HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Packet 9.28.20AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 28, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed
Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Rachel Markos, Lisa Toomey STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the September 14, 2020 meeting V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums
B. CODE AMENDMENT FOR LIGHTING
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting
C. CODE AMENDMENT FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 to comply with recent Federal Communication Commission rulings
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, September 28, 2020 _______________________________________________________________________________ MONDAY, September 28, 2020 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A. MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated September 14,
2020.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums The primary objectives for the Code amendment for gymnasiums is to improve consistency in
applying regulations and continuing to permit gymnasium uses in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
The City Code does not currently have a definition for gymnasium. The proposed amendment includes the addition of a clear and specific definition. The second objective is to continue to allow gymnasium uses while maintaining employment opportunities. The City Code currently allows gymnasium uses at 100% of a buildings total floor area. The proposed amendment would allow
gymnasium uses up to 50% of the total floor area of a building.
Staff recommends approval. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing.
MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for the Code Amendment for Gymnasiums based on recommendations from Staff Report dated September 24, 2020. B. CODE AMENDMENT FOR LIGHTING Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting
ANNOTATED AGENDA September 28, 2020 Page 2
The proposed amendment regarding site lighting is intended to incorporate lighting standards currently negotiated through the development process into City Code. The amendment maintains current requirements and adds standards for downcast, shielded, and cut off features and other measures to reduce glare and light spill onto neighboring properties.
Staff recommends approval. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing.
MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for the Code Amendment for Lighting based on
recommendations from Staff Report dated September 28, 2020. C. CODE AMENDMENT FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Request for:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.06 to comply with recent Federal Communication Commission ruling The FCC Act of 1996 established antennas and towers are a permitted use in all cities and may not be discriminated against by zoning districts established in cities.
The Spectrum Act of 2012 established that local governments are required to approve certain requests to modify existing wireless structures.
In June of 2020 the FCC approved a declaratory ruling to further clarify criteria within the
Spectrum Act of 2012 related to altering existing wireless structures. The proposed code change does not alter the existing 13 Subdivisions that regulate towers and antennas. Subdivision 14 will be added and provide acknowledgement of the 2020 FCC
declaratory ruling.
Staff recommends approval. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing.
MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for the Code Amendment for Chapter 11, Section 11.06 Towers and Antennas based on recommendations from Staff Report dated September 23, 2020.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 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,
Lisa Toomey, William Gooding
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Kirk called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission members DeSanctis, Pieper, and Farr were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Toomey to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Markos to approve the minutes of August 10,
2020. MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT CODE AMENDMENTS OVERVIEW
Klima presented upcoming code amendments for review, giving three categories. Staff was not looking for any formal action on these, but merely providing information.
New zoning districts:
This is a similar exercise to the process the Commission went through when the Parks and Open Space Zoning District was drafted. It includes creating several
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2020
Page 2
new zoning districts including identifying the purpose of the proposed district,
listing its permitted uses and associated performance standards. The first new zoning district was the Flex Service Zoning District. This involved two areas in Eden Prairie guided for this: the Martin Drive area and Pioneer Trail
area in the Aspire Land Use Map. Its objective was to provide an area within the
community that allows for uses that address community need but may not be best suited for TOD or Town Center areas. Staff was currently drafting this zoning district. The next step would be stakeholder outreach.
Mette commended the district and noted it was somewhat of a light
retail/destination use district. She mentioned a lighting store with inventory space, gymnasiums, breweries, and automotive stores as examples. Klima replied gymnasiums would enter the discussion later in the presentation She noted that auto sales in Eden Prairie required all storage and inventory to be located inside.
Little outside parking was allowed.
The second zoning district was the Mixed-Use Zoning District. This was located at and around Eden Prairie Center, and at either end of Martin Drive. This zoning district was intended to provide for vertical and horizontal mixed-use
development. This was also in the drafting stage at the staff level, and then would
proceed to stakeholder outreach prior to Planning Commission and City Council review. This district while providing a mix of uses would likely be more auto-oriented than the mixed uses provided for in the TOD and Town Center zoning districts.
Mette stated the horizontal versus vertical was important, as vertical development was not always possible. She was not sure a small parcel could have multiple uses, especially drive-throughs, but it could be taken as a mixed-use zone. She suggested limiting the number of facades, perhaps two to a building, that were not
transparent (windowed). Klima replied these issues were addressed at the staff
meeting, and the intent was never to require in the zoning what the marketplace could not address. Drive-through specifics were still being considered Kirk noted the City of Minneapolis found a diversity of opinions on drive-throughs.
The last new zoning district presented was the Eco-Innovation Zoning District.
This district in intended to be applied to the former Flying Cloud landfill site and was intended to provide opportunities for sustainable and innovative reuse of the landfill site. The ordinance would establish permitted uses and performance
standards. This was currently in drafting stage at the staff level and would also proceed to stakeholder outreach prior to Planning Commission and City Council review later this year. Kirk noted there were significant physical limitations on this piece of land, though it was large, and Klima agreed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2020
Page 3
Higgins stated the City developed some property near this zone which was a
former landfill that was just beginning to become available to the community for use. She asked if this would be affected by the new zoning. Klima replied this land was the MOSS Site, which would not be impacted by this new zoning. It was not intended to be applied to City-owned property but only to landfill site.
However, in the future, the Eco-Innovation district could be requested to be
applied to other properties. Performance Standard Updates:
Wireless Telecommunications
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently updated the Sprint Spectrum Act, which impacted City Code Chapter 11 relating to existing wireless communication, support structures and ground equipment. The intent was to
reduce unnecessary review time and eliminate interference in federal, state, and
local review processes. This would provide a streamlined review process and equitable wire telecommunications infrastructure throughout the United States. Lighting
This was a housekeeping amendment to reflect in City Code the requirements that the City of Eden Prairie had implemented through policy and development agreement requirements. The amendment would likely include: Downcast, cut-off lighting fixtures and minimizing light spill onto adjacent properties. The
amendment was not proposed to address LED lighting. This may be something
that the Commission or Council would like staff to address in more detail in the future.
Kirk asked for and received confirmation the code proposal would not address
LED lighting nor its glow. From an energy conservation perspective, this was a neutral change. Parking
This code amendment change addressed a variety of items: Stall and drive aisle dimensions – the proposal is to reduce parking stall length and drive aisle widths to reflect function, sustainability, and recent trends.
Multifamily – this would address parking requirements based on type of multifamily unit, such as studio units and senior housing. There were potentials for incentives for affordable housing related to parking.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2020
Page 4
Shopping Centers – this would address parking requirements based on size of
retail centers and tenant mix such as restaurants. The intent was to simplify parking requirement to manage and administer across tenant uses. Restaurant Patios – this would provide parking requirements specific to outdoor
dining areas. Retail space parking requirements are currently based on square
footage, but restaurant parking spaces are based on the number of seats, which was the same both indoors and outdoors. This change would make the requirements more consistent.
Mette suggested having a definition and a requirement threshold for compact
stalls. She also suggested parking allowances or relief for multifamily development near a transit area. Enclosed stalls would be affected by the code amendment change and could present a challenge. Revisiting the 50 percent requirement after the amendment change should be considered. Mette agreed
developing parking for restaurants was difficult for development.
Kirk stated this would be the toughest challenge and balance for the commission. Eden Prairie wanted only the parking it truly needed, but this could be difficult to judge. He supported more research and standards. He noted that he had
previously voted against the Martin Blue project because he did not agree there
was sufficient parking there, but he conceded he was incorrect, whereas the Tavern 4 and 5 Restaurant has a chaotic parking lot. He stated the commission had many issues to consider.
Gooding replied parking stalls in the winter could become snow storage. Klima
agreed and stated staff was beginning to consider that. Markos suggested incentivizing restaurant to deal with water runoff. Klima replied the City’s Design Guidelines adopted two or three years ago had addressed that.
Group Usable Open Space (GUOS)
This was land area and facilities specifically designated and developed for group recreational or social activities for multifamily units. The requirements have been in place since 1969. Multifamily developments have changed over the decades,
potentially leading to an outdated requirement. The City’s objective would be to
continue to require group usable space but amend the ordinance to reflect modern patterns. Gross Site Area per Dwelling Unit
This requirement had been in place since 1969. It resulted in increasing site area with increased density. The intent to provide more land area as density increased, and the trend was increased density on smaller sites. Most recent projects have
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2020
Page 5
required a waiver for gross site area per dwelling unit because of the need for
updating this provision. Mette suggested removing this amendment entirely, as she saw no distinction between this and density. Klima agreed and stated this was the conversation being
had at the staff level. However, staff wished to make the commission aware of all
the issues. It was possible this could be proposed to be struck out. Housekeeping Items:
.
Sign Code This was adopted in 1966. Amending this would make it cleaner and easier to
administer without diminishing the integrity of the code. In 2015, the U.S.
Supreme Court issues its decision in the Reed v. Town of Gilbert case. Cities could not regulate signs based on their content, only locations, height, size and number. The object was to identify the “content-based” provision in the sign code and amend them as necessary. Amending the areas of the code that have been
problematic when administering the code was also to intent.
Mette suggested the addition, to the extent it was permissible, to have a provision the sign must be well kept, legible and in good condition, along with some enforcement provision.
Gymnasium Use Industrial Zoning Districts allow gymnasiums to occupy 100 percent of building square footage. There is not a definition of gymnasium in the ordinance, allowing
for broad interpretation and utilization of the term and its uses.
Fitness studios, gymnastics studios, swim schools, dance studios, martial arts studios, etc., were permitted in the Industrial Zoning District under the broader gymnasium category, and also in the Commercial Zoning District under the
broader retail category. The intent was to provide a definition for gymnasium
which would remove ambiguity and provide for consistency. The proposal was to continue to allow for gymnasium uses in the Industrial districts but at a reduced level in order to maintain employment opportunity areas, and also for consistent application of the zone requirements.
Gooding asked if there were significant gymnasium uses in the Golden Triangle. Klima replied that staff has notified 18 property owners about the upcoming code amendment. She listed the Tags Building at West 70th, the Winter Park Facility and Champions Hall as examples of gymnasiums. Any nonconforming uses
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 14, 2020
Page 6
would be governed by State Statue which allows uses to continue and make
improvements but would prohibit expansion. Other impacted properties would be able to better understand the percentage requirements in place in the Industrial zoning districts. Phase II of the process would be to document the existing uses.
Mette agreed with a definition of “gymnasium” but was unsure on limiting such
uses in the Industrial zones. However, she could also see the argument for the proposal. Klima replied some of the existing uses were not consistent with the Aspire document.
Miscellaneous Amendments
Kennels in Industrial zones – this would provide clarification that treatment of animals (e.g., medical) would be allowed as an accessory use within a kennel.
Another would clarify that parking ramps were required to meet minimum
building material standards. A third potential amendment r would govern Administrative lot splits and combinations limited to a specific number of parcels.
An amendment would define public art in order to differentiate from signage. Another would reformat residential districts to place all requirements in one location rather than multiple locations throughout the Zoning Chapter.
Gooding asked if the gymnasium zoning clarification would consider the area’s vacancy rate. Klima replied Zoning verification was merely documenting size, number of bays, uses, etc., especially with mixed uses, and classifications under the current Code. The intent was to inform the owner of additional options
available and permissible in that district, to prevent a surprise as tenant spaces
were marketed. Gooding asked how the mixed-use requirement near Eden Prairie Mall, surrounded by residential areas, would be applied. Klima replied the present Code would not allow for residential units being built near Eden Prairie Mall, but the Code amendment was intended to allow for that.
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Mette to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10p.m.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner
DATE: September 24, 2020
SUBJECT: Code Change – City Code Chapter 11, relating to Gymnasiums
BACKGROUND
Prior to 1982, the City Code did not include gymnasiums as a permitted use and the City received a
request to allow a gymnastics school in the Industrial Zoning District. At the direction of the City
Council, staff prepared an ordinance amendment permitting gymnasium uses in the Industrial Zoning
Districts and included specific parking requirements for gymnasium uses. The Planning Commission
recommended approval and the Council approved the ordinance amendment. Uses determined to be a gymnasium are allowed to occupy 100% of a building square footage in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
ISSUES
Over the years, a number of issues have arisen while applying this portion of the City Code. These issues include the following:
1. There is not a definition of gymnasium in the ordinance, which has allowed for a broad
interpretation of the term gymnasium and the uses that could fall under this category.
2. This portion of the City Code has been interpreted and applied inconsistently.
3. As a result of this broad interpretation, uses such as fitness studios, gymnastics studios, swim schools, dance studios, martial arts studios etc. have been permitted in the Industrial Zoning Districts under the broader category of gymnasium and as retail uses in the Industrial
Districts subject to City Code requirements. This provides for inconsistent and inequitable
application of zoning regulations among similar uses. The same uses have been permitted in
the Commercial Zoning Districts under the broad category of retail.
4. Without zoning compliance permits, it is difficult to determine which fitness studios, gymnastics studios, swim schools, dance studios, martial arts studios etc. were permitted as a gymnasium and which were permitted as commercial.
5. Changes in the economy, recent trends, and aging buildings are leading to changes in the uses
of some industrial buildings. Property owners are beginning to repurpose buildings which
results in business mixes different than office, manufacturing, and warehousing. In addition,
the composition of uses in Golden Triangle Industrial Area (GTA) is likely to change with
anticipated Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and the opening of the Light Rail Transit (LRT). These changes could cause shifts for the employment base in the GTA. As transitions and redevelopment occur in the GTA, the City is striving to maintain
Staff Report – Gymnasium Code Amendment
Page 2
2
opportunities for living wage employment. The LRT will make jobs more accessible to a
broader population and these jobs will support the public investment made in the LRT and
provide ridership for the LRT.
OBJECTIVES
The proposed amendment has several objectives aimed at addressing the issues stated above. The
primary objective is to improve the consistency in interpreting and applying this portion of the Code.
The amendment will also retain the ability for these types of uses to locate in the Industrial zoned
areas because they do provide community value and benefit. In the past, the broadness of the term gymnasium allowed for a wide ranging interpretation of what constituted a gymnasium use. Providing a specific and clear definition of gymnasium will make it clear which uses meet the
definition. The second objective is to allow gymnasium uses while maintaining employment
opportunities. This could be accomplished by allowing gymnasium uses in the Industrial Zoning
Districts at a percentage of a buildings square footage which is less than 100%, so as not to deplete
areas for an extensive range of employment opportunities. Commercial uses such as fitness centers, martial art studios, dance studios, etc.in the Industrial Zoning Districts would continue to be allowed as retail uses consistent with Code requirements as they currently are.
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES
Staff is proposing the following definition.
“Gymnasium” is a building or space within a building with a clear ceiling height of not less
than 20 feet and providing facilities such as courts, turf fields, batting cages, gymnastics
studios, swim schools and supporting uses for recreation and physical training. Uses including
but not limited to fitness centers, martial arts studios, and dance studios are considered
commercial uses and are allowed consistent with retail uses in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
Based on the proposed definition for gymnasium, the use would include facilities such as courts, turf fields, batting cages, gymnastic studios, swim schools, and supporting uses with a clear ceiling
height of not less than 20 feet. The proposed amendment would allow gymnasium uses up to 50% of
the total floor area of the building it is located in. Uses such as fitness centers, martial arts studios,
dance studios etc. will be considered commercial uses and be allowed to be located in Industrial
Districts consistent with current standards. Those uses would also be permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts. The proposed amendment allows all uses to continue to be allowed in all the districts they are currently allowed in.
As part of preparing the proposed ordinance amendment, staff conducted research to understand
existing conditions and market information. Staff reviewed 122 industrial zoned parcels in the GTA
and 30 industrial zoned parcels in the Martin Drive area. The types of facilities described in the
Staff Report – Gymnasium Code Amendment
Page 3
3
proposed gymnasium definition, require a clear ceiling height of not less than 20 feet. Of the 122
parcels in the GTA that are zoned Industrial, there are 14 parcels with buildings with clear ceilings
heights to meet the definition of gymnasium. Of the 30 parcels in the Martin Drive Area that are
zoned Industrial, there are 3 parcels with buildings with clear ceiling heights to accommodate a gymnasium use.
To understand the market demands for size ranges of gymnasium uses with facilities such as fields,
courts and batting cages, staff researched a number of indoor facilities around the country. Each
building included a variety of fields, courts, batting cages, and supporting uses and the buildings
ranged in size from 12,500 square feet to over 100,000 square feet depending on the facilities provided. The average was approximately 50,000 square feet.
The next step was to determine the percentage of building square footages that could accommodate a
gymnasium use. At 50% of the gross floor area, 9 buildings in the GTA and 1 building in the Martin
Drive area have the potential to meet the definition of gymnasium use and meet or exceed the
average 50,000 square feet of floor area. The remaining 8 buildings would allow for gymnasium uses that are less than 50,000 square feet.
The proposed changes include adding a definition for gymnasium and adding the 50% floor area
provision to Subsection - Subd. 3 in Section 11.30 as follows:
Amending Section 11.02 Definitions by adding the following definitions alphabetically and
renumbering all of the definitions: “Gymnasium” is a building or space within a building with a clear ceiling height of not less
than 20 feet and providing facilities such as courts, turf fields, batting cages, gymnastics
studios, swim schools and supporting uses for recreation and physical training. Uses including
but not limited to fitness centers, martial arts studios, and dance studios are considered
commercial uses and are allowed consistent with retail uses in the in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
Amending Section 11.30, Subd. 3, Required Conditions by adding the following:
Subd 3. Required Conditions.
D. Gymnasium uses in Industrial Zoning Districts shall not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building in which it is located.
Staff Report – Gymnasium Code Amendment
Page 4
4
PROPOSED ORDINACE IMPACTS
The amendment continues to allow gymnasium uses while at the same time preserving employment
opportunities in the manufacturing, production, warehouse, and office sectors. If a use proposes more than 50% of the floor area for a gymnasium use, a request could be made to allow that through the PUD waiver process.
There are 18 properties in the Industrial Zoning Districts that include known uses such as fitness
centers, gymnastic studios, martial arts studios, dance studios etc. A letter was sent to the owners of
these 18 properties to inform them of the proposed code amendment and to provide education regarding legal nonconforming uses. The letter explained that legal nonconforming uses can continue to operate, can be maintained, but cannot be expanded. Without zoning compliance permits,
it is difficult to determine which fitness studios, gymnastics studios, swim schools, dance studios,
martial arts studios etc. were permitted as a gymnasium and which were permitted as commercial at
15% of the building square footage. Staff would propose to work with existing businesses to
document existing uses and areas through zoning verification letters. The zoning verification letters would supply property owners with information needed to best market business opportunities in their buildings consistent with City Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendments to Chapter 11, Section 11.02 Definitions and Section 11.30 Subd. 3. Required Conditions as represented in the September 24, 2020 staff report and the draft code language.
Attachment Email from business owner
From:Julia Thompson
To:Beth Novak-Krebs
Cc:David Lindahl
Subject:Proposed Code Amendment to Chapter 11
Date:Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:42:53 AM
Beth,
Thanks for the letter you sent on the proposed amendment to Chapter 11 relating to gymnasium use.Below is our comments that we would like to be included in the Commission packets. Additionally, if thereis any other information or details on the language for this proposed amendment, are you able to emailand/or point me to where I can find it?
Thanks!
Julia
Community Development Department,
As owners of 10300 West 70th Street, we strongly oppose this code amendment to Chapter 11 of the City
Code relating to gymnasium use.
Since 2002 we have operated TAGS Gymnastics out of this building and also have tenants that use the
space as a fitness center. This use brings value to our building through the tenants we can attract whowant to be located next to similar uses. We have operated with no issues and think uses like this bringvibrancy to our building and neighborhood.
Amending Chapter 11 to further restrict the future use and flexibility of our building is essentially a taking
of our property rights and degrades the value of our building. We think the city should be looking for waysto allow property owners more flexibility of uses, especially in areas like ours that are in the midst ofchange due to the light rail station being constructed. We encourage further dialogue and explanation onthe need for this change to the city code.
Thanks for your time and we look forward to continuing the conversation.
Julia ThompsonOwner, ALTON II, LLC
10300 West 70th Street
Julia Thompson | Co-Founder TAGS Gymnastics
"Quality gymnastics in a safe, fun, positive atmosphere since 1977."
STAFF REPORT:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I
DATE: September 28, 2020
SUBJECT: City Code Lighting Amendment
BACKGROUND Currently, City Code requirements for lighting are very general. While generality can allow for
flexibility and innovation, the current code language does not provide a clear base standard for
site lighting. Most lighting elements on project sites are discussed through the development review process and included in the Development Agreement. This puts the City in a reactive position when lighting is proposed for developments. To provide more consistent and specific
requirements on lighting, and to ensure all new projects will be held to the same lighting
standards equally, staff is proposing amendments to the lighting code. Adding specifications to the lighting requirements will help the City be proactive in lighting details and establishing a community standard.
In preparing the proposed amendment, staff also reviewed the lighting standards of neighboring
communities and professional organizations.
CURRENT CODE LANGUAGE The following excerpts are the current language relating to lighting in the City Code:
Glare. Glare, whether direct or reflected, such as from spotlights or high temperature processes,
and as differentiated from general illumination, shall not be visible beyond the limits of the
immediate site from which it originates. Glare and Lighting illumination in the Park and Open
Space District are exempted from these requirements. Glare and Lighting illumination standards
for the Park and Open Space District are set forth in Section 11.37.
Source: Ordinance No. 17-2017
Effective Date: 9-28-2017
Lighting illumination shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles measured at the property line. Pole
lighting height shall not exceed 25 feet measured at natural grade. Pole lighting in the interior
portion of a parking lot shall be located within a parking island. Site lighting for athletic fields,
public facilities, and parks is exempt.
Source: Ordinance No. 25-2016
Effective Date: 10-27-2016
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
The paragraph related to glare is proposed to remain unchanged. Staff proposes removing the
current lighting paragraph shown below in strikethrough and adopting the following underlined
lighting requirements in the City Code:
Lighting illumination shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles measured at the property line. Pole
lighting height shall not exceed 25 feet measured at natural grade. Pole lighting in the interior
portion of a parking lot shall be located within a parking island. Site lighting for athletic fields,
public facilities, and parks is exempt.
Lighting. The following lighting illumination standards shall apply to all districts except Park and
Open Space:
(a) Lighting illumination from the property shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles measured
at the property line.
(b) Pole lighting height shall not exceed 25 feet measured at natural grade and the light
source shall have downcast shoe box lens.
(c) Lighting in the interior portion of a parking lot shall be located within a parking
island.
(d) Wall lighting placed on buildings shall be positioned to cast light downward toward
the ground, and the light source shall include a shield directing light to the ground.
Upward lighting on or projected onto building exteriors is subject to approval by
the Council through Site Plan Review or the City Planner through Administrative
Site Review if the criteria are met.
(e) Bare incandescent, florescent, or LED lightbulbs shall not be permitted in view of
adjacent property or public right-of-way.
(f) For lighting non-horizontal surfaces, such as flag poles, landscaping, fountains, and
art or statuary, luminaires shall be located, aimed, and shielded so as to not project
their beam onto abutting properties, past the object being illuminated, or onto public
right-of-way. The lighting shall be fitted with devices such as shields, barn doors,
baffles, louvers, skirts, or visors to minimize spill light and glare impacts.
(g) All canopy lighting shall be recessed lighting, flush mounted with canopy ceiling,
and have a flat glass lens.
LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS COMPARISON
All neighboring communities reviewed by staff specify lighting requirements similar or identical
to the proposed amendments in their City Codes, including fixture features designed to shield or
minimize glare, direction or angle of fixtures, location of fixtures on the site or structure, and
height. Some communities include more detailed illumination standards, require compliance with
Dark Sky best practices, or dictate the styles of lighting fixtures permitted.
Eden Prairie is consistent with neighboring communities regarding the footcandle standard at the
property line. Most neighboring communities have a maximum footcandle reading between 0.5
and 1 at the property line, depending on the land use of the adjacent property. Eden Prairie has
not granted any waivers for projects related to footcandles at the property line, and all approved
plans show no more than 0.5 footcandles at the property line consistent with City Code
requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the above amendments to City Code.
STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Steven Durham, Planner II
DATE: September 23, 2020
SUBJECT: Code Amendment - Antennas and Towers BACKGROUND
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Act of 1996 established that antennas and towers
are a permitted use in all cities and may not be discriminated against by zoning districts established
in cities. City Code Section 11.06 “Towers and Antennas” was established in code at that time. The Spectrum Act of 2012 established that local governments are required to approve certain requests to modify existing wireless structures. No code amendments were required with the Spectrum Act of
2012.
In June of 2020 the FCC approved a declaratory ruling to further clarify criteria within the Spectrum
Act of 2012 related to altering existing wireless structures. The stated purpose of the declaratory
ruling is to promote equitable telecommunication service to all communities in the United States and streamline the review process within federal, state, county, and local jurisdiction. The ruling identifies and clarifies what qualifies as an “Eligible Facilities Request.”
Under the Spectrum Act of 2012 (“Act”), local governments are required to approve certain
requests to modify existing wireless structures, referred to as an “Eligible Facilities Request.”
An Eligible Facilities Request is any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving, 1) Collocation of new transmission equipment, 2) Removal of
transmission equipment, or 3) Replacement of transmission equipment.
CODE AMENDMENT: This code amendment will acknowledge the FCC declaratory ruling in Section 11.06. Currently there are 13 Subdivision in Section 11.06 that regulate Tower and Antenna. There will be no alterations to the existing 13 subdivisions. Subdivision 14 will be added and
providing acknowledgement of the 2020 FCC declaratory ruling. See proposed Subdivision 14
below:
Subd. 14. Spectrum Act Eligible Facilities Requests. No application to modify an existing wireless
structure that meets the definition of an “eligible facilities request” under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1455 (the “Act”), shall be approved unless the requested action is in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the regulations contained in 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100, all
as may be amended from time to time, and then only in accordance with the following:
A. An applicant shall submit such a request on the form provided by the City. The application
form shall require that the applicant provide all information necessary for the City to
determine whether the request is an “eligible facilities request” under the Act. Further, the
applicant shall include with the application all information, documents, and fees required by
Staff Report – Code Amendment - Antennas and Towers
September 23 Page 2
2
Subdivision 12 of this Section, a narrative description explaining how the request meets the
definition of an “eligible facilities request” under the Act, and such further information
deemed necessary by the City to determine whether the request is an “eligible facilities
request.”
B. An application for an “eligible facilities request” shall be approved or disapproved by the
City Manager or his or her designee in accordance with Subdivision 11 of this Section. C. “Eligible facilities requests” are not subject to the provisions of this Section 11.06 or any other provisions of Chapter 11 that are contrary to the Act.
As required the City is required to approve certain request on existing towers located on private
property or in public right of way when the existing towers meet “eligible facilities request.”
Highlights of those eligible facilities include:
• The modifications that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of a tower or
tower base.
• Increase tower height by 10% or maximum 20’ from the existing antenna.
• Increase ground base equipment supportive of the tower improvements.
• Inclusion of a 60-day Shot Clock from the time the application is received and approved by
the City.
The declaratory ruling is not inconsistent with current City Code and administrative approval
practice. New Tower construction does not qualify and as an eligible facility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.06 entitled
Antenna and Towers as presented in the Planning Commission Staff report dated September 21,
2020.
1
PROJECT PROFILE – SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
1. CODE AMENDMENT FOR LIGHTING by City of Eden Prairie (SARAH)
Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting Contact: Sarah Strain, 952-949-8413 Request:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/08/20
Date Complete N/A 120 Day Deadline N/A Initial DRC review N/A
Notice to Paper Date 09/09/20
Resident Notice Date N/A Meeting Date 09/28/20
Notice to Paper Date 09/30/20
Resident Notice Date N/A 1st Meeting Date 10/20/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS by City of Eden Prairie (BETH)
Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums
Contact: Beth Novak- Krebs, 952-949-8490 Request:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/08/20 Date Complete N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A
Initial DRC review N/A
Notice to Paper Date 09/09/20 Resident Notice Date N/A
Meeting Date 09/28/20
Notice to Paper Date 09/30/20 Resident Notice Date N/A
1st Meeting Date 10/20/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
3. CODE AMENDMENT FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS by City of Eden Prairie (STEVE)
Amend City Code Chapter 11 to comply with recent Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rulings Contact: Steve Durham, 952-949-8491
Request:
• Amend City Code Chapter 11 to comply with recent FCC rulings
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/08/20
Date Complete N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A
Initial DRC review N/A
Notice to Paper Date 09/09/20
Resident Notice Date N/A
Meeting Date 09/28/20
Notice to Paper Date 09/30/20
Resident Notice Date N/A
1st Meeting Date 10/20/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – OCTOBER 6, 2020
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – OCTOBER 6, 2020
1. ASPIRE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 (2020-03) by City of Eden Prairie (SARAH) Proposal to amend Comprehensive Plan Aspire Eden Prairie 2040 to guide property to Parks and
Open Space from Industrial Flex Tech.
Location: Intersection of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive Contact: Sarah Strain, 952-949-8413 Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Industrial Flex Tech to Parks and Open Space Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/20 Date Complete 00/00/20 120 Day Deadline 00/00/20 Initial DRC review 00/00/00
Notice to Paper Date 07/22/20 Resident Notice Date 07/23/20 Meeting Date 08/10/20
Notice to Paper Date 08/13/20 Resident Notice Date 08/14/20 1st Meeting Date 09/01/20 2nd Meeting Date 10/06/20
2. ASPIRE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3 (2020-04) by City of Eden Prairie (JULIE)
Proposal to amend Comprehensive Plan Aspire Eden Prairie 2040 to guide property to Parks and Open
Space from Low Density Residential.
Location: Outlot A, Highland Oaks Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Parks and Open Space
• Rezone Outlot A from R1-9.5 to Parks and Open Space
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/20 Date Complete 00/00/20
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 00/00/00
Notice to Paper Date 07/22/20 Resident Notice Date 07/23/20
Meeting Date 08/10/20
Notice to Paper Date 08/13/20 Resident Notice Date 08/14/20
1st Meeting Date 09/01/20
2nd Meeting Date 10/06/20
PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 12, 2020
1. TILLER CORPORATION PLANT 912 (2019-24) by Tiller Corporation (JULIE)
Proposal to relocate the plant processing and stockpile areas within the site
Location: 6401 Industrial Drive Contact: Michael Caron; 763-425-4191
3
Request for:
• Zoning District Change from Public to Industrial on 4.49 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial on 1.09 acres
• Site Plan Review on 13.21 acres
• Preliminary Plat for approval on 13.21 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 11/08/19
Date Complete 09/01/20
120 Day Deadline 12/29/20
Initial DRC review 11/14/19
Notice to Paper Date 09/23/20
Resident Notice Date 09/24/20
Meeting Date 10/12/20
Notice to Paper Date 09/30/20
Resident Notice Date 10/01/20
1st Meeting Date 10/20/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – OCTOBER 20, 2020
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – OCTOBER 20, 2020
1. FLYING CLOUD COMMONS (CASTLE RIDGE RETAIL) (2019-21) by Oppidan Investment Company (JULIE)
Proposal for retail area as Phase 3 of the Castle Ridge redevelopment project Location: 615-635 Prairie Center Drive Contact: Oppidan Investment Company, 952-294-1259 Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.27 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.27 acres
• Site Plan Review on 5.479 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one outlot into 3 lots and 2 outlots on 7.27 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/14/19
Date Complete 04/20/20 120 Day Deadline 10/31/20 Initial DRC review 10/17/19
Notice to Paper Date 05/05/20
Resident Notice Date 05/06/20 Meeting Date 05/26/20
Notice to Paper Date 07/29/20
Resident Notice Date 07/30/20 1st Meeting Date 08/18/20 2nd Meeting Date 10/20/20
PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 26, 2020
IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED
1. PIONEER PRESERVE (2020-09) by Metro Development LLC (SARAH) Proposal to build 8 townhome units Location: 9955 Pioneer Trail Contact: Melanie Emery, 651-248-8457
4
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.66 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 3.66 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to RM on 3.66 acres
• Site Plan Review on 3.66 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 9 lots on 3.66 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/18/20 Date Complete 00/00/20
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 09/24/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
Meeting Date 00/0020
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
2. STARBUCKS TERREY PINE COFFEE (2020-08) by Java Companies (BETH) Proposal to build a drive thru only coffee shop with walk- up window and patio seating
Location: 16315 Terrey Pine Dr
Contact: Mark Krogh, 612-384-9646 Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.511 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 0.511 acres
• Zoning Change from Office to Commercial on 0.511 acres
• Site Plan Review on 0.511 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/16/20 Date Complete 00/00/20
120 Day Deadline 00/00/20
Initial DRC review 09/24/20
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
Meeting Date 00/0020
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20
1st Meeting Date 00/00/20
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
3. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23) by SW Metro Transit Commission (JULIE) Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres
• Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on
11.38 acres
• Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 00/00/15
Date Complete 00/00/15
120 Day Deadline 00/00/15
Initial DRC review 00/00/15
Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15
Resident Notice Date 11/20/15
Meeting Date 12/07/15
Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15
Resident Notice Date 12/18/15
1st Meeting Date 01/05/16
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20
5
VARIANCES
TELECOMMUNICATION
1. TELECOMMUNICATIONS #2020-010TM by T-Mobile (c/0- Buell Consulting) (SARAH) Location: 7500 Flying Cloud Drive Contact: Eddie Buell; 612-716-0929 or ebuell@buellconsulting.com
Request for:
• To remove 6 existing antenna and replace with 3 new antenna along with multiple other antenna equipment upgrades.
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 09/16/20 Date Complete 00/00/00
60 Day Deadline 11/16/20
Initial DRC review 09/17/20
Notice to Paper Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
Meeting Date N/A
Notice to Paper Date N/A Resident Notice Date N/A
1st Meeting Date N/A
2nd Meeting Date N/A