Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/22/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Ray Stoelting, Bill Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting, Commissioners Brooks, Foote, Nelson, and Sutherland. Absent: Koenig and Seymour II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Brooks, second by Foote, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 4-0 III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the March 8, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting Foote stated on page two, 4th paragraph, the 3rd sentence which reads "Foote asked if it's a rare occurrence to be off the measurement." should be "off on the measurement..." MOTION by Brooks, second by Foote, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 4-0. Nelson joined the meeting at 7:10 p.m. IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WESTGATE OFFICE PARK by Klingelhutz Development Company. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 2.6 acres, Zoning District Change from I-General to Office on 2.6 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.6 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.6 acres into 4 lots. Location: North of Venture Lane. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 2 Franzen stated the proponent has requested a continuance of the project to the April 12, 2004 meeting, to revise the plans to reduce tree loss,realign trails, and adjust sewer connections. Terry Schneider, representing Klingelhutz Development Company, asked for input from the Board members as to any concerns or information they required which he would address when he returns before the Board. The Board members did not have questions or concerns with the project. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson, to recommend a continuance to the April 12, 2004, meeting. Motion carried, 5-0 B. SLUMBERLAND by C.M. Architecture P.A. Request for Comprehensive Guide plan change from Office to Regional Commercial on 7.18 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 7.18 acres, Site Plan Review on 7.18 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.18 acres into one lot. Location: Topview Road and Valley View Road. Paul Coffman of Slumberland stated it has been difficult finding good sites for their stores and they have determined the site in Eden Prairie as a good site to locate a store. Gary Fagerstrom, the architect, displayed a model of the proposed store showing the contours on the site which he said had a great deal of slope amounting to approximately a 50 foot difference from one corner to the other. He said the site is vacant and has an existing wooded area on the northern edge and residential on the east and north sides of the property; to the west of the site is an office building. The slope goes from the northeast to the southwest. Everything drains into the existing NURP pond that will be expanded and then will drain into the sewer. He stated Topview Road slopes toward the site; he described the right-in right-out access into the site. The building has a typical store front and store system. He showed the brick to be used on the exterior of the buildings to the Board members. He said this facility has more windows than they normally plan for with their stores. This will help to make it more pedestrian friendly. Franzen stated that the reports for Slumberland and Fountain are similar since it is important to treat all retail projects in a fair and consistent manner. The staff report lists several ways in which the building architecture should be changed to make it look less like a big box and add more architectural detail. Since staff are not trained architects, it would be more appropriate to provide physical examples of retail recently built in the metro area that would satisfy the conditions in the staff report. The Slumberland architect is the trained professional that should take ideas and transform them into a physical reality. Good examples are the main street retail or Shoppes at Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove, representing a collection of small and medium size retail but with a pedestrian emphasis and human scale architecture. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 3 Franzen summarized the three main issues with the project as use of the property with, traffic and access to Topview Road, and third, architectural and landscaping. Staff is not comfortable with the plan as proposed and is recommending a continuance. The public offered no comments. Nelson asked the architect what the sides and back look like architecturally. Fagerstrom showed the Board a model of the building and explained there are a pedestrian side and a utility side which is typical of retail buildings in that the less public areas are not as attractive. Nelson stated there will be residents looking down on this site at the back of the building. Fagerstrom responded the site is heavily wooded and it's difficult to see through the trees onto the site. Nelson asked staff to explain the access from Topview Road and how they envision the traffic flow through this site. Fagerstrom responded that they reviewed this access with city staff a number of times and Slumberland believes it's unsafe to put an entrance onto Topview. He said there is a lot of slope and when it's icy and snowy there are some problems. When CSM tried to develop this area, they asked residents if they felt unsafe on Topview Road and whether they thought it would be more or less safe with an intersection. The residents said it would be less safe. Gray stated that in addition to an access to Valley View Road, staff is asking for access to Topview Road. He stated this site is difficult for this type of use. The difficulty is that they want a right-in right-out on Valley View Road. Traffic studies indicate there would be an impact on the actual traffic capacity on Valley View Road in the future. He said when looking at the office environment which generates a lot of p.m. traffic, it was decided that for this project there should be right-in, right-out access to both roads. In this particular case part of the dilemma is the change in land use. Staff believes that the single right-in,right-out will result in a situation similar to the Lunds store on Prairie Center Drive. They had full access on Franlo Road and a right-in, right-out access off of Prairie Center Drive which was inconvenient for their customers. The Slumberland location would have a cross access to the properties across from the store but the customers likely will not use the cross access because they feel uncomfortable cutting across an office or retail site. He stated the concern with access is a minor one at the present time. Fagerstrom stated that traffic going east on Valley View would be faced with that same situation even with a right-in right-out on Topview. They would have to make a u-turn or go up to Topview and turn around. Stoelting asked Fagerstrom to show an example of how traffic would flow in and out of the site. Fagerstrom showed a map and indicated the intersection and how if the turn was missed the customers would have to continue to Topview Road and then turn around. Stoelting stated it looks as though customers would be driving through the office building property to get to the Slumberland area and asked him to address Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 4 this situation. Fagerstrom responded the parking is on the north side of the building and traffic to Slumberland would be primarily weekends and evenings whereas the office traffic would be weekdays. Coffman stated they are concerned with their reputation and safety is important. Gray stated the traffic flow is the concern and whether commercial trucks will be making u-turns. The intersection at Topview and Valley View and the cross access will become a problem. Nelson asked the proponent if the request by staff that the loading and trash areas need to be screened is a problem. Fagerstrom responded they are planning to screen the areas. Nelson asked if they plan on any other signs on the building in addition to the one on the front. Frank Hickey of Signia Design stated that there are a couple of options available for Slumberland. The first option would be a smaller ground base sign at the entrance and one in the front of the building and on the southeast side of the building. He said another option would be a larger pylon sign by Home Depot which would help traffic to see Slumberland coming up; signs are designed appropriate for the site. Nelson asked if they plan to have a tall sign for that site. He responded they would follow city requirements for signs. He said they have electronic reader boards on some of their sites but at this site it is not necessary. Brooks stated he doesn't have a problem with the guide plan change or the zoning change but the traffic on Topview Road is a problem. He said delivery trucks to Slumberland and the grocery store are not going have problems finding the location and he was pleased that the City isn't going to allow traffic to cause problems on Valley View Road. He said the challenge is the appearance of the large box retail and traveling down Topview Road and seeing the roof tops. There may be tree coverage in the spring and summer but over the long winter, the roof will be visible. He asked staff how much of the roof is actually seen. Franzen responded the parapet wall will work but from Valley View but not from Topview Road since it is higher than the building. Brooks asked if the City is actively recruiting other retailers to locate in Eden Prairie or is the City waiting for the developers to initiate contact. Franzen stated the City waits for the developer to approach the City. Brooks stated the City did a good job in relocating Costco and asked if there would be another site to locate a Slumberland store. Franzen responded there is a limited amount of land and due to the size of the building, there wouldn't be any sites large enough. Foote stated that in general he agrees with Brooks and had no problem going from Office to Regional Commercial. He asked Gray who would generate more traffic, office or regional commercial. Gray responded office areas have more peak hour traffic than commercial. Foote asked if there is a means to direct traffic from the Home Depot intersection with signage to direct traffic to Slumberland. Franzen Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 5 responded there are directional signs that could be added but they would need permission from other property owners. Foote stated he remembered discussion regarding connecting a road to Topview and he would have a problem with that. Franzen responded there is logic as to where they put the access point and logic as to where they did plantings. The driveway needs to be a certain distance from the intersection for stacking. He said the Wal-Mart area has an eight percent grade which people are able to navigate. He said if you're traveling down a hill and can't see the intersection it is more problematic if there is ice or unsafe conditions. If there's some warning that an intersection is ahead, it gives the driver time to react and slow down in plenty of time. Stoelting stated there has been concern about stacking during peak hours when there would be more office traffic. Sutherland asked if Slumberland has experience with other sites with the right-in, right-out access. Coffman responded he couldn't think of another store with that type of access. Franzen stated he's done a lot of furniture shopping lately and the stores he has been to don't have full road access. He said customers can go to any furniture store and find plenty of parking because people don't go shopping for furniture every day; they know the location of the store and it's a destination. Nelson stated given the site an appropriate box version would be a good fit in the area with Home Depot and Menards. She said she has no problems with more side parapets and screening of the trash area. Stoelting asked if there is a drive through for the grocery store. Fagerstrom responded there was and he displayed the site map and indicated the location of the drive through. Stoelting asked him to describe a co-op grocery store. Fagerstrom responded a co-op is a natural foods grocery store and customers need a membership. Although anyone can shop there, it is more expensive if they are not a member. Stoelting stated he agreed with a guide plan change to Regional Commercial. Sutherland asked Fagerstrom to go through the recommendations in the staff report and comment on each one. 1. Create front door architecture all sides of the "Big Box" buildings. Fagerstrom responded they addressed the front door architecture and tried to do the public sides to look like an entrance. He stated strip malls have the buildings close to the sidewalk and they don't have a utility side; with larger box type facilities like Best Buy and Circuit City there is definitely a front and back entrance so that truck traffic is separated to the back of the building. 2. Create architectural diversity through varying the placement of windows, parapets, and other architectural features. Diversity shall be appropriate in Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 6 scale to the size of the building and the surrounding area. He said they tried to diversify with changing the color with a variety of brick. He said they did change parapet height and location. There is an area set out from the main face of the building so it's not a flat wall. In a smaller multiuse development there are many front doors and there is diversity through parapets and windows. Fagerstrom responded they are offsetting the brick which should make it more interesting. There are vertical and horizontal elements relieving the plane that's there. He said there is a canopy that makes it more pedestrian friendly. The co-op has a canopy that is metal and cantilevers over the area. Franzen stated it has to do with scale; with a large building they need to go out more than two inches from the building and whether its six inches or a foot they need to rely on the architect's expertise to get where they need to be. 3. Building facades shall include design elements that enhance pedestrian movement. There should be a 20 foot sidewalk area with plantings across the front side of the buildings. Fagerstrom stated the plantings for the Slumberland building will be in front of the building. They are not sure about the grocery store yet. Sutherland asked how the building enhances pedestrian movement. The architect responded the architectural elements that enhance pedestrian movement include the windows and the visual aspect. 4. Building design shall avoid a square box building footprint. Fagerstrom said the best format for retail is a big box. If it were multi-tenant and a smaller retail facility it would be easier to make it less boxy, Slumberland doesn't have a linear footprint. 5. Use decorative pilasters, moldings, cornices, arches, arched windows, natural stone and other facade treatments to visually reduce the scale of the building. Fagerstrom stated they haven't done much of that. Nelson asked if they have ever done bump out bay windows where they could set up a room full of furniture which would allow for advertising and would change the big box image. Coffman stated they haven't done that because people tend to feel they're in a fish tank and observed by too many people outside the store. 6. Building entrances shall be designed to give a human scale for pedestrian interest. Fagerstrom stated they have done that with the canopies and the store front. As far as doing it at human scale it will seem inviting with the canopy. Sutherland asked if they are building the grocery store and leasing it. He questioned why the front of the Slumberland store seemed so much more elaborate than the grocery store. The architect responded they are leasing the building. The grocery store is more utilitarian and windows are limited; a furniture store needs to be more attractive. Sutherland asked about trees around the front entrance. The architect responded they will be similar to the Minnetonka Slumberland which has a similar setback, arch and canopy. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 7 7. Landscaping should be provided at the foot of the building to soften the transition between paved areas on the ground plane and building materials on the vertical plane. Fagerstrom stated they have done some of that on the front and very limited on the sides of the building. He stated the side between the buildings is the biggest concern because the buildings are close together. In order to provide more landscaping space between the buildings, the Slumberland building would have to be moved to the east. 8. The loading and trash areas need to be screened. Staff recommends a masonry wall and a roof over the top. He said they don't have a problem with screening but would prefer not to do a roof over the trash area. Sutherland asked about screening of the mechanical equipment. Fagerstrom responded they would do it if the City required it but it often doesn't look as good with a screen. 9. Relocate the parking from the north side of the site to the west. The additional 20 feet of green area gained will provide more room for plantings. Fagerstrom said they would have to move the building to the east,relocate parking on the north side to the west and allow more space for plantings. He said Slumberland feels screening is sufficient due to the amount of trees already existing. Sutherland asked about the height and location of the retaining wall. The architect showed a model and described the wall's locations. He said the wall would vary in height from a lowest point of 6 - 8 feet up to 18 feet in height. Stoelting asked if the board members had any issues regarding this proposal they felt strongly about. Brooks stated it's been a long time since the Board has heard an item with so many open items. He said his recommendation would be a continuance to resolve the open issues that were just discussed. Brooks stated he would be for Option 2 and making the changes staff is requesting and the proponent should work with the co-op for more creativity with their building. Nelson stated she would be comfortable with approving the plan subject to the parapets and covering the trash enclosures. She said she was comfortable with Option 1 with a couple of recommended changes. Foote stated with some of the changes implemented he could support the project. He said ten items is more than he recalls seeing in the past. If some of those were worked on it could be a very nice project. He said he doesn't have a problem with the traffic or road situation and he would support Option 2. Sutherland agreed with Brooks and was okay with the guide plan change. He said the architect responded to the staff recommendations in a straightforward manner and some of suggestions have room for negotiation. Sutherland stated he would like to see that these items resolved and would support Option 2. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 8 Stoelting stated he is okay with the guide plan change and this is a good location for this project. He said the consensus appears to be that the Board would like to continue the project to the April 26 meeting to work on these issues. He asked the proponent whether a continuance would be a hardship. Coffman stated he was not sure what the City staff was asking for with the recommendations. Franzen stated they need to look at some of the add-ons that provide articulation to the outside of the building to make it look more interesting. Coffman said they would be willing to accept a continuance and work with staff. MOTION by Brooks, second by Foote, to recommend a continuance to the April 26, 2004 meeting, directing the proponent to work with staff on the ten items in the staff report dated March 19, addressing the architectural designs of both buildings, and screening of the roofline for drivers traveling down Topview Road. Motion carried, 5-0 C. FOUNTAIN PLACE RETAIL by North American Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from High Density Residential to Regional Commercial on 2 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 16.5 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 12.8 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 12.8 acres, Site Plan Review on 12.8 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 16.5 acres into 3 lots, and road right of way. Location: West of T.H.212, east of Columbine Road, south and east of Castlemoor Drive. Jay Scott of North American Properties presented the project. Bill Wittrock, the chief architect, stated the site is oddly shaped. He described the proposal as a series of buildings positioned on the site each with its own parking area. He stated there are three large retailers that have their own front doors and a number of smaller retailers with their own front doors and with their own area of parking which allows for site interest and each retailer have the same retailing advantage. He said there are two restaurant sites. The front door is the hierarchal element; other items of architecture bring things down in scale and the sign and front door are focused. There are several different colors of highly contrasting brick. He said they tried to bring about a series of elements that focus on the front door by including awnings on the fagade and a sign being the most important focal point on the front door. He stated on the service side they have downplayed the hierarchal elements because there is a large retaining wall with a height of 10 feet at its highest and it sits approximately 30-40 feet away from the building. He said the retaining wall will be included in the landscaping. The idea is that the service side is less important but will do the appropriate architecture according to City requirements. He showed the free standing building on the site with architecture consistent with the other buildings. He said they plan to screen loading docks and mechanical roof top units. He displayed the landscape plan showing the retaining wall as heavily Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 9 landscaped with deciduous trees alternating with evergreens with the low end of the wall accented with shrubs. These elements, along with the topography fully landscape the loading areas. Stoelting asked if there is any berming; Wittrock responded there is the retaining wall. He said he believed they have architecturally delineated the building and met the requirement for landscaping and screening. Stoelting asked if they would take a phased approach to construction. Jay Scott responded most of the project would be built in one phase. The two outlying areas of the project would not be built until later at which time the proponent would come back in front of the Board. Franzen stated there are items that need additional work. building architecture and screening of the loading area in the front yard. The are three fronts to this site and so there should be a "front door"look on all sides Since the site is next to residential, screening must be more than a fence and a few trees. The building must slide to the east in order to increase the green area to create room for a brick screen wall, like Target, and more trees. Tree replacement can not be completed on site and these trees could be planted along Columbine Road to create a scenic parkway. He stated he would encourage the proponent to work with staff on the nine items in the staff report and staff recommends a continuance to the April 26 meeting. John Merkins, Presbyterian Homes, stated he has a property next to the proposed site. He said he has had a number of meetings with the proponent and believes they have done excellent projects. He said he has two concerns regarding the project. The first one is the loading and screening area which would be close in proximity to the nursing home and senior residence. The second is the traffic situation. He said Castlemoor Drive is used as a private drive to the Castleridge Nursing Home. He said the building is approximately 22 feet from the curb and 13 feet from the right of way. He stated he had an opportunity to review the traffic plan that was done for Fountain Place and he had no concerns about the extension of Columbine but the extension of Castlemoor is problematic for his site. First, the addition of traffic to the site is a safety issue and, second, the headlights from traffic entering the in-drive will be shining in the windows of the residents. He said another issue is the screening since the fourth floor residents are looking directly onto the loading area. He stated he had encouraged North American to look at other options in turning the building to allow for loading off Highway 212. Brooks asked Merkins when his facility was built; he responded 1984. Nelson agreed with staff on the landscaping and screening for the rear of the building. She said she can't see changing the buildings so they back up to Highway 212 since this is a doorway to the City. She said she believed the door front and the buildings need a lot of work. She stated she was not happy with the big box concept at this particular site. She asked if the restaurants would be fast food. Scott responded they will not be fast food. Nelson stated there need to be quite a few Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 10 changes before this project is complete. Brooks asked if they had any tenants for the buildings such as Circuit City and Sportsmart. Scott responded they are working with them. He said the City needs larger scale retailers because many Eden Prairie residents are going to Ridgedale and Southdale for a full selection of retail opportunities. He said to protect the investment the City has made with the Eden Prairie Mall they need to protect infrastructure. There are users that want to be in the community and they need to accommodate them with the larger size box building. Brooks asked if they had any plans for erecting any of the buildings on a spec basis. Scott responded they would be built for a specific user; the only one that would have any speculation would be the smaller building that wraps around the corner. It's a flexible footprint for small to midsize users. Brooks stated he doesn't have a problem with the guide plan change. A lot of consideration needs to be given to the neighboring building and the location is a challenge. He said he would like the developer to work on resolving some of these problems. Enclosing the loading docks needs to be worked on. There needs to be more landscaping and waiting 15 years for the plants to mature is a long time to wait for screening. He stated he does not like the big box retailers but residents want this type of retail and it needs to be looked at. He said he is in favor of Option 2. Foote stated he is okay with the guide plan change. He said he felt there was too much housing around the Eden Prairie Center. Because of this it would be a good location for big box retailers but there are problems with this project including the landscaping and screening. He stated regarding the Castleridge senior residence the proponent needs to look at mitigating their concerns and recommends a continuance. Sutherland stated that he agreed with the guide plan change and agreed with the big box retailer with all of its difficulties is an important part of the mix in Eden Prairie. He was also against turning the building as travelers on Highway 212 see a prelude of retail on that road. He said the project needs to be continued and chose Option 2. Stoelting asked about traffic concerns. He said he was uncertain whether there is any ingress or egress onto Castlemoor Drive shown on the plans. He asked the proponent to discuss this issue. Scott responded there will be an ingress, egress into Castlemoor Drive as well as cross easements within the site. Stoelting asked Gray to discuss traffic flow, ingress egress to Castlemoor and the extension of Columbine Road. Gray responded Columbine Road is in the process now that the City owns the land and it should be under construction later this summer and currently right of way discussions with Flagship are taking place. He said Castlemoor Drive was planned to extend and connect to Columbine as a street element and currently the only access to the Miken property is from Columbine Drive. The traffic study indicates there would be fewer than 3,000 vehicles per day which is not an unusual volume of traffic. He said he can't explain how that building was built at that setback; it should have been built 30-35 feet from the right of way. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 11 Merkins stated the setback is an existing condition. He said adding 2600 trips that close to the building is detrimental to his property. It makes the units on that side of the building unsellable. The nature of the residents being a senior living property with a high level of traffic is a safety concern. In changing this from a residential street to a commercial use where the vehicles are coming and going for purposes such as shopping and deliveries, are all concerns that affect property safety. He said he hoped if this were to move forward that perhaps the road could be relocated to an appropriate setback Stoelting asked Gray to address the traffic flow and entrance and exit points. Gray responded the primary ingress, egress would be off of Columbine. The entrance at Castlemoor is more of a secondary one. They would signalize the intersection of Columbine and Prairie Center Drive. Nelson asked if Castlemoor was a right-in, right-out entrance. Gray responded it was and that it couldn't be a full access entrance. She asked Franzen that now that they're aware that the building was misplaced would the property owner need to apply for a variance. Franzen stated they would check first to see if there had been a variance granted at some point but they wouldn't be required to apply for one at this time. Stoelting asked Fox about tree loss and using land that was not part of the project. Fox responded the discussions with the developer have to do with enhancing the entire area, not just this site. They are building a storm water pond which would be a good area to enhance with landscaping. He said Columbine Road would be a good place to put plant material, providing screening up and down the roadway. They've been amenable to put trees in but haven't worked out the details as to the number or location. Nelson asked about putting in some small fountains in the landscaping if they are going to call it Fountain Place; it would be a nice accent piece either on Highway 212 or at the entrance to the site. Franzen responded they hadn't thought about it but that goes hand in hand with architecture providing a sense of human scale and place. Nelson stated she would like that added. Stoelting stated he is comfortable with the guide plan change and is looking at Option 2 to recommend a continuance because of the number of issues still outstanding. He asked the proponent if it would be a hardship to continue the project. Scott responded there would not be a hardship but there was a concern with timing of the road construction. Stoelting asked staff when the road would be finished. Gray responded it would likely finish this year unless there were problems or delays with right-of way acquisition from Flagship which would move it into next year. MOTION by Brooks, second by Nelson, to recommend a continuance to the April 26, 2004 meeting, to address the issues in the staff report which include architectural Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 12 appeal on all sides of the buildings, landscaping, addition of fountains and screening. Motion carried, 5-0. D. SIGN PERMITS Proposal to amend City Code Section 11.70 to include definitions for both commercial and non-commercial speech related to signs posted within the City of Eden Prairie and to set forth which regulations in Section 11.70 applicable to signs containing non-commercial speech. Franzen stated the code for sign permits doesn't include a definition regarding noncommercial speech. He said the difference between commercial and noncommercial speech is that commercial is related to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment, whereas noncommercial applies to signs that include personal messages such as anti-war or election signs. The ordinance would provide that all signs need to have a certain setback and size limitation. Nelson asked if Section 2 H is going to include the special election language. Rosow responded it has been revised to more closely match the state statute. The state statute only applies to general elections while the City Code language has been expanded to include special elections. He stated residents will be placing signs out soon for the elections and the City wants to be clear on what's permitted with noncommercial signs. Nelson asked whether the code should apply to caucuses and other elections. She said there is a bill in the legislature currently which would allow signs anytime. Rosow responded that if that bill is enacted, the ordinance would be brought back before the Planning Board and Council to change the wording to conform to state law. Nelson said there is only a month to elections and the ordinance does not address caucuses. Rosow responded there are other sections that caucuses would fall under but that's an excellent point and the language can be changed to make it more encompassing, including special and primary elections. Nelson stated it would be appropriate since the elections are on a two year cycle. Foote asked if this ordinance would address language and not placement. Rosow stated noncommercial speech is less regulated than commercial and the amendment will apply to noncommercial speech. He said content can't be regulated since freedom of speech is an important right. Nelson asked whether this item should be continued for further discussion. Rosow responded the ordinance will be presented to the City Council on Tuesday and there won't be time to address it again. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 5-0 Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2004 Page 13 MOTION by Nelson, second by Foote, to recommend approval of an amendment to City Code Section 11.70 to include definitions for both commercial and non- commercial speech related to signs posted within the City of Eden Prairie and to set forth which regulations in Section 11.70 are applicable to signs containing non- commercial speech, including a change to section 2 H which would include primary, general and special elections, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 19, 2004, to the City Council. Motion carried, 5-0 VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS Foote stated this was his last meeting and thanked staff and the Board. He stated each member brings their own special input and everyone does a great job. The new members will bring their own insights to the Board also. Stoelting stated that as chair he will miss Randy Foote's experience over the past ten years. Stoelting stated when he was new to the Board he didn't have the depth of experience and he relied on Foote's input and insight gained from his experience. Stoelting wished Foote good luck. He also gave his best wishes to David Steppat who had resigned from the Board and moved out of the area. Franzen informed the Board that Seymour was reelected and three new Board members will be sworn in at the next meeting. VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Foote, second by Nelson, to adjourn. Motion passed, 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.