
^'�l 11, LIVE•WORK•DREAM
I'Z Office/Public/Open Space I-Right-Of-Way »e� -- --- _
0 160 320 640 Feet
I I I I I I I
Zoning Map - Variance Request # 2018-05
Address: 7194 Emerald Lane,
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
p.•is 01 13 I RI 1 1/11 I I I 111 lir AIM
IR
1 I I I lain
16111 II
, /
* 11
ra .........._.... .. ,
_A„,
•
is ;
i 7194 Emerald Lane
ini_IIIIII„
am
412
' AlL ii.*_
Valley View-Road
eP .*t°V
'1eWMI IF
- o• .
a
ilill*fi.
il
i ar 01,
I H ,
\s„.._
is•*\
Rural -Regional Comm CirtaR of Eden Prairie Zoning M a p
Shoreland Management Classifications N
R1-44 One Family-44,000 sf.min. I I TC-C I NE I Natural Environment Waters
R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. n TC-R I RD I Recreational Development WatersA Rill'',.. r• I,/.. 1.1
R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. al TC-MU I GD I General Development Waters(Creeks Only)
R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. Industrial Park-2 Acre Min, ® 100- Year Floodplain EDEN
RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A.max. Industrial Park- 5 Acre Min.
Up dated through approved Ordinances#26-2008
-RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A.max. 1.1r1 General Industrial-5 Acre Min.
Ordinance#33-2001(BFI Addition)approved,but not shown on this map edition PRAIRIE
Office J Public Date:March 1,2009
Neighborhood Commercial I Golf Course In case of discrepancy related to a zoning classitmaaon on this zoning map,the Ordinance LIVE•WORK•DREAM
and attached legal description on file at Eden Paine Ciry Center will prevail.
-Community Commercial Water
-Highway Commercial Right of Way 0 0.05 0.1
-Regional Service Commercial
Miles .wa,_o...m..=.._..®..g..o.,.,, ..,_..a.0..m ,..,,mo,
Aerial Map - Variance #2018-05
Address: 7194 Emerald Lane,
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
s I p+
- ;r am 1�
MM.
'i •1 ill
t
10i. - C
ra
ai
IIIII
t, P
cu
. Ma 0#01111111 :I
11Pr •
7194 Emerald Lane
11 k s
Aii%
3Ill .. :. .
1111111 Road �, Valley View Road
Valley View = ---
\ IF -
of f Jf .. ,[
F`.' •.
? 11®
'
t
-.1" l
w )1 ,ram- _ - d `u Y ''� A/'''::•-:.
i.
:,,
.7:
.. - i , \ `�- •`\ y'
Imil to
I
,' ••. `V
/I 5 I - I , + ) • : .:, - �j r: . . ORDER NO . 60 77 • 001
i 3681. • t)
WILLIAM D . SCHOELL SCHOELL & M A D S O N � INC . CARLISLE MADSON
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
MINN NO 2265 MINN . NO . 4374
SO DAK 755 S O NINTH AVENUE SOUTH. SO DAK 791
WIS NO E -6176 HOPKINS , MINNESOTA SS343
WIS NO . S -674
FLORIDA NO 6271 PHONE 538 - 760 '1 IOWA Na 3705
NO DAK 623 • NO DAK 110E
MONT NO 1816 -E MONT. NO . 1742 -S
TEXAS N035659 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
, SUAGIIINE CONSTRUCTION
F o 1p9! .,
92/0 s ?' 3} --. A --
9 ‘J d. - - --, D
• ,0 • 2 /
.• �, (,�
. ( i9A /rwa
&, 80 , r 9 ,�,.Cqo°� • )
t. 9/0 rat 4
• 5b/ `4 fir off' /
is • • • .�q\o7' ('= 40 '
Bs
rsq ) AN ICAO
9 / fre 9 �
7 ao (9/eil q )1 4 . 6eirn •
Or
<a) r jiki 9/0' IN DESCRIPTION :
,... 9 N � ` 910 . 2 1 • • Lu
9ro o -�,,, ,, .• 7 p (9 , z . $) ;-, Lot 9 , Block 5 ,
/ - ?o oeil � UIRFIELD 1ST ADDITION
3 ,°. 8encArnar .str �oII
/ Iron • • ( an unrecorded plat ) .
/ 4 ° e. 9 N
I . •r 5 �• . 9 �, 0 9c9 . 6
,�. 7) F `�,t 0 (f 3 ° 9 • s)
�-'' ' 90110BENCHMARK :
/ r a e and UIgWvit
� � fessaft.
gto .7 7 # Esrti (909 :0
22 Topof iron monument as
owl) :. ; o �`` 9oq . o shown . Elevation
-- '° Q p _ + �` ' ��' 09 ' 910 . 31 ( NGVD - 1929 ) .
io . 3 < % - . . — no . oo - . • • - • > 9 .90N- (909 .4)
•
R e- ed of sidewalk � • . . 901 . 4 I , _T) : 17-1) ir 1 , .
. VALLGY VIEW ROAD 1 _,1-.i , E, �vf Lc',
t_ � L �` 1
LLo roo pi L.,. .c n t • La;-
x . . x :
g12 . 4 909 g 1 ,, �' \ � 4
• l- Hal �._• ..
j E • am` �,- .�•
• i 1 6 )c I C bec1�
GENERAL NOTES . *(1) v - Letate) 4:fi. . }�jtt=�t .k ti r
1 ) • - Denotes iron monument found . liti-)i- /�) , 10 kK. , � y=,. r '4 4 �ti � IIt yi.• 3
:.e ii k
2 ) o Denotes iron monument set .
3 ) 0 - Denotes wood stake . A �` /\) (),(-6 )( - LoCatitt---,
4 ) x910 . 3 - Denotes existing spot elevation . this5 - proposedspot el e ati on . I hereby certify that . survey was
x ( 908 4 } Denotes , prop . se v under mysupervision and
6 ) ..r --=- - Denotes direction on of surface drainage . prepared p
7 ) Proposed garagefloor elevation on = 912 . 55 . �' that I am a L � censed Land Surveyor
ropo l ofthe State of
8 ) Proposed basement floor elevation = 909 . 63 . under the laws t
p
9 ) Proposedfirst i rst floor elevation = 918 . 43 . in---- . Minnesota
10 ) House is a spl it entry . . / ,/ 1
el6
S �- �a.� Harold E . Dahl in
info .Sewer and \valor
off, ;• `pan g from ��6 � c 405- 0P Date : 9 November 1984 L i c . No . 8414
• f51 -- Woof Dare (&"mrs-at, A-) a ),I . r:isi‘ \
c(Pc \ N \ia c‘r-
• C •f'.L1f•f•LY1 1••-• • �+ li+.� p-cykQe5ceitoicov@I\00a?:5
c, r ay : c2, r\-) \ `
VARIANCE#2018-05
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
PLANNING COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER 2018-05
APPLICANT: Tyler&Katie Bishoff
OWNER: Tyler&Katie Bishoff
ADDRESS: 7194 Emerald Lane, Eden Prairie, MN
OTHER DESCRIPTION: Lot 9, Block 5, Muirfield 1st Addition
VARIANCE REQUEST:
• To allow a 7.1-foot setback variance for construction of a deck.
• City Code requires a 30-foot setback for lot lines that abut a public right-of-way.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above
petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as
follows:
1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (Yes X No N/A).
2. Variance 2018-05 is:
granted
modified
denied
3. Findings and conditions are attached as Exhibit A.
4. This order shall be effective fifteen days after the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or on December
3, 2018, however, this variance shall expire one year after the date of the approval unless the applicant has
commenced the authorized improvements or use or has received an extension of the time period as provided below.
The applicant may submit a request for a one-time extension of up to one year from the original expiration date. Said
extension shall be requested in writing to the City Planner at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the approval.
The requested extension shall be reviewed by the City Planner. If the facts and circumstances under which the
original variance was granted have not materially changed,the City Planner may approve the extension. If there has
been a material change in circumstance since the granting of the variance,the City Planner shall submit the request
for review and consideration by the Board.
5. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council Review.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
N/A=Not Applicable BY:
Andrew Pieper-Chair
Date: 11/19/18
EXHIBIT A—FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
FINDINGS
1. The granting of the variance is in harmony with intent and general purposes of the
ordinance and the terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• The requested variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
• The existing and proposed land use is residential which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• A deck is a permitted structure and a permitted use on a residential property.
• Granting the variance would not not change the residential land use of the
property.
2. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The proposed
variance is a reasonable use of the property due to the following reasons:
• A deck is a permitted and reasonable use of the property.
• The requested variance is a reasonable use of the property.
• The proposed deck would not be setback any closer to the rear lot line than the
existing deck.
• A 10 ft. x 20 ft. deck is also a reasonable size.
3. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner. The property is unique for the following reasons:
• The current circumstance and unique conditions associated with the property have
not been created by the current property owner.
• The property is a corner lot, and abuts the public right-of way on three sides of the
property (the north, east, and the south lot lines) and therefore requires a 30-ft.
setback from all three lot lines which is a larger setback than other residential lots
that do not abut the public right-of-way.
• Properties zoned R1-13.5 typically require a 30-ft. front lot line setback, a 10 ft.
minimum side yard setback on one side and a 15-ft. setback on the other side lot line
(for interior lots), and a 20-ft. rear lot line setback. This proposal is consistent with
other properties in the area.
4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
• Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
• The proposed 22.9 ft. setback is in character with some of the surrounding residential
properties that only require a 20 ft. setback from the rear lot line when such rear lot
line does not abut the public right-of-way.
• In addition, a 10 ft. x 20 ft. deck would not be out of character in comparison with
other existing decks in the area.
CONDITIONS: Approval is contingent upon the following three conditions.
1. Subject to the information provided in the staff report dated 11/13/18.
2. The setback from the rear lot line shall not exceed 22.9 ft. as depicted on the survey plan
stamp dated received on 10/12/18.
PROJECT PROFILE - NOVEMBER 19, 2018
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 19, 2018
1. 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 11/01/18 Notice to Paper Date N/A
Date Complete 10/12/18 Resident Notice Date 11/02/18 Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline 02/08/19 Meeting Date 11/19/18 lst Meeting Date N/A
Initial DRC review 10/18/18 2nd Meeting Date N/A
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT- DECEMBER 4, 2018
1. 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 1st 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
1
2. 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 10/25/18
Date Complete N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 10/22/18 Pt Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review N/A 2nd Meeting Date 01/08/19
PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 10 2018
1. X-CEL FIELD AREA NETWORK(FAN) MONOPOLE/ANTENNA INSTALLATION SITE
PLAN (2018-24)AND VARIANCE# 2018-06 by Xcel Energy. (STEVE)
Location: 12580 Technology Dr
Contact: Chris Rogers, 612-330-6078
Request for:
• Site Plan Review on 12.16 acres
• Variance for monopole height of 165 feet exceeding the City Code height of 150 feet.
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/26/18 Notice to Paper Date 11/21/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/18
Date Complete 10/26/18 Resident Notice Date 11/21/18 Resident Notice Date 00/00/18
120 Day Deadline 02/23/19 Meeting Date 12/10/18 Pt Meeting Date 00/00/18
Initial DRC review 11/01/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
CONSERVATION COMMISSION - DECEMBER 11, 2018
2
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT-JANUARY 8, 2019
1. 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 02/08/19 Meeting Date 10/08/18 1"Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 06/29/17 2nd Meeting Date 01/08/19
2. 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 10/25/18
Date Complete 10/12/18 Resident Notice Date 10/05/18 Resident Notice Date 10/26/18
120 Day Deadline 02/08/19 Meeting Date 10/22/18 Pt Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 09/06/18 2nd Meeting Date 01/08/19
3
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
2. CODE AMENDMENT FOR PAWN SHOPS (2018-26)by City of Eden Prairie (PLANNING
STAFF)
Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Pawn Shops
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Pawn Shops
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 03/16/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/19 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/19
Date Complete N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 00/00/19 1st Meeting Date 00/00/19
Initial DRC review N/A 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/19
3. CODE AMENDMENT FOR PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS (2018-27)by City of Eden Prairie
(PLANNING STAFF)
Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Precious Metal Dealers
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to Precious Metal Dealers
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 03/16/18 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/19 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/19
Date Complete N/A Resident Notice Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A Meeting Date 00/00/19 Pt Meeting Date 00/00/19
Initial DRC review N/A 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/19
4
3. 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
4. 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
5
5. 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
6. STABLE PATH (2018-25)by Wooddale Builders (BETH)
Proposal for 17 detached single-family homes.
Location: 9650 Stable Path.
Contact: Steve Schwieters, 952-345-0543
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.9 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.9 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 5.9 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one lot into seventeen lots on 5.9 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/06/18 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
6
PENDING MET COUNCIL APPROVAL
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 10/25/18
Date Complete 08/23/18 Resident Notice Date 10/05/18 Resident Notice Date 10/26/18
120 Day Deadline 12/21/18 Meeting Date 10/22/18 Ist Meeting Date 11/13/18
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 10/25/18
Date Complete 10/17/18 Resident Notice Date 10/05/18 Resident Notice Date 10/26/18
120 Day Deadline 03/13/19 Meeting Date 10/22/18 Ist Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 08/09/18 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/18
7
3. 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 1st Meeting Date 11/13/18
Initial DRC review 06/14/18 Continued to 10/08/18 2'Meeting Date 01/08/19
APPROVED VARIANCES
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