Planning Commission - 02/13/2023APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2023 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William
Gooding, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote
CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Rod Rue, City
Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks & Natural Resources
Manager; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Absent were commission members Markos, Grote and Gooding.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Farr to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Sherwood to approve the minutes of December 12,
2022. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BLUFFS AT NINE MILE CREEK SIGN VARIANCE
Request for:
• Variance to allow two (2) free standing signs in the RM-2.5 Zoning
District
Myrna Orenstein, of Imaginality Designs, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the
application. They propose an entrance monument at the Flying Cloud rive
entrance on this 10-acre site. The building had 191 units built in 2003 with
15,000 feet of frontage along Flying Cloud Drive and 570 feet along Valley View
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2023
Page 2
Road with no signage. The existing sign at the corner of Valley View Road and
Flying Cloud Drive faced one direction. What was needed was a doubled-face
sign 700 feet along the road in one direction and 800 feet in other along Flying
Cloud Drive. Orenstein displayed an overhead map of the site showing the
difficulty in viewing the sign. She stated the setback was the challenge. She
displayed the site constraints and explained the proposed sign position. The point
was to ensure the sign guided visitors along a tight setback and a steep hill.
The temporary sign would be taken down and the new sign placed between the
easement and the private storm sewer. The size of the new sign would be kept
within Code requirements. She displayed a rendering along the north face and
explained the plan would include landscaping and lighting.
Barnhart presented the staff report. The variance was requested due to the
uniqueness of the property and could be supported by State Statute. The
configuration of the site and topography seemed to support the need for additional
wayfinding. A second sign would have no negative impacts to the neighborhood
which was zoned office to the west and south. The proposed second sign
reasonably approached Code and staff recommended approval of the application.
Farr asked if there would be a requirement for the applicant to submit a revised
landscaping plan, and Barnhart replied that would be the case if trees were to be
removed. Farr asked if the site had the opportunity to have wall signs and
Barnhart stated it did. Farr asked if an approval would restrict further such signs,
and Barnhart stated the commission members could consider that possibility, but
this was not a recommendation or a concern by staff. Farr asked for and received
confirmation the corner sign at Valley View Road and Flying Cloud Drive was a
permitted sign and asked if the new, nonconforming sign would become the
primary sign in case the other sign was taken away. Barnhart replied the variance
reflected the staff report, and he was not concerned about setting a precedent. The
applicant could alter the plan in the future but would be allowed two signs.
MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
Mette stated she support this design and found it met the unique circumstances
meriting a variance. She did not envision a precedent being set here. Kirk
concurred, and added while he was sensitive to the proliferation of signs in Eden
Prairie, this was not a concern in his opinion. Farr also agreed. He had brought up
the issue of a possible precedent due to a condition in previous years in which a
tall banner was temporarily used facing Highway 62. However, he found the
sign’s design to be appropriate. Taylor stated he understood Farr’s concern, and
asked if there were specifications or requirements for lighting. Barnhart replied he
would check the Code but lighting could not create glare or light pollution on
traffic or the sidewalks.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2023
Page 3
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to approve the Variance to allow a
second free standing signs in the RM-2.5 Zoning District as requested in the
February 13 2023 staff report. Motion carried 6-0.
GUIDANCE RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
Request for:
• Variance to allow construction of a new retaining wall within the 75-foot
shore impact zone
Robert Guidarini, as 23-year resident of Eden Prairie, displayed a PowerPoint and
explained he was requesting two variances, one to construct retaining walls within
the city Code required 150-foot shoreline and one to construct hardcover
improvements (retaining walls) reducing the hardcover calculation to 31 percent
from the current calculated 32 percent, where 30 percent would be the maximum.
This affected his single family house purchased in July 2013 with a timber
retaining wall built in 1986. He displayed the site’s overhead location on Mitchell
Lake. He stated the geosurvey determined the soil makeup was a high sand
content making the removal of the existing wall for replacement impossible.
Gravity walls were not an option. The timber wall was moving and bulging and
separating at the joints, and needed immediate reinforcement. Guidarini displayed
photographs of the walls that needed to be removed and added he would be
reclaiming some of the land between the main wall and the water to restore some
of the shoreline.
Soil anchors would be used, and blocks with an approximate 12-inch depth. This
required the removal of the lower garden walls which, again, increased the size of
the shoreland. The final drawing was the result of numerous revisions and years
of discussions with the Watershed District and the City. Also there would be
planting of native species. This would result in a larger setback, reduction of
impervious surfaces, restoration of some of the beach with native plants, and the
return of stability to the home and the upper and lower decks.
Taylor asked for and received confirmation there already was movement in the
timbers. He suggested auguring in the piles. Kyle Heard, principle engineer at
Geowall Designs, explained a number six rebar would be used, keeping the
vibration to sand material to a minimum. Ground screws were an alternate option
but this was more expensive.
Farr asked for and received confirmation all the ground anchors were above the
water table. He asked that the face texture of the materials have a natural look.
Guidarini displayed images of the blocks to be used and stated they were the same
as those used at the Wayzata Country Club. Farr commended the choice and
added that staining was an option. He urged the applicant do everything possible
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2023
Page 4
to make the wall aesthetically pleasing. Guidarini added he could grow vines up
the walls. Farr commended the attention to aesthetics.
Mette asked for and received confirmation there would be one large wall with an
improved aesthetic along with plantings. She asked if the additional space on the
lower deck elevation was going to be soil and plantings or a railing. Guidarini
replied the blue section in the drawing was compacted gravel between the two
walls. There would be a railing along the wall with a possible vegetable garden on
top. The main focus at this point has been \securing the house.
Barnhart presented the staff report. This application was a good example of the
reason for a variance process. The retaining walls were necessary to support the
foundation of the house. The house was built before shoreland regulations and
from staff’s view this was a unique situation. The property was a single-family
home in a residential neighborhood, a reasonable use, and there were some visual
impacts to the lake that could be mitigated by staining and plantings and other
cosmetic/landscaping improvements. Staff recommended approval.
Taylor asked if there was a possibility of other residents having the same issue,
and Barnhart replied there were not many known homeowners in this
predicament. Farr asked for and received clarification the small retaining walls
were closer to the water before the timber wall. He surmised the previous owner
had wished to have a beach and thus the shoreline was flattened. He asked for a
clarification of the measurement of the shoreline. Barnhart replied there is some
dispute as to the ordinary high water elevation, from which setbacks are
measured. For that reason, staff did not specifically mention a minimum distance
The whole property was in the Shore Setback, and the entire house is in the 0-75
Shore Impact Zone. Barnhart added staff recognized the beach was wider than
allowed by Code so the applicant could introduce some landscaping and
plantings, including at the southeast corner, to be approved by Engineering staff.
Farr stated he did not have an issue with leaving the timber wall in place behind
the block wall but was concerned about possible rot and voids 20 years from now.
Rue replied that was possible but the soil anchors usually had a mesh before them
and concrete to hold them in. Material would collapse into the gap and the timber
could rot, but he did not envision the soil anchors moving.
Heard replied the deterioration of timbers was due to water and oxygen. The
backfill used was currently pea rock, the front side was clean stone, which would
encapsulate and bury the timber wall to stabilize, or “petrify,” it. The shockcrete
would be used at the bottom, but the fascia had oversized plates to hold a large
section back into the hillside to compensate for deterioration in some sections.
Farr added there were attached letters of support from neighbors and access for
the project to the staff report. He asked what this access would be. Rue replied the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2023
Page 5
existing walls had been dismantled and rebuilt so his department asked for letters
of permission, and the access would be coming down onto their own property
from the northwest side.
Guidarini replied a neighbor put a boulder wall in front of their timber wall as
well and was kind enough to allow him to use the dirt excavated for this project as
access. This was a part of a longtime discussion.
Mette asked how the applicant worked with the DNR and the Watershed on this
project. Barnhart replied Engineering staff worked closely with the applicant and
the Watershed. Their comments would carry through the issuance of the building
permit and the Watershed District also required permits for this project.
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Farr to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
Farr found this project to be a good solution and recommended a condition that
the applicant should field stain the retaining wall to simulate a rock aesthetic.
Mette found this application to be the only long-term, economically feasible
solution to save this house. She agreed with Farr’s condition for the approval of
this large facade but questioned how specific the commission should get
regarding the motion. Kirk agreed but questioned the cost implication of the
proposed condition. He commended the project and did not want to add an
unknown cost, although the aesthetics were important. Farr agreed and stated
there were two alternatives: to add a field stain or to order pre-colored concrete.
Adding color to the concrete as it was being mixed was an alternative. Without
either color or stain, the concrete would have a raw cement appearance.
Taylor stated his background was working along the Mississippi River which had
docks and retaining walls. Once a homeowner saw movement it would continue
to deteriorate and he did not think there could be any delay in this project, which
he supported. Mette thanked Farr for making the point about the raw concrete and
suggested the applicant be required to work with staff on the aesthetics of the
wall. Farr replied he would personally prioritize color over texture and wished to
craft appropriate language in the motion. Discussion followed on crafting a
specific motion.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to approve the variance of the
application to allow a series of retaining walls within shoreline setback and to
exceed the 30 percent limit hardcover within the shoreline overlay district as
represented in the February 13, 2023 staff report with the additional requirement
that the applicant work with staff to have appropriate visual aesthetics of the wall
suitable to the local environment. Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2023
Page 6
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
Farr stated he represented the commission to the City Council Workshop in
January and passed along the gratitude of the City Council regarding the
commission’s commitment to green goals and sustainability.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Mette to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.