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.