Planning Commission - 03/11/2019 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner;
Matthew Bourne, Parks and Natural Resources
Manager; Carter Schulze, Assistant City Engineer;
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
A. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent were commission
members Pieper and Weber.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
D. MINUTES
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of February
11, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
E. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
F. PUBLIC MEETINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BEVERLY HILL
Location: 9800 Eden Prairie Rd and 16540 Beverly Drive
Request for:
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres
• Preliminary Plat of two lots into seventeen lots and two outlots on 6.86
acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 2
John Anderson, project manager, displayed a PowerPoint and explained the
application. Mark Gergen, also present, was the proposed owner of the property
and Great Oakes 2nd, LLC, the developer. The application called for a 17-lot
single family detached subdivision north of Beverly Drive and west of Eden
Prairie Road. The 15-foot strip of land to the north was owned by D. R. Horton,
developer of High Pointe at Riley Creek. The Minnesota Airport Commission
(MAC) property also sat to the north. An existing house along Eden Prairie Road
would remain,but two other structures, one along Beverly Lane and the other at
the center of the parcel where the cul-de-sac would be located would be
demolished. Anderson displayed the preliminary plat and explained the street had
yet to be named. In addition to the 11 lots on the cul-de-sac, there would be three
lots along Beverly Drive and three along Eden Prairie Road (plus the remaining
northern lot). A storm water pond/retention and infiltration area would be
constructed on a triangular parcel to the northwest, and another infiltration basin
would lie along Eden Prairie Road.
The site plan showed the placements of the houses and the basins, as well as the
existing house that would remain. The grading plan showed most of the houses
would be walk-out structures on the cul-de-sac, with flat lots along Eden Prairie
Road and Beverly Drive. Constructing a cul-de-sac allowed the developer to
retain many of the trees in this wooded area. The landscape plan called for
replacement plantings of 150 trees that would be removed,but even more trees
would need to be removed were a through street constructed instead of a cul-de-
sac. Anderson explained how the development conformed to the City's lot
standards and zoning; lot sizes were variable to accommodate the grading and
frontages of the site. Covenants and architectural guidelines would apply to home
construction and would be submitted with the application. All homes would be
constructed by custom builders,be a mix of two-story and rambler styles, and
range in price from approximately $500,000.00 to $900,000.00, or even higher on
the cul-de-sac. Anderson stated he and the owner took no issue with the
conditions in the staff report, and they were working with D.R. Horton on an
agreement about the easement to the north to construct a sidewalk from the cul-
de-sac to Prospect Road.
Mette asked if Anderson's company was the custom builder. Anderson replied
Great Oakes 2nd, LLC would hire the contractor and sell lots to a custom builder.
He was in communication with local builders with whom he had previously
worked. He envisioned one or two builders for the development.
Farr asked if lot eight on the preliminary plat had a utility easement which seemed
to contradict the site plan. Anderson replied in the original submittal and on the
grading plan lots eight, nine, 13, and 14 had a water collection basin utility
easement originally planned to have an outlet to the pond,but after the last round
of comments, this easement would be eliminated, and the development would be
able to drain along Beverly Drive instead. Farr noted this would save a heritage
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 3
30-inch red cedar(tree 71)previously slated for removal and commended the
change. Farr stated tree 75 was another heritage tree slated for removal in lot 14
and asked if this could also be saved. Anderson agreed to look at this possibility;
there were tight grades on this location but he could speak to the engineer about
shortening the wall.
Klima presented the staff report. The applicant requested a rezoning and a
preliminary plat for 17 detached, single family residential lots to be known as
Beverly Hill. The site was approximately 6.8 acres and consisted of two existing
single family homes and accessory structures. The proposal complied with all
zoning, setback, and lot size requirements and was consistent with the guiding for
low density residential development. The proposed density was 2.47 units per
acre. No PUD approval or waivers are requested as a part of the applications.
Staff and the developer were working to provide a pedestrian connection between
lots three and four to Prospect Road. City staff consistently recommended to
potential developer the assembly of properties and looking at economies of scale
and roadway connections in developments in this area. Architectural guidelines
were included in the staff report, and the applicant was proposing restrictive
covenants.
Staff had received comments from MAC, due to its proximity; no alarms were
raised, and conditions included noise attenuation, (non-fruit bearing) tree planting,
et cetera. There could be additional conditions set prior to the City Council
meeting,but nothing out of the ordinary. The staff report included language on
inclusionary housing, although the Planning Commission was not being asked to
make a recommendation on this at this time; this was,rather, an opportunity to
initiate this conversation with the developer.
Villarreal asked if there was anything to stop this developer from asking for
duplexes. Klima replied the site was guided for low density, and attached
duplexes not allowed in the R-1 zoning districts. Villarreal suggested there was an
opportunity to expand the type of housing constructed on these open spaces to
make the best use of acreage. DeSanctis asked what would give access to the new
city park to the northeast of the development. Bourne replied there was a trail and
a sidewalk along Eden Prairie Road, perhaps a quarter or half of a mile in length.
Farr asked if best efforts had been made to assemble multiple properties and
Klima reiterated staff s message has been consistent that assembly is preferred
and of mutual benefit to the City and developers, and she was confident this had
been explored.
Chris Bunn, of 9850 Eden Prairie Road, stated he was a resident since 1998 and
was not aware of this development until October, 2018 when he reached out to
Gergen. He stated the lots proposed were inconsistent with the lots in the area.
Whereas the average did not show this, the standard deviation, i.e., having both
very small and very large lots, was large and would have a disparate impact on the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 4
area. The setbacks were also inconsistent with the zoning, and to his mind the
developer was making the greatest use of the land at his expense, since no other
neighbor was as close as he was to this development. Two additional units were
never accounted for in the assessments, and these would be subsidized by current
property owners. This development seemed similar to Stable Path, but no builder
was identified and he was concerned about what kind of architecture and housing
values would go into these lots without more details provided up front. He also
did not see how such small lots as called for in this development met the"2.5
units per acre" requirement of the guiding.
Dan Blake, of 16831 Cedar Crest Drive and owner of Pemtom Land Company,
stated the developer never contacted him about the assembly. He asked if there
was a mechanism for a discussion about and enforcement of architectural
guidelines and dedicated builders outside of a PUD. He was also concerned about
the zoning, this parcel being R1-9.5 whereas surrounding parcels were zoned R1-
13.5. Transitions could be important or not,but they were not discussed.
Otherwise, he had no opposition to this development. He agreed with no northerly
extension of the street through the site; however, to his mind this reduced options
in the future for Prospect Road connections.
Farr clarified Blake owned the 1.6 to 1.8 acres north of the development site and
east of Eden Prairie Road.
Collin Gebhard, of 16723 Beverly Drive, stated he had understood Cirrus Way
would never be connected due to the constraints of MAC,but wanted to urge
consideration of a connection to Prospect Drive.
Meher Medida, of 16627 Beverly Drive, stated he was concerned with traffic.
Prospect Road was already busy in winter, and feared the position of the cul-de-
sac would increase traffic. He urged this development conform to those City
guidelines as well.
Farr asked Schulze to detail the grade and slope of Beverly Drive and the cul-de-
sac. Schulze replied the intersection of the cul-de-sac with Beverly Drive was
within City's standards and could be found elsewhere in the City. There would be
a landing constructed allowing motorists to slow and stop on a less grade. Farr
asked for and received confirmation there was no unusually high volume of
accidents on Beverly Drive, even with the recent harsh winter. Farr asked if the
City ever planned to extend Prospect Road and what options were available.
Schulze replied the City looked at preliminary designs of a connection at Eden
Prairie Road, wrapping the westerly edge of Prospect Road into Cirrus Way, or a
connection of Prospect Road to Eden Prairie Road somehow, perhaps with second
cul-de-sac, and added a connection with Cirrus Way was not out of the question.
He did not have a timetable for any of these options.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 5
Mette asked if this property was completely assembled and a blank slate, how
would one provide a connection. Klima replied the City and developers had done
preliminary review and there was no singular option. The concern here was to
preserve and reserve opportunities to make a connection in the future via a
flexible design that accommodated overall City goals and development proposals.
Farr asked for an explanation of the covenants to enforce new construction. Klima
replied private covenants recorded against the property and would not be enforced
by the City but recorded against the property. The zoning ordinance does not have
architectural and building material standards for single family residential
developments as it did for commercial construction. Another option was to have
specific language regarding architectural and material diversity built into the
development agreement, and staff was working on this. Farr asked Klima for
more details on special transitions between different zoning classifications. Klima
replied the City has a variety of single-family zoning districts, and there were
multiple instances of an R1-9.5 abutting an R1-13.5 designation and other R1
districts abutting each other. The City strove to provide transitions where
appropriate. In this case a transition zone was being provided, through a variety of
lot sizes and many factors went into this. All the lot dimensions conformed to the
R-19.5 standards.
Villarreal asked the difference between the mean and the average of the lot sizes.
Klima replied she did not have specific numbers but could provide broader
context as to how density is calculated: Eden Prairie calculated density based on
the gross area of a development site, including storm water treatment areas, park
land, etcetera. Historically this was how all density calculations were done since
the 1980s, perhaps the 1970s, and was done in this case. The number of lots
assembled did fall into the 2.5 units per acre density requirement for this zoning
classification. Farr noted it was not within the commission's purview to tackle the
assessments issue but asked for comments from staff. Schulze stated when Eden
Prairie Road was being put it this was likely the best determination at the time
based on potential future development. Klima recommended Mr. Bunn contact the
City Engineer's Office if there were further questions.
Villarreal asked Anderson to what extent did he expect these houses to be
developed with or prepared for charging units in the garages for electric vehicles.
Anderson replied this was not a standard at this point,but was also not prohibited.
Each house would be customized for the individual buyer. He and Gergen would
have an ongoing relationship with the development,but the location of the
electrical panels would be based on the locations of the boxes, which would be
based on the location of the utilities. Villarreal replied since Xcel would have to
upgrade the distribution system of neighborhood, and asked who would be
responsible for aligning the construction of the houses to the electrical grid.
Anderson replied the builder would design the house, and he and Gergen who was
also a licensed realtor would work with the builder. The design came from the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 6
electric company, and he had asked staff for a list of utility contacts. Once the
design was received he could look at where the transformers and panels would go,
but typically that came with the design. Villarreal urged having an optimal panel
placement to accommodate electric charging garages. He also asked where and at
what height new trees would go in. Rooftop solar was more beneficial facing
south and southwest, and he urged the developer to consider planning for the
impact of shading. Anderson replied rooftop solar was not part of the
considerations, and there were not many lots that could take advantage of a
south/southwest facing. A variety of trees were to be planted, and a developer
could not do much with the dense tree cover to the west of the development.
Farr asked Anderson to summarize the neighborhood meeting held. Anderson
replied 15-20 residents, mostly within the neighborhood, attended. Most questions
dealt with house size, price points, and possible debris and dirt from construction.
He and Gergen provided business cards and contact information. There had been
additional general questions regarding access and traffic on Beverly Drive during
construction, traffic shut down on Eden Prairie Road (which he did not foresee
happening), et cetera.
Farr replied he received mixed results regarding Anderson's best efforts to contact
other property owners regarding the assemblage and asked Anderson to describe
the larger process and the reaction of the other property owners. Anderson replied
the project began late summer, 2018. He met with City staff to discuss a cul-de-
sac versus a through road. Anderson did not contact Bunn, since he could split his
property nevertheless, nor the property owners to the north, a property that was
not adjacent to this one. The 40-50 foot drop in elevation at lots 6 and 7 downhill
prevented a through road, requiring removing many trees to reconcile elevations.
A cul-de-sac was the better solution. The D. R. Horton site would not benefit the
developer so they did not acquire that site and it would not affect Cirrus Way or
Prospect Road. He added there came a point where one could spend money on
items that looked rational on paper but did not truly benefit the site, especially
since a steep hill was a challenge. Farr asked him to clarify what was meant by a
"barrier lot" on the D. R. Horton site. Anderson replied he spoke to the owners in
2018 and received some possible prices. There was electric, gas and cable in that
lot. He did not know why it was still owned; to his mind it should have been
dedicated as an outlot. Farr asked staff for D. R Horton's existing utilities and the
ability to grade from this property. Schulze replied he was not fully aware of what
was there. However, generally utilities were within four feet of the surface and
would present a challenge for connecting a road. Farr questioned forethought on
development when the utilities went in. Schulze replied a road connection may
have been considered, but the likelihood the utilities were buried deep enough for
this was low.
Bunn approached again for a further comment. He objected to the blanket
approval of lots by the commission and the loose obligations of the builder; the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 7
City had no specific agreement as to what to enforce regarding the style of houses
constructed. The development called for two additional driveways on Eden Prairie
Road. He understood there would be no more driveways on this road; another
property had constructed a long driveway specifically to avoid opening out on
Eden Prairie Road. He was concerned about precedent being set here, and asked if
neighboring parcels such as his could enjoy the same zoning and subdivide his lot.
Farr replied Bunn's property was not subject to this development, but he
encouraged Bunn to contact zoning staff regarding a potential subdivision of his
property. Bunn's site had frontage on two roads: Eden Prairie Road and Beverly
Lane. The commission was voting on a rezoning and preliminary plat only. The
commission was not reviewing a site plan of architectural standards; staff had
worked hard with the developer to make this a voluntary agreement. He asked
staff to comment on the additional driveways to be constructed on Eden Prairie
Road. He understood this to be driven by topographical features. Schulze replied
this section of Eden Prairie Road had relatively low traffic volume and their
addition did not contribute to traffic or safety issues.
DeSanctis stated Flying Cloud Drive was under phased construction and asked for
the anticipated traffic volume once the connector was complete. He asked if a
traffic study was planned. Schulze replied traffic would grow on Flying Cloud
Drive, but traffic had actually decreased in recent years and the addition of 16
units on this cul-de-sac would not make much difference. No traffic study was
planned at this time. Farr asked if any speed limit triggered a recommended a
driveway T-bone instead of backing out. Schulze replied on this 30-mile-an-hour
road this was not needed. Villarreal asked what usually triggered a traffic study.
Schulze replied more commercial type development typically triggered one. The
lowest tier trigger was around 100 trips; this would not rise to that level. This
could change in the future; perhaps an analysis rather than a study would be done.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Villarreal to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
Villarreal stated on the whole cul-de-sac made sense to him. Bunn was concerned
there were too many lots shoehorned into this section and added a traffic study
should be considered, being that more houses could be added along Beverly Road
in the future. Higgins noted there were lots across Eden Prairie Road that were
very large, and this development could trigger subdivisions there in the future.
Kirk stated there were always tradeoffs in development, and the commission
strove to find the best balance. He hoped the developer would maintain the R1-
13.5 setbacks. Traffic was always stated an issue,but rarely was it a major one in
a residential area. DeSanctis stated the concept was reasonable,but he aired his
concerns: how this development contributed to affordable housing, and the long
term City plan of sustainability and carbon mitigation. He urged the inclusion of
language to the development agreement for solar, e-vehicles and smart homes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2019
Page 8
Mette stated this was the best plan for a site which presented unique grade
challenges. She had no problem with the zoning; the lots along Eden Prairie Road
could not be configured differently due to the nature of the site and drove the lot
size disparity. It would generate a tax base while offering a future ability to
connect Prospect Road. She did not see a reason to eliminate two homes.
Affordable housing was not as yet a requirement and was the most challenging
policy to enforce for single family detached units. Higgins noted there had been
adequate effort to satisfy City requirements on a site that had been highly sought
after by developers, and encouraged Bunn to further communicate with City staff.
Farr commended the site plan for preserving trees. He appreciated DeSanctis's
and Villarreal's concerns on sustainability, and had confidence in City
engineering staff to design roads properly, especially in single-family residential
areas. He saw no safety concerns and had no objection to the zoning change.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Mette to recommend approval of the zoning
district change from rural to R1-9.5 on 6.86 acres and the preliminary plat of the
two lots into 17 lots and two outlots on 6.86 acres based on the staff report dated
March 7, 2019 and plans stamp-dated March 1, 2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-1
with one nay vote (Villarreal).
H. PLANNERS' REPORT
I. MEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CONTINUING BUSINESS
K. NEW BUSINESS
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Villarreal moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn the meeting. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0. Chair Farr adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m.