HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/23/2017
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, January 23, 2017 - 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS:
John Kirk, Jon Stoltz, Charles Weber, Travis Wuttke, Ann
Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Tom Poul
STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes for the January 9, 2017 meeting
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CODE AMENDMENT-BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITION
Request to:
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to Building Height Definition.
VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
ANNOTATED AGENDA
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, January 23, 2017
_______________________________________________________________________________
MONDAY, January 23, 2017 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Move to approve the agenda.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2017
MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated January 9, 2017.
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CODE AMENDMENT-BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITION
Request to:
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to the building height definition.
While working with development teams and individual residents, inconsistencies between
the building code and zoning code definition of building height have come to staff’s
attention. In order to reduce the inconsistencies and provide for a building height
definition that is more user friendly, staff is proposing that the Zoning Ordinance definition
of building height be revised.
Staff recommends approval.
MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing.
MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval to amend City Code Chapter 11 related to the
building height definition based on the information included in the staff report dated
January 19, 2017.
VIII. PLANNERS’ REPORT
IX. MEMBERS’ REPORT
ANNOTATED AGENDA
January 23, 2017
Page 2
X. CONTINUING BUSINESS
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2017 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Stoltz, John Kirk, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins,
Charles Weber, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark
Freiberg, Tom Poul
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Rod Rue, City Engineer
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Ric Rosow, City Attorney
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Stoltz and Weber were absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Higgins, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 2016
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the Planning Commission
Minutes. Motion carried 7-0.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
A. ERS ESTATES APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION
Location: 12551 Beach Circle
• Request for:
Appeal of staff determination that the legal non-conforming status of a second
dock located at 12530 Beach Circle has ceased
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 2017
Page 2
Klima said based on the direction provided at the December 12th meeting, City Staff
has prepared findings, which are included in the packet this evening, along with the
exhibits provided on the table on goldenrod. Also in the packet was a memorandum
from the City Attorney to Commission Members addressing the ability to vote on
the findings if commission members were absent from the December meeting.
There is also the appellant attorney’s response from Peter Beck.
Vice Chair Pieper asked appellant, Dr. Salovich, to come forward and speak. Peter
Beck, on behalf of appellant, came forward and spoke. He said he wanted to focus
on a few points in the letter and spend time on the proposed resolution. Mr. Beck
said what is happening is an injustice. At the last meeting, he said the history of the
property was gone through and he also reiterated when the property was purchased,
no one from the City advised the appellant of dock rights and that the ordinance had
changed. On that issue, Mr. Beck stated he feels this should not be held against Dr.
Salovich. Mr. Beck said another question that was brought up at the last meeting
was if the appellant discontinued use, and Mr. Beck said he did not. He pointed out
Dr. Salovich did not move the dock, the neighbor moved the dock. The neighbor
never wanted the dock or easement there. Therefore, he did not discontinue use. In
regards to the resolution Finding 8, it states the dock was not on the shore; that is
not correct, because we do not know that for sure. Dr. Salovich was there later than
that. In Finding 27, Mr. Beck stated his notes did not mention that and they do not
believe that finding to be true because the dock was a rolling dock. The dock was
on the easement and Mr. Paradis never wanted it there in the first place. Mr. Beck
said in regards to Conclusion B, he says the petitioner admits discontinued use of
the dock. That is not true because Dr. Salovich never admitted to that; he did not
discontinue use. Mr. Beck said they would like Dr. Salovich to be able to put in a
dock next year.
Richard Rosow, City Attorney, wanted to address Mr. Beck’s letter. He stated after
reviewing it he wanted to clarify a few things. The first item he wanted to clarify
was the MN State Statute 462.357, subd. 1e and Eden Prairie City Code 11.75 both
address a non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of more than one year.
Neither of these rules addresses the issue of abandonment. Mr. Rosow said in
regards to Mr. Beck’s recent letter, the Staff’s decision that is was a non-
conforming use is that it was not used for over one year. Even though the dock was
on shore, it needs to be in the water to be conforming. Mr. Rosow said there is no
duty on the City to inform homeowners of changes in the City Code. These
changes are published in the newspaper for all to be aware. In 2006, Dr. Salovich’s
application was to plat the property. Staff would not have known that there was
going to be renovation on the property and the potential for the dock not to be used
within a year, so Staff would not advise applicant to use the dock every year.
Vice Chair Pieper asked if someone had a dock on shore and did not use it, is it still
considered a discontinued use. Mr. Rosow said it is still considered a discontinued
use.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 2017
Page 3
Farr asked if this were to happen in another city, would notification be different.
Mr. Rosow said all city governments are bound by the same state statutes and all of
the cities should follow precedence of posting it in the newspaper.
Freiberg wanted to go over what he objected to in the last meeting. He said the
common sense involved is when someone is looking at a $400,000 potential loss;
the City should have notified him. Freiberg pointed out it could have been done
when the inspectors were onsite. He stated he has a problem with that and feels the
City is better than that. Wuttke stated he concurs with Frieberg.
Farr stated he has empathy for the appellant and understands what Freiberg is
saying and would like to know how this situation could not happen again. He stated
there needs to be a discussion at a later date about communication.
Vice Chair Pieper asked if there is a database of non-conforming uses in the City.
Klima said there is not a database listing non-conforming uses in the City.
Mr. Beck said when Dr. Salovich came in and talked to the City about his dock,
they should have told him then. He stated he believes this was not intentionally
missed by the City, but it was missed and now Dr. Salovich is paying for it.
Wuttke asked how a person who owns property would realize that it is a non-
conforming use. Mr. Rosow said most of the issues arise on a complaint basis; a
neighbor calls in and makes a complaint about the property. At that point it is a fact
intensive inquiry. They have to go back to records and aerial photographs of the
property and talk to neighbors about the property to find the facts. In this case, the
property owner told the City he discontinued the use. He stated at the time, his
intent was to renovate the home, which took him 10 years. Mr. Rosow also pointed
out it was the potential purchaser of this property that inquired about the dock issue.
Farr asked if Staff had authority to apply flexibility for this situation. Mr. Rosow
said Staff does not have that authority to apply flexibility. Farr asked if there are
legal resources for the appellant. Mr. Rosow said the City Council can review this
matter. Farr asked if we could negotiate a settlement for them. Mr. Rosow said no,
the Commission cannot mandate a settlement.
Freiberg asked if the City could have said something prior to Dr. Salovich. Mr.
Rosow stated in 2006 the request was to plat the property and the dock would never
have been an issue, so there would never have been a need to discuss the dock.
Vice Chair Pieper asked the Commission members where they stand in regards to
this issue. Poul said he felt the dock was not being used so Dr. Salovich lost his
right and also felt the City did not do anything wrong in regards to communication
as it was a platting issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 2017
Page 4
Kirk said he was on the Commission 10 years ago and remembers the platting issue
and does not recall conversation about the dock. Kirk said he agrees with Poul and
the finding the City has made. Vice Chair Pieper said he agrees with Poul and Kirk,
and also understands the sensitivity of this issue.
Wuttke said the City Council may be able to hear this and do some negotiating. Mr.
Rosow said the City Council would follow a similar process as the Planning
Commission is following. Mr. Rosow said if a motion is made it should be noted in
Finding 8 be revised to note the “dock located on the shore into the lake”.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Farr, to approve Final Order 216-18 to
uphold the staff determination with modifications to Finding 8 to include the terms,
after “on the shore”, “into the lake”. Motion carried 5-2, with Freiberg and
Wuttke opposing.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CODE AMENDMENT – TOWERS AND ANTENNAS
Request to:
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to Cell Towers and Antennas
Klima said the Federal Communications commission (FCC) Act of 1996
established antennas and towers as a permitted use in all cities and may not be
discriminated against by zoning districts established in cities. In 1996, the City
Code was amended to permit towers and antenna in all zoning districts and created
Section 11.06 entitled “Towers and Antennas”, which regulates the use of antennas
and towers in all zoning districts. The Town Center, Airport Commercial, Airport
Office and Gold Course Districts were created after 1996. After reviewing the
permitted uses in these districts it was noted that towers and antennas were
inadvertently not included at the time of the districts inception. The Code
Amendment is a house keeping item to ensure City Code is in alignment with the
FCC Act of 1996. Staff is proposing the language be clarified and is recommending
approval.
Kirk commented an antenna in an airport office district would not be permitted if it
was a 100 foot antenna, but if it was 10 foot it would be permitted. Klima
concurred that is generally correct that towers and antenna area regulated by
Section. 11.06. Section 11.06 is not proposed to be changed.
Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 9, 2017
Page 5
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Higgins, to recommend approval to
amend City Code Chapter 11 to permit antennas and towers as a permitted use in
the Town Center, Airport Commercial, Airport Office and Golf Course Zoning
Districts and based on the information included in the staff report dated January 4,
2017. Motion carried 7-0.
VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT
VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORT
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Freiberg, to adjourn the Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
Vice Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m.
STAFF REPORT:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner
DATE: January 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Code Change – Building Height Definition
BACKGROUND
While working with development teams and individual residents, inconsistencies between the
building code and zoning code definition of building height have come to staff’s attention. In
order to reduce the inconsistencies and provide for a building height definition that is more user
friendly, staff is proposing that the Zoning Ordinance definition of building height be revised.
EXISTING LANGUAGE
The existing building height definition in the Zoning Ordinance reads as follows:
Building height – is the vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point
of the coping of the highest flat roof or to the deck line of the highest mansard roof or to the
average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be
selected by either of the following whichever yields the greater height of the building:
a) The elevation of the highest adjoining ground surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance
of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more
than 10 feet above the lowest grade.
b) An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the ground surface described in
“a” above is more than 10 feet above the lowest grade. The height of a stepped or
terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building
The existing building height definition in the Building Code is as follows:
Height, building: The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest
roof surface.
Grade Plane: A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the
building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls,
the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building
and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet from the building, between the building
and a point 6 feet from the building.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
Staff is proposing the following language. Text struckthrough is proposed for deletion and
text underlined is proposed for addition.
Building height - is the vertical distance above a reference datum measured from the grade
plane to the highest point of the coping of the highest flat roof or to the deck line of the highest
mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The
reference datum shall be selected by either of the following whichever yields the greater height
of the building:
a) The elevation of the highest adjoining ground surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance
of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more
than 10 feet above the lowest grade.
b) An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the ground surface described in
“a” above is more than 10 feet above the lowest grade. The height of a stepped or
terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building
Grade Plane: A reference plane representing the average finished ground level adjoining the
building at the exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior
walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the
building and the closest adjacent lot line or, where the closest adjacent lot line is more than 6 feet
from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet from the building.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the code amendment to address building height as represented in
the January 19, 2017 staff report and draft language.
1
PROJECT PROFILE – JANUARY 23, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 23, 2017
1. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITION (2017-01) (JULIE)
Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11, relating to Building Height Definition
Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 01/04/17
Date Complete N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A
Initial DRC review N/A
Notice to Paper Date 01/05/17
Resident Notice Date N/A
Meeting Date 01/23/17
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/17
Resident Notice Date N/A
1st Meeting Date 00/00/17
2nd Meeting Date
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION – JANUARY 23, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 13, 2017
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – FEBRUARY 14, 2017
1. PRESTIGE DAYCARE (2016-12) by Shingobee (ANGIE)
Proposal to construct a daycare facility
Location: 15219 Pioneer Trail – Southeast Quadrant of Mitchell/Spring Rd & Pioneer Trl
Contact: Stacy Gleason 763-479-5647
Request for:
• Site Plan Review on 3 acres of un-platted land within the 35 acre parcel of Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) owned property
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 08/26/16
Date Complete 09/13/16
120 Day Deadline 03/11/17
Initial DRC review 09/01/16
Notice to Paper Date 10/26/16
Resident Notice Date 10/28/16
Meeting Date 11/14/16
Notice to Paper Date 11/16/16
Resident Notice Date 11/18/16
1st Meeting Date 12/06/16
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16
2
2. CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO TOWERS AND ANTENNAS (2016-20) (STEVE)
Public Hearing amending City Code, Chapter 11, relating to Cell Towers and Antennas
Contact: Steve Durham, 952-949-8491
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 12/05/16
Date Complete N/A
120 Day Deadline N/A
Initial DRC
review
N/A
Notice to Paper Date 12/22/16
Resident Notice Date N/A
Meeting Date 01/09/17
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/17
Resident Notice Date N/A
1st Meeting Date 00/00/17
2nd Meeting Date
CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 14, 2017
REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
1. ERS ESTATES LAKE ACCESS & DOCK (2016-18) by ERS Development LLC (JULIE)
Application to appeal staff determination regarding non-conforming status of a dock
Location: 12551 Beach Circle
Contact: Peter Beck 612-991-1350
Request for:
• Appeal of staff determination that legal non-conforming status has ceased
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/11/16
Date Complete 11/01/16
120 Day Deadline 02/28/17
Initial DRC review 10/13/16
Notice to Paper Date N/A
Resident Notice Date 11/21/16
Meeting Date 12/12/16
Notice to Paper Date N/A
Resident Notice Date 00/00/16
1st Meeting Date 00/00/16
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16
CONSERVATION COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 14, 2017
3
CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – TBD
1. PRAIRIE BLUFFS SENIOR LIVING (2015-17) by Albert Miller (BETH)
Proposal to develop a 3 and 4 story, 138 unit senior housing and assisted living project
Location: 10217, 10220, 10240, 10280 Hennepin Town Road and two additional parcels
(PID 36 -116-22-11-0026 & 36-116-22-11-0003)
Contact: Albert Miller – 612-386-6260
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential and Office to High Density
Residential on 4.74 acres.
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.74 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.74 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural and Office to RM-2.5 on 4.74 acres
• Site Plan Review on 4.74 acres
• Preliminary Plat of six lots into one lot and one outlot on 4.74 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 07/13/16
Date Complete 08/02/16
120 Day Deadline 03/15/17
Initial DRC review 07/28/16
Notice to Paper Date 08/04/16
Resident Notice Date 08/05/16
Meeting Date 08/22/16
Notice to Paper Date 09/22/16
Resident Notice Date 09/23/16
1st Meeting Date 10/4/16
2nd Meeting Date
IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED
1. 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
4
2. KOPESKY 2ND ADDITION (2016-19) by HTPO (ANGIE)
Proposal for an 8 lot single family subdivision
Location: 18340 82nd St W.
Contact: Charles Howley – 952-829-0700
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review with waivers on 4.14 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.14 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 4.14 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one lot into 8 lots on 4.14 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 10/28/16
Date Complete 00/00/16
120 Day Deadline 00/00/16
Initial DRC review 11/03/16
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16
Resident Notice Date 00/00/16
Meeting Date 00/00/16
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16
Resident Notice Date 00/00/16
1st Meeting Date 00/00/16
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16
3. CEDARCREST STABLES (2016-21) by Pemtom Land Company (BETH)
Proposal for a 17 lot single family subdivision
Location: 16870 Cedarcrest Drive.
Contact: Dan Blake – 952-937-0716
Request for:
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review with waivers on 10.65 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10.65 acres
• Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5 on 10.65 acres
• Preliminary Plat of one lot into 17 lots on 10.65 acres
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 12/09/16
Date Complete 12/20/16
120 Day Deadline 04/19/17
Initial DRC review 12/15/16
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16
Resident Notice Date 00/00/16
Meeting Date 00/00/16
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/16
Resident Notice Date 00/00/16
1st Meeting Date 00/00/16
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/16
5
4. ROCKWILL ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT (2017-02) by B Cubed, LLC. (BETH)
Proposal to divide one lot into two lots on 1.05-acre
Location: 15480 Sunrise Circle East.
Contact: Jeremy Rock – 612-616-6916
Request for:
• Preliminary Plat to divide one lot into two lots on 1.05 acres.
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 01/06/17
Date Complete 00/00/17
120 Day Deadline 00/00/17
Initial DRC review 01/12/17
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/17
Resident Notice Date 00/00/17
Meeting Date 00/00/17
Notice to Paper Date 00/00/17
Resident Notice Date 00/00/17
1st Meeting Date 00/00/17
2nd Meeting Date 00/00/17
APPROVED VARIANCES
TELECOMMUNICATION PROJECTS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS File#2017-01TM by AT&T (c/o – Jason Hall – The Hall Institute, Inc.) – Contact
Jason Hall #612-670-0101. Reviewed by Steve Durham
(Approved 00-00-17) Review time ? days. Complete as of 01-09-17
Location: 17185 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Request: Antenna addition to existing Verizon tower (co-location.) Administrative review.
Property zoned Office, PID#08-116-22-24-0003
Application Info Planning Commission City Council
Date Submitted 1-09-17
Date Complete 01-09-17
90 Day Deadline 04-09-17
Initial DRC review 01-12-17
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