Planning Commission - 02/10/2020APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources;
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission members Pieper, DeSanctis and Villarreal were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to approve the minutes of January 27, 2020.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
EDEN RIDGE, LLC (2019-20)
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres
Preliminary Plat to divide 2 lots into 10 lots on 4.3 acres
Jeff Schoenwetter, CEO and founder of JMS Custom Homes, presented a
PowerPoint and explained the application. He also introduced project engineer
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 2020
Page 2
Aaron Carroll and project manager and director of Homestead Partners, Ralph
Murphy. He introduced JMS Custom Homes as a local developer of over 100
developments in the Twin Cities, most recently of Eden Gardens. All homes
building are proposed to be green path certified, and are typically single-family
homes with a detached garage. The project is a PUD rather than a conventional
plat due to the waivers requests. Ten market-rate homes would be built on 4.7
acres creating a small infill, intimate cul-de-sac. Utilizing low impact site
development strategies, these homes would be more efficient than most. There
were no significant sidewalks within the plat, but had bike and walking trails
nearby. One issue to consider tonight was the City staff’ request for two
streetlights, whereas the applicant was proposing an alternative that had been
successful in other communities: have only on streetlight at the intersection, and
in lieu of the second streetlight, the developer would place coach lamps on the
garages or recessed LED soffit lighting on every single home that would be
controlled by a photo cell on each house. These would contribute a “warm,
naturally-lit street” rather than the intensity of a streetlight. This lighting would be
included in the HOA documents and covenants.
Schoenwetter displayed a map of the site showing the elevations and the housing
accommodations to the grade changes. He displayed the floor plans and elevations
of models derived from previous developments featuring multiple elevations and
an ergonomic floor plan. The amount of differing models would prevent a
“cookie-cutter” development.
Farr asked Schoenwetter to describe the neighborhood meeting. Schoenwetter
replied there were 17 attendees predominantly concerned with density, quality of
homes, tree removal and replacement, attached- or affordable-housing, water
management and draining. Two ponds would be built and the site grading plan
would eliminate standing water issues. Once the developer discussed these issues,
the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Farr noted the cul-de-sac was
narrower than standard and with no sidewalk. Schoenwetter stated that relatively
short cul-de-sac and existing trail systems satisfied the need for connectivity. This
prevented shoveling sidewalks also. Farr also observed there was no street
parking provided. Schoenwetter replied the development would provide sufficient
off-street parking to address the needs of the residents, while sparing them the
chore of shoveling sidewalks. He could not guarantee no one would park on the
street, but it was more likely they would park in the driveways.
Mette asked if Schoenwetter had reached out to the additional house directly west
and asked if the owner was not interested in selling. Schoenwetter replied that
owner did not want to sell and was indeed contacted. Mette noted the one
property that was rather large for a single-family home would not work well
subdivided but asked if the cul-de-sac could be moved over to make that
subdivision possible. Schoenwetter replied the grading and the lack of length at
that parcel prohibited such a move.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 2020
Page 3
Klima presented the staff report. This was a PUD, preliminary plat, and rezoning
request. The zoning change to R1-9.5 was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The applicant was also seeking waivers for lot width. Staff recommended
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant has
already addressed some of the conditions, including the tree replacement.
Farr asked if this cul-de-sac would be a City right-of-way. Rue replied this would
indeed be a public street. Farr asked for Rue’s response to a narrower curb-to-curb
dimension. Rue replied the street as proposed was not narrower than a standard
street. A sidewalk there would serve a small number of houses whereas the trail
would serve all of these residents. Farr asked his opinion of the eight percent
slope. Rue replied eight percent was the maximum, and general the City would
have that be in the two-percent range coming up to a stop condition. Farr asked
the life expectancy of the long wall along Valley View Road. Rue replied it would
be replaced at some point by the City.
Kirk stated his residence was a similar circumstance to this development, and the
residents did not miss having a sidewalk at all. He thought it less important than
the streetlight itself. Higgins asked for City staff’s response to the streetlight
proposal. Rue replied it was standard practice to put in streetlights in new
residential developments. Staff requested a streetlight both at the intersection and
in the “bulb” of the cul-de-sac. It was up to the commission to recommend
differently. Farr asked if there was precedence in Eden Prairie for such a
departure. Rue replied there were old neighborhoods without streetlights, but
since the 1980s that standard streetlight was included in all residential
developments. Farr stated he had heard about the glare on standard streetlights
versus the less glaring downward-cast lumières and asked if the standard
streetlight was the only choice. Rue replied there was a “cobra-head” type for
commercial areas, and there was a coach light style owned by Xcel which utilized
LEDs. The older style of streetlight was more diffused. However, the conversion
to LEDs made these less diffuse. Farr asked if less diffuse lighting could
contribute to any significant increase in crime, according to police departments.
Rue replied he was not sure he could answer that; of course lighting on a public
street was important. The difference was between a uniform diffuse light in
commercial areas, and the nonuniform pattern of dark and light in residential
areas. Schoenwetter agreed the standard lighting developing since the 1980s were
put in for security, but today this new design, using LEDs, would last longer and
be warmer and less intrusive. Safety would not be compromised. Farr asked
whose responsibility it would be to maintain this nonstandard LED, recessed
lighting. Schoenwetter replied the responsibility would be the homeowner’s but
the requirement to maintain it would be in the HOA documents making it the
Homeowner’s Association responsibility in the case of a “bad actor.”
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 2020
Page 4
Kirk stated he often drove through an older neighborhood with older lighting;
street lighting was absolutely a requirement. However, the new LED streetlights
were inoffensive. To his mind the question was between the newer LED
streetlights, developed since the 1980s, versus this creative new approach by the
applicant. Farr thanked him and noted all the master bedrooms were either on the
side or rear of the house, not facing any street lighting. Mette stated she lived in a
cul-de-sac two blocks east of the development with only one streetlight, and while
she agreed that light was necessary for safety, in her opinion what the applicant
was proposing was superior to a streetlight and would be a benefit to the
neighborhood. She added she was glad her cul-de-sac did not have a sidewalk,
and hers had 14 homes. She did not see this as a safety issue.
Kenneth Sien, of 7400 Ontario Boulevard, asked if the developer would be
replacing a retaining wall. His property abutted Valley View Road and asked if
this was the one to be replaced, and with what result.
Leslie Scharpen, of 7312 Franklin Circle, asked why the development included 10
lots instead of eight, since eight would probably not require the width waiver.
Also, he asked if the developer’s creative lighting plan was due to a wish not to
provide electricity under the street. He added he also heard the residents would
not park on the street, but he worried about the addition of curbs, traffic flow and
noted some people did indeed park on the street. He expressed concern about
visitors and the accommodation of emergency vehicles.
Coleen Morehouse, of 7470 Ontario Boulevard, expressed concerns about
drainage. Her household had had water issues in her backyard, and there was a
culvert beneath the driveway of this development which froze, causing water to
back up in her house. The City looked at this and opened the culvert, but said it
would not open it again due to it not being City property. She feared a repeat of
this nuisance.
Kirk stated he would like more detail about the proposed stormwater handling.
Farr said he did not believe the wood timber retaining wall along Valley View
Road was deteriorating or would be replaced any time soon. Engineer Aaron
Carroll replied there was an existing retaining wall directly in front of the
development which would be left intact to preserve a large heritage tree. Sien’s
property to the east had a different retaining wall not involved in this
consideration. Regarding the culvert, it was an eight inch pipe (actually a mix of
pipes) beneath the driveway, but the development would provide a much larger
pipe. There would be a clear opening to a 15-inch concrete pipe to convey the
water to the north. None of the existing conditions were worsened. Rather the
pipes were lowered and the drainage improved. The Watershed was looking at the
plan. The drainage would not cross Ms. Morehouse’s property even in the worst-
case scenario.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 2020
Page 5
Schoenwetter stated the density was not negotiable with regard to affordability.
The lots were actually larger than many lots in Eden Prairie and fully sufficient to
accommodate this price point. Reducing density would increase costs. Farr asked
for and received confirmation from Rue the cul-de-sac street size was actually of
standard size. Rue added that parking is allowed on one side. Most homes had
garages, at least a double- and many a triple-car garage. Farr asked for and
received confirmation from Klima the City could not enforce additions or
retractions on private HOA covenants the commission could make.
Mette stated “no parking” signs could be erected if parking on the street became
an issue. She thought the street could accommodate extra visitor parking. Two
houses per acre was still low density, so the number of houses was acceptable.
Kirk agreed, and added the benefit of living on a cul-de-sac, particularly near the
“bulb,” was the relatively large lot but a small footprint toward the street. He
found this development to be a reasonable compromise. He was intrigued by the
proposed lighting alternative.
Weber disagreed, saying he was uncomfortable with the surprise of this creative
lighting plan. He lived on a major corner and his exterior lights did not reach the
end of his driveway, whereas the streetlights did a better job of illuminating the
street. He was not sure the commission should be called upon to approve an
unknown design.
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Discussion followed on the streetlight alternative provided by the applicant. Mette
stated she understood Weber’s point, but suggested making the lighting an option
subject to staff approval. She asked if a streetlight required a waiver. Farr clarified
staff recommended approval of this project with the second streetlight; the extra
unknown contributed by the applicant was not a part of staff’s recommendation or
this commission’s vote. Mette thanked Farr, and asked what would happen had
the developer come to staff with the lighting change after the Planning
Commission’s vote.
Klima replied Farr was correct: the original plans did not include the light at the
end of the cul-de-sac, and staff requested the plans be revised to include it. These
are the plans being considered tonight. As an advisory body, the commission
could only recommend to the City Council. Had this been raised sometime in the
future, it would depend upon the timing: after the development agreement was
signed, the plans would have to be changed to be consistent with City policy, and
it would not be brought back to the commission. Higgins asked if it was possible
for the developer to bring this before the City Council. Klima replied the
developer could bring this before the City Council and ask the same question.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 10, 2020
Page 6
Kirk stated he was sure the City Council would hear and take counsel from the
Planning Commission’s discussion, so a discussion was fruitful. He stated he was
“on the fence” on this issue, and Farr added he was as well. Farr urged coming to
a consensus or at least show findings in the minutes.
Higgins noted that house lighting can work well. Mette stated she was cautiously
for the creative solution as long as City staff found it acceptable, which might
involve the Public Safety and Engineering departments. She called for a lighting
plan. Weber clarified he would be in favor of the creative solution if it was
sufficient lighting, but did not have sufficient information on this. The
commission same out in favor of retaining the standard streetlight design until
proven otherwise.
Farr commended the development with the varied elevations with front porches
that promoted a walkable community and was in full compliance with tree
replanting. Kirk agreed and added the water management around this
development would be an improvement and beneficial to the environment as well.
Higgins concurred and congratulated the developer. She also thanked the public
for attending and speaking.
Rue added the retaining walls along Valley View Road were built when Valley
View Road was constructed, and thus were City walls. Some were wooden and
bowing; the City had been monitoring them. They were slated for replacement
within the next ten years. The City would make every attempt to save nearby
trees, but some trees could be lost. A concrete wall would most likely replace the
wooden walls. There would be no changes to the plat.
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres, a Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres, a Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres, and a Preliminary Plat to divide two
lots into 10 lots and two outlots on 4.3 acres based on plans stamp-dated January
21, 2020 and the staff report dated January 5, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.