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.