Good evening. I'm calling the Monday, November 17, 2025 Planning Commission meeting to order. Will everyone please rise for pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you everyone. All right. First item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Do I have any requests for changes tonight? Seeing none, entertain a motion to approve the agenda for the evening. >> Motion to approve the agenda. Do >> I have a second? All those in favor of approve the agenda, say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Agenda is approved. All right. We have minutes from It's been a while. September 22nd, 2025. If anyone remembers back to that. Do you have any concerns about the minutes or edits or entertain a motion to approve those minutes? >> So move. >> All right. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor approve the minutes say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. All right, the minutes from 9:22 are approved. We have two public hearings this evening. Uh the first is a code amendment shoreline ordinance 2025-02CA. This amendment to chapter 11 section 11.50 shoreland ordinance. A code amendment to repeal city code section 11.50 in its entirety and replace with a new city code section 11.50 50 to better align with the 2022 model shoreland ordinance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Jeremy, will you be kicking this off for us? >> Yeah, thank you, Chair, Commissioners. Patrick Sakura, our water resources engineer, will be handling the presentation and be ready for any questions after. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Commissioners, how everyone doing today? >> Very good. Um, so my name is Patrick Sakura. the water resources engineer at the city. Uh Lori Hack who is our water resources coordinator who worked you you know was the main staff person who uh prepared the Shorland code uh amendment. She's under the weather today so I'm subbing in for her. So bear with me as I uh you know kind of go through the uh what we're proposing in terms of revising our Shorland code. So a little bit about our Shorland code. It is section 11.50 50 of our city code under zoning. Um, and you might be asking yourself, well, what is the shoreland? Um, it's maybe something that you don't, you know, it is part of our zoning, but it's maybe something we don't hear of every day. Uh, so shoreland is basically we have 19 lakes, one river, and four creeks, which compose our city shoreland. Um, and areas within a,000 ft of a lake or 300 feet of one of the creeks or rivers is what we would consider our shoreland zone. Um, you know, with Eden Prairie, you might not think we have tons of lakes or shoreland resources, but it actually ends up being a pretty significant size of our city. You have almost nearly 50% of our city within the shoreland zones, which is a pretty fair amount. So, it actually has some, you know, some pretty um, you know, it comes up actually more often than you think when we look at, you know, what folks want to do with, you know, whether it's a single family home or in development. So, what are the goals of the Shorland code amendment? Um, the number one thing we want to do is want to better comply with what the DNR um, and you know, state rules are. So, shorling code does come from there are statutes for a shoreline code. Uh but the DNR also has a model ordinance. Uh our original code dates back to 1982 and we've had some revisions since in 1996 and 2004, but in 2022 they came out with a new model ordinance. So this is really just um you know and the DNR uh comes to communities and so communities administer the shoreland code with guidance from the DNR. So the DNR kind of sets what the rules and expectations are for communities as they administer this code. Um and that model ordinance is intended to basically well be the model. Um you know we could approve that model ordinance you know as you know it is presented but you know when it comes to a community like Eden Prairie where we've been developed for a while um you know that maybe isn't the best fit for us. So we uh Lori and myself and uh with other staff from planning engineering took a look and kind of uh wanted to kind of fine-tune it. So it essentially is codifying our existing practice. So we as we see developments come through, work with homeowners, the the goal is to really just have the new code reflect what our you know long-standing practices for shoreland code or for shoreland management have been. um with the new model ordinance there wasn't a lot of similarity between the format of our current shorland code and what the you know the model is so we are actually going to repeal and replace the entire thing there are many you know rather than it would have gotten pretty convoluted to you know have it uh say section A is now section F I'm just kind of giving you know you know broad examples so uh it's just easier to use and it better aligns with the DNR to fully repeal and just replace it with this modified model ordinance. So, the main changes, uh, we worked extensively with the DNR on getting approval of what our kind of minor tweaks to the shoreland uh, model ordinance were. Uh, one thing that's prettyformational, especially if you're a homeowner, you may not, you know, maybe you're living next to Duck Lake or Mitchell Lake. Uh, you may not know what your ordinary high water level is, and it's not exactly the easiest thing to find. you may end up kind of going to the DNR's website. Um, we'll add the ordinary high water levels. Those are the levels that really essentially kind of determine where uh, you know, riparian resources are. So, those for our lakes though where we have ordinary high water levels, that will be put into the code. Um, with our older shoreline code, the uh, classification for uh, streams, they were uh, classified as general waters. uh that classification is no longer pertinent. Uh DNRs change nomenclatures. Uh so they'll be called either tributaries or transitions. So we wanted to make sure that the uh updated code aligned with that nomenclature. Um there's going to be some changes to water oriented accessory structures. Our current shoreline code actually didn't align with the model ordinance. So our um updated [clears throat] model or our or updated code will align with the model ordinance. We're going to add vegetation management plan requirements when it comes to doing work in shoreland is a pretty sensitive resource whether it's a bluff or it's uh you know people working in close uh proximity to the water. Uh we're going to have some requirements in there for getting a vegetation management plan which is a permit you apply from you know get from the city to do work uh and do modifications in there and that kind of codifies what exactly that practice is. Um the biggest thing here um is the impervious surface. Uh we're fi we're refining our definition. Uh our current definition really kind of there was some nebulous areas about what exactly was impervious uh versus pvious. So impervious surfaces uh those are traditionally driveways, roofs, uh things like that, pools. Uh you know things like decks can get a little bit dicey. Uh some may have like under decking or things like that. So we wanted to uh refine that definition to allow for a more consistent application of the uh shorelink code. Uh we also wanted to create some flexibility and this is kind of goes along with codifying our existing practices. You know when we look at Eden Prairie it was developed you know as the shoreline code developed. Uh so we have a lot of you know you look at the mall there's portions of the mall that are in the shoreline. Um these are areas that you know whether it's commercial or industrial they're pretty heavily um they're uses where you might expect a lot of impervious. So our current uh 30% resulted in a number of waiverss and things like that. So we worked with the DNR and provide some good justification for moving towards uh something that we think will reduce the number of waiverss variances and that would be uh a 30% impervious coverage for all rural or R1 zoned uh law parcels and then 70% in all other zones. And so with that, the requested action from uh staff is to approve the ordinance as drafted. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any initial questions, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yeah, Commissioner Far. I have a few if you don't mind. >> Sure. Of course. Uh first of all, as a consumer of the city code, I really appreciate you guys adopting a common template language for uh you know, from city to city. makes it easier for us to see the differences between city and city. The more they are the same, the better for us. Um, so I have a couple kind of user oriented questions here. Uh, when you talked about the definition of shoreland there, I read it here in the in the uh notes and it says 100,000 feet from ordinary high water level of lake, pond or flowage. And so you have a nice tabulation a few pages later of all the lakes and a couple ponds in the city. uh I didn't read anything more about flowage and it didn't it wasn't italicized so it wasn't a defined term so I looked in the definitions other parts of the ordinance and I saw a similar word called floodway which isn't flowage but it's close >> and so I was just trying to figure out if there's a reason why flowage either wasn't defined or how close it is to a floodway and if we should be concerned about that because it's not tabulated as a lake or pond. >> Thanks Commissioner Far. Uh that's a really good question. So flowage uh so I guess just circle back we uh you know the goal behind this was to adopt the model ordinance and so the definition of uh like I said we did make a few tweaks to the model ordinance that definition comes straight from the DNR. So I actually uh looked and see saw if there was a definition of flowage in the DNR model ordinance. There is not. Um that being said when we staff was working with the DNR to identify what our so as part of our process we kind of took a broader look and said are all shoreland resources accounted for. So that's one of the steps that we took with the DNR through the process of getting the you know their blessing on this. They didn't identify anything beyond what we already have um you know in terms of um you know our current lakes, our rivers and streams. So in terms of flowage, it's going to be kind of this uh vestigial part. So I don't see in our actual day-to-day application it being um you know that pertinent to this. Um and that being said, I also don't see us getting any flowages. It's my understanding that they're kind of akin to a reservoir. Um I understand that there is some uh you know similarity to the word flood plane. flood plane only comes into the shoreland in some certain circumstances, usually around uh the streams and the river because there is that 300 foot buffer around the ordinary high water of a stream or a river. Uh flood wave or you know flood plane is the one area where you can extend beyond that. So if like let's say you know usually you have a you [clears throat] know flood plane within that 300 foot buffer. If there's like a wide flood plane like a wetland that extends beyond that, the shoreline extends accordingly. So that's the the definition there. >> Okay, great. Thank you. So then as the words then relate to the graphics later on in the document, you have a protected what is it called? Protected landmand boundary around all of the lakes, ponds, and potentially flowage. Do you know if there are any flowages that made the uh outlined of the shoreland or was it only >> floods and streams? >> Uh it's just in terms of defining the shoreland it is the flood plane not the flowage. >> Okay. All right. Enough of that. Okay. Thanks. Um next question I have is about just the scoping of the section. Um and uh you probably know this by heart. I don't but it uh I want to say subdivision seven um general performance standards. It starts out by saying uh dot da all new riparian lots must meet the minimum lot area and width requirements dot dot dot basically meet meet the performance standards. And so this this new ordinance or however we're tweaking it applies to new lots, which to me is a a platting process, which would be the trigger as opposed to a redevelopment project on an existing parcel. If they go through redevelopment, they wouldn't necessarily be scoped to to provide these performance standards. Is that correct? >> That is correct. So, if a let's say we had a development come in that was a riparian uh lot. So, it already has one use on it and we get go through a city process uh to you know get a different use or you know maybe there's just uh you know additions or things like that that trigger that city process there wouldn't be a requirement for them to conform to that lot width the minimum lot width. So like they we wouldn't require them to somehow obtain additional property to meet that. So they would essentially be grandfathered in. So it wouldn't apply. >> Okay. I'll throw out the term existing non-conforming. It would just come in like that and be be grandfathered. >> Well, based on the the way the ordinance is written, if the property was created before January 1st, 226, the code allows that lot to be the size that it is. And that only refers to the lot area and the lot width. Those are the standards in that section. >> Yep. Um, so it wouldn't even necessarily be legal non-conforming. It would be conforming. >> Okay, >> in that in that respect. >> Okay, that that helps. Thank you. Um, one last really easy one. Um, there's [clears throat] another table further on down uh in also in subdivision 7 E1D. Anyway, it talks about um setbacks, additional structure setbacks. And so there's a top of bluff setback, a setback from a cemetery. Okay. [laughter] And then and then setbacks to rideways. Well, I think of the ride ofway as the other side of the property than the lake or pond or stream, right? This would be like the front yard versus the backyard. >> And as an architect, I go into the standard performance standard portion of the city code to find out what my front yard setback is. And that's where I expect to find this information. So this seems like a little hidden stumbling block for me because I would never think of going here to look for a front yard setback. >> Sure. And you're absolutely correct in that usually when we look at shoreline code, we're administering it to the rear yard. You know, that's where the lake is in 99% of cases is going to be or the river or creek. Um so you're correct that there is and this again is you know a portion of the DNR model ordinance that we are adopting. We do have different standards for uh setback from the right ofway elsewhere in city code for all but the town center and to zoning districts. It's actually more restrictive than what the shoreland is. So in 95 99% of cases uh where applicants or you know users would be typically looking they'll get the correct information and with tod or town center where there is this kind of like I guess you know discrepancy we would uh look to work with the developer um and you know seeing where waiverss may or variances may be applicable. >> Okay. All right. And to the extent, maybe this is just a wish list or advice, but um a lot of times in other codes, especially building codes, they'll have footnotes to tables which say that there could be changes to the published data in this chart in other pointed places to go look. And that would be maybe a helpful thing to add to the standard performance uh criteria for zoning districts if you could add a footnote to say, "Hey, there's something going on in >> in the shortland district." So, for what that's worth. Okay. Thanks. I'm done. Appreciate it, chair. >> Thanks. Other questions, comments? I had one. Um, so we we're doing this to align with the DNR. Um, is there any places that we're more restrictive than what the DNR requires? That's a great question. Uh there are actually areas where we are more restrictive than what the DNR requires. One of them is actually with some of those uh lot or setbacks from ordinary high waters and uh lot widths. We are more rest more restrictive than that. We also are generally more restrictive uh in terms of how we apply the shoreline code. Uh typically, you know, if you were to ask, you know, the DNR um shorland ends with where that buffer ends. So you could have a lot that you know is clipped and only you know that part that is clipped would you know the impervious rule is really the big one there. Uh that impervious rule would only apply to that portion that is clipped not the entire parcel. But the long-standing practice in Eden Prairie has been that the entire parcel is actually you know if you're clipped the whole parcel is in the shoreland. So we are more restrictive in that regard in that basically you know we have some additional areas that would be outside the typical purview uh that where we're regulating you know the again the main thing there is impervious um another thing is with bluffs we are actually more restrictive in terms of our bluffs bluffs are a very sensitive resource when it comes to erosion so we want to make sure that we're taking some extra steps to protect bluffs within the city so you know this typical shoreland ordinance Um, you can have some structures within the structure setback if that structure setback really only applies to the principal structure. Ours would apply to all structures. Uh, there's also we're more restrictive on what can be done in terms of clearing in a bluff or in a bluff impact zone. Um, and we also look at bluffs. So if a bluff, you know, there's a pretty extensive definition about what goes into a bluff, but part of it is it has to be in the a portion of this bluff has to be in the shoreland. Uh again, if you were to look ask a DNR, you know, staff person where the bluff ends, they'd say at the end of the shoreland zone, you know, even if the slope keeps continuing, you know, outside the shoreland zone, we look at the top of the bluff. you know, portion of that bluff, kind of similar to our parcel rule with impervious. If a portion of that bluff is in the shoreland, the bluff continues up to the top. So, in those regards, we're more restrictive than the the DN DNR. >> And so, in those instances, it's it's really been city practice, though. So, nothing's really changing that. >> Correct. >> Align what we've always done. >> Yep. So, that again, that aligns with uh codifying our existing practices. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward and speak for against this amendment, please do so. Now, not seeing anyone, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Move to close the public hearing. >> All right. Do I have a second to close the public hearing? I'll second that, chair. We have a second. All those in favor close the public hearing, say, "I." >> I. I. >> Opposed. Public hearing is closed. Does anyone want to have further discussion or comments on this or would someone like to make a motion? [snorts] >> Mr. Chairman, >> move to recommend approval for repealing and replacing the city code section 11.50 as recommended by staff represented in the November 17th, 2025 staff report. >> I have a motion for approval from Commissioner Kirk. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a second. Okay. >> I think uh Commissioner Taylor, do you second? >> Yes. >> All right. Second. Any other further discussion or concerns? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Would anyone like to abstain? All right. Thank you. Nice job tonight. All right. Um let's see. We have a second public hearing this evening. Thank you. >> Paper over here. Code amendment site plan review 2025-03CA. Amendment to chapter 11 section 11.47 site plan review ordinance. A code amendment to amend city code section 11.47 subdivision 4 to prescribe a review process commiserate with the scale and scope of the project aligning Eden Prairie with the practices in peer cities. Will you kick this one off Jeremy or will you be taking us through this one? Yeah, I'll take this one. Thank you, chair, commissioners. Uh, this amendment primarily classifies or clarifies the review process for most of our projects, site plans, um, parking lot expansions, landscape changes, um, not really any changes to the subdivision process, but we really wanted to try to make the process simpler for projects of a relatively simple scope. Um so the chart that's on your screen there basically the changes that we're recommending are in green which is we're um we're the ordinance would change uh uh facade changes that are that are conforming would be reviewed and approved by staff. Um if they don't conform then you obviously we're looking at a waiver and then the planning commission the council would weigh in on those. Same thing with conforming parking lot and landscaping requirements or changes. again conforming uh we can approve those from a staff perspective as an administrative process. What that means that administrative process does not mean a back room checking off making sure everything's approved. We have a site plan review committee, basically our development review committee that meets weekly and we review projects to make sure that they conform to all aspects of of our code. And that uh committee includes engineers, planners, fire department, personnel, landscaping folks, um all reviewing a project to make sure that it it meets their code. Um a notable change based on this ordinance is the conforming building expansions. U currently the code allows uh up to 10% or 2,000 square feet um can be reviewed by the city council only um from a building expansion. What we're proposing is is the city staff can can review um building expansions up to 10% of the gross floor area. Um the city council would only review or the city council only, not not you folks as a planning commission, but the city council would review um expansions that are between 10 and 50% of the gross floor area of a given building. And then obviously the full review for an expansion or in a building addition would be reviewed by the planning planning commission and city council. That's the the middle green bar there in your screen there. Um and then obviously building demolitions is the opposite of a building expansion. So when you start tearing down portions of the building, um city staff can review uh up to 10% of those demolitions and um anything greater than that would be reviewed by the city council. Now, of course, usually from a development demolition perspective, those are part of a larger plan. Um, last year, I think about this time, we reviewed Planet Fitness project that tore down half of an Office Depot or Office Max, I always forget which one. Um, tore down half of that and replaced it with some other projects within the building, the Starbucks at the time. So, obviously, you would see the whole thing um as kind of a larger project, but if that project just came in as its own, tore down half that building, staff um could potentially approve that depending on the size. Um, this also I want to point out from a demo building demolition standpoint. This only applies to those projects that we received site plan approval. So buildings u single family homes don't need site plan approval. You can tear those down without uh this full process. Also, if a building is deemed unsafe from a building code or fire code perspective, obviously the ordinance would allow those to be demolished um immediately. uh because of those are life safety issues. Um coming back to the conforming building expansions, you may ask yourself kind of what other projects have we kind of reviewed more recently. Um the um couple years ago there was a a project on Wallace Road where the facade changed um conforming um you it went through the planning commission the city council process I believe um that would just be approved administratively because that was a conforming the changed class one material from one type of class one material to another class type of class one material excuse me um and so staff could approve those moving forward a holiday and express a couple years ago they added a pool um that was about 4% of the gross floor area that went through the full planning commission and the full city council process city staff could approve that type of change both of these projects did not trigger any waivers I want to highlight any waivers obviously would go through the full process this does not give staff approval to wave certain requirements um I think that's it in a nutshell I'd be happy to answer any questions. But basically what we're trying to do is posture ourselves such that we're supportive of the business community that wants to reinvest in the property in in the properties um and not um kind of add undo red tape and process to to what to what value. Um so that's kind of our goal here is to kind of help things along a little bit. Stand for any questions. >> Thank you Jeremy. Uh questions Commissioner Kirk. Uh Jeremy, so a a um um public hearing only comes into play for the full review for the the um the we're not proposing to take away any necessarily public hearings. If if it's going to be reviewed by the stat or by the um by the city council, um there would be a public hearing at the city council level. >> So they would they would call for a public hearing at at the point in time. Okay. >> So, our full review, just just so you know, the full review includes two public hearings. There's one at the planning commission and one at the city council level. When it skips the planning commission, basically takes a month off that review process. Council still has a public hearing. >> Okay? >> Unless they've um changed the code, but right now we're proposing a public hearing there. There's not a public hearing, of course, for any um >> city staff. >> More of an internal review for the Y. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions, comments, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Far. Yep. So, um, two things. Uh, first of all, I've gone through the development review process in a lot of cities before and and that's a great process to simplify this and I appreciate the red tape uh, uh, reduction for applicants. And so, this is all all thumbs up to me. Um, and just for the record, I know that you guys do a great job, all cities do, of documenting the results of the DRC findings so that that can be if if not public record, it could be made available later if someone questions the whole backdoor uh decision-making process that you alluded to. It's not back door at all, in fact. And so, uh, the findings that happen in that session, I think, are valuable for anybody to go back and and nod their head to and say, "Yep, they checked all the boxes." >> Yeah. Often we will add comments or provide feedback to the >> application. Yep. Yep. So, so thank you for doing that. And a lot of cities do. um regarding the conforming building expansions that green bar in the middle of your chart there again as compared to then the second thing you talked about building demolition. I'm an advocate of keeping things as simple as possible and it just seems like the three different pathways between the 10% and then 10 to 50% and then over 50% seems like an overkill and it adds a little more complication to her than it than it actually needs to be. So, I would have a tendency to suggest that maybe there's two different choices of a conforming building expansion. If if 10% is what you want to do administratively, fine. And then either either let the city council take care of everything greater than 10% or include the planning commission in everything greater than 10%. Either way would be fine by me, but just like three different uh categories of a building expansion just seems like an overkill. Sure. >> My two cents or whatever you no pennies anymore. So, thank you, chair. You're welcome. All right. Any other questions or comments? All right. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to come forward and speak for against this amendment, please do so now. Not seeing anyone. Entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. >> All right. Do I have a second to close public hearing? >> I'll second that. >> Miss second to close. All those in favor of closing say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Public hearing's closed. Further discussion. >> Seems like good changes. >> It look like it'll help expedite some of the uh projects that comes up as well. All right, >> good changes. >> Would anyone like to make a motion then? >> Mr. Commissioner, I'll make a motion. A motion to move to recommend approval for revisions to city code section 11.47 subdivision 4 as recommended by staff represented in the November 17, 2025 staff report. >> All right. I have a motion for approval from Commissioner Taylor. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> A second from Commissioner Cro. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Would anyone like to abstain? >> All right. Thank you everyone for the nice presentations this evening and those changes. Do we have any planners reports, Jeremy? >> No. Just that you should expect that there will be a meeting on December 8th, which will be our last one of the year. >> Okay. December 8th. All right. >> And then do we have any members reports? Anyone like to make a motion to close public hearing? >> Motion to close. >> Close the meeting. Sorry. Close the meeting. Let's close the >> motion to close the meeting. >> All right. Do you have a second to close the meeting? >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor of closing or journing the meeting say I. I >> I All right, we're we're journed. Thanks everyone. See you December 8th.