Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/28/2020APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 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 Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission member DeSanctis was absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Gooding to approve the minutes of September 14, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT A. CODE AMENDMENT FOR GYMNASIUMS Request for: Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to gymnasiums Klima presented a PowerPoint and gave the background on this amendment. Prior to 1982, gymnasiums were not permitted uses in the Industrial Zoning District. The City received a request to amend the Code to allow gymnasiums in this district. The City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment for review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment, and the City Council approved an ordinance amendment PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2020 Page 2 permitting gymnasiums in Industrial Zoning Districts. Gymnasiums were allowed to occupy 100 percent of a building’s square footage. Since then, certain issues have arisen: there was no definition of gymnasium, allowing for a broad interpretation. Fitness studios, gymnastics studios, swim schools, dance studios, martial arts studios, et cetera, had been permitted in the Industrial Zoning Districts, but their permitted use also in the Commercial Zoning Districts has caused inconsistencies. Also, changes in the uses of industrial buildings are driven by the economy and market trends. Klima explained this amendment was meant to clean up the Code and allow for equitable treatment among similar uses by providing a definition and setting use standards. The proposed amendment would allow gymnasium uses up to 50 percent of the total floor area of a building. Staff recommended approval. Mette asked for and received confirmation that with these changes the Tags Building would remain a conforming use. Kirk asked for and received confirmation that unless the application pursued a PUD the building would be limited to 50 percent gymnasium use. Kirk stated the logic of the 50 percent limit was to preserve opportunities for manufacturing jobs in the Golden Triangle, and Klima agreed. With the addition of the LRT line and other changes in the area, a new mix of uses was arising and there would not be as much acreage for industrial uses. Julia Thompson, co-founder of Tags Gymnastics at 10300 West 70th Street, stated the business had been in Eden Prairie since 1982 and in this building since 2002. Tags employed 75-100 people. The events of 2020, especially the Covid-19 pandemic and its requirements for masks and social distancing, placed stress on her business serving over 3,500 students. Moving from 100 percent to 50 percent could be challenging. She felt fortunate to meet these guidelines now but worried about the future and for future owners, especially tenants with uses similar to hers. Employment was a challenge right now. She urged the commission to show more flexibility in this amendment and thanked them for their flexibility thus far. Kirk asked for and received clarification from both Thompson and Klima that the rest of the tenants were not gymnasiums, as the one other fitness center exceeded the 15 percent floor area threshold for retail. Mette asked at what point nonconforming uses such as gymnasiums could be prohibited after a use reverts to industrial. Klima replied the nonconforming language in the City Code, which mirrored the State’s language, would apply in this case. If the nonconforming use ceased to operate for one year and was not released to another nonconforming business, then the site would require a conforming use. Mette suggested included an explanatory letter in that case. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2020 Page 3 MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. Farr stated this was a mixed-use district but an Industrial Zoned District could include factories and other uses with low density, and he saw a contradiction of keeping employment high in a traditionally low-density area. He saw more logic in allowing higher-density technical uses in commercial than in restricting use in an Industrial Zoned District. Also, encouraging fitness, especially indoors in Minnesota, was a good message to send. Ideally, the commission would vote to allow more use of gymnasiums in this zone. Kirk concurred and stated the 50 percent limit was an obstacle for him, too. He asked for data on the results of such limitations in other communities. He advised against an “artificial” or arbitrary limit. Gooding stated he visited the Golden Triangle and saw a great variety of uses, ranging from perhaps 10 employees to one hundred, and questioned the focus on placing limits on gymnasiums. He also asked for more data. Mette warned against the commission getting into a public policy discussion against a land use discussion. She agreed with Gooding, Kirk, and Farr, but stated this kind of question was common in urban planning, even if the stated desired outcome was not the actual outcome, and the question may go to the policy, which was beyond the scope of this commission. Kirk replied airing the issue was a healthy discussion. He agreed the commission could only advise on policy. Farr stated the difference between regulating a primary versus a secondary use in a zoning district. He urged working on the primary use if the strategy was to add employees. Higgins stated she sensed there was an effort to look at other cities as examples, and asked Klima for examples. Klima replied staff did look at other communities in the region, many of which used different zoning district terminology. Two communities provided limitations (Bloomington at 50 percent floor area, and Hopkins at 3,000 square feet). She added the commission could make a recommendation on the percentage. Pieper asked for and received clarification the research did not sufficiently detail to confirm such limitations spurred growth. Mette asked if the limitation was applied to the Golden Triangle, and Klima replied it applied to all Industrial Zones in Eden Prairie. Markos noted this could theoretically allow 50 percent gymnasiums in every building, which defeated the purpose of the proposal. Discussion followed on preserving opportunity areas versus encouraging certain jobs. Pieper noted the difficulty of this issue coming up now, during a pandemic. Klima replied this issue had been on staff’s list to address and after the completion of the Comprehensive Plan process, staff began working on implementing strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff had identified this item as an issue to be addressed and began working on this prior to the Covid-19 pandemic outbreak. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2020 Page 4 Pieper asked for and received confirmation the commission could make a recommendation on the definition without adopting the limitation language. Mette asked for and received clarification the commission was being asked to 1) define gymnasiums and 2) recommend a percentage use (or none). Kirk stated the commission was 1) trying to solve a problem it did not know how to solve, and 2) the way it was being “solved” (the 50 percent limitation) did not have sufficient data to back it. He questioned putting a building owner through the PUD process with the implementation of the 50 percent limitation. At this time, he supported no limitation change. Mette agreed, and added further changes could be made in the future. Defining this zoning district use definition was also deciding the goal of this amendment. Kirk replied focusing on primary uses, as Farr had recommended, was a way forward. Higgins agreed the future was uncertain and no one knew how it would impact zoning in Eden Prairie, therefore the commission could not know the actual outcome of this amendment. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Farr to recommend approval of the code amendment gymnasium definition change but to add no percentage limit to total floor space area (maintaining the existing allowed 100 percent total floor area). MOTION CARRIED 8-0. B. CODE AMENDMENT FOR LIGHTING Request for: Amend City Code Chapter 11 relating to site lighting Klima presented a PowerPoint and explained the amendment. This was a housekeeping amendment to implement design standards currently captured by staff in the Development Agreement, therefore, to require by Code what was currently in practice. The amendment would maintain current requirements and add standards for downcast, shielded, and cut off features and other measures to reduce glare and light spill onto neighboring properties. Staff recommended approval. MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. Farr advised against being overly restrictive in the lighting code. He commended the addition of “downcast luminaires” and wished to see a three-foot concrete base to the height requirements on pole lights. He was unsure if the recommendation would keep glare from the property lines on parking lots, since light poles were planted on the green space. He urged some flexibility or “free zone” where glare was kept from the property line. He asked for more clarification as to the canopy lighting. Kirk suggested the “free zone” be the setback on the other property. Society had profited from higher efficiency and LEDs, but “efficiency” was not mentioned in the amendment, and he asked if this was necessary. Mette agreed it saved money PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2020 Page 5 and was desired by property owners but questioned whether it should go in this amendment or elsewhere. Farr replied most or all new lighting was LED, and new technology could come in the future, so staff’s design guidelines were adequate to address this question. Klima agreed this was addressed by the design guidelines. Pieper asked for a clarification on requirement b), and Klima explained the three- foot bumper requirement followed from the requirement all parking lot lighting be installed in an island. Any installed not on an island would require the three-foot base but if given the option, lighting located in islands may increasingly be unlikely to be installed. Farr noted the units of parking were detailed in number of stalls, which were too far apart for 25-foot light poles. If the City was to require a light on a parking island, require islands. This made sense for, say, Eden Prairie Center but not for all commercial/retail business parking lots. Discussion followed on Farr’s suggestion that the requirement of all poles being on islands be relaxed. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Toomey to recommend approval of the code amendment based on the staff report dated September 28, 2020 with the following changes: under items a) through g) in the underlighting section, full acceptance of item a), changing the requirement in item b) to include a 25-foot pole on a maximum three-foot base, the elimination of item c), retaining item d), changing item e) to add a building setback zone where “adjacent properties” does not apply, retaining item f), and in item g) adding the phrase “except decorative lighting at building entries.” MOTION CARRIED 8-0. C. CODE AMENDMENT FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Request for: Amend City Code Chapter 11 to comply with recent Federal Communication Commission rulings Klima presented a PowerPoint and detailed the amendment change. The FCC Act of 1996 established antennas and towers as permitted uses in all cities that may not be discriminated against by zoning districts established in cities. The Spectrum Act of 2012 established that local governments were 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 would not alter the existing 13 Subdivisions regulating towers and antennas. Subdivision 14 would be added and provide acknowledgement of the 2020 FCC declaratory ruling. Staff recommended approval. Pieper asked if what the commission had previously reviewed at Eden Prairie High School would have still come before the commission after this code amendment was adopted, and Klima replied it still would have. It was to build a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28, 2020 Page 6 new tower, Mette asked for and received clarification Section 14 included items a), b), and c). MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Gooding to recommend approval of the code amendment based on the findings in the staff report dated September 23, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Toomey to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.