Planning Commission - 07/27/2020APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr,
Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette,
Lisa Toomey, William Gooding
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of
Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission member DeSanctis, Pieper, and Farr were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Toomey to approve the minutes of July 13,
2020. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
PRAIRIE HEIGHTS (2020-06)
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 9.6 acres
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 9.6 acres
Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres
Preliminary Plat to create 1 lot on 2.85 acres
Pat Hiller of Norton Homes presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application.
The development planned a series of 24 single family detached villas in a full
“snow and mow” association. Finished homes ranged from 3,000 to 3,500 total
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 2
square feet, and prices ranged from $700,000.00 to the $800,000.00s. Hiller
explained these types of one level living developments were very popular in the
Twin Cities. Site development (site grading) would being in September if this
application was approved. This was a PUD application requesting the site,
currently zoned low density residential, be rezoned to R1-9.5.
Hiller displayed the site plan. Water and sewer connections would be made at the
northeast, and there would be a road connection to the west onto Pioneer Trail. He
displayed the three styles of building homes and pad sizes and their numbers:
there would be 18 “Mitchell” home lots, three “Staring” home lots and three
“Bryant” home lots. This development fell within the Flying Cloud Zone C area
and the developer would take out permits to build residential homes with an
interior noise mitigation plan and building/construction equipment height
limitations. There would be noise reducing windows and doors. The building and
construction equipment heights were well below allowable limits, and Flying
Cloud Airport disclosure would be included with each home sale.
Sustainability features included storm water infiltration basins conforming to
watershed district standards. The developer would work with staff to plant native
species in and around storm basins and was also willing to donate the outlot north
of Pioneer Trail to the city for permanent open space. The garages would be
electric vehicle-ready. There would be increased STC window noise rating to
minimize impact of airport noise.
The developer completed a traffic study that was based on analytical cases
because an actual traffic count due to the Covid-19 pandemic was impossible.
This study found the impact would be minimal, and no improvements were
recommended.
The developer did hear from neighbors. Neighborhood concerns included
construction traffic coming through the existing neighborhood and the plan to
build out the right in, right out connection to Pioneer Trail in a second phase
rather than during Phase One. The plat application had been amended to request
the existing driveway from Pioneer Trail to the north of the site to remain open
for site development and for home construction traffic to use. The developer
eliminated project phasing to construct all 24 lots in one phase.
The plat proposed a future connection to MAC property through the right-of-way
off Liberty Court. MAC objected this connection would impact the possible future
development on its site, so an alternate access was being proposed. This would
cause the loss of a lot at Pioneer Trail but would provide right-of-way access to
MAC property in the future.
Mette asked if Hiller would consider having the access on Pioneer Trail align with
the Outlot A to create a right-in, right-out, or connect on Surrey Street and
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 3
connection with a mini cul-de-sac and turnaround to the southwest. Hiller replied
every combination was looked at and a full intersection was not warranted by the
traffic study. Hennepin County was opposed to new connections to Pioneer Trail
location due to sight lines. Markos asked if the existing curb cut would be used
only for construction, or if it was a part of the Prom property as well. Hiller
replied the curb cut had to remain and the developer would relocate the driveway
so the resident would have a dedicated driveway. Markos asked what impact the
MAC connection would have. Hiller replied it would take out one of the lots and
leave only 23 building lots for the final design.
Higgins expressed concerns regarding water flow and runoff, noting the slopes
were considerable and were now being regraded. She asked Hiller to reacquaint
the commission with its thought process to get to this water flow plan. Dave Nash
with Alliant Engineering replied their geotech work resulted in a grading plan that
determined the lowest areas on the site to adjust grades. The result was significant
retaining walls. The ponds were infiltration ponds which most of the time would
be dry but were designed for 100-year storm events. This was a common and
preferable solution in developments with a sand and porous site base. This plan
had gone through several comments from the City and those were addressed,
along with the watershed comments.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant proposed 24 single family lots and
4 outlots, three of which were intended for stormwater management purposes, and
one to remain undisturbed. All outlots would be deeded to the City. The
properties were currently zoned Rural and the applicant was requesting to be
rezoned to R1-9.5, which was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The lots
would be accessed by extending Surrey Street to the west and by creating a right-
in, right-out intersection on Pioneer Trail. A cul-de-sac would also be created to
the south of the Surrey Street extension. As part of the PUD, the applicant was
also requesting waivers for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and front yard
setback. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Mette asked if Klima had comments regarding the fate of outlot A. Klima replied
it was a remnant parcel and there might be an opportunity to perhaps provide for
stormwater needs in the future, but that was to be determined. Mette noted zoning
change requests from Rural to R1-9.5 had come before the Commission before
and she asked if the City had considered looking at this zoning, since it has so
many exceptions. Klima replied the R1-9.5 district was not routinely used until
recently. Through the Aspire housing and land use conversations the City heard
the need to have a variety of housing types. Single-level living situation is
appealing to empty nesters and younger homeowners. Staff was seeing more
requests now because of a change in market trends. This zoning could be looked
at in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 4
Pat Pappas, resident at 9631 Tree Farm Road, asked for assurance that
construction traffic would not be going down Surrey Street and Woodridge Road
and that there would be a right-in, right-out connection with sufficient signage.
Dana Nelson, Director of Stakeholder Engagement MAC, stated MAC operated
the Flying Cloud Airport which was less than one mile west of the development
site. Her comments were similar to a letter sent to the City Planner in 2016 upon
review of the zoning and preliminary plat request, and a letter containing her
current comments would be submitted. She gave background of the Flying Cloud
Airport and its community benefits and described her efforts to identify noise
impacts and minimize them in accordance with the Aspire 2040 Comprehensive
Plan and the Metropolitan Council’s Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for
Aircraft Noise. Construction near the airport would increase noise complaints.
MAC had no way to restrict aircraft activity or noise at Flying Cloud. Neither the
MAC nor the FAA could provide noise mitigation materials. The MAC requested
the following: that the City draft avigation easements for each parcel, notify
potential homebuyers of the nearby airport, waive all claims against MAC for
future noise and air quality impact, ensure homeowners are notified of the zoning
site and conform to height limits and zoning restrictions, communication MAC’s
intention to develop the site to the site, install fast-draining ponds so as to deter
waterfowl which are incompatible with aircraft, avoid fruit-bearing and
ornamental tree plantings, design access points that did not require permanent
easements on MAC property and that construction of the stub road be concurrent
with the construction of this development. She also asked for clarification of
setback.
Markos asked if MAC had any proposed future development. Nelson replied there
were no confirmed plans but an office complex was possible. There would be no
residential development. Mette asked for and received confirmation that MAC
was requesting access and intersection be completed as a part of this plan and
there was no curb cut there now. Bridget Rief, MAC Vice-President of Planning
and Development, replied this only concerned the stub road causing the loss of the
24th lot. Kirk asked for and received confirmation there were no plans to develop
the rest of the intersection at this time.
John Fedora, resident at 9820 Tree Farm Road, stated the proposed developed
area south of this development was Parcel Six, which prevented the fulfillment of
contiguous open space required by the JAZB Zoning Code. Therefore, Parcel Six
could not be developed. He asked that this m be addressed.
Patrick Prom, resident at 12661 Pioneer Trail, expressed frustration that he could
not hear well in the Council Chambers with the existing speaker system, and
asked for further clarification. Kirk offered to repeat the questions as they were
addressed by the Commission, and Mette reminded the audience a follow-up letter
with these conditions would be submitted for the public to also see.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 5
MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Kirk repeated the request for an assurance the construction traffic would come in
the old driveway off Pioneer Trail to the north of the project, and the right-in,
right-out would be off Pioneer Trail. He mentioned the noise issue, the request for
education around what the MAC could do in the future, the request from MAC to
have proximity to airport notifications so new homebuyers were not surprised,
construction of the ponds and landscaping to minimize water fowl or bird issues
near the airport, and an alternative roadway proposal that would bring Surrey
Road parallel to feed into a larger intersection west of the project.
Klima stated the majority of those comments and requests were expected and
standard comments the City receives on any development in proximity to the
airport. The City has standard language in development agreements regarding
proximity and noise mitigation building construction materials. Hiller had
addressed those and the City would include those in the development agreement.
Regarding Zone C requirements, this development would be in compliance, and
there would be an airport permit as a condition of approval.
Toomey asked if there was a mandatory curfew at the airport. Klima replied it did
not have a curfew. Kirk replied it was a 24-7 operation. Nelson agreed and added
there was a voluntary nighttime quiet time asking users not to utilize the airport
between 10 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Kirk reminded the audience a written letter would
be submitted. Klima gave an overview of Parcel Six. Parcels Two through Five
were approved for office or commercial rezoning. Parcel Six was not approved
due to lack of a specific development plan being imminent. The final slide by
Hiller gave the conceptual development on that parcel. Any future development
on Parcel Six would have to start with the rezoning process. Kirk agreed open
space was needed and asked if there was any ambiguity in the Ordinance
regarding this land.
Brad Juffer, Manager of Community Relations for MAC, replied the northern
portion of Parcel 6 had become JAZB Zone C, which was a less restricted zone
for development. Zone B, to the south, would have development opportunities but
would be limited by density. There would be no restriction on development in
Zone C except for height and some specific uses.
Rue stated the construction access and the right-in, right-out had both been
approved by Hennepin County. Construction access on one lot would be left open
and minimal traffic would use it, and the right-in, right-out would be eliminated
per County direction. Mette asked if the proposed road was approved by the City
and the County. Rue replied the access was not approved; the location was ideal
under County standards. This was a proposed future intersection. Discussion
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 6
followed on the configuration of this road to enable a possible future development
of the MAC parcel. Rue explained the roadway would ultimately likely be
reconfigured, perhaps into a half cul-de-sac. The right-in, right-out would stay
until full access was developed.
Hiller agreed to follow the County requirements of the stub road and offered to
work with staff. What he had presented was not fully conceptualized, and it would
ultimately be decided upon.
Gooding asked if the significant amount of retaining walls would be in private
lots or in common areas, and who would be responsible for the cost of
maintenance and repair. Nash replied some were on private lots and some on City
outlots, and the City outlots would require an encroachment agreement. The HOA
would maintain all retaining walls. Markos asked for and received clarification
the stub road was decided on to accommodate a request by the MAC. A right-of-
way could be left there instead as an alternative option.
Mette noted her understanding was the right-in, right-out on Pioneer Trail would
be built and would address neighborhood concerns. She was pleased to hear the
developer was willing to work with MAC on the access. She would align Surrey
Street differently in order not to lose a house. She was concerned a lot of planning
served an unapproved, nonexistent intersection to serve an unknown future use in
an unknown time for an unknown owner—a considerable concession by the
developer.
Gooding stated he visited the site, which was a very hilly area. It required
considerable regrading and he shared concerns about drainage. It was close to the
airport. He was concerned about the walls being HOA responsibility, which could
be expensive down the road, but he found the development impressive and was
encouraged by the developer’s willingness to work with staff. Kirk concurred, and
added he liked the development and its design. He added within reason the
commission and developers must work with MAC and take its requests and
concerns into consideration. Discussion followed on a possible motion to address
all concerns.
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Markos to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 9.6 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 9.6 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5
on 9.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat to create 24 lots and 4 outlots on 9.6 acres
based on plans July 16, 2020 and the staff report dated July 27, 2020 and
stipulating the condition that prior to presentation to the City Council the
applicant and MAC work out an agreement on how to address Lot 22 and how to
provide a connection to MAC’s property. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
VARIANCE #2020-02
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 7
Location: 16740 Rogers Road
Request for:
To decrease side yard setbacks from 10ft to 7ft for a shed
Marla Ekman, property owner, displayed a PowerPoint and presented her
application. Her variance request was to decrease the side yard setback from the
required 10 feet to seven feet. There were existing structures, egress windows,
and mature trees on the site limiting the location of the shed. The applicant
wished to preserve the mature trees on the site and was requesting the variance to
encroach three feet into the side yard setback. She displayed photographs to
illustrate the site and explained its limitations which prevented her from following
the 10-foot requirement.
Klima presented the staff report. Variances may be granted if it was in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and meet statutory criteria.
The proposed variance met the general purposes and statutory criteria as
identified in the Staff report as well as the three-part test, and staff recommended
approval subject to the conditions in the staff report and in the Final Order.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Markos stated her concern was the applicant’s neighbor and commended the
applicant for having a good-faith conversation. She also suggested plantings along
the shed, and Ekman replied she was planning to put in hostas.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the application based
on the findings in the staff report dated July 27, 2020 and the findings and
conditions of the Final Order #2020-02. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
Klima stated there was a memo in the commissioners’ packets concerning EV charging
stations. Residents had come forward to the City Council’s open podium to state St.
Louis Park had adopted an EV charging ordinance and requested Eden Prairie to do the
same. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to review and weigh in on this.
There was a sliding-scale requirement in terms of number of EVCS based on parking
stalls required. A cost cap had been included in the St. Louis Park ordinance. Staff
prepared a report which was included in the commission’s materials. The City of
Bloomington adopted EVCS requirements in December, 2019 and Golden Valley
included EV charging stations as one of 17 options for PUD consideration.
Toomey asked for confirmation all the new home construction in Eden Prairie had these
stations included. Klima provided a list of properties that included them, and replied it
was not a requirement, but an ordinance doing so was the subject of this request by
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 27, 2020
Page 8
residents. Kirk noted it was more the exception than the rule. Toomey asked if the City of
Eden Prairie could partner with commercial business to install these in park parking lots.
Discussion followed on free versus fee/targeted-client EV charging stations. Mette stated
the Commission should not require the stations be free of charge but should leave it up to
the property owners. She urged the City treat residential, multi-family and commercial
differently. She stated she was not against a requirement but more in favor of providing
incentives to developers for EV stations or wiring. Providing capacity was a laudable
goal for housing and especially at multi-family developments, where it could be required.
It would be impractical to require it for retail development, where people did not park for
long, but office and the Mall would make more sense. She argued against aggressive
commercial enforcement in favor of offering them where they would actually be used.
Markos agreed, and added a wired option for single-family was a forward-thinking idea.
Mette added requiring it at every commercial development would be like requiring all
commercial development to have a gas station. Gooding agreed, and stated Xcel had set
up a system wherein if a resident charged overnight that person paid less than during the
day. The most logical place to charge was at one’s home, and pre-wiring up-front was
relatively inexpensive. Kirk agreed, and added the Commission encouraging this capacity
in new residential was very important. It was possible an ordinance was not needed if this
became part of the building code. He agreed with Mette it should be required at multi-
family housing. Commercial development could offer it if market forces allowed them to
benefit. He also commended Markos’s idea to partner with commercial entities to help
pay for their installation. Mette recommended the City reach out to multi-family
developments in Eden Prairie to determine demand and interest. Kirk urged Eden Prairie
be proactive on this.
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Toomey moved, seconded by Gooding to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 6-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.