Planning Commission - 08/22/2005 1
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,AUGUST 22, 2005 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
BOARD MEMBERS: Larry Kacher, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig,
Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour,
Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz,William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Mike Franzen, City Planner
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher, Rocheford and
Sutherland.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 23, 2005
A quorum was not met to approve the minutes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 25, 2005
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0.
Kirk abstained.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 2
A. EDENVALE HIGHLANDS 2ND by Calhoun Development, LLC. Property is
located at 15598 Michelle Lane. Request is for a Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 22.7 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 22.7 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 22.7
acres; and a Preliminary Plat of 22.7 acres into 10 lots, one outlot and road right-
of-way.
Floyd Calhoun, of 12100 Single Tree Lane, presented the proposal. He started
out by stating that they have renamed the project to "The Preserve at Edenvale"
and that it will be updated in the notes to follow. He stated that this project is
basically an extension of the Edenvale Highlands that was brought forth last year.
Mr. Calhoun pointed out that the majority of this land, 22 acres, is covered in the
conservation easement and will be protected. He stated that they have retained 7
acres that will be broken down into 10 lots. The lots will be at least 1/2 acre or
more each and will be of an executive type of lot. He stated that his company has
worked with Staff to develop a plan that would be workable for both the City and
his company.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this is the third
site of a three lot rural piece of property that was subdivided a number of years
ago. He pointed out that the tree loss is 37 percent, which would be consistent
with the other two projects and consistent with average tree loss on other
properties. He stated that there are two waivers proposed with this submission.
The first one is the depth of lot 6, which is adjacent to the railroad. City Code
requires that lots adjacent to the railroad be 150 feet in depth. Lot 6 is shown at
120 feet. In this particular case, the railroad right-of-way widens out quite a bit
because of the need to maintain the slope up to the railroad track. The house on
the lot will be farther away from the tracks. Kipp stated that Staff supports this
waiver. The second waiver is for the cul-de-sac length. Kipp stated that the only
way to develop this property would be to extend the cul-de-sac into this site,
which results in a cul-de-sac length of 800 feet, where City Code maximum is 500
feet. Kipp pointed out that there are other alternatives to make this a private road
but that it would be in the best interest of the City to have all of these lots served
by a public road. He also stated that there is a large wetland in this area that was
placed under a conservation easement and the City is recommending that a trail
easement be placed over that outlot as well for a future trail that may run through
the area as part of the Purgatory Creek corridor. Kipp stated that Staff
recommends approval based on the recommendations of the staff report.
Stoelting opened up the meeting for public input. There was no input.
Stoltz asked Mr. Calhoun to show the drawings of lot 6 and to explain where the
house was going to be located on the site and to explain the waiver. Mr. Calhoun
stated that the lot depth is suppose to be 150 feet and what they found was that
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 3
because of the larger right-of-way, a waiver had merit in that the house was still
farther away from the tracks than the other lots that meet the 150' depth required.
Stoltz questioned if the location for the physical house on lot 6 was farther back
than the house on lot 7. Mr. Calhoun stated it was. Stoltz asked by how much.
Steve Johnson, of Landform, located at 510 1st Ave. N., Minneapolis, engineer for
the project, stated the house on lot 6 is approximately 40 feet farther away from
the tracks than the house on lot 7. He illustrated this using the overhead projector.
He pointed out the 60 foot jog and stated that the reason that was put there was
because of the steep bank that came down from the creek.
Stoltz asked Kipp what the reason was behind the code for the 500 feet for the
cul-de-sac. Kipp stated that the code is to minimize the number of lots that are
being handled by a single dead end roadway.
Nelson asked Kipp if the railroad line was active and how many trains would be
using that line in a day. Kipp stated that it was active and approximately 4 runs a
day would occur on the railroad. Nelson asked Kipp if this cul-de-sac was large
enough for a school bus to turn around in. Kipp responded by saying that it will
be a city street designed to city standards. Nelson questioned using the name
"preserve", since there is an area in Eden Prairie called "The Preserve", and asked
if it was duplicate names. Kipp stated that they do not duplicate names and this is
the proponent name of the subdivision and will be looked at, at the time of final
plating of the property.
Koenig asked the proponent to go over the locations of the retaining walls and
also their varying heights. Mr. Johnson stated that there is only one retaining wall
to prevent encroachment and it is relatively short. Koenig stated she has some
concerns for the 40 oak trees that will be taken down,but complimented the
proponent on the landscaping plan.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 22.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 22.7 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-
13.5 on 22.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 22.7 acres into 10 lots, one outlot and
road right-of-way,based on plans stamped dated August 19, 2005, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated August 19, 2005. Motion carried 6-0.
B. VARIANCE#2005-10 at 7500 Flying Cloud Drive. Request is for a variance to
permit a 150 square foot building identification sign on two street frontages in the
Office Zoning District.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 4
Koy Reiter, of Leroy Signs, located in Brooklyn Park, presented the proposal.
Mr. Reiter stated that the 50 square foot signage that currently exists is not large
enough.
Stoelting asked Mr. Reiter to use the overhead projector to illustrate sign visibility
from Hwy 212 and Hwy 494. Mr. Reiter pointed out the visibility and what the
signs would look like at 150 square feet.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that the 150 square
foot sign is not typical. He pointed out that there are other options; one would be
to replace the "7500" address, or trade signage from one side to the other.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Nancy Arieta, of 10785 Valley View Road#207, which is a Senior Co-op,
expressed some concerns over the signage. She stated that her building is
currently across the road from this piece of property. She is aware that Stellent
occupies 20 percent of the building; which is two floors. She questioned if this
company was getting a tax incentive from the City. She pointed out that if
buildings are granted variances for 150 square foot signs on two sides of their
building, then that would be setting precedence for other tall buildings in the City.
She asked at what point the City would decide signage is appropriate.
Julie Diehl, representing Stellent, provided some background on Stellent. She
stated that Stellent is a software company and has been headquartered in Eden
Prairie since 1990. Ms. Diehl stated that the move to the new space is due to
additional growth and that they would like visibility from Hwy 212 and Hwy 494.
Deb Kohler, representing Ryan Companies, stated that the sign location is for
visibility from the highways so that it would be easier to find and not for
advertising.
Stoelting questioned Ms. Kohler about undue hardships associated with the
variance request. Ms. Kohler stated that given the location and the indirect access
from Hwy 494 and Hwy 212, the building can be very difficult to find. Ms.
Kohler stated that she feels it is very important for customers to find the building.
Nelson stated that she noticed a "For Lease" sign on the building and asked if any
other tenants would be taking up to two floors in the building, and if so, would
they want Stellent's logo on the building. Ms. Kohler stated that no other tenants
would be taking up to two floors in their building.
Nancy Arieta stated that to find any location in Eden Prairie it is a challenge,but
when people were looking for her building she would direct them to the tallest
building by her building; which would be Stellent's building. She stated that she
does not believe that the signage would be for visibility,but rather for advertising.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 5
Stoltz stated that he had some concerns that Stellent would be using this for an
opportunity for advertising and suggested that the "7500" address be taken down
and the company name be put up in its place. Stoltz believes that by granting this
variance, the Commission would be setting a precedence for other signage
variances. Because of this, he would vote for a continuance.
Seymour asked Kipp about the process of taking down the "7500" sign and
replacing it with the Stellent signs and also asked Kipp to clarify that. Kipp stated
that in regards to office district, one sign per building elevation per street frontage
is allowed. Seymour asked Kipp if this were to happen could other signs be put
up on the building. Kipp stated that no other signs could be put up.
Stoelting asked Kipp in regards to the size of the building facing the highway,
would the signage be for direction or advertising. Kipp stated that in dealing with
a tall building, that it should stand out enough. He pointed out that other
buildings in Eden Prairie are only one or two stories high. Kipp stated that the
building itself should be good advertising.
Koenig stated that by looking at the pictures provided in the packet of the
proposed signage, she feels that it will be recognized as the Stellent building. She
also stated that she felt by putting a corporate name on a building would not
enhance direction.
Nelson stated that there would be no reason to have signs on both sides of the
building and feels it would be more for advertising. She also stated that it would
detract from the building rather than attract.
Kirk stated that he agrees with Stoltz and has three concerns. Koenig asked Kirk
to explain his three concerns. The first one being equity; that if there are rules for
signage on buildings then the Commission needs to decide what is right and stay
with it. The second concern would be the question of should the size of signs be
relevant to the size of the building. And the third concern would be the multi-
tenant issue.
. Kirk stated that he did not want to address future signage issues for other
tenants in the building and would like a uniform policy set up that would be
consistent for all signage issues.
Stoelting asked Kipp to address Kirk's concern. Kipp stated that there have been
variance requests granted in the past and that most have been granted for single
owner/occupant buildings or for commercial businesses. An example of this
would be Costco; where a waiver was granted through the development process to
reallocate square footage of the signs from one elevation to another. Kipp also
stated that a code change maybe needed.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 6
Stoltz had a concern regarding the Lifetouch variance, and stated that they wanted
larger signs put up but were not granted the variance. He stated that as he looks at
the signs now he feels the Commission made a mistake. Stoltz said he would like
a comprehensive review done on the issue of signage. He asked Kipp if there
were limitations on signage size. Kipp stated that there were limitations on
signage size.
Stoelting pointed out that commercial signs are on the front of buildings. Kipp
confirmed this statement and also stated that the size of commercial signs are
based on a percentage of the size of each building elevation up to a maximum
limit.
Kirk stated that signs should be in proportion to the building and asked for a
review of the ordinance in regards to the variance process.
Nelson also stated that size of signs and square footage of signs needs to be
addressed. She pointed out that there needs to be consistency in this process.
Koenig agreed with Kirk and Nelson and stated that she would be in favor of a
review of the ordinance. Seymour was also in agreement with this process.
Stoelting asked Kipp how to go about the review process. Kipp said staff would
evaluate existing code, research what other cities are doing and report back to the
Commission with potential recommendations. Stoelting asked if the variance
should be continued for this work to be done. Kipp indicated that a continuance is
usually about 2 to 4 weeks to address a change or modification to a plan. Kipp
stated that the project proponent should withdraw its request and resubmit once
the review of the code has been completed.
Kirk asked Kipp how long it would take for a review. Kipp inquired on whether
the intent was to evaluate the entire sign code, or just that portion of the sign code
relating to the office district. Kipp stated it would take approximately 3-5 months.
The Commission agreed that only the office district portion of the code be
evaluated.
Mr. Reiter said that they will withdraw their request and that Leroy Signs could
help with the ordinance.
C. CODE CHANGES by City of Eden Prairie. Request is for an adoption of an
amendment to the City Code regarding the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
non-conforming uses, and signs. It is proposed that City Code chapters 2 and 11
be amended regarding special procedures applicable to appeals and requests for
variances relating to signs and other requests for variances relating to zoning,
non-conforming uses, and sign permits.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 7
Janet Jeremiah, from the City of Eden Prairie,presented the City Code changes.
They are as follows:
Section 1. City Code Section 2.26 is amended by amending the first sentence
of Subd. 2, following its caption to read as follows:
The Board shall hear and decide matters relating to City Code
Chapters 11 (Zoning) and 12 (Subdivision Regulations [Platting])
and other matters specified in this Section and as otherwise
provided by the City Code and building and fire codes ("Building
and Fire Codes").
Section 2. City Code Section 2.26, Subd. 2. B. is amended to read as follows:
Special Procedures applicable to Appeals and Requests for
Variances relating to Signs and other Requests for Variances
Related to Zoning. hi Cases of(a) appeals and requests for
variances relating to signs and (b) other requests for variances
related to zoning, the following procedures and rules to the extent
they may be inconsistent with City Code Section 2.26 Subd. 2. A.,
2. and 3. shall apply:
1. The Board shall approve or deny the appeal or request
within sixty (60) days of the filing by the appellant or the
requester of a complete application with the City ("60-day
period"). If the appeal or request is denied by the Board, it
shall state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it
denies the appeal or request. The decision of the Board
shall become final upon the earlier of(a) 15 days after the
decision or(b) the end of the 60-day period.
2. The Council may elect to review the decision of the Board.
The election must be made (a) within 15 days after the
decision of the Board and (b)prior to the end of the 60-day
period. If the Council elects to review the decision of the
Board, the review by the Council shall be completed within
the 60-day period. If the Council denies the appeal,request
or variance, it shall state in writing the reasons for the
denial at the time it denies the request.
3. The appellant or requestor may appeal a decision of the
Board to the Council within ten (10) days after the decision
by the Board. The Council shall complete its review of an
appeal of a decision of the Bard and approve or deny the
appeal,request or variance within the 60-day period. If the
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 8
Council denies the variance it shall state in writing the
reasons for the denial at the time of the denial.
4. The 60-day period may be extended before the end of the
period by providing written notice of the extension to the
appellant or requester. The notification must state the
reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which
may not exceed sixty (60) days unless approved by the
appellant or requester. The 60-day period may also be
extended as provided by Minn. Stat. 15.99.
Section 3. City Code Section 11.02, 42. is amended to read as follows:
42. "Non-Conforming Use" —A non-conforming use is the
lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the
time of the adoption of a provision of the City Code which,
upon the adoption of the provision, the use or occupation of
the land or premises is not in conformity.
Section 4. City Code Section 11.02 is amended by adding subpart 68 as
follows:
68. "Places of Worship" —a tax exempt institution that people
regularly attend to participate in or hold religious services
meetings, and other activities related to religious
ceremonies.
Section 5. City Code Section 11.03, Subd. 3. HA.g. shall be amended by
substituting for the word "Churches," the words "Places of
Worship".
Section 6. City Code Section 11.06, Subd. 5. D. and Subd. 6.2. shall be
amended by substituting for the word "Churches," the words
"Places of Worship".
Section 7. City Code Section 11.35, Subd, 2. C. shall be amended by
substituting for the word "Churches," the words "Places of
Worship".
Section 8. City Code Section 11.70 shall be amended as follows: There shall
be substituted for the word "Churches," the words "Places of
Worship" where it appears in the following:
Subd. 2., 7.; Subd. 3. T.; Subd. 4. F. 3.; and Subd. 4.F.6
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 9
Section 9. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 2.,43. is amended to read as
follows:
43. "Commercial Speech"— Speech or graphics advertising a
business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment.
Section 10. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3. C is amended to read as follows:
"No illuminated sign which changes in either color or intensity of
light, flashes, scrolls, or is animated shall be permitted."
Section 11. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3., D. is amended to read as
follows:
D. No sign other than those directing vehicle or pedestrian
movements or pertaining to traffic control or safety shall be
erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way
or upon any public easement.
Section 12. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3. G. is amended to read as
follows:
"Air inflated devices, banners, pennants and whirling devices, or
any such sign resembling the same, are prohibited from use within
the City."
Section 13. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3., L. is amended to read as
follows:
L. Up to three flags containing Non-Commercial Speech only
may be displayed upon a lot. Each flag may not exceed one
hundred (100) square feet in size. Flag pole height must
comply with height regulations contained in Section 11.03,
Subd. 3.F. of the City Code.
Section 14. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 3., 11. is amended to read as
follows:
IL Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Section, signs containing Non-Commercial Speech
are permitted in all Districts and are subject to only
the following Subsections of Section 11.70, Subd.
3: B, C, D, E, F, G, H, L, M, 0, Q, V, W, X, Z and
AA. Non-commercial signs are also subject to
individual District setback and height regulations.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 10
The owner of any sign which is otherwise allowed
by this Code may substitute non-commercial copy
in lieu of any other commercial or non-commercial
copy. This substitution of copy may be made
without any additional approval or permitting. The
purpose of this provision is to prevent any
inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over
non-commercial speech, or favoring of any
particular non-commercial message over any other
non-commercial message. This provision prevails
over any more specific provision to the contrary.
Section 15. City Code Section 11.70, Subd, 4. B. 4 is deleted.
Section 16. City Code Section 11.70, Subd, 4. B. 7 is amended by adding to
the end thereof the following sentence:
"Except as otherwise provided in Subd, 3, other temporary signs
may occupy the remainder of the area allowed but not utilized for a
permanent sign,provided that the total area for any temporary sign
shall never exceed fifty square feet."
Section 17. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 4. F. 5 is amended by deleting the
words "special event"in the first line.
Section 18. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5. A. is amended to read as
follows:
Permits. Except as provided in Subparagraph D below, the owner
or occupant of the premises on which a sign is to be displayed, or
the owner or installer of such sign, shall file application with the
City for permission to display such sign. Permits must be acquired
for all existing, new relocated, modified or redesigned signs except
those specifically excepted below. The applicant shall submit with
the application, a complete description of the sign and a sketch
showing its size, location, manner of construction and such other
information as shall be necessary to inform the Building Official of
the kind, size, material, construction and location of the sign. The
applicant shall also submit at the time of application, the
application fee required under Subparagraph B below. The City
Manager or the City Manager's designee shall approve or deny the
sign permit no more than 30 days from the receipt of the complete
application, including applicable fee. If a sign authorized by
permit has not been installed within three months after the date of
issuance of said permit, the permit shall become null and void.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 11
Section 19. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5. B. is amended to read as
follows:
Fees. An application or request for an amendment of this Section
or for a permit, variance or other approval relating to this Section
shall be set by the Council by ordinance.
Section 20 City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5. D is amended by adding Section
11.70, Subd. 5. D. 7 as follows:
"Signs six (6) square feet or less in size."
Section 21 City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5. D. 2, is amended to read as
follows:
"Signs, erected by a governmental unit or public school district."
Section 22. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5. D. 3. is amended to read as
follows:
"Temporary signs as listed in Subdivision 3, Subparagraph H, I, J,
K and Y."
Section 23. City code Section 11.70, Subd. 5. E. 3. is amended to read as
follows:
3. Appeals and Variances. A permit applicant or permit
holder may appeal any order or determination made by the
Chief Building Official or a deputy pursuant to this Section
by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within ten
(10) days of the mailing of notice of the order or
determination to the applicant or holder. A notice of appeal
shall be in writing and must be personally served upon the
City Clerk or deputy within the time provided. A permit
applicant or permit holder may also request a hearing for a
variance from the literal terms of this Section before the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments by filing a form
provided by the City and paying the prescribed fees to the
City Clerk. Request for variances from the literal
provisions of this Section shall only be granted in
accordance with City Code Section 2.26.
Section 24. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 5, E. 4 is amended to read as
follows:
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 12
With respect to signs distributed or posted by a person, committee,
or organization except pursuant to a lease or license with the
property owner, the written notice of violation required by Subd. 5.
E. herein may be given to the person, committee or organization
who prepares, disseminates, issues, posts, installs or owns the sign,
or the persons, committee or organization who causes the
preparation, dissemination, issuance,posting, or installation of the
sign, or the owner or occupant of the premises on which such sign
is displayed. If such person, committee, organization, owner or
occupant fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the
provision set forth in this Section within 3 days following receipt
of said notice, then such failure is deemed unlawful and such
persons, committee, organization, owner, or occupant shall be
subject to the same liabilities and penalties as are permitted and
owners under Subd. 5. E. 1. and 2.
Section 25. City Code Section 11.70, Subd. 6. is repealed in its entirety.
Section 26. City Code Section 11.75 is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 11.75 NON-CONFORMING USES
Subd. 1. Non-conforming uses may be continued, including
through repair, replacement, restoration,
maintenance or improvement, but not including
expansion, unless:
(a) a non-conforming use is discontinued for a
period of more than one year; or
(b) the non-conforming use is destroyed by fire
or other peril to the extent that greater than
fifty percent of its market value, and no
building permit has been applied for within
180 days of when the property is damaged.
In the event a building permit has been
applied for within the 180 days, the City
may impose reasonable conditions upon the
building permit in order to mitigate any
newly created impact on adjacent property.
Section 27. City code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation"
and Sections 2.99 and 11.99, entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor"
are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though
repeated verbatim herein.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 22, 2005
Page 13
Stoelting opened up the meeting for public input.
Mr. Scott Neal, City Manager for the City of Eden Prairie, stated that he would
like the Commission Members endorsement for the adoption of the new
amendments to the City Code.
Koenig asked Jeremiah if the air inflated devices ordinance included blimps.
Jeremiah stated that it just includes signs on private property.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 6-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the code changes as
proposed. Motion carried 6-0.
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.