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.