Loading...
Planning Commission - 09/08/2003 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Kathy Nelson, Dave Steppat, Ray Stoelting, Paul Sodt, Bill Sutherland STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Mike Franzen, City Planner Al Gray, City Engineer Jane Hovind, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Stoelting, Commissioners Foote, Koenig, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Steppat, and Sutherland. Absent: Brooks II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Koenig, second by Steppat, to approve the agenda. Motion carried, 8-0 III. MINUTES A. Minutes of the August 25, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting MOTION by Foote second by Koenig, to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2003 Community Planning Board Meeting. Motion carried, 7-0, Stoelting abstained IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2003-07 for United Properties on behalf of MSP Investors I, LLC at 11000 Prairie Lakes Drive. To permit approval for: Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 2 1. An identification sign of 300 square feet. City Code permits 50 square feet in the Office Zoning District. 2. An identification sign on a "non" street frontage side of the building. City code permits one identification sign per street frontage. John McCarthy presented the variance request. He stated they expanded with an additional building which was built for large corporate users such as IBM and National Computer Systems. He said he was recently offered a lease by Phoenix University who is requesting a sign larger than 50 square feet. The sign request is for a 300 square foot sign for the building which McCarthy believed would be necessary in order to be legible from I-494. He stated it fits in with the commercial area signage nearby. Franzen stated that the purpose of signs in an office district is to provide direction, identification and advertising a tenant. The reason for a smaller sign is because most of the signs are used for direction in the office district. In relation to other communities, Minnetonka and Edina are very similar in size, Plymouth and Bloomington allow larger size signs because they have large office parks and office buildings. He said if the Board is interested in considering larger signs in the Office zoning district it would be important to review the entire sign ordinance rather than looking at the variance. Steppat asked McCarthy what would happen in regard to the tenant if he doesn't get a larger sign. McCarthy responded this would not be the only reason they would not rent although he has lost other prospects because of the signage requirements. Koenig asked if the signs would be lighted at night. McCarthy stated he didn't request that in the proposal but if it was asked for, it would be addressed in the future. She said she understood the request for signage but there are a lot of amenities in that location, such as Anderson Lakes Preserve which would be a big selling point for prospective tenants. She asked McCarthy what his highest occupancy rate was. He responded near 100% when they had the single building. After adding the second building, approximately 85%. Foote asked what Bloomington and Edina allow for square footage. Franzen responded Edina has 50 square feet and Plymouth allows 50 square feet or 5% of wall area whichever is greater. He said Bloomington has a formula to determine sign square footage which is based on building square footage. For example a 200 foot by 100 foot building would be allowed to have a sign up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. Minnetonka allows 50 square feet or 25% of the building length Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 3 whichever is greater. Foote asked what Eden Prairie's largest variance for signage allowed. Franzen responded it was a sign for Best Buy at 175 square feet. McCarthy stated that in Edina if a monument sign is not used, that square footage could be tacked onto other signs. Nelson asked staff if this building were a single tenant building would that make a difference as to the size of the sign. Franzen stated it would not, the ordinance is written per building, not the number of tenants. She stated that she felt the 300 square foot size sign request was excessive because of its proximity to residents. Sodt asked what would he do if he had two tenants, would he be asking for another sign. McCarthy replied he would have one tenant name and not two because it would be confusing to have more than one name. Sodt stated that the intent of the code is that the sign would be placed on the street side and, in that case, a 50 foot sign would be adequate. He said even with a 300 square foot sign he didn't think it would be large enough to be seen from the freeway. McCarthy stated when National Computer Systems was a tenant they had a sign and it was visible from the freeway. With Phoenix University a larger sign is necessary to accommodate the length of the name. Sutherland stated that it seems the purpose of the sign would be similar to a billboard. A sign this size may carry forward to alter the character of the City. He suggested the Board take a broader look at the sign ordinance. Koenig asked staff the size of the National Computer System sign. Franzen responded he couldn't find a record of the permit as it goes back a few years. He believed it would have been no larger than 50 square feet. Steppat stated that the signage limits are well founded and consistent. He said he was against moving away from that requirement. He stated he was uncomfortable with such a large variance. Foote said he would not be in favor of a 300 square foot sign. He stated he would be in favor of looking at the sign ordinance as a whole. Foote asked staff how this would affect this variance if the Board were to review the sign ordinance. Franzen responded it would take approximately 3-6 months to bring something back for discussion and then they would have to bring the variance back for discussion. Seymour stated the sign code is appropriate and effective. He said he didn't see a reason for the variance and was against changing the sign code. Terry Pearson, 10827 Leaping Deer Lane, stated that she lives in a neighborhood near the building. She said that the ambiance of the neighborhood is very important. She commented that she has been involved with various projects including Costco, Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 4 Home Depot and Hartford Commons because of her feeling that the neighborhoods need to be protected. Koenig stated that the comparison of Bloomington to Eden Prairie is like comparing apples and oranges. She said she would be very hesitant to support that size of a sign. Sodt stated he is reluctant to support this request. But he does have a problem with retail establishments such as Mattress Factory and Petsmart which have larger signs a block away, while an office building is limited to 50 square feet. Nelson stated given the size of the building, she could agree to 100 square feet. She would rather see a maximum size used for the letters in the name. She said it should be for a specific tenant rather than a general sign. Stoelting asked members how they feel about a comprehensive review of the sign ordinance. Sodt stated he is reluctant to approve a variance until the code is reviewed and would be fine with reviewing the sign code. Nelson stated in general she's happy with the sign ordinance. She said she had a concern that the code doesn't distinguish between building sizes in the same setting and, as a result it doesn't always work well. Foote stated he would agree with Seymour that the sign ordinance is effective as it stands but wouldn't be against reviewing it in the future. The size of the sign would be too much. He said it doesn't feel comfortable with an arbitrary size. Steppat stated that he is fine with the sign code the way it is and is not in favor of reviewing the code but would not be opposed to a comprehensive review if the other members felt it was appropriate. Koenig stated there is no need to review the code. If the size of the sign were to change, it would need to be specific to the Phoenix University name. Seymour stated there really isn't a need to review the sign ordinance although he wouldn't be opposed to reviewing it. He said a sign that big on the building is a billboard and not sure that is what Eden Prairie residents would want. Sutherland stated he doesn't believe the code necessarily needs to be changed. The granting of a variance is by its nature arbitrary. He said a review of the ordinance would be an opportunity to give some input regarding the larger buildings. Stoelting asked members whether they would consider a smaller sign. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 5 Sodt stated he would not be comfortable. Nelson said the name of the tenant being so long, 50 square feet would not be big enough and she would prefer to have the proponent come in with the measurements for that particular name. She stated her first choice would be a continuance. Foote stated he would not be in favor of arbitrarily increasing the sign size; he would want a basis for choosing that. Steppat was not in favor of allowing a larger sign. Koenig stated she did not agree with choosing a size. If that tenant left, another tenant would want the same size sign. Nelson stated in her opinion it could only be for that tenant and if they backed out or left, it would go back to 50 square feet. Seymour stated that he is not in favor of dong something arbitrary. He said this could result in similar requests in other areas of the City. Sutherland agreed the arbitrariness is troublesome. MOTION by Sodt, second by Steppat to close the public hearing, Motion carried, 8-0. Sodt stated that granting this variance could result in sign clutter; it could result in other office building owners to request variances so they are not at a disadvantage; the current sign requirements are adequate and serve the needs of the community; and the Board should not be influenced by the market since there is a solid basis for the size restriction in the sign code. MOTION by Sodt, second by Koenig to recommend denial of the following variances since a hardship has not been sufficiently substantiated. • A variance for a building identification wall sign from 50 square feet permitted to 300 square feet in the Office Zoning District. • A variance for a building identification wall sign on a "non" street frontage side of the building. City code permits one identification sign per street frontage Nelson asked McCarthy if he would be interested in a continuance and agreeable to come back with a more detailed plan. McCarthy responded he was okay with that if it would help with increasing the size of the sign. Motion carried, 7-1, Nelson voted nay Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 6 B. VARIANCE#2003-08 for Glazed Investments, LLC for property located at 12950 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, MN To permit approval for: A 31 foot front yard setback for the northeast corner of the building located at 12950 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. City Code requires a 35' front yard setback. Franzen stated that this item should be continued to the next meeting to allow the proponent an opportunity to be present. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Nelson to recommend continuance to the September 22, 2003 meeting. Motion carried, 8-0 C. EAGLE RIDGE AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE by Pemtom Land Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 151.43 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 64.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the R1-9.5 District on 16.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 District on 48 acres, Site Plan Review on 48 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.1 acres into 84 lots, and road right of way. Location: North of Highway 212, east of Spring Road. Dan Herbst of Pemtom Land Company presented the project. He gave the Board some background on Hennepin Village. He stated the first neighborhood was started in 2002 with three distinct sites. The Carriage Homes are sold out and the Prairie Townhomes are scheduled to be sold out by the end of the year. Utilities will be installed by the end of the year. The single family product is not doing well; they have run into resistance and are considering changing them to duplex or triplex products. The Wooddale homes are the basis for this request. The northern corner of Charlson and Spring Road is a community center with a pool and a restored barn. Originally, 46 townhomes were approved on the Prairie View area. There were various factors which affected Woodale,particularly assessments to the property. Also, the requirements for sprinkler systems in the homes resulted in price increases. The new plan would increase the number of homes from 46 to 52 which is less than a 1% overall increase in density. The product would be narrower and smaller and, as a result, it will be possible to bring the price point back down. This is a product that was used at Bearpath and was very successful. Another benefit would be to bring a less costly product and there were some concerns about the closeness of the amenities. The overlook at the center of the site was a concern as to how close it would be to the townhomes. By reducing the size of the lots, there will be more green space which will create a greater distance between the overlook, the parking and the homes on each side. The overlook will be a public element that connects to the City's trail system. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 7 Stoelting stated according to the report, there was more to the request than the size of the townhomes. Herbst responded there were minor changes needed. Franzen stated that the most important change is the increase in density and change in architecture. The second revision is change in the single family area. The unit count is the same,but the roads are different which improves access and reduces the number of steps. The third revision is for the office building, which is the same building size but a different building configuration, to accommodate a different access point. The position of the new driveway provides a better site vision distance. Staff recommends that the project be approved according to the recommendations on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. Koenig asked Herbst what the homes were priced at and how they were selling in the Outlot A area. Herbst stated the Carriage homes range from the $230,000 - $260,000, the Heritage homes range from $280,000 - $320,000 which are walkout townhomes, the Village Homes range from$300,000 - $390,000 and the Wooddale townhomes are priced at $479,000 - $500,000. Koenig asked why the single homes aren't working and why they thought there was resistance. Herbst responded that there is a perception about what a single family home should be in Eden Prairie. He stated this type of home needs to be on a flat site. The consumers are saying they are looking for more features on the first floor. The single family homes are very vertical. He would like to make sure the product is designed according to what the consumer wants. Koenig asked staff the reason for the higher assessments than originally estimated. Gray responded that the feasibility report was written in 2000 and the costs have gone up since then. He said it was also a function of the sequence in which they started work early on in the existing right of way before there was an agreement with MAC. Seymour asked the proponent to expand on the cost of the Wooddale townhomes. Steve Schwieters, President of Wooddale, stated that when complete they will be around $550,000-$575,000 maximum. He stated there's a lot of interest in this product and believes it will market well if the cost is kept under$600,000. Nelson stated she was concerned about the changes and that there will be more in the future. She asked why the changes weren't being done all at one time and why there were so many of them. Schwieters responded there were issues they didn't know when they built the first design and as construction proceeded costs increased significantly. He said the product needs to change because the market isn't there. Herbst stated they had been pushing the single family homes. It is a very complicated Planned Unit Development which includes retail and office along with all the homes. Sodt stated that he agreed with Nelson that there has been a history of changes in Pemtom projects. Herbst responded he is very sensitive to the Board but there are requirements made by staff and homeowners which required adjustments. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 8 A member of the audience asked why the waivers weren't discussed. Stoelting stated that they had been addressed in the staff report. Franzen stated that when they first looked at the concept two years ago, they had the same category of waivers. There were small homes and small lots with reduced setbacks. The tradeoff was 71 acres of open space, all the land along the bluff and the creek. The architecture embodied the history of the earliest homes in the City. These waivers are similar to those. MOTION by Steppat, second by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 8-0 MOTION by Steppat, second by Seymour, to approve a Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 151.43 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 64.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the R1-9.5 District on 16.9 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 District on 48 acres, Site Plan Review on 48 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.1 acres into 84 lots, and road right of way, based on plans dated August 19, 2003, subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated September 5, 2003, to the City Council. Motion carried, 7-1, Sodt abstained D. LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator, presented the plan. She stated the last date for comments on the plan is October 24, 2003. Nelson left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Koenig asked about the status of the cranberry bogs in the Bearpath development. Stovring responded they are trying to reestablish the buffers as they were in the past. She said she expects a report sometime in 2003. The quality of the bogs is decreasing and this will be addressed when the section of 212 is built in that area. Koenig asked if residents are cooperating. Stovring responded that she is leaving that up to the Watershed District. Koenig asked where the highest quality wetlands are located in the City. Stovring responded there is one along Dell Road across from Bearpath and one in Bearpath. They seem to be spread out throughout the City. Koenig asked how to get buffers in areas where development is already established. Stovring responded working with the homeowners or creating a wetland buffer. Steppat asked who is requiring the water quality plan. Stovring responded that it would include both the EPA and MPCA. Koenig asked if the testing of water quality includes drinking water. Stovring responded it refers to the ponds. Koenig asked where the NURP ponds were located that were having quality problems and whether they were the older ones. Joe Bischoff of Wenck Associates responded Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 9 that it's spread all over the City. Stovring stated it has to do with how clean the developer kept the area during construction and how the homeowners have treated the area. Seymour asked if there are model for educating the public out there that we can look at. Stovring responded that because education is so important, Water Resource Coordinators from various cities formed a group and meet periodically to discuss how to educate the public. The University of Minnesota Extension Office is going to do a metro wide education piece that will help educate us on how to get the information out. Stoelting asked about the use of rain gardens and could there be more detail about integrative management practices in the plan. Stovring responded that there are a lot of practices out there but they are new and haven't been tested yet. She stated she would add the more common ones to the plan. Stoelting asked about the enforcement of code violations. Franzen responded that staff is to come before the Board in October to review categories of complaints and code violations. Koenig stated she would like to see information on enforcement and how that works with other agencies included in the plan. Sodt stated that the Board would like to know what can be done to help get information out. Jim Perkins of 7010 Willow Creek Road stated he has lived on Bryant Lake for 40 years and has seen a lot of change. He said he really enjoys the boats and seeing that people are enjoying the lake. MOTION by Steppat, second by Foote to close the public hearing. Motion carried, 7-0 MOTION by Steppat, second by Foote, to recommend approval of the draft Local Water Management Plan dated August 11, 2003. Motion carried, 7-0 Koenig stated the plan was very readable and extremely interesting. VI. MEMBERS REPORTS VII. CONTINUING BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS IX. PLANNERS' REPORTS A. PERKINS LAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN A SHORELAND AREA Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2003 Page 10 Franzen stated this is a re-review of a grading plan approved in 1998. This is a request for a land alteration permit to grade a driveway in the shoreland area. This came about as the result of a suit against the City. The Judge said grading permits must be issued by the City Council. Over the last 20 years the Planning Board and Council have reviewed the grading plans with the plat. The permit is actually issued by staff. Due to the number of shoreland homes in the City it would be overwhelming to consider all the possible permits in front of the Board. The ordinance should be changed to allow staff to issue grading permits. MOTION by Sutherland, second by Foote to approve the request by James Perkins for a land alteration permit in a shoreland area,based on plans dated September 4, 2003, and subject to the staff report dated September 3, 2003, to the City Council. X. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Koenig, second by Foote to adjourn. Motion carried, 7-0 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.