Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/14/2004 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY,JUNE 14, 2004 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Larry Kacher, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz, Ray Stoelting, William Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, City Planner Alan Gray, City Engineer Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present: Larry Kacher, Kathy Nelson, Fred Seymour, Jon Stoltz, Ray Stoelting. Absent: Ken Brooks, Vicki Koenig, Peter Rocheford, William Sutherland II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Stoelting, seconded by Nelson to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the May 24, 2004 Community Planning Board Meeting MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. PUBLIC HEARING A. PATTERSON PROPERTY by Dave Patterson. Request for Preliminary Plat of 1.26 acres into 2 lots. Location: 15340 Sunrise Circle West. Dave Patterson, 15340 Sunrise Circle West, explained that in 1995 he checked into the feasibility of splitting his lot in the future and was informed that he could split his lot through administrative approval. Peterson said he was not able to move forward at that time. In 2000, Peterson decided to proceed with the lot split and install driveway access off of Mitchell Road instead of Sunrise Circle. There are four lots to the west of the property with two having access off of Sunrise and Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 2 two are flag lots. Lots to the east of the property touches Sunrise Circle and Mitchell Road, which are similar to his lot. Patterson indicated he was told if he met requirements, he could install the driveway access and proceed. Patterson said he was not able to proceed at that time;however the driveway access was installed. In the fall of 2003, Patterson said he hired Westwood Professional to put together preliminary plat drawings. Patterson said that when he proposed the drawings,he was told that there were some requirements that were not met and he changed his plans to meet the additional requirements. Patterson said he is ready to proceed,but has been told there are issues that City policy will not allow. Patterson said he disagreed with the staff report in regard to grading and tree loss where it says that only two trees would need to be removed to build a 10-foot wide driveway. Patterson said that is correct if the driveway were built very close to his house otherwise a lot more trees would have to be removed. Patterson said that he talked with his neighbors to the west and they expressed that they would not like his property to be a flag lot. Patterson said his neighbors do not have a problem with his plans. Franzen said that Patterson is dealing with a City policy on access. The City has the authority to decide in the subdivision process where the access can be placed. Franzen said that there is nothing wrong with the proposal as it fits in with the neighborhood,but the Board has to decide where the best access should be located. Franzen said that the City Engineer should address some of the access concerns. Gray said that the concern of access off of Mitchell Road is the visibility and site distance. Gray said that the access is not reasonable if the homeowner has to back out of the site. Gray said that the alternatives are: to create the lot with access off of Mitchell Road, create a flag lot type of lot which would connect it to the Sunrise neighborhood, or there would be no subdivision at all. Gray said that the concern about the proposal is that its only access is off of Mitchell Road. This driveway is very close to the crest of the hill on Mitchell Road. The two issues of access off of Mitchell road is site distance and there is no parking. If cars are parked in the driveway they will need to back out of the driveway, which is not a safe situation. Gray said that the problem with the proposal is that it may be very difficult to turn around and back into the driveway. Gray said that the proposal needs to have a lot more turn-around space, a lot more driveway space available. Gray said that it would work better if it were a flag lot with access off of Sunrise Circle. Stoltz asked what the minimum site requirements are. Gray said there is no site distance design chart for backing out of a driveway. The site distance backing out of a driveway is probably double of what it would be if a person were not backing out of the driveway. Also, there is no parking on Mitchell Road. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 3 Franzen asked Gray if the access were face-forward into the street, would he be more comfortable with allowing the access off of Mitchell Road. Franzen asked Patterson if the house could be moved back further to add room for parking. Gray said that if the house was back farther and the driveway was larger and circular, it would lessen guests from backing out of the driveway. Patterson said he was amenable to changing his plans to move the house back and adding a circular driveway. Kacher asked Patterson if he went to the City at one time and was given permission to get the driveway access off of Mitchell Road. Patterson said that the City did grant permission to have driveway access off of Mitchell Road. Franzen said that in the past there was not a subdivision request so the City had an obligation to grant the permit. Franzen said the Board has to decide where is the best place to have access for the preliminary plat request. Eugene Gray, 9040 Sunrise Circle East, said that it is an issue of doing the right thing. Gray said his neighbor was granted a permit to access Mitchell Road and does not want another driveway off of Sunrise Circle. Gray preferred the access be off of Mitchell Road. Seymour asked Franzen if they allowed the driveway onto Mitchell Road, would the Board get the opportunity to look at the plans for the development and the driveway. Franzen said that if the Board recommends approval, they would have to ask for a continuance to see the plans or they could have staff approve the plans. Stoelting asked Patterson if he was willing to work with staff and possibly adjust his development plans. Patterson said he was willing to work with staff. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kacher to approve the request for preliminary plat of 1.26 acres into 2 lots at 15340 Sunrise Circle West based on plans dated June 9, 2004 subject to recommendations of the staff report dated June 11, 2004 and have staff work with the developer to come up with a driveway and parking solution that will enhance the entrance of the new lot. Motion carried 5-0. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 4 Stoelting added that the plans should have enough parking and egress from the property, and they would have to drive forward rather than backward. Franzen said he would work with the developer to figure something out and report back to the Board on the solutions. B. VARIANCE#2004-08 Petition of Lifetouch for property at 11000 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. • Lifetouch Building#1 —Wall sign variance from 50 to 84 square feet. • Lifetouch Building#2 —Wall sign variance from 50 to 84 square feet. • Lifetouch Building Link—Wall sign variance from none permitted to 196 sq. ft. City Code. • Wall sign variance not permitted above the roof line to two wall signs above the roof line. Mike Perkins, Welch Company, said that Lifetouch would be moving into the property in the next three weeks. Perkins indicated that this has been a very successful project. Randy Peak, Pope Associates, St. Paul, Minnesota, said that the facility is the corporate headquarters for Lifetouch and this is not a single building, but a campus. Perkins said that identification signs are important so that customers and vendors can recognize the Lifetouch signs. The campus is composed of three distinct elements and it is important that each has its own identification signage. The three components of the campus have a separate frontage. The signage would not use block letters,because of Lifetouch's script lettering, therefore the signage would be a larger size. Perkins indicated that the signage should be in scale with the development. Franzen said the staff report identifies alternatives to the requests of the applicant. There are three options listed in the staff report: One centrally located 196 square foot sign, or two 84 square feet signs, or three 50 square feet signs. Stoelting asked Perkins what is their hardship. Perkins said that Lifetouch has invested a lot of time and corporate identity into this type of sign and script. Not being able to use the signage would be a loss of identify. Stoelting asked if all three buildings would have entrances. Perkins said that there is a main entry way in the middle and there will be a fountain and sculpture inside the fountain. The east building is an employee entrance and the west building will have late night entrance for security. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 5 Stoelting asked staff if directional signage count into the overall allotment of square footage for wall signs. Franzen said that directional signs and wall signs have there own requirements. Stoelting asked staff what signs are present in surrounding buildings. Franzen said that Southwest Crossing does not have a sign that faces the highway, it faces Viking Drive, the Liberty Office Building to the east has a wall sign of 50 square feet each and they are on the straight-away of Viking Drive. Franzen said the only variance granted recently was for the Best Buy building which has a wall sign in the 120-130 square foot range and the sign was approved based on the scale of the building. Nelson commented that three signs are too much. Nelson said she could accept the one large one in the middle and possibly a 50-foot sign at the end of the building that does not face the freeway. Nelson did not support the sign above the roofline. Stoltz said he thought three signs would be too much for the site and Lifetouch could get their identify across without using three signs. Kacher asked Franzen what problems or precedence would be created if the variance were granted. Franzen said he was concerned about using the way we measure signs as the only reason for granting variances. If that were the case, the City would be inundated with sign variance requests. Stoelting asked if the monument sign would remain. Franzen said that the monument sign would remain. Nelson commented that she thought the Best Buy sign was too big and felt that it was a mistake to approve that variance. Stoelting asked Perkins if he was amendable to a modification of the Lifetouch variance request. Ted Kennedy, Lifetouch, said the identity of Lifetouch and the Lifetouch logo is critical to the expansion of Lifetouch. Kennedy said the reasons they put up the three signs was to perpetuate the identity and the other buildings in the area are multi-tenant buildings. Lifetouch has only the one building and making sure it was properly signed was a critical element. Kennedy said his preference would be to have two signs on the building. As the vegetation continues to grow, the one sign over the main entrance door will not be visible, so Kennedy felt that there should be other signs to identify the building. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 6 Stoelting asked Kennedy if they were amenable to modify the request. Kennedy said that they were amenable to making changes. Stoltz said he liked the one centrally located sign in the center of the building. Seymour commented that he did not want the central sign to be located above the roofline. Seymour was in favor of one sign centrally located smaller than 196 square feet and one 50 foot sign on the west side of the building. Nelson said that she was also amenable to two 84 square foot signs on the sides of the building without the centrally located sign. Nelson said she was comfortable with two signs on the sides of the building or one centrally located sign. Kacher said he agreed with Nelson. Stoelting said he agreed with the other board members. Franzen said he did have one alternative to what has been discussed. Because of the trees in the front of the entrance, the two 84 square foot signs do make sense. However, if there were not a sign on the main entrance, visitors would not know where to enter the building. Franzen recommended that a 30 square foot or 50 square foot sign be located at the main entrance to identify where the main entrance is located. Nelson said that it would make sense to have a 50 square foot sign in front of the main entrance because of the visibility above the tree. Franzen said that the reason to grant the variance could be the physical size of the building, the fact that you have two buildings, the fact that you have a sharp curve which is the third frontage, the fact that you need some visibility above the tree lines to see the main entrance sign, and a script lettering sign does appear smaller than the block style lettered sign. Stoelting suggested there could be two 84 square foot signs on each side of the building and one 50 square foot sign on the main entrance and the main sign would not be above the roofline of the building. The Board members supported Stoelting's suggestion. Kennedy thanked the Board for their time. MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 7 MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Kacher to approve Variance#2004-08, Petition of Lifetouch for property at 11000 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota for the following: • Lifetouch Building#1 —Wall sign variance from 50 to 84 square feet of scripted wall sign. • Lifetouch Building#2 —Wall sign variance from 50 to 84 square feet of scripted wall sign. • Lifetouch Building Link—Wall sign variance from none permitted to 50 square feet. • All wall signs are not permitted above the roof line. The reasons for the variance being the physical size of the overall buildings, the fact that there are two buildings plus the link,because the script lettering appears somewhat smaller, the lettering will need to appear over the tops of a heavily treed area and the fact it is on a curve and would have an alternate face. Motion carried 5-0. C. VARIANCE#2004-09 Petition of William and Joan Dale for property at 15501 North Hillcrest Court, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. A side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 3 feet to replace an existing deck. A side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 3 feet for a porch addition. A shoreland setback variance from 100 feet to 56 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Purgatory Creek. Bill Dale, 15501 North Hillcrest Court, Eden Prairie, said the home was built in 1973 and was built within the regulations at that time. The house today sits in the 60-70 foot range from the creek. The house was built about 15 feet from the east property line. The living space (kitchen, dining and living room) is located on the east side of the home facing the creek. A deck was constructed without a permit on the east side of the home facing the creek. The deck has been in this location for the past 30 years. Dale said they would reconstruct the deck in the same location and add a three-season porch within the boundaries of the existing deck. The existing home and the deck were built prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1982. The home and deck became non-conforming with the adoption of the Shoreland Code. The porch addition could be built off the south side of the house;however, existing trees would be impacted and setback variances would be needed also. Dale said they would like to reconstruct the existing deck and build a screened porch so they could enjoy their yard. Dale said the screened porch is needed to enjoy the yard without insects. Franzen said it was reasonable for the applicant to rebuild the deck and add a screened porch. Because of the current Shoreland Ordinance, the regulations are Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 8 more restrictive so no matter where you place the deck you will create an impact on the property. Franzen said the home is 15 feet from the property line, and there is mowing on City property beyond the property line. Franzen said that the Board could approve the variance and there could be some negotiation with the homeowner about how City property can be restored to its natural state. Dale said that the grass is mowed down by the creek and the previous owner installed a sprinkler system in that area. Nelson said she was concerned that the City property is being mowed down to the creek. Nelson said that this should not be happening because of the health of the creek. Nelson supported the deck being reconstructed,but the City area should not be used as a backyard. Fox said the City has about 100 miles of interface of park property throughout the property and the parks department has a difficult time monitoring all of the park property. Fox said the conditions of the variance shouldn't be that they restore the property. The standard statement to all property owners is that they cease and desist; therefore, they should cut off the irrigation system, quit mowing, and let it go natural. Fox said there might be a looped trail built around that conservation area sometime in the future. Kacher was in support of granting the variances. Nelson indicated she would like to see the deck five feet from the property line, but does favor replacing the existing deck. Seymour said he was in favor of granting the variances. Stoelting also said he was in favor of granting the variances. Stoelting asked Fox what instructions or expectations would he give the homeowners in regards to the City property. Fox said he would draft a letter to Mr. Dale and address it that way. It is a trespass issue that needs to desist at this point. Fox said he would meet with the homeowner on site and clearly define what the construction limits are prior to the construction of the deck. MOTION by Kacher, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz to approve Variance#2004-09 Petition of William and Joan Dale for property at 15501 North Hillcrest Court, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 9 A side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 3 feet to replace an existing deck. A side yard setback variance from 15 feet to 3 feet for a porch addition. A shoreland setback variance from 100 feet to 56 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Purgatory Creek. Motion carried 5-0. D. VARIANCE#2004-10 Petition of Tom and Janine Fuehrer for property at 16501 Valley Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. A front yard setback variance from 80 feet to 65 feet. A variance from 4 garage doors to 5 garage doors. Tom Fuehrer, 16501 Valley Road, Eden Prairie, said he has been a life-long car enthusiast and the property was purchased in 2002 with the possibility of housing his cars. The current proposal is for a 32 by 54 foot garage—the position of the garage as it is proposed is 65 feet back from the property line. The position of the garage is determined by a sizeable gully that goes through the property directly south of the proposed site and dictates the north/south location of the garage. The garage door variance is so that there is sufficient access out of the garage. Franzen said that request is reasonable,but there are two locations for the garage, which would meet the required 80-foot setback. One is the proposed location. The garage would be turned to have the doors face the street. The other location would be adjacent to the house. The same size garage can be built with two oversized doors. With fewer doors the owners would have more work to get the cars out of the garage. The Board needs to decide where the garage would be located. Nelson asked if the homeowner considered turning the garage 90 degrees and building a 36 x 54 garage where you could put four cars in the garage (two cars deep). Fuehrer said the basic reason for not doing that is access - since there are three garage doors. This allows me a much more efficient access in and out, typically we have two older cars ready to be driven at any time, space for long-term storage and a shop area. Having just two garage doors, Fuehrer said he would have to move cars to get cars out of the garage. Fuehrer said he had an alternate positioning of the garage that would have three garage doors, and would probably meet the setbacks. Fuehrer said if he went with the alternate,he would have to remove a lot of trees to allow a turn-around on the west side. Community Planning Board Minutes June 14, 2003 Page 10 Stoelting asked Franzen if the City has a regulation that involves the number of garage doors. Franzen said that the City's concern is they will get very large buildings that look like mini-storage buildings in residential areas. Franzen said he was more concerned about the setbacks rather than the number of garage doors. Fuehrer said the reason he wants the setback is because of the gully in his back yard. The gully is about 8 to 10 feet. Fuhrer said he thought about orientating the garage 90 degrees, but his garage doors would be visible to his neighbor. Fuehrer said he was trying to be conscious of his neighbor's potential concerns. Franzen said that he could support the variance because the garage doors would not face his neighbor, the applicant wouldn't have to take out as many trees and the garage doors are perpendicular rather than parallel to the street. Nelson asked Fuehrer was he was doing about erosion control around the gully. Fuehrer said the area is heavily grown over with vegetation and if there is any erosion,he plants new vegetation. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Nelson to approve Variance#2004-10 Petition of Tom and Janine Fuehrer for property at 16501 Valley Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. A front yard setback variance from 80 feet to 65 feet. A variance from 4 garage doors to 5 garage doors. Motion carried 5-0. VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS X. PLANNERS' REPORTS Franzen reported that for the next Board meeting there are a couple of variances and three development projects. XI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kacher to adjourn the Planning Board meeting of June 14, 2004 at 9:23 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.