Planning Commission - 06/27/2016 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JUNE 27, 2016 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Stoltz, John Kirk, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins,
Charles Weber, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark
Freiberg, Tom Poul
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Rod Rue, City Engineer
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoltz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Weber and Wuttke were absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 23, 2016
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Pieper, to approve the Planning
Commission Minutes. Motion carried 7-0.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. WHITETAIL BLUFF
Location: 10065 Eden Prairie Road
Request for:
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.48 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one lot into two lots on 2.48 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 2
Robert Schmitt, representing Premium Construction, presented the proposal. He
stated they would like to take the existing parcel and split it into two lots. One lot
will include the existing home and the second lot will be for a new single family
home. They are also requesting the property be rezoned to R1-13.5, which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan on this site.
Chair Stoltz asked Klima to review the staff report. Klima said this proposal is to
request a rezoning of the property and subdivide the property from one lot to two
lots. The proposed lots conform to the ordinance requirements. There is a letter in
front of you from Dean and Karen Edstrom for public record.
Staff recommendation is for approval.
Chair Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input.
John Henson, of 18623 Dunberry in Farmington, and Vice President of Toll
Brothers, stated they have property north of the proposed property. They would
like to see this proposal not get approved as it could impact future owners of the lot
remaining north and adjacent to the property. Mr. Henson pointed out this is an
impractical location for the lot. A house placed directly on the setback line would
require a lot of tree removal. He stated they would like to see this not approved
because it would not benefit the neighborhood and no one would purchase a home
with a driveway in their backyard, and pointed out he would lose money on selling
this lotihome. He said if it does get approved they would like the Commission to
look at the driveway because it would be hard as a developer to sell the existing lot,
plus they would like to see the trees replaced and a buffer in the area. Mr. Henson
again stated he is not in favor of this project as he will lose money on selling the lot
that is attached to this property.
Chair Stoltz asked Mr. Henson if he has had conversations with the project
proponent. Mr. Henson said he has not had any conversation with Mr. Schmitt.
Tim Edmund, of 10033 Frederick Place, said his property is most impacted by the
development. He stated himself and Mr. Crowley were the first two homeowners to
pick their sites when this development became available. Mr. Edmund chose his lot
because of the landscaping. He feels this project will be eliminating a lot of the
trees, especially the mature ones. The proposed house only has a 10 foot setback
and they will have one house directly behind them and one in their eyesight. He
stated he is also concerned with drainage issues.
Mike Crowley, of 10021 Frederick Place, stated he had 52 lots to choose from and
picked the lot they live on today. They were told at that time the backyard was City
property and would not be developed. He said he is concerned about the lights
shining in his house at night and also the landscaping that would be depleted. He
stated it will be very crowded and he would like the proposal to not be approved.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 3
Mr. Edmund showed a view from his backyard and said he is concerned with the
tree loss and the impact this will have on his property value.
Klima said the Requested approvals are for the rezoning and the subdivision of
property. The house and drive way locations are provided for illustrative purposes
only and will be determined at the time of building permit review. There are no
variance requests tonight, only a request for rezoning and a second lot. Chair Stoltz
asked what would stipulate them coming back to the Commission. Klima said if the
house, tree replacement and driveway were conforming to Ordinance requirements,
it would not come before the Commission, only if there were variance requests to
be approved.
Kirk commented that is the way the ordinance is set up,but questioned the R1-13.5
zoning and asked if we have R1-22 zoning we could use. Klima stated the applicant
requested the R1-13.5 zoning and stated there is minimal difference regarding the
setbacks from the R1-22 zoning.
Farr wanted an opinion on file for sensitivity to the neighbors. Klima said any
action tonight would go to the City Council and the minutes are always filed as
public record.
Farr asked hypothetically if someone called city hall inquiring about a property in a
neighborhood they were considering for purchase as a matter of due diligence to
find out what is surrounding that parcel, what features can stay and which parcels
may have some variables associated with it,how would staff answer that question.
Klima responded typically when staff receives inquiries from perspective
homeowners, the answer is multifaceted. First the customer is informed about what
the current zoning of the property is and then what the property is guided through
the comprehensive guide plan.
Nicole Walsh-Glaeser, of 9781 Frederick Place, said her property is by the woods
and in the Toll Brothers development and commented she recently lost a lot of trees
and is concerned there will be more tree loss with this development.
Chair Stoltz reiterated tonight they are not discussing the placement of the home,
tree removal and the driveway, only rezoning and subdivision of the land.
Kirk commented the trees that are being discussed tonight are on someone else's
property and stated the Commission does understand the homeowners' concerns
and is confident staff will be sensitive when a building plan is proposed. Higgins
stated she agrees with Kirk in that it is someone else's property, but we as a
Commission can make a recommendation. Higgins also commented she lives in the
area and understands the concern of the neighbors.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 4
Chair Stoltz said a continuance could be put on this proposal so both parties can
meet. Freiberg said he agrees with a continuance and getting both parties together.
Farr said the applicant is a contractor and we have not asked him yet to address the
concerns of the neighbors.
Mr. Schmitt said he sympathizes with the comments and stated when they develop a
lot they try not to eliminate trees. He did state he would not be developing this lot.
He also pointed out Toll Brothers took down a lot of trees and now they want the
trees on the subject property to stay up and he does not feel that is right. He also
said a meeting with them will not help because they cannot guarantee what the
future homeowners of the proposed lot will do.
Duncan Tomassen, of 10065 Eden Prairie Road, said he is echoing Mr. Schmitt's
comments that Toll Brothers did take down a lot of trees.
Farr asked if the Commission could ask the seller to put conditions in the seller's
agreement. Klima said placement of restrictive covenants on the property would
not be a City requirement.
Kirk commented there are very few areas in Eden Prairie that are undeveloped and
any new development would impact someone and said it is unfortunate but the
Commission cannot say no to this development.
Farr said he is not in favor of a continuance. Poul said he would like this proposal
to move forward with modifications. Kirk would also like this to move forward
with language to be included to be sensitive to the adjoining property owners
regarding tree loss and driveway placement. Higgins concurred with Kirk. Pieper
commented it would be hard to put modifications in the proposal but noted he is
sensitive to the adjoining homeowners. He could also vote for a continuance.
Freiberg said he is undecided as he can relate to both sides.
Mr. Schmitt said he put the caliper of trees to be removed on the grading plan. He
showed the trees to be removed and there will only be 12 significant trees removed.
Chair Stoltz said if this proposal is continued, information such as the tree loss may
come out. Kirk said he does not object to a continuance. Higgins said without a
continuance this information detail could still be presented to the neighbors.
Chair Stoltz said if both parties do not get together, there would be no reason for a
continuance,but it would be nice for the homeowners to get together.
Mr. Tomassen stated he does not see the relevance for a continuance. Chair Stoltz
asked Mr. Tomassen if he would meet with the neighboring homeowners if this was
continued. Mr. Tomassen said he would not because he does not see the relevance.
He said they will do everything they can to protect the land and the trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 5
Mr. Henson said he would be willing to work with Mr. Tomassen. He also stated
this is not an appropriate use of property as it is slivering a piece of property that
should not be developed. Farr pointed out this land is not a slivering a piece of land
as it is 85 feet wide and is consistent with other pieces of property in the area, it is
just longer.
Pieper said he feels he can move forward with approving this project.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Poul, to recommend approval of the Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.48 acres and Preliminary Plat of one lot
into two lots on 2.48 acres based on plans stamp dated June 14, 2016 and the
information included in the staff report dated June 22, 2016. Motion carried 6-0-
1; with Chair Stoltz abstaining because he wanted it to go on record he wanted
a continuance.
B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Request to:
• Amend the Comprehensive Plan relating to development densities and
process for high density residential developments.
Klima stated the Metropolitan Council identified an inconsistency within the text
language of the Comprehensive Plan related to medium and high density residential
developments. The Met Council said this inconsistency needs to be corrected prior
to review of any comprehensive guide plan map amendment requests. This
inconsistency exists between the text language in the land use chapter and the
densities provided on the guide plan map. The text of the land use chapter refers to
maximum densities of 6.7 for Medium Density and 17.4 for High Density
Residential. These density ranges are consistent with the density language included
in the zoning ordinance for the RM-6.5 and RM-2.5 zoning districts. However, the
maps included in the Comprehensive Plan indicate maximum densities of 10
units/acre for Medium Density and 40 units per acre for High Density and the
housing chapter includes density ranges extending to 10 and 40 units per acres.
When the Metropolitan Council reviewed the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, it
reviewed based on the density ranges provided in the land use chapter rather than
those indicated on the map or in the housing chapter. Staff is proposing language to
the land use chapter that would allow medium density residential densities up to 10
units/acre and high density residential densities up to 40 units per acre. Densities
proposed ranging from 6.8 — 10 units/acre in the medium density and 17.5 —40 in
the high density area would require the review of a PUD. The proposed language is
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2016
Page 6
consistent with the practice that has been used for previous development projects as
noted in the staff report. Staff recommendation is for approval.
Chair Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Kirk commented he thought this was a reasonable fix.
MOTION: Pieper moved, seconded by Farr, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION: Pieper moved, seconded by Kirk, to recommend approval of amending
the Comprehensive Plan relating to development densities and process for medium
and high density residential developments based on the information included in the
staff report dated June 22, 2016. MOTION carried 7-0.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Poul, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried 7-0.
Vice Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 8:16p.m.