Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/11/2021APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of December 14, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE #2020-04 Location: 8350 Commonwealth Drive Request for:  Monument Sign Height of 8 feet 2 inches. City Code maximum is 6 feet.  Monument Sign Base size of 38.8 square feet. City Code maximum is 16 square feet. Steve Nornes, the developer for the Castle Ridge Flagstone project, presented a PowerPoint and explained the application. Construction was on schedule and he anticipated a delivery date in August and move-in in September. Prospective residents were responding well. He displayed elevation views and the interior work, along with the bistro at the entrance and views from the development. The private drive would be on Commonwealth Drive on the site plan. The increase to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 11, 2021 Page 2 sign height and base size would allow recognition as residents entered the site. He wished the site to be visible to drivers coming from Prairie Center Drive. He displayed the brick materials, columns, and the height requested. He included staff’s concerns and how these were addressed. Mette asked for the setback requirement for the sign from the street. Klima replied the setback was measured from the property line, so a private street did not necessarily have the same impact, and this sign met the Code requirement. DeSanctis asked why the sign base has expanded so much relative to the height. Nornes replied the base accommodated both the sign and the architectural elements within it. Klima presented the staff report. The applicant was asking to 1) increase the sign height, which included a design element, and to 2) increase the sign base. The base measurements were not necessarily proportional to the height as DeSanctis noted, because the height request was not for the entire length of the sign, but only for a small portion. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Mette asked the commercial sign requirements of the tenants who would occupy the commercial portion of the overall project, and how that would work with this signage. Klima replied it was not usual to approve signage as a part of the PUD process, but that all signage would have to go through the administrative permitting process. Because this was a PUD, it was one for the entire site and the three individual sites. How the commercial developer would choose to address signage remained to be seen. All signage would have to comply with Code unless the developer chose to pursue an additional review process. Mette replied she was concerned about setting a precedent for a larger sign, but she was satisfied this would not happen. Farr asked for clarification how the sign setback related to the curb and asked if Engineering examined the sightline distance and sightline triangle visibility. He was concerned the sign might conceal a pedestrian in a wheelchair on the sidewalk. Rue replied he had not personally reviewed the location relative to the sightline but that would be staff’s main concern. On a public street the setback would be 20 feet from the curb line. This was a private street. Farr replied he would like to see more investigation of this sightline. Klima replied the request before the commission tonight was only for the variances, whereas these concerns would be addressed during the sign permit review. Farr agreed, but emphasized this concern be taken into consideration during the sign permit review. MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Gooding to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 11, 2021 Page 3 Mette echoed Farr’s concerns, and agreed only the variances were under consideration tonight. She also commended the developer on the project, adding she had driven by the site and enjoyed the design which allowed each unit to have a view of Purgatory Park. Kirk stated he understood Farr’s concerns about signage placement but found this design and placement to be reasonable and supported it. DeSanctis commended the sign’s design, stating the sign design was consistent with the City’s entry monument sign design. Farr also commended the sign design and stated he too enjoyed driving past the site. He suggested there was the future potential for discussion on possibly setting precedent regarding sign sizes as mentioned by Mette. Perhaps larger signage was merited with larger developments such as this one, however other metrics such as setback, et cetera, would play into this. MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the Variance Request #2020-04 based on information outlined in the staff report dated January 11, 2021 and findings and conditions found in 2020-04. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.