Planning Commission - 08/09/2021APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2021 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,
William Gooding, Robert Taylor
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of
Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Absent were commission members Taylor and Mette.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the amended agenda with the
public hearing for Item VA being moved after the public hearing for Item VB.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of June 28,
2021. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. JOHNSON RIDGE (2021-05)
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.1 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.1 acres
• Zoning Change from R1-22 to R1-9.5 on 2.1 acres
• Preliminary Plat on 2.1 acres
Harold Worrell displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. This was an
L-shaped property on which the applicant proposed to create six single family lots
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 2021
Page 2
on 2.1 acres. Water retention ponds and swales at the property lines would
redirect the water. Sustainable features included EV-ready garages, and there was
a tree replacement plan. A new cul-de-sac would be constructed on Outlot C
which was owned by the City and had been deeded to the City of Eden Prairie for
this reason. The cul-de-sac would extend east from Bennett Place to allow
accessibility to the new lots. The community would be named “Johnson Ridge” in
honor of the original owners of the land, Harold and Viola Johnson.
Farr thanked the applicant for attempting to save many of the mature trees, but he
noted the tree survey plan showed many trees were clustered along the southwest
area where the new drain tile would go in and asked how these trees would be
saved. Worrell replied the drain tile would be shallow and would not affect the
existing trees. Farr objected the silt fence was up against the trunks of the trees,
not their drip line, thus disturbing the trees. Worrell replied his understanding was
the silt fence only went up to the drip line of the trees.
Klima gave the staff report. As part of the PUD, the applicant was requesting
waivers for minimum lot depth, minimum lot width, and maximum street grade.
The property was currently zoned R1-22 and would be rezoned to R1-9.5,
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were portions of the lot that did
meet the 100-foot lot requirement, and a few portions that fell below. The grade
waiver would exceed Code by 1.11 percent. The development agreement would
address the home designs, which were varied. Staff recommended approval.
Farr reiterated his question about the risk to the saved trees being lost to the silt
fence and drain tile installation. Bourne replied there was some grading work that
approached these trees. Most of them were resilient for root damage, whereas the
large heritage oaks merited some concern. City staff would observe and adjust the
grading work as needed. The drain line had been added to the landscape plan
later, and staff would take a closer look at that. Farr asked if there were alternative
methods to control draining along the property lines. Bourne replied all options
would include similar grading work. City staff would visit the site to inspect the
work.
William Habicht, of 9955 Bennett Place, a former Eden Prairie Planning
Commissioner, stated he could not recall a situation in which a property
completely encircled by R1-22 zoning being changed to R1-9.5 and asked for a
compromise of R1-13.5 or some similar zoning, and three or four houses instead
of six.
Joe Houterman, of 9977 Bennett Place, asked who was looking out for the
heritage trees on his property which abutted the north side of the new
development.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 2021
Page 3
John Kellogg, of 11180 Jackson, stated he was immediately behind Lot One
where the dry pond would go in. He expressed support for the development.
Maureen Moorhead, of 9969 Bennett Place, who lived north of the proposed cul-
de-sac, also expressed concern for trees adjoining this proposed development. She
stated homeowners did not want to be responsible for their removal should the
trees die. She also stated the retaining wall could affect her driveway. Also Outlot
C had an existing fire hydrant and asked if City utilities would be affected.
MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Gooding to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Bourne stated the trees in Outlot C would be lost due to construction, but staff
would ensure the security of other trees on other properties adjacent to the
development. Farr stated there were trees noted for retention within Outlot C that
the residents were concerned about. Bourne added there was nothing north of the
development on private property that would involve the removal of trees. Rue
stated the easement along the north property line of this development was
permanent. Worrell stated he had discussed the grading plan with the Moorheads,
and there was the potential for the developer to do some work on their driveway.
Farr asked for and received confirmation these two parties would work out an
agreement.
DeSanctis asked if the existing homestead on the southeast corner had any historic
value, and Worrell stated he was not aware of any significant historical value to
this property. At one time, that slope was far steeper and the area was denser at
the time this house was put in. DeSanctis asked what would be the process if the
developer came across artifacts from the original household, and Worrell replied
he would contact the State for advice in that case. Klima added the City had a list
of historically designated and potentially significant properties, and photo-
documentation and sampling of potentially significant properties were done in the
case of development. The Johnson home was not on this list as a historically
significant property.
Farr stated the staff report listed precedence for this change in zoning. Klima
displayed a map and explained the surrounding properties were actually zoned
R1-13.5, and the change R1-9.5 zoning was being utilized much more frequently
in the past few years than perhaps ten years ago. It supported the type of housing
of the Comprehensive Plan and was often used in such infill developments.
Farr commended the natural boulder retaining wall around the retaining pond to
the northeast but asked for the reason for the prefabricated rectangular retaining
wall for the other pond. Worrell stated this would be an engineered keystone wall
system designed by the engineers. Rue replied the City did not allow boulder
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 2021
Page 4
walls within a City right-of-way. Keystone modular block are allowed and big
block were preferred.
Rue added the existing fire hydrant would be abandoned and a new one
constructed.
Kirk stated sometimes development is sometimes perceived as less than ideal but
this project was consistent with City’ s long term plans, and this developer had
done a good job of making this plan work. He stated this was a reasonable infill
development that balanced consistency with economic realities. Farr agreed, and
added he supported the waivers as staff had done a good job weighing the pros
and cons. DeSanctis agreed with Kirk that this development conformed to the
requirement in architecture but had misgivings how so many developments
mimicked the aesthetic of high-end homes. He wished to see more affordable
homes but kept seeing homes starting at $800,000.00 and up. Higgins also stated
she had mixed feelings about carving out land for a cul-de-sac and the lack of
affordable housing but found this development to be a thoughtful compromise and
not the appropriate project to incorporate affordability. Markos added she agreed
with Farr and Kirk, and added she hoped this developer would continue to meet
and talk with the current residents and hear their concerns. Gooding also
expressed his support and noted that most of the comments tonight were in favor
of the development alongside their concerns, which was rare. Pieper also urged
the developer to continue to listen to the surrounding residents.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Markos to recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.1 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 2.1 acres, Zoning Change from
R1-22 to R1-9.5 on 2.1 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 2.1 acres based on plans
stamp dated July 30, 2021 and the staff report dated August 9, 2021. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
B. 6245 DUCK LAKE RD BUILDING MOVE (2021-10)
Request for:
• Building Move of an existing garage from 17117 62nd St W to 6245
Duck Lake Rd
The applicant, Josh Hohn, of 6245 Duck Lake Road, displayed a PowerPoint and
detailed his application. Due to the death of his neighbor, the Hohn family
purchased his property and wished to move the existing garage from that property
to his. This was a move of about 75 feet and there were no trees or other
impediments in the way of the move. The professional moving company being
used, utility companies and City staff had inspected the site, and a survey had
been completed. He displayed a view of how the garage would look on his site. A
single-family garage would then be provided for the house at 17117 62nd Street
West.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 2021
Page 5
Farr noted there was already a three-car garage attached to this house, so the
garage would be an accessory building and asked if there would be a driveway.
Hohn replied there would be a driveway constructed off the existing driveway.
Klima presented the planner’s report. This was a request for a moving permit.
This application met all four criteria for the permit. Staff recommended approval.
Farr noted the property to the north was served by two driveways and asked staff
to comment on the loss and rebuilding of the garage. Klima replied a new garage
would be provided which would not impact the two driveways into the site. Farr
asked if a property could have a six-car garage, and Klima replied this application
met the City standard for accessory structures.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
Markos commended the applicant for reusing a structure.
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by DeSanctis to authorize the issuance of a
building moving permit based on plans stamp dated July 12, 2021 and
information and conditions of authorization provided in the staff report dated
August 9, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
C. 775 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE (BOA 2021-02)
Request for:
• Monument sign height of 10 feet, 2 inches. City Code maximum is 8
feet.
• Monument sign area of 56 square feet. City Code maximum is 50
square feet.
Rick Ferraro, of Spectrum Science Systems, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed
the application. An elevated sign would replace the existing low-profile sign to
aid in visibility. The setback would remain the same.
DeSanctis asked where the light pole was in relation to the sign. Rue replied there
were two light poles, one north and one south of the sign. DeSanctis noted the
existing sign was more stylized than the proposed sign, which looked like a
“monolith.” Ferraro stated the applicant was looking for an updated and
professional look, consistent with the building.
Gooding stated the sign was higher but did not stand out to drivers and asked how
this design was more visible. Ferraro stated this was a reasonable sign size that
enhanced the site, and the designers produced this result. For complete visibility
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 2021
Page 6
an even larger sign would be needed. DeSanctis asked what the font size was.
Ferraro replied the characters were between five and six inches, and each inch
yielded 30 feet of visibility. He was satisfied with the color contrast.
Farr stated this sign was going from a four-tenant sign to a six-tenant sign, which
was more text with a decrease in font size would be a disadvantage to drivers,
though not necessarily a safety hazard. He had no objection to the square footage,
but the legibility of the sign was in question. DeSanctis added seasonal factors
could affect the sign as well as the time of day.
Ferraro replied daytime and nighttime viewing had been taken into consideration,
and there was nothing better than a black-and-white sign for contrast.
Higgins stated this sign was the right approach. Kirk stated the commission
needed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, since the Southwest LRT
construction made the visibility of this building more difficult. He preferred this
design to the existing one, and it could be changed if drivers find this building
difficult to find.
Klima presented the planner’s report. The sign height would be 10 feet 2 inches,
above the 8 feet allowed by Code, and the sign area would increase from 50 to 56
square feet. This design met the requirements and staff recommended approval.
DeSanctis asked if a variance was required for LED lights to surround the sign,
and Klima replied one was not required for lighting. Gooding clarified he did not
question the need for a change; he was questioning whether or not the sign would
be effective.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
DeSanctis asked if LED lights could surround the sign. Ferraro replied the sign
was internally illuminated so that the letters illuminated. Farr commended the sign
expansion since the main intent was not only visibility but to add more messaging
due to more clients. He stated the speed of drivers passing and the amount of
messaging on signs could perhaps be included in the City’s Code and
consideration along with the dimensions of signs. Pieper also commended the
sign’s design. Farr noted these parking lots were connected for emergency vehicle
access which sometimes residents also used and asked if the City would continue
to promote such cross-connectivity. Bourne replied the City did not promote it
since two driveways were private and one was public but it was possible to use
the emergency vehicle access.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 2021
Page 7
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to approve Variance Request 2021-02
based on the staff report dated August 9, 2021 and findings of the Final Order
2021-02. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by DeSantis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.