HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 01/14/2008 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, J ANUARY 14, 2008 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick,
Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford,
Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,
Kevin Schultz
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Michael Franzen, City Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kirk and Koenig.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Schultz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried
7-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 10, 2007
Pitzrick had one change under the Minutes section. He wanted the sentence to read
"manufacturing underground", versus parking underground. MOTION by Powell,
seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 6-0. Seymour
abstained.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2008-01
Request for:
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 2
Shoreland setback variance from 150 to 25 feet from the Ordinary High Water
Level of McCoy Lake; Front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 25.3 feet.
Craig Merriman, owner of the property, presented the variance request. He said
he would like the variance request to rebuild the storage shed which was damaged
last summer due to a windstorm.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the
application of shoreland and City code setbacks on a long and irregular shape lot
would preclude any building, replacement of a building or enlargement of the
building unless a variance is granted. The accessory structure was built prior to
the effective date of the Shoreland Code in 1982. Rezoning of the property
from Rural to R1-13.5 would not eliminate a need for the variances.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Rocheford, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Rocheford, to recommend approval of a
shoreland setback variance from 150 feet to 25 feet from the Ordinary High Water
level of McCoy Lake, and front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 25.3 feet
based on plans stamped dated December 7, 2007, and the staff report dated
January 11, 2008. Motion carried 7-0.
B. MINC RILEY LAKE—VERIZON WIRELESS TOWER
Request for:
Site Plan Review on 29.84 acres.
Peter Campbell,representing Verizon Wireless, presented the proposal. He
showed revised drawings of the tower and the screen wall. He stated they have
worked with the Parks Department on this site plan to screen the accessory
structure and to supply landscaping to the area.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said there are five
conditions that have to be met before this can be approved. The first condition is
to meet with the Parks Commission, which they have already completed. The
second condition is to present their site plan to the Planning Commission for
approval of setback and screening requirements. The third condition is to meet
with the Heritage Preservation Committee to see if there will be any historical
impacts to the area. The fourth condition would be to meet with the FAA to see if
the tower would conflict with any zones. The fifth condition would be to meet
with the Building Department to obtain a building permit. Staff recommends
approval based on page 2 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 3
Stoltz asked Fox why we would want to put this tower on public land. Fox said it
is the way it was written in the City Code that towers be placed on public
property. Verizon also wanted this location because it would be in a good
location to serve its customers. Stoltz asked if there were any other places in the
park to place this tower. Fox said there was not. Stoltz asked what the City has to
gain by placing this tower in the City; such as a lease payment. Stoltz asked Mr.
Campbell if he had an idea of how much a month they would be paying for a
lease payment. Mr. Campbell said it would be approximately $1,000 a month for
25 years. Stoltz asked Fox if 25 years was too long of a time to make lease
payments. Fox stated it was a starting point and the length of time could change
if technology became outdated.
Stoelting asked Fox why this particular location was picked since it is somewhat
located on a hill and next to the tennis courts. Fox said the tower would need to
be placed vertically up in the air, so it would need to be placed on top of the hill.
Secondly, this tower is tucked in around a hill, which makes it less visible. And
thirdly, there is a path leading up to the tennis courts, which could be used by
utility trucks servicing the tower. Stoelting asked Fox if there was a planned use
for this area of the hillside. Fox said there was not.
Pitzrick asked Fox if he had any idea of competitors to Verizon and could the City
be getting additional competitors in the area. Fox said there are three cell towers
in Riley Lake Park already. This tower is larger than the three,but would not stop
another vendor from coming to the area and Verizon would have to supply space
for that vendor. Pitzrick asked if there was another vendor, would they need to
have an additional ancillary structure in the area. Fox said he did not believe they
would need to put up an additional ancillary structure. Mr. Campbell said,
antenna wise, the tower is big enough to hold other carriers.
Rocheford asked if other airway carriers are allowed to lease this tower, like fire
alarm companies or such. Mr. Campbell said the other cell phone companies will
use the antennas for their use but he has not heard of other vendors wanting to
lease the tower.
Stoelting asked Mr. Campbell if the appearance of the tower would change if
there was another carrier on the tower. Mr. Campbell utilized the overhead
projector to show what the tower would look like if there were another carrier on
the tower and pointed out it would not really change the appearance of the tower.
Stoelting asked how much noise the generator would make. Mr. Campbell said it
is only used for emergency purposes and would be tested twice a month during
off hours and stated it would not be that loud. Stoelting asked if the generator
was totally enclosed. Mr. Campbell said it is enclosed by a combination of trees
and a rock wall.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 4
Stoltz asked Mr. Campbell why he decided to put the tower up. Mr. Campbell
said it was a customer driven decision to have better home coverage in the area.
Stoltz asked Mr. Campbell if this proposal was not approved, did they have
another location outside of the park to place the tower. Mr. Campbell said they
did not have another location outside of the park.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Powell, to recommend approval of the Site
Plan Review on 29.84 acres based on plans stamped dated January 3, 2008, and
the staff report dated January 22, 2008. Motion carried 7-0.
Commission Member Schultz left the meeting.
C. TOP DOG COUNTRY CLUB AND VET CLINIC
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.03 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 3.03 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the
Commercial Regional Service District on 3.03 acres; Site Plan Review on 3.03
acres.
Dave Hecker, representing Fendler Patterson Construction, Inc., presented the
proposal. This property is the old Frank's Nursery and Crafts. What the
developer would like to do with this property is to enclose it and put in a
veterinarian clinic and a dog day care.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen replied the sites
original tenant was Franks Nursery and Crafts (1990). The project was approved
with a parking waiver and a plan that converts the outdoor garden area to parking
should a different use occupy the building in the future. This project converts the
entire outdoor garden area to a building addition for Top Dog (vet clinic - dog day
care). The project requires a waiver for increased site coverage and less parking.
Franzen suggested that the Commission consider what impact this project would
have on the future of the Town Center and does it help in a manner such as
Windsor Plaza and Presbyterian Homes. Franzen added there are 4 ways to look
at the development of this project. The first would be to approve the plan as
proposed. The second would be a revised plan consistent with current zoning.
The third plan would be a revised plan with waivers and consistent with the Town
Center Plan. The fourth plan would be to focus on the future development of the
Town Center. Staff recommends development approach 2, 3, and 4.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Robert Grootwassink, of 15382 Mason's Point, Eden Prairie, said the density has
changed to cover the outdoor play area. They did this to cover the noise from the
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 5
barking dogs. He also pointed out they picked tenants two tenants with low
parking needs. He stated at one time there would only be a maximum of 30
spaces used by these businesses. Because of this, they do not see parking as a
problem.
Stoltz commented this is the third request for a dog day care in Eden Prairie and
he was surprised there was no public here tonight. Mr. Grootwassink said he
talked to Petco, Dollar Tree, Champps, and the nearby apartment complex and
had all no objections.
Stoelting asked if he talked to the individuals at the apartment complex. Mr.
Grootwassink said he just talked with the manager, who in turn would be talking
to the tenants. Stoelting asked Franzen if proper notices were sent out. Franzen
said the notices were sent out to everyone that was within 500 feet of the
proposed site.
Pitzrick asked about the parking and commented when Frank's was there they did
have a problem with parking, especially in the summertime due to Champps
traffic. Mr. Grootwassink said they are a tenant that does not require a lot of
parking.
Pitzrick asked if the outdoor space was at least$50 a square foot. Mr. Hecker
said he was unsure of the cost but it would be less expensive to build an outdoor
space rather than office space. Pitzrick said because of this, it would not hinder
future development, if that was necessary.
Stoelting asked, in turning to the map, to explain the play areas. Mr. Hecker said
there are 74 suites for the dogs, with the potential for more space.
Jean Beuning, owner of Top Dog Country Club, said there will be approximately
100 dogs a day because some of the suites are family suites, which can
accommodate more than one day of the same family.
Powell indicated that there will be considerable redevelopment activity within a
quarter of a mile of this business as part of a plan for a Town Center. He asked
the project proponent if he was aware of the guide plan change. Ms. Beuning said
she was not aware of the change. Franzen added that he gave a copy of the plan
for the Town Center to Mr. Grootwassink prior to making application for review.
Stoelting asked Mr. Grootwassink to address the topic of all of the changes in the
area, given this project does not conform to the vision plan. Mr. Grootwassink
said he anticipates the building only being there only 10-15 years and at that time,
if the building would have to be torn down, then so be it. It would still be
affordable for redevelopment.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 6
Stoelting asked Ms. Beuning about the parking issue and commented that with
100 dogs, 74 suites, that would be a lot of cars in the parking lot. Ms. Beuning
said what she anticipates for parking between staff at the vet clinic and day care
would be 25 spots for employee parking. The heaviest traffic would be in the
morning for drop off with the day care and commented people going to the vet
clinic would not be there a long time.
Pitzrick said he does not have a problem with this development and does not see it
influencing future development.
Powell said he thinks there would be no problem with parking or noise. The only
problem he could see would be the fact that he would have liked to have all of the
residents in the apartment complex receive notice of this meeting and not just the
owner of the complex. He also said the noise abatement policies should be
applied and not grandfathered in, and we should require that lighting standards
and design considerations be enforced right now.
Stoelting summarized what Powell said and asked the other Commission
Members what they felt about the notification that was given out, design
consideration, and noise abatement policies.
Rocheford said all of the residents did not need to be notified since the
management company did not see the project as interfering with the ability to
lease units. In regards to design considerations, it is not fair to single out this
entity if other businesses do not have to comply.
Pitzrick said no to noise abatement and design consideration,but felt notification
should have been given to the tenants of the apartment complex.
Seymour said he did not feel it was necessary to notify the residents. He said in
regards to design consideration, since it is an existing building, they should not
have to comply.
Stoltz said he believes the tenants should have been notified of the meeting.
Franzen pointed out notification just has to be given to the property owner.
Rocheford said he understands about notifying residents but clarified these are
tenants in the apartment complex. Since the property owner of the apartment
complex is not at the meeting,he clearly does not feel it would affect the tenants
coming into the area.
Stoltz said he is not concerned with design or noise. He does feel no matter who
the tenant is, there will always be a problem with parking.
Pitzrick said in regard to the parking problems, he feels it is Champps burden and
we should not burden these people with it.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 7
Stoelting verified that the play area was all enclosed. The project proponent said
it was enclosed. Stoelting asked if there was any way to make the building
smaller,reducing the base area ratio, which would lower the amount of parking
spaces needed. Franzen said if the play space was not enclosed, then you would
not need parking for that space,but you would then have the issue of noise.
Stoelting said he does not feel notification of residents was an issue. Pitzrick
agreed now, after Rocheford's last comment.
Rocheford said in his line of business in dealing with associations, the owners are
just given notifications and not tenants. Powell felt strongly that the residents in
apartment buildings should have been notified.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.03 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review on 3.03 acres; Zoning district Amendment with in
the Commercial Regional Service District on 3.03 acres and Site Plan Review on
3.03 acres based on plans stamped dated December 21, 2007, and the staff report
dated January 11, 2008.
Stoelting wanted to do a roll call of votes.
Pitzrick—Yes
Powell—Abstained
Rocheford—Yes
Seymour—Yes
Stoltz—Yes
Stoelting - Yes
Motion carried 5-0, with 1 abstention.
D. SIGN CODE CHANGE—PUBLIC AND AIRPORT SIGNS
Franzen suggested this meeting be continued to the January 28 meeting.
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Pitzrick, to continue this public hearing to
the January 28, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
Franzen addressed the Commission Members and stated if their terms would be expiring
soon, they should have received a letter in the mail asking them if they would like to
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 14, 2008
Page 8
continue to be on the Board. The Members who would have received letters would have
been Kirk, Koenig, Powell, and Stoltz.
Franzen said there are currently two items scheduled for the next agenda meeting.
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.