Loading...
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.