Loading...
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.