Planning Commission - 08/23/2004 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY,AUGUST 23, 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, Ray
Stoelting, Jon Stoltz, William Sutherland
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer, Mike Franzen, City Planner
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Brooks,
Kacher, Nelson, Rocheford, Seymour, Stoelting, Stoltz, and Sutherland.
Absent: Koenig
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Brooks, second by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 8-0
III. MINUTES
A. COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 9, 2004
MOTION by Brooks, seconded by Seymour to approve the minutes. Motion carried
8-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ASI JET CENTER HANGAR by ASI Jet Center. Request for Site Plan Review
on 0.75 acres. Location: 14801 Pioneer Trail(Flying Cloud Airport).
Bill Blair and Keith Nelson presented the project. Mr. Blair stated the one issue that
has not been addressed is the building signage. He said they are not at that stage but
there will be signage on the building in the future which will comply with the City's
and MAC's requirements. Mr. Nelson described the building construction elements.
Franzen stated the staff recommendation is for approval. He said the design
framework manual for the airport is to usually improve the appearance of hangars
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 2
by adding stone or brick and landscaping around the buildings. This proposal is
consistent with the manual.
Stoelting opened the meeting to the public. There was no public input.
Nelson asked what type of planes are stored in the hangars and why the need for
expansion. Mr. Nelson responded that most of the hangars accommodate single
engine small planes. There are a number of corporate entities looking to house their
jets. This hangar can hold up to a Gulf Stream 4 of 5 which is the typical size of a
corporate jet.
Nelson asked how many planes the current hangars have and how many jets will
this new hangar accommodate. Mr. Nelson stated approximately 11 or 12 currently.
Nelson asked why they were building a new hangar now rather than waiting a year
until sewer and water will be hooked up. Mr. Blair responded the airport has
preliminary commitments for potential tenants with corporate jets. He said these
types of clients don't want to wait a year. Also, there are plans to clean up the area
and a majority of the old galvanized hangars will be removed.
Nelson asked if the current well will accommodate the new hangar. Mr. Blair
responded there is no running water or bathrooms in the hangars. He said there will
be sprinkler hookups for use in the future.
Stoelting asked about the sprinkler system and whether there would be water to
them. Mr. Blair responded the hangar will be build with the sprinkler system which
will be dead headed until the water hookup is available.
Stoelting asked whether there would be planes stored there and about runoff and
drainage. Mr. Blair responded there would be planes stored there and the floor
drains will go into a tank which would be pumped out periodically.
Brooks asked if there is vacant land at the airport for future hangars. Franzen
responded there is some acreage facing Hennepin Village which is twice the size of
the hangar area currently existing. He said the concern was sight lines and, as a
result, berms are planned.
Franzen said the capital improvement plan for sewer and water is scheduled for
2005. He said staff is encouraging MAC and the airport to make improvements of
the facilities and are supportive of making those changes at this time rather than
waiting for utilities.
Kacher stated in order to accommodate the new hangar; two of the old ones will be
demolished. He asked whether the new hangars will replace those. Mr. Blair
responded that on the north end of the two existing hangars there will be some
remaining while 3/4 of the old hangars will be removed.
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 3
MOTION by Brooks, second by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried, 8-0
MOTION by Brooks, second by Sutherland, to approve a request for Site Plan
Review on 0.75 acres,based on plans dated August 9, 2004, subject to the
recommendations of the staff report dated August 20, 2004, to the City Council.
Motion carried, 7-1, Nelson voted nay
Nelson stated she thought they should wait for the utilities. She said it's not good to
be without fire protection and a year is not a long period of time.
B. BEST BUY by BBE Properties. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 5.39 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on
5.39 acres, Zoning District Change from Office to Commercial Regional Service on
5.39 acres, Site Plan Review on 5.39 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 5.39 acres into
one lot. Location: 7901 Flying Cloud Drive.
Tim Palmquist of BBE Properties presented the project. He stated they have been
working with staff to resolve differences in design. He said most of them have been
resolved, including the loading area, driveway access and the front yard setback. He
stated the remaining issue to discuss has to do with the signs affixed to the building.
He stated he believes Best Buy is in compliance with the sign code but staff is
seeing it differently.
Mr. Palmquist introduced Paul Anderson who could help answer questions. Mr.
Anderson displayed the color version of the site plan for the building. He said they
incorporated the comments from the previous meeting into the building. He said
they have broken up areas of the building with architectural elements and it makes
the building more interesting. He said staff has agreed with all the changes but the
issue is still the building signage.
Stoelting asked whether the were looking at the signs as only 300 square feet of wall
signage and that meets City Code. Mr. Palmquist responded that was correct. He
said the sign on the front is 247 square feet, the rear sign is 297 square feet and the
right and left elevation signs are 132 square feet each. He stated the additional
calculations include the blue which City staff says is part of the sign.
Stoelting asked why they needed to include the blue wedge. Mr. Palmquist
responded it is part of the Best Buy corporate identity. He stated the entrance
wedge is important and they want to use it.
Franzen stated that the location of the building was appropriate for commercial
zoning. He said they wanted the project to be consistent with the development
standards the City requires for commercial areas such as Fountain Place and
Slumberland. He continued they are consistent in that they have a turn lane for
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 4
traffic; they have architectural variety, a variety of perennial plants, and strong
sidewalk connections which are important for walkable communities. He said there
are waivers and the staff agrees with all of them except the sign which has the blue
wedge and yellow ticket. He said the purpose and intent of the sign code is to
encourage creativity and free choice while having standards so the public is not
endangered, distracted or annoyed by unsafe communication facilities. He said
signs need to be of a certain size but Best Buy could shrink the size down or do
something similar to Target where they decided not to put signs on some walls but
larger ones on different elevations. He stated staff recommends approval with the
exception of the sign waiver and recommends compliance with the sign ordinance.
Stoelting opened the meeting to the public. There was no public input.
Kacher asked why this didn't come up at the informational meeting. Franzen
responded that the details at that time weren't available. The informational meeting
was to discuss the rezoning only.
Kacher asked about the Home Depot sign. Franzen responded they went with a
smaller square footage on the sign. He said the only sign larger than 300 square feet
is the Target sign but the total square footage was not in excess of 1,200 square feet.
Target elected not to have signs on some walls in exchange for a larger sign on one
wall.
Kacher asked Mr. Palmquist how important is the blue. Mr. Palmquist responded it
is very important and the blue wedge was part of the original submittal. He
continued it is an integral part of the building and there are numerous examples of
other businesses that are prototypical. He said the question is what is a sign and
what is part of the building.
Nelson asked why the blue isn't part of the awnings. She said she didn't like the
blue wedge. She said the side elevation signs are fine but the front has too much
blue. She said they could incorporate the blue in the awning and other architectural
areas. She said many businesses changed prototypes when they located in Eden
Prairie and seem to do very well. She continued the blue doesn't need to be behind
the signs at all and there definitely needs to be less blue on the front of the building.
Mr. Palmquist stated they had gone from their prototype to adapt to what the City
wants. He said he would be fine with the blue awnings but didn't want to eliminate
the other blue areas. He said City Code has language regarding parapets, marquees,
and canopies as separate from sign elements.
Brooks stated the signs seem to be a major issue and there is a considerable size
difference between what Best Buy is asking for and what the sign code allows. He
asked what materials the blue wedge consisted of. Mr. Palmquist responded it
consists of metal studs, insulation board, and stucco like materials and is considered
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 5
part of the base building. Brooks stated it is not made of your typical signage
materials. He said he thinks the blue looks good and the design gives the building
an identity. He said he sees this as a challenge for the staff and proponent to work
out.
Franzen stated the blue wedge is a symbol and the code says symbols are a sign.
Brooks asked if that were the case whether anything that draws attention to a sign is
considered part of the sign. Franzen responded staff looks at the company's
corporate identity and what is the actual physical sign on the building. He said
banding and logos unique to a company are considered part of the sign. He stated
the sign ordinance is set up for identification of a building. He continued if they
reduced some of the blue, they can still draw attention to the building and meet the
sign code.
Rocheford stated he liked the blue because it signifies Best Buy. He said signage is
meant to attract people to a building and they may want to evaluate this.
Sutherland stated he's sensitive to the idea of corporate identity. He said the City has
taken an understated approach to signage in Eden Prairie and commerce continues.
He said he would like a more moderate design worked out between the proponent
and the City staff.
Mr. Palmquist asked Todd Hartman of Robbins and Kaplan to explain why they feel
they are in compliance with the sign code. Mr. Hartman stated Best Buy is
distinctive because of its corporate trade dress. He said all they have for their
identity is the blue wedge with the yellow ticket. He said he didn't see elements as
part of the sign and the sign code didn't state color would be an element of a sign.
He said the blue is part of the wall of the building and they believe the yellow part is
the sign.
Stoelting asked if they need signs on all four sides of the building. Mr. Hartman
responded it's needed to identify the building as Best Buy.
Stoelting asked whether removing one of the signs was an option they would
consider. Mr. Palmquist responded they would not be agreeable to removing any of
the signs.
Brooks stated it appears the gap is huge whereas code limits it to 1,200 square feet,
Best Buy is asking for 3,800 square feet of signage. This is a major difference and
will take considerable give and take to come to agreement.
Kacher stated it seems this falls into a narrow definition and there should be some
flexibility.
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 6
Stoelting stated he would like to see the proponent come back after working with
staff on the signage.
Stoltz asked if they left the front elevation sign as it was, would they eliminate the
blue on the sides and rear elevations. Mr. Palmquist responded they had talked with
staff about blocks or bands of color.
Stoltz asked about the Richfield store and whether it was similar to this one. Mr.
Palmquist responded the Richfield store has a blue wedge but it is more three
dimensional.
Stoltz said he felt the blue should not be counted as signage. He said the City needs
to be flexible. He stated he is fine with the proposal and the signage.
Sutherland stated he likes the look of the building with its breaks in the fagade. He
said he's very sensitive to corporate identity but is leaning to agreeing with the City.
He recommended approving the building but addressing the signage at a later time.
Seymour agreed that the building looks good but he said he considers the blue as
part of the sign. He stated the City and proponent need to work together so the blue
doesn't appear to be part of the sign.
Mr. Palmquist stated there are areas of the country where they have made the
changes according to certain requirements but the Eden Prairie store is not that type
of product.
Nelson said she would agree with the City and believes there is room for
adjustment. She said she would be fine with voting for a standard sign or to a
continuance. She said she doesn't want to see other companies come in with
requests in excess of the sign code requirements.
Brooks said the blue is made of different materials than the sign and he would be
agreeable to approving the project and address the sign issue later. He said he didn't
believe the blue was part of the sign.
Kacher stated he would support the entire project including the signage.
Rocheford asked why the right elevation sign didn't have the blue. Mr. Palmquist
responded it's directly above the loading dock and it wasn't working out.
Rocheford stated he would support the project but the proponent needs to come to
an agreement with staff on the signage. He said he believes the sign ordinance
needs to be reviewed.
Franzen stated he'd like to keep the sign ordinance and any discussion of it separate
from this project. The Board should discuss the sign code separately. He said he
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 7
would like to move Best Buy along with the rezoning and let them start building
and address the sign issue later.
Stoelting stated he liked the design of the building. He said he is concerned because
this is a prominent building and there seems to be a lot of tension around this
signage issue. He said there needs to be give and take and a compromise agreed to.
He said they need to be clear as to what they want and they can't have everything
they're asking for.
Brooks asked Stoelting if he is counting the blue as part of the signage. Stoelting
responded he is because it surrounds the yellow ticket. He said he feels comfortable
approving the project and returning to the sign issue.
Mr. Palmquist stated they are willing to compromise but there is a lot to come to
agreement on. He said he's concerned about the signage issue and if they remove
the wedge what that will leave them with.
Stoelting asked if they would change the blue to another color. Mr. Palmquist
stated they have in the past if there was an ordinance prohibiting certain colors or a
review board with certain standards. Stoelting asked if they would be willing to
change the color to gray. Mr. Palmquist responded they would not.
Stoelting stated if seems that if it were part of the building they would be willing to
change; since they won't change the color, it must be part of the sign.
Mr. Hartman asked what the process would be for this project. He said if they
advance with an approval. He stated they won't break ground with such an
important issue unapproved.
Franzen stated if it's simply discussing trading signs similar to Target, they can
come back at the next meeting and then to the Council in late September or early
October. He said if they are looking at doing it as proposed they are looking at a
major philosophical shift in the Sign Code. He continued the community has a
certain look and feel and signs are an important part of that. He said if the Board
wanted to discuss changing the Sign Code it would delay the project.
Mr. Hartman stated there has been a lot of a philosophical discussion on the code.
He said he wants to work at resolving this issue. He stated they believe they are
interpreting the code appropriately. He said they would like to move forward with a
contingency that the signage and waiver be addressed at a future time but, in any
case, they would like to move forward to the September 21st City Council meeting.
Mr. Hartman asked if the Board approved the project but not the waiver, would it be
possible for them to go to the Council for their consideration. He asked if at some
point the staff and Best Buy worked out an agreement could the City Council then
Planning Board Minutes
August 23, 2004
Page 8
pass the waiver.
Franzen responded procedurally an option would be to continue the item to the next
board meeting which would be September 13 and publish the legal notice for the
September 21 Council meeting. Mr. Hartman stated that would be agreeable.
Seymour stated that if they continue the project he would like to know if they are
going to have the same situation with some of the Board agreeing with the blue and
others disagreeing with it. He said if the code is to be followed how will they come
to an agreement.
Nelson stated she has faith in Best Buy and they will work to get it done.
MOTION by Nelson, second by Brooks to continue this item to the September 13,
2004, meeting. Motion carried, 8-0
Nelson commended staff for seeing fewer banners around the City.
VI. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Franzen stated there won't be any new public hearings for September 13,just the Best Buy
project.
X. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Nelson, second by Brooks to adjourn. Motion passed, 8-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.