Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/10/2005 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 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 Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher and Sutherland. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Stoelting questioned why the Planner's Report was on the agenda twice. Franzen stated that the first report is before the public hearing on signage,because it could affect the outcome of the variance and the second report is only about the upcoming meeting. MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Nelson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 Koenig had two revisions. The first revision was on page 3, paragraph 5. She would like the paragraph to say, "Koenig stated she had concerns if this variance was granted and one concern would be that there is such a limited use of pools in this climate." The second revision is one page 6, lst paragraph under the Member's Report. She would like the first sentence to say, "Koenig asked Franzen about the status of the tree cutting incident that took place by Anderson Lakes." MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 2 of 9 IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2005-13 at 8837 Cove Pointe Road, Eden Prairie, MN. To permit a shoreland setback for an in-ground pool of 80' from the Ordinary High Water Level of Red Rock Lake (DNR classified Recreational Development waters.) City code requires a 100' setback from the Ordinary High Water Level. Dean Dedecker, of 8837 Cove Pointe Road, presented the proposal. Dedecker stated that he moved into his home 12 years ago and that he and his wife are now requesting a variance for a shoreland setback for an in-ground pool because they feel that this would increase family bonding. The reason for the request is because there is a sewer pipe running through the middle of the back yard. He used the overhead projector to illustrate the location of the pipe, the pool location, and a view of Red Rock Lake. He stated that the 100 foot setback would come right through the middle of the pool. He illustrated that the pool would be located where the playground is currently. Mr. Dedecker also pointed out that the pool cannot be seen from the lake; it is hidden by the trees. He also pointed out where the water levels would be located. Mr. Dedecker said that the neighbors on both sides are in favor of this project. Koenig asked Mr. Dedecker to clarify where the relationship of the pool would be in conjunction with the play structure. Mr. Dedecker stated that the play structure would be moved in order to install the pool. He also pointed out that there would be no elevation adjustments because of the flat land and that no trees would need to be taken down. Stoelting read the code referring to undue hardships and asked Mr. Dedecker what his hardship would be in regards to the in-ground pool. Mr. Dedecker stated that without the pipe running through their yard they would not need the variance. He pointed out that there is no other location for the pool. The only possibilities would be behind the house,by the easement. This would have to be a custom built pool to fit in this area. The distance from the house to the easement would be 16 ft. and would be 11 ft. away from the house. In the second location, the pool would be situated such that it could not be seen from the house. Mr. Dedecker felt that this would be an unsafe situation. Plus,he stated, the elevation is 7 feet, so they would have to add an 8 feet retaining wall. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that the staff report lists six reasons why this location is unique. They are as follows: 1. The proposed pool will not be visible from the lake. 2. Approximately half of the pool is in the shoreland setback. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 3 of 9 3. The proposed pool will be an in-ground pool. 4. No tree removal is proposed. 5. The proposed pool will not be in the shore impact zone. 6. The proposed pool will be 80 feet from the OHWL. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Shawna Pane, of 8836 Cove Point Road, is directly across the street from the Dedecker residence. Mr. Pane stated that he and his family feel that the in-ground pool would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Nelson stated that she is concerned with the pool being so close to the water line and she does not feel that this lot is an appropriate fit for a pool. Koenig asked Franzen if this is considered recreational development water. Franzen stated that it is recreational water. He also explained that the characteristics of a recreational development water, such as with the depth of the water, water use and plant species. A natural environmental lake is not used for recreation but more for wildlife habitat. The lakes are shallow and the 150 foot setback allows more nesting habitat to be preserved. Rocheford stated that he feels that the hardship is the pipe in the middle of the yard. He also feels that there is no reason not to grant this variance request. Kirk said that he is familiar with Red Rock Lake and knows that the pool would not be visible from the lake. He also agrees with Rocheford in that there is a hardship and that would be the pipe in the yard. Stoltz stated that he agreed with Kirk in that the pool would be hidden from the lake. Koenig asked if there would be fencing around the pool. Mr. Dedecker said that they would definitely have a fence. The fence would be black or brown in color and would consist of see-thru metal piping. Koenig asked how far the fence would be in the encroachment. Franzen stated that it would be approximately 10 feet. Koenig also voiced concern that in Minnesota there is such a short season for a pool. Stoelting questioned Franzen if there would need to be a survey plat completed on this project. Franzen stated that the survey line is taken from the City records and was filed when the house was built. He does not feel that an updated survey is needed. Seymour asked if the deck around the pool would encroach around the easement. Franzen said no. Nelson asked if the fence could be put up in the easement. Mr. Dedecker stated that a fence can be put up on a structure because it is not permanent. Nelson asked how much concrete patio there would be. Mr. Dedecker stated it would be between 4 and 5 feet. Koenig asked if the deck and Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 4 of 9 fence could be put up in the utility easement. Franzen stated that since they are not considered permanent structures encroachments allowed. However, if utility work is required the city is not obligated to replace a fence or concrete. Koenig asked how close the easement is from the house. Franzen stated that it is 16 feet from the house. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kirk, to approve the shoreland setback variance from 100 feet to 80 feet based on plans stamped dated September 19, 2005 and the following findings and conditions. Findings: 1. The proposed pool will not be visible from the lake. 2. Approximately half of the pool is in the shoreland setback. 3. The proposed pool will be an in-ground pool. 4. No tree removal is proposed. 5. The proposed pool will not be in the shore impact zone. 6. The proposed pool will be 80 feet from the OHWL. Conditions: 1. The required fence around the pool will not be of solid material,but of a see-through material. 2. No other accessory structure such as a pool house,pump house, utility structure, gazebo, etc. be permitted within the 100' shoreland setback. 3. No sliding boards. Motion carried 4-3. Stoelting asked if there were any additional comments. Koenig stated that she feels torn on this issue; she is happy for the homeowner,but feels that the pool is too close to the lake. VII. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. OFFICE SIGN CODE REPORT Franzen reviewed the report and identified the three approaches to signs: 1. The "scientific approach" suggests that signs are readable at 50 square feet in size with 24 inch high letters for all but a few office buildings in the City. A case could be made for a larger sign based on readability. 2. The "proportion and scale approach" is subjective. The right size of sign for a building would vary according to individual preferences and biases. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 5of9 Depending on your point of view, the sign could be too small, too large, or just right. 3. The "what other communities do approach" is based on proportion and scale. Since sign sizes vary considerably suggests that each city has made a judgment call on what size of sign appears to be visually correct. Making our signs larger may put us more in line with the other communities,however is this the City's intent, or should the City maintain its own uniqueness. Franzen illustrated examples of each of these approaches. He also pointed out that"Wall Sign Transfer"is a concept that the City has used in the past. It is the concept of taking the total allowable sign area and redistributing square footage to meet individual needs. This has been used for some commercial buildings through a planned unit development waiver process where there were tradeoffs. In some cases more sign on a wall was offset by smaller signs on other walls while being at or below the total allowable wall sign area. The question that needs to be asked with this concept is if you do not have scientific justification then how can it be done. Franzen pointed out that there are four alternatives; they are as follows: 1. No modifications to the code. 2. Change the code to consider larger signs on the basis of size and height of buildings. 3. Wall sign transfers. 4. Code change to allow one 75 sq. foot sign per building versus a 50 sq. foot sign. Stoelting opened the meeting up for follow-up questions. Koenig asked if the staff looked at the issue of script writing. Franzen said that they did not look at the style because the City cannot regulate the style, only the size. Franzen pointed out that script writing is harder to read. Stoltz stated that at looking at the graph in the staff report, comparing us to the other cities in the study, it appears that Eden Prairie is very strict in its sign ordinance. Rocheford stated that he is not a huge proponent of signs and feels that the code could use some more tweaking on taller buildings to minimize variance requests. Koenig asked why Minnetonka has the biggest sign for a one-story building. Franzen stated that it is relative to the length of the building. Stoelting pointed out from previous discussion that there are 4 sign alternatives and asked each Commission member which one/ones they favored. Stoltz said Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 6 of 9 that he feels the wall sign transfer is good,but would be leaning to number 2 in the list. Seymour agrees with number 1 because he feels the sign code is not broken. Koenig agrees with Seymour in that no major adjustments need to be made. Nelson stated she does not like the idea of big signs,but felt they would look acceptable on tall buildings. She favors numbers 2 and 4. Kirk stated that consistency should be the goal and variances are a necessary part of it. He favors number 2. Rocheford also favors number 2, as does Stoelting. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2005-14 at 7500 Flying Could Road, Eden Prairie, MN. Variance is to permit two wall signs not to exceed 90 square feet each, for two street frontages in the Office Zoning District; and to permit two address signs of 50 square feet. City Code permits one wall sign per street frontage not to exceed 50 square feet and address signs not to exceed 40 square feet. Deb Kolar, of 6170 6h Street, Fridley, represented Ryan Properties and presented the proposal. She illustrated the proposal with pictures of signs. The first sign was the sign on Hwy 212 at 50 sq. ft., which she stated was not very readable, and then she showed a sign at 105 sq. ft., which she stated was much more legible. She stated that the second sign on Hwy 494 at 50 sq. ft. was not very legible but the 105 sq. ft. sign was much better. In reference to the wall sign transfer they currently have 360 sq. ft. allowable signage, and would have 210 sq. ft. left and available to accommodate the signs. Neither of the two signs face the residential area. Ms. Kolar stated that a concern in the staff report was that the landlord leasing additional property would ask for more signage. Because Stellent has the majority of the office space the other tenants would not have access to signage. If Stellent were to vacate the building they would take down their signage at that time. Stoelting pointed out that if they have 210 sq. ft. available their signs would take up all of the available signage and reiterated that given the possibility of other tenants in the building, that they would not be able to access signage space. Ms. Kolar was in agreement with Stoelting's statement. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said that based upon the readability and the wall sign transfer, the variance could be justified. Franzen stated that if the Commission chooses to approve this proposal they should based on findings on the last page of the staff report. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Nelson asked how tall the building was. Franzen stated that it was nine stories. Rocheford asked if the wall sign transfer concept was part of the ordinance. Franzen stated that it was not part of an ordinance. Rocheford stated that he would like to see it as part of the ordinance and feels that it is reasonable. He pointed out this building does look better with the bigger sign. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 7 of 9 Stoltz stated that if he were associated with Ryan Properties he would let Stellent have 105 sq. ft. signage and forgo the 7500 address signage. Franzen stated the 7500 signage was on 3 sides of the building and basically what the project proponent was asking for are two variances; a larger address sign on two of the elevations and a larger building identification on two of the elevations. 7500 is the address sign that they want to have approved by 10 more sq. ft. Stoltz did not see the reasoning behind the additional 10 more sq. ft. Stoelting stated that there are two aspects to this variance request. The wall signs are really identification signs of a 105 sq. ft each and two address signs of 50 sq. ft. Franzen agreed. Stoelting stated that code permits one wall sign per street frontage not to exceed 50 sq. ft. and an address sign not to exceed 40 sq. ft. Stoelting asked John if he was in favor of the Stellent signs but not the address signs. Stoltz stated yes. Nelson stated that 105 sq. ft. was too big and that 80 sq. ft. would be perfectly adequate. Koenig asked what percent of the building Stellent is leasing. Ms. Kolar stated that they occupy approximately 20 percent of the building; and only 40,000 sq. ft. of the building to lease, out of 205,000 sq. ft. Stoelting stated that the two aspects to this request can make it very confusing. Stoelting, for clarification purpose, went over the alternatives that were on page 4 of the staff report. There are as follows: 1. Two 105 square foot signs "Stellent" and two, 50 square foot address signs "7500". 2. Two 105 square foot signs "Stellent". 3. A 105 square foot sign "Stellent" and a 61 square foot sign "Stellent", and two 50 square foot address signs 4'7500". 4. A 105 square foot sign "Stellent" and a 61 square foot sign "Stellent". 5. One 50 square foot sign per wall, either"Stellent" or 4'7500". Stoelting asked the project proponent if he would like to table his request until a later date until the Commission had an opportunity to discuss the signage code in more detail. He stated that it would be approximately 3-6 months out before the Commission would have an opportunity to do this. Franzen suggested that the Commission ask the project proponent if any of the alternatives would be acceptable. Representatives from Stellent and Ryan Properties asked for a ten minute recess to discuss the listed alternatives. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 8 of 9 Mark Hanson, an employee of Stellent, said that in talking with representatives of Ryan Properties and Stellent, they said that they would like to go with alternative 1 and would be willing to reduce the signage of the Stellent signs down to 85-90 sq. ft., versus 105 sq. ft. Nelson stated that she liked this proposal much better but would like to see it come down to 80 sq. ft. Kirk stated that he agreed with Nelson. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Rocheford, seconded by Kirk, to recommend approval for two wall signs, not to exceed 90 square feet each, and two address signs of 50 square feet, based on plans stamped dated September 19, 2005 and based on the findings of building height, setback from the road, readability and wall sign transfer. Koenig asked Franzen if this variance is passed would this be all of the signs that the building could have. Franzen stated that they would have to come back before the Commission to get additional signs. Rocheford amended the motion, and was seconded by Kirk, stating that the condition would be that the Stellent sign is property of Stellent and the 7500 signs are related to Ryan Properties. Motion carried 7-0. B. VARIANCE#2005-12 at 10050 Crosstown Circle, Eden Prairie, MN. Variance is to permit one wall sign of 79 square feet in the Office Zoning District. City Code permits one wall sign per street frontage not to exceed 50 square feet. Hank Blissenbach, 10050 Crosstown Circle, CEO of Bioscrip, presented the proposal. He used the overhead projector to show where the building was located on Hwy 169 and Hwy 62. He pointed out that they are the largest tenant in the building; therefore they have rights to signage. He pointed out all the views from the different roadways. Mr. Blissenbach used Best Buy as an example, stating that they have a 187 sq. ft. sign and Bioscrip is only asking for 79 sq. ft. signage. He stated that their company did a study where they drove past the building, on the freeway, and on the building was displayed a 50 sq. ft. sign and a 79 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Blissenbach stated the 79 sq. ft. sign was definitely more visible. Nelson questioned if the sign was a lighted sign. Jim Coda, of Leroy Signs, stated that it was a lighted sign. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen indicated that based on readability and wall sign transfer the variance could be supported. Stoelting opened the meeting up public input. There was no input. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 Page 9 of 9 Nelson asked if Best Buy had to turn their sign off at night. Franzen stated that was not an issue,but rather height and sign distance were factors. Seymour asked if 79 sq. ft. was for one wall. Franzen stated that it was. Koenig stated that she liked the design and that it was very eye catching. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Nelson, to approve the sign variance from 50 square feet to 79 square feet in the Office Zoning District,based on plans stamped dated September 19, 2005, and based on the findings of building height, setback from the road, readability and wall sign transfer. Rocheford amended the motion, and was seconded by Kirk, to add a condition that this sign be tied to Bioscrip and will be removed when they vacate the property and no other signs are to be placed on either sides of the building. Motion carried 7-0. IX. MEMBERS' REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen pointed out that there is a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting on October 18, 2005, at 5:00 pm, in the Heritage Room at Eden Prairie Center. Franzen also stated that there will be three items on the agenda for the October 24, 2005 meeting. XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m.