Planning Commission - 03/24/1997 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, March 24, 1997 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Sill Habicht, Ismail Ismail,
Katherine Kardell,Douglas Sandstad,Mary Jane Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Jessica Lind
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner
Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE--ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. MINUTES
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MTS WAREHOUSE ADDITION by MTS Systems. Request for Site Plan Review on 36.8 acres.
Location: 14000 Technology Drive.
B. TOWNPLACE CENTRE by CSM Lodging, LLC. Request for Rezoning from Office to C-
Regional Commercial and from Public to C-Regional Services on 10.59 acres, Site Plan Review-on
Is 10.59 acres, PUD Concept Review on 10.59 acres, PUD District Review on 10.59 acres and
Preliminary Plat on 10.59 acres. Location: North and South of the intersection of Leona Road and
Den Road.
C. CODE CHANGE FOR CELLULAR TOWER ANTENNAE
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIH. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
• MONDAY,MARCH 24, 1997 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill
Habicht,Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Jessica Lind
STAFF LIAISON: Mike Franzen,City Planner,Jean Johnson,
Zoning Administrator, Ric Rosow, City
• Attorney, and Barbara Anderson, City
Recorder
MEMBERS ABSENT: Douglas Sandstad, Ismail Ismail, Jessica
Lind
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 5-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Clinton noted that since Foote and Habicht would have to abstain since they were absent from
the March 10, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting, approval of the Minutes would have to
be postponed until the next meeting because a quorum was lacking.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. MTS WAREHOUSE ADDITION by MTS Systems. Request for Site Plan Review
on 36.8 acres. Location: 14000 Technology Drive.
Don Fournier, with MTS Systems, introduced Brad Jones from EKT. Fournier
reviewed the site plan and the addition to the building which will be used as
warehouse area.
• Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted staff recommended approval of the
request.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 1997
Page 2
Wissner commented that the original addition to the building which was done ten
years ago was a good addition to the community and she believed this addition would
be done in the same excellent manner.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
MOTION:Kardell moved, seconded by Foote,to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Foote, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of MTS for Site Plan Review on 36.4 acres based on plans
dated March 21, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated
March 21, 1997. Motion carried 5-0.
S. TOWNPLACE CENTRE by CSM Lodging, LLC. Request for Rezoning from
Office to C-Regional Commercial and from Public to C-Regional Services on 10.59
acres, Site Plan Review on 10.59 acres,PUD Concept Review on 10.59 acres,PUD
District Review on 10.59 acres and Preliminary Plat on 10.59 acres. Location: North
and South of the intersection of Leona Road and Den Road.
Dave Carlin representing CSM Lodging, LLC introduced Gary Tushie, Tushie
Montgomery Architects. Carlin reviewed the history of the development and
described the project they are proposing. He described the businesses that will be
located within the proposed development. He outlined the construction schedule for
the Development.
Tushie reviewed the site plans and described the sight lines and building elevations.
One option for this development would be a restaurant or a retail store. There will
be two hotels and the Office Depot store with parking spaces located in between to
separate the hotels from the retail uses. He described the materials that will be used
in the construction of the development and showed building renderings.
Foote asked if the Office Depot would be the typical size found throughout the Twin
Cities area and Tushie responded it would be a mid-sized store. Kardell inquired if
the Residence Inn was a local chain, and Carlin responded that it was located
primarily on the East Coast at present and was designed for people who needed a
place to stay for a number of days;usually longer than one would stay in a regular
hotel,but not long enough to require rental of an apartment. They would typically
be used by upper management personnel or people who were in the process of
moving into the area and need a place to live until their homes are ready. Kardell
asked about the type of restaurant and Carlin reviewed the options they have looked
at for this site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 1997
Page 3
Habicht asked about the preferred alternative for the church site and Carlin responded
that they prefer the bagel/coffee shop idea but it was not definite at this time. The
Borders Bookstore has a relationship with a coffee vendor and they will have a say
in who gets to go into the development. Clinton asked about the location of the
signage and Tushie illustrated the sign locations on the site plans.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the
requests subject to the stipulations in the staff report. He illustrated where the future
off-ramp from eastbound I-494 would be located but noted that there are no plans
available from MnDOT at this time.
Kardell inquired if something should be in effect to require the developer to replace
the lost parking when the off-ramp is constructed and Franzen responded that it will
be the responsibility of MnDOT to replace it. Foote asked about the tree loss from
the project and the requirements for replanting as he had observed some fairly large
tree stumps on the site. Franzen responded this has been addressed in the landscape
plan. The developer will be replacing as many trees as will physically fit onto the site.
The Public Hearing was opened.
• No one present wished to speak.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Kardell,to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Kardell,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of CS Lodging,LLC for Rezoning from Office to C-Regional
Commercial and from Public to C-Regional Services on 10.59 acres, Site Plan Review
on 10.59 acres,PUD Concept Review on 10.59 acres,PUD District Review on 10.59
acres and Preliminary Plat on 10.59 acres based on plans dated March 21, 1997 and
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated March 21, 1997. Motion
carried 5-0.
Wissner commented that since the St.Paul Book and Stationery store had closed,the
Office Depot would be a welcome addition to Eden Prairie and Clinton concurred.
C. CODE CHANGE FOR CELLULAR TOWER ANTENNAE
Johnson reviewed the Code amendments proposed for the City of Eden Prairie for
cellular tower antennae, stating they were the result of study done by the
Telecommunications Task Force which was established by the City Council to study
this issue. The Planning Commission is requested to approve the draft of these
• changes. She reviewed the changes in each section and stated that staff wanted to
promote careful siting of these towers. Some will be on office buildings and water
towers and there is a 4:1 setback requirement for towers located near residential
areas. The variance process will be available for those sites that do not meet all code
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 1997
Page 4
requirements. The approval process and application requirements are outlined in the
new code amendments. Staff has received two letters from industry representatives
which were handed to the Commissioners at the meeting.
Foote asked if staff had any idea of how many applications they were looking at and
Johnson responded possibly 6-10 in 1997. They have about 15 tower sites in Eden
Prairie at the present time. The industry is constantly changing as technology changes
and staff expects the height of the towers to decrease over time.
Wissner asked if interference with each other would be a reason for companies not to
co-locate on the same structure and Johnson responded that could be a reason.
Discussion ensued regarding the height of various structures in Eden Prairie that
could be used for these towers and how obtrusive or unobtrusive they may be.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Terrie Thurmer, SBA,Inc., 7625 Metro Boulevard,Edina, stated her firm contracts
with Sprint and she submitted a letter with comments on the code changes proposed.
Overall she believed it was a good ordinance,but was concerned about the setback
requirement from residential districts and believed 4:1 was too much and would like
• to see a lesser setback requirement. She also believed that 3 carriers for a tower
above 60 feet in height may be slightly excessive, and thought it would be nice if they
could require 2 providers for antennas over 60 feet in height and 3 carriers on towers
over 150 feet in height.
Anthony Segale, US West, 426 North Fairview, St. Paul, stated they have been
working with staff since last November. They are a new provider and are intending
to build this fall. Most of their sites will be towers about 75 feet in height and will be
located mostly in industrial and commercial areas on their own buildings which will
give them a source of back-up power if needed. They believe the setback requirement
for residential areas is a little stringent but as long as the variance process is available,
they can live with it. The towers are not beautiful but they are useful and will be used
by many people in the future,including Police and Fire Departments.
Roger Laurence, a communications officer with the Hennepin County Sheriff's office,
9300 Napier Street, Minneapolis,MN, stated he was also a resident of Eden Prairie.
He believed it was a good ordinance, but noted that the focus was on the cellular
telephone use and there were other types of towers that get lost in this process.
These are towers that are used for emergency radio communications such as those
used by Police and Fire Departments. It has been difficult for public safety to get
towers approved because they cannot compete with the retail use as they lack the
funds. There is a difference in system design but public safety uses fewer towers but
they have to be higher to give the coverage needed. He listed the existing towers in
Hennepin County at present. Hennepin County does not have any plans to erect
towers in Eden Prairie but that could change. There is a possibility that the County
and State could require a replacement tower for one in Minnetonka, and that
replacement tower might be located in Eden Prairie. Kardell inquired if a Public
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 1997
Page 5
Safety tower could go in under the variance process and Johnson responded that they
have done this with City towers and there is an exception for emergency warning
devices.
Marie Grimm, AT&T Wireless,2515 24th Avenue South, Minneapolis, stated they
feel there are many parts of the ordinance that are very workable but there are a few
areas that will be very limiting for them. The setback and height restrictions will
require them to go through the variance process although they would prefer to work
within the ordinance guidelines. These structures are made to withstand hurricane
force winds and are very stable. St. Paul has a setback requirement of the height of
the tower plus ten feet which is very reasonable. Wissner inquired how the service
would be if they had to meet the 65 foot height requirement and Grimm responded
it would not be optimal and they may have to request a higher tower or more towers
depending on the topography and use demand. It becomes an issue of coverage
versus capacity and these need to be addressed by the industry. Their towers are
typically 75 feet in height but they try to meet the ordinance requirements if at all
possible.
Greg Korstad,Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren,Ltd., submitted a letter on behalf
of American Portable Telecom ("APT") addressing concerns with the Code
. amendments. Their first concern is they believe the setback requirements are
excessive in many circumstances,particularly near residential areas. Setbacks have
been established primarily because of safety concerns; the new towers are designed
to be very safe. He believed it was more an aesthetic issue and he did not believe that
much would be gained by having the larger setback from residential areas. He
requested that the setback issue be reevaluated. Secondly, the search radius is
dependent upon the topography and they propose that it not be greater than %mile.
Third, they concur that its best to co-locate whenever possible but it was not going
to be possible all the time. It was unlikely to have 3 co-locators on towers lower than
150 feet in height. The application process requires that they try to do a co-location
and it's possible that they will not be able to negotiate a lease with the owner of the
tower and they would like to have permission to proceed in the event this situation
arises. Fourth,latticework type designs are more easily altered to give better support
to the antennas. Radio frequency engineering is not something that is easily
accessible, and they were concerned about that requirement. Fifth, the issues of
regulation which are not land use regulations, he believed were better left with the
FCC as the City may not want to get involved in this area.
Steve Manvold,US West, stated he believed the setback issue was too restrictive and
will require the towers to be placed on the parcels in such a way as to be most
restrictive for the communications industry. If the antennas deflect more than 20 they
do not receive or send the signals properly. The construction of the towers is very
safe as the towers have to be very stable. The towers don't fall and if safety is the
reason for the setback requirements, then the Commission can be assured that the
towers are safe.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 1997
Page 6
Foote inquired how staff arrived at the 150 foot height requirement as opposed to the
160 foot height. Johnson responded that they compared height requirements
throughout the metropolitan area and chose the middle range of those in place in
other cities.
Habicht stated that he worked for a company that worked with this communications
industry and he withdrew from the discussion and voting proceedings to avoid any
conflict of interest.
Wissner inquired about the issue of safety versus visibility and Johnson stated the
setback had been implemented to minimize the visual impact and facilitate co-location
on higher towers. Kardell commented they knew about the St. Paul ordinance
requirement of the height of the tower plus ten feet setback requirement, and inquired
what they were in other communities. Johnson responded that some have the height
of the tower plus 25 feet, and some have 1.5 times the height of the tower as the
setback requirement. Eden Prairie is more restrictive in this area.
Wissner commented that because the Task Force had researched this issue and studied
the information for many months there had been ample opportunity for discussion and
input, and she believed that they had to take the recommendations of the Task Force
and consider them. Foote stated he did not have a problem with the setback
requirement and was concerned that there would be some variance requests, but
considering staff projected there would be between 6 to 10 applications, it would
probably not overburden the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. He believed it was
a good idea to set a goal and work towards it,but he believed the setback requirement
was probably not very feasible. He did not have a problem with raising the co-locate
requirement to 165 feet to make it easier for the people in the industry to do their
jobs.
Kardell stated that no matter what they recommended be approved, there will be
circumstances and situations which will require variances. There will be changes in
technology in the next few years which may necessitate changes in the requirements
as well. She was comfortable in recommending that the ordinance be approved as it
was going to change in the future anyway. Wissner stated she was comfortable
moving the code amendments forward, and Clinton concurred, noting that the
requirements could be modified in the future if they proved to be too restrictive.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried 4-0-1. Habicht abstained.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the proposed Telecommunications Towers and Antennas code changes
• as submitted. Motion carried 4-0-1. Habicht abstained.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 24, 1997
Page 7
V. PUBLIC MEETING
VI. MEMBER'S REPORTS
Clinton comet ted he would like to see some signage on the new interstate indicating the
services that were available in Eden Prairie. Franzen responded that staff will pay attention
to the signage issue closer to the time the interchange plans are drawn.
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen noted that this was Commissioner Kardell's last meeting and he read a letter
commending her for all her hard work and her insistence that the founding principles of the
City of Eden Prairie be adhered to. Her approvals of various projects throughout the City will
leave a lasting legacy of beauty for the citizens to enjoy in years to come. Kardell responded
that she has enjoyed her time on the Commission and was sad to leave.
. Franzen stated that there are several projects on the agenda for the next meeting, which
include the Pines project on Franlo Road, and an expansion plan for Menards. The
Commission will also review a draft transportation plan and a swim school proposal on the
northeast corner of Highway 212 and Shady Oak Road.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Habicht,to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.