Planning Commission - 08/23/2010 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,AUGUST 23, 2010 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Stoltz (Chair), Kevin Schultz (Vice Chair), John
Kirk, Katie Lechelt, Jacob Lee, Jerry Pitzrick,
Travis Wuttke
STAFF: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Michael Franzen, City Planner
Rod Rue, City Engineer
Heidi Wojahn, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/ROLL CALL
Chair Stoltz called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Commissioners Pitzrick and Schultz
were excused from this evening's meeting.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Kirk, to approve the agenda. Motion carried
5-0.
III. MINUTES
Kirk proposed changing the following typo in the July 26, 2010 minutes: p. 5, fourth
paragraph, fourth line— change "Stoltz" to "Schultz" explaining Stoltz was not in
attendance at the last meeting.
MOTION: Lechelt moved, seconded by Lee, to approve the amended minutes. Motion
carried 3-0-2 with Kirk and Stoltz abstaining.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2010-05 by Randy's Bobby & Steve's Auto World (a continued
item)
Location: 8100 Flying Cloud Drive (a continued public hearing)
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 2
Request:
Variance Request#1 — To permit a dynamic display area of 34.5 square feet for
proposed Sign#1 V6. City Code permits 35% of 80 square feet or 28 square feet.
Variance Request#2—To permit a dynamic display area of 15.6 square feet for
proposed Sign#2 V2. City Code permits 35% of 36 square feet or 12.6 square
feet.
Variance Request#3— To permit the distance between two free-standing signs
(proposed Sign#1 V6 and proposed Sign#2 V2) at 245 feet. City Code requires
300 feet.
Variance Request#4— To permit proposed Pylon Sign#1 V6 with a setback of
10 feet' from the property line. City Code requires 20 feet.
Variance Request#5— To permit proposed Pylon Sign#2 V2 with a setback of 2
feet from the property line. City Code requires 15 feet when parking occurs within
the required front yard setback.
Variance Request#6— To permit proposed Pylon Sign#2 V2 at 80 square feet
with dynamic display of 34.5 square feet and sign setback of 2 feet. City Code
permits the second free-standing sign at 36 square feet, a dynamic display area of
12.6 square feet and a sign setback requirement of 15 feet.
Stoltz read a letter dated August 19, 2010 from Jim Hoeft on behalf of Steve
Williams requesting a continuance on this variance request.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Lechelt, to recommend a continuance to the
September 13, 2010 meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
B. VARIANCE#2010-06 by Bahman Razmpour
Location: Eden View Estates, Lot 1, Corner of Dell and Turnbull Road
Request:
• To permit a porch 6 feet from the front yard lot line of Dell Road. City Code
requires 50 feet in the Rural Zoning District.
• To permit a house 21 feet from the front yard lot line of Dell Road. City Code
requires 50 feet in the Rural Zoning District.
• To permit a garage 35.3 feet from the front yard lot line of Turnbull Road.
City Code requires 50 feet in the Rural Zoning District.
• To permit a main structure height of 52 feet. City Code requires 40 feet from
the lowest grade point to the midpoint of the corresponding roof.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 3
Stoltz read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance on this variance
request and asked Franzen if he and other City staff were okay with the December
8, 2010 extension and review period date mentioned within. Franzen replied
affirmatively and stated notices were sent informing residents of the continuance
to save them a trip to tonight's meeting.
MOTION: Lechelt moved, seconded by Lee, to recommend a continuance to the
September 13, 2010 meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
C. NINE MILE CREEK WATER RESOURCE CENTER (2010-05) by Nine
Mile Creek Watershed District. Location 12800 Gerard Drive, 12776, 12782 and
12784 Gordon Drive.
Request for:
• Code Amendment to add Governmental Office as a permitted use in the
Public Zoning District.
• Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to
Parks/Open Space on 4.24 acres.
• Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to
Public/Quasi Public on 1.1 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.32 acres.
• Planned Unit Development District Review on 5.32 acres.
• Zoning District Change from R1-22 to Public on 5.32 acres.
• Site Plan Review on 5.32 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 5.32 acres into one lot
Kevin Bigalke, District Administrator for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
(District),briefly reviewed the plan for tonight's proposal. He introduced District
representatives in attendance, explained engineering and legal advisors were on
hand to field questions, and turned the microphone over to property owner,
Barbara Kaerwer, for opening comments.
Kaerwer gave background on how her husband's career in the agriculture industry
brought them to Eden Prairie in 1949. She values her responsibilities as a citizen
and as a steward of the land and feels the District will be a wonderful ally in
helping residents access and respect her land for years to come. Donating her land
and home to the District would be useful to the community so everyone can take
educational and recreational advantage of beautiful space in an area of Eden
Prairie otherwise lacking in parkland. The home itself would become a modest
two-person office and an indoor/outdoor library for people to learn about
conservation, soil erosion, and land/water pollutants. A specialist would be on
hand to educate visitors. Her wish is interpretive signage be put in place near the
trail explaining how her particular land has been and will be protected from
erosion. She extended an invitation to the commissioners to visit her property and
home to see how this unique opportunity can develop into a perfect City-District
relationship.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 4
Bigalke presented the proposal for the Nine Mile Creek Water Resource Center
which would primarily serve residents of Eden Prairie and the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed (covers 50 square miles in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie,
Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield). He gave a background of the
District mentioning over$2.5 million worth of completed water resource projects
in Eden Prairie on which the District and City worked closely. He reviewed the
history of the proposal made possible by Kaerwer's donation which is contingent
on approval of the proposal by the City. He stressed the importance of wanting to
be compatible with the neighborhood and the adjacent Cardinal Creek
Conservation area. He then presented the Land Development Application which
includes a number of requests needed in order to make this a compatible use. The
area in the third request consists of the building, driveway, and parking area.
Requests four and five are in place to continue use of existing building materials
and architectural features of the home as well as use green materials for the
parking surfaces to meet stringent District standards of water quality and
retention.
The proposed site plan includes two additions to the home, one to the north
(approximately 25 x 30 feet) to be used as a meeting/conference facility, and a
small addition to the west(bumping out the existing wing about 10 feet) which
would serve as additional workspace for staff. They are minimally intrusive and
blend in well with the lay of the land. The existing driveway is all gravel and
would be resurfaced either completely in permeable asphalt or part conventional
asphalt,part porous asphalt or pavers. The ten stall overflow parking area would
be grass paver system made up of a geotextile plastic grid system set on a base of
granular material and crushed rock so grass can take root. It can sustain the
weight of emergency vehicles and is cold-climate hearty.
The preliminary plat calls for the consolidation of six separate parcels under
Kaerwer's ownership into one contiguous lot which is how it is currently
managed. The property is underneath a conservation easement with the Minnesota
Land Trust and would continue that way under ownership/management of the
District. Of the 850+ significant trees on the property, approximately eleven
would be impacted (151 caliper inches). Eight inches of tree would be replaced by
planting three red oaks in an area where buckthorn removal has occurred.
Two traffic studies have been completed. The impact analysis based on square
footage (34-44 daily trips) may not be relevant because numbers are based on
businesses with substantially larger buildings and far more employees. The
analysis based on number of employees is more realistic at 7-10 daily trips, in line
with the average for a single-family home. The District hosts two standing
monthly meetings with about 10-15 attendees each. Any public hearings or other
larger meetings with more than 15-20 anticipated attendees would be held in an
alternate location. There may be 1-2 additional education events per month open
to the public. School groups may express interest in utilizing the property—it is
expected these will primarily be from Eden Prairie schools. Should schools
outside Eden Prairie show interest, the District would generally go to them
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 5
because it is District philosophy to have students experience water resources in
their own communities. There would only be 1-2 buses at a time on the property
because there isn't sufficient staffing to allow for any more than that. After
making a few summarizing comments, Bigalke turned the microphone over to
Kaerwer's representative, Tom Casey of 2854 Cambridge Lane in Mound, for
closing remarks.
Casey said he's worked with Kaerwer since five years prior to the start of the
donation process when the conservation easement came into play. Kaerwer
donated money so property preservation will be enforced perpetually by a third
party. The easement serves as a legal restriction guiding the property forever
while adding another layer of protection in terms of the impact to the
neighborhood and on the land itself. Kaerwer wants very much to work with the
neighbors and resolve any issues so it can be a win-win situation. She understands
there is a planning process involved that needs to be worked through and wants to
alleviate any concerns the City may have.
Franzen presented the staff report on the project. In terms of the legal status of the
property as it exists today, there are three sets of restrictions: the Comprehensive
Guide Plan and R1-22 Zoning (both public), and the private Conservation
Easement. The combination of these restrictions essentially means the property
can only be used for a single family home with some potential expansion and
conservation of the land. His research concluded the extinguishment of a
conservation easement is rare and only allowable via judicial proceedings. The
easement can be amended but because it is private, it does not require consent of
neighbors or the City. If the easement was extinguished the worst scenario is a
building permit could be pulled and houses built on the three remaining lots on
the property, or the entire parcel could be subdivided adding 6-8 houses and a cul-
de-sac which is consistent with the neighborhood zoning pattern and Guide Plan.
The combination of rezoning the property to Public and the conservation
easement allows only the District office, the Park Plan Administration Center, a
similar community center, or some other use related to parks,recreation, and
conservation.
Staff recommends either of two acceptable alternatives: 1) to approve the request
or 2) to deny the request, with a preference for the latter. Alternative#1 is less
desirable because it introduces a business element into a residential neighborhood.
If the private conservation easement were ever to be extinguished, the property
would have rights under the Public Zoning District. These uses could potentially
have a greater impact than the proposed use. A way to prohibit this is to require a
deed restriction in favor of the City be recorded against the property limiting the
use of the property to the District and the current number of employees, meetings,
and programs identified in the application. If Council were to approve the request
and direct the addition of the deed restriction, it would be included as part of the
development agreement. Alternative#2 is preferred because it would be aligned
with the basic principle of how the City was planned and zoned with large areas
reserved for residential, commercial, and industrial, with uses in these areas
compatible, and incompatible areas separated by distance, roads or natural
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 6
barriers. In an industrial area, such as Golden Triangle, the watershed office
would be located amongst similar uses and any business growth could be
accommodated on site and not impact traffic patterns in the area.
Stoltz asked what would happen if the District decides to sell in the future.
Franzen said if sold to an entity materially different than the City's deed
restriction, the City would have to lift that restriction after going through a public
process. Stoltz asked Casey if any language in the legal document states what
would happen with the property should the District choose to sell or no longer use
the premises (i.e. would the property convert back to Kaerwer at that point).
Casey replied once the closing occurs, there are no strings attached by his client.
Bigalke addressed some of the points brought up by Franzen. Once the property is
conveyed from Kaerwer to the District, the conservation easement cannot go
away. Kaerwer is the only one who can remove it. They are amenable to
discussing and working with the City on the recommended deed restriction. It is
probably fair to compare them more to a park and open space area than an
industrial area.
Lechelt asked which portion of the property was zoned Parks/Open Space from
2002-2008. Franzen explained the Parks/Open Space was not on the property
itself, but rather refers to the Cardinal Creek Conservation area.
Lee asked if there had been any middle-ground consideration such as donating the
land and keeping the home residential. He also wanted to know if any other land
had been donated to the District in the past several years. Casey said no to both
questions stating the house is an integral part of the property. Bigalke added the
District often acquires conservation easements either through donation or
acquisition for some of its projects. They are not a landholder. When the project
is complete, the easement will be conveyed over to the City for management.
Stoltz opened the meeting to public input.
Stan Koehler, of 7131 Topview Road, lives across the street from Kaerwer. He
does not think the site plan shows the elevations very well, and his only concern is
the grading of the driveway. His bedroom windows are right in line with the
driveway and given the current elevation, car headlights coming out of the
driveway at night shine right into the windows of his home. In addition he
believes it is a hidden driveway explaining it is very difficult to see either east or
west on Gerard when exiting the driveway with the grade as is. This presents
safety concerns for the City and the District because Gerard is a relatively quick
street. He would propose reorienting the driveway to the east with the entrance
off the Gordon Drive cul-de-sac.
Lulu Mosman, of 15117 Scenic Heights Road, is a graduate of Eden Prairie High
School and voiced support for the proposal. In her work as an intern with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a watercraft inspector, she finds
the public to be very curious about and interested in water and other
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 7
environmental issues. This project would be beneficial in providing Eden Prairie
with a beautiful natural area while educating the public.
Pete Rasmussen, of 13100 Roberts Drive, said he is strongly in favor of the
project. He feels it would be an asset for Eden Prairie and the environment,
keeping green space within a city that has seen tremendous growth during his
residency. He told the Council he hoped they could share Kaerwer's vision.
Keith Kapitan, of 12838 Gerard Drive, said he and his wife support everything
Kaerwer stands for in terms of preservation and conservation of the land and are
in favor of the project. He expects traffic would be greatly increased if homes
were built on the land. He studied the plans in great detail and feels the elevations
are clearly notated.
Ms. Moser, of 7263 Topview Road, stated this is a very generous gift and
supports the proposal. When she first moved to the area, it was pristine with a lot
of fields. She would like to see this property preserved rather than having more
homes developed on it to help hang onto a piece of land reflective of how it was
when she first moved here.
Stoltz read a letter submitted to the Commission by Gina Dinehard. The letter
stated Dinehard was withdrawing her approval of the proposal since she did not
realize the home was to be used for the District's headquarters. She cited concerns
about the traffic and non-residents coming in and out of the neighborhood.
Bigalke stated he had spoken with Mr. Koehler regarding his concerns about the
driveway. They are amenable to making adjustments to the driveway to be
conducive to the neighborhood and the District's needs. Some options have
already been considered but were not included in the presentation because they
wanted to solicit feedback prior to making any changes. Solutions include
realigning the driveway with Topview Road to avoid the headlight issue and
adding vegetative screening to both sides of it. This could also help make it a
safer intersection. He then submitted a list of approximately 20 names from
neighboring residents in support of the proposal.
Wuttke asked Rue if there was a low visual impact possibility of realigning the
driveway with Topview and, along with the grade changes of Gerard, if there is an
opportunity for a controlled two-way east/west assuming there are concerns for
traffic and sightline visibility around the radiuses of those curves. He also asked
for clarification on the proposed width of the driveway. Rue responded
realignment was considered and initially deemed unnecessary, but that can be
revisited given the concerns brought up this evening. Staff recommends the
driveway be widened to 25 feet and paved with either pervious or bituminous
materials. Bigalke added the initial plan was to have as minimal disturbance to the
property as possible. The 25-foot recommendation is debatable,but the driveway
can certainly be widened to allow for two-way traffic and to increase safety.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 8
Lee stated he could get behind the project with the recommended deed restriction.
He believes having that in place would be in the neighbors' best interest, as well.
Lechelt also supported the project citing great support from the residents. In
particular, she noted the increase in traffic if converted to single-family homes
was a great example. She would like to see safety addressed in the area, perhaps
installing a stop sign to help alleviate neighbors' concerns. Kirk also expressed
favor for the proposal. He initially had traffic concerns but concurred with Lechelt
about the substantial traffic increase additional homes would bring to the
neighborhood. He stated the City should do whatever it can to maintain any
additional green space.
Stoltz asked if City staff agreed with the traffic impact analysis. Franzen said yes.
The conclusion was traffic patterns would not necessitate any widening of the
roads or adding turn lanes or signals. Basically the only change would be different
types of traffic coming in and out of the area at different times of the day.
Stoltz said he wasn't sure he would normally give this type of project his full
support for reasons of wanting to protect the residents, children, and homes in the
neighborhood by keeping it a safe place. After hearing tonight's presentations and
comments,however,he believes all of those things will be preserved. He thinks it
would be good for the City and expressed appreciation for Kaerwer's willingness
to give such a generous donation to the District.
Lee asked if the other commissioners supported the deed restriction or if he was
the only one. Stoltz and Kirk concurred they both felt it was necessary to have
that in place in accordance with alternative#1. Lee inquired if there was a way to
put in the restrictive covenant that the City would have right of first refusal should
the District want to sell the land. Franzen replied yes. Bigalke suggested it would
generate scrutiny if one public entity tried to sell to another public entity. If the
District were to sell, they would look for someone who would be interested in
caring for the property similar to how the District plans to and how Kaerwer has
done it. It would not be a profit-making venture for the District. Stoltz suggested
perhaps Casey include that in the final letters of recommendation.
There were some questions from Bigalke, Wuttke, and Kirk concerning the
language of the deed restriction and how it would be reflected in the motion.
Franzen explained the concept of the deed restriction is what's being considered.
If Council approves the project with a deed restriction, staff will be directed to
draft a development agreement. The staff prepares the document and then it is
sent to the watershed for signatures. After it is signed and executed then it will be
included in City Council packets for final approval.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Wuttke, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Wuttke, to recommend approval of the
Code Amendment to add Governmental Office as a permitted use in the Public
Zoning District, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 9
Residential to Parks/Open Space on 4.24 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan
Change from Low Density Residential to Public/Quasi Public on 1.1 acres,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.32 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 5.32 acres, Zoning District Change from R1-22
to Public on 5.32 acres, Site Plan Review on 5.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
5.32 acres into one lot,based on plans stamped dated August 19, 2010 and the
staff report dated August 20, 2010. Motion carried 5-0.
Stoltz offered congratulations to Kaerwer calling it a big win for the City and the
District.
D. CODE AMENDMENT —PAVEMENT MATERIALS
Franzen reported the Conservation Commission concluded discussion on
pavement materials and voted 5-0 to change the draft code amendment to include
the words "to dispose of or infiltrate all area surface water."
Staff recommends approval of the code amendment. The proposed code language
would replace the current code in its entirety and reads as follows:
"Parking areas, loading areas, and driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous,
concrete, natural stone or other types of concrete stone and pavers and graded to
dispose of or infiltrate all area surface water without damage to private or public
properties, streets, or alleys."
Wuttke inquired if the proposed code language would allow any existing non-
pervious pavement to be replaced by pervious pavement systems. Franzen said
yes, this gives property owners other options besides concrete or bituminous
materials. Wuttke asked if there was anything in the grading guidelines or fill and
infiltration permits specifying contractors be certified. Franzen responded no, it is
up to property owners to hire knowledgeable contractors. Lechelt suggested
adding language along the lines of"to current industry standards" or"to ATSI
standards" to ensure proper drainage. Franzen said the most efficient way to
address that is to make available a how-to handout listing current specifications.
Since those are likely to change over time, it is easier to update the handout rather
than amending the code.
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Kirk, to recommend approval of the
code amendment for pavement materials. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
No report
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 23, 2010
Page 10
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Stoltz congratulated Franzen, City staff, and the commissioners on their efforts in helping
Eden Prairie be named "Best Small City in the Nation", a two-year recognition by Money
Magazine.
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None
X. NEW BUSINESS
None
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Lee moved, seconded by Lechelt, to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0.
Chair Stoltz adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.