Planning Commission - 01/26/2006 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,JANUARY 23, 2006 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
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner
Regina Herron, Planner 1
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Kacher, Kirk,
Rocheford, Sutherland.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to approve the agenda. Motion carried
5-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 12, 2005
A quorum was not met to approve the minutes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 9, 2006
A quorum was not met to approve the minutes.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 2
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2006-01 at 9995 Gristmill Ridge. Request to:
Permit a 7 foot side yard setback for a deck addition. City Code requires a
minimum 10 foot side yard setback in the R1-13.5 Zoning District.
Michael Lintner, owner of the property at 9995 Gristmill Ridge, presented the
proposal. He stated that in the last year he has spent a considerable amount of
time with the builders and his neighbors to come up with the blueprint for the
deck that he is submitting this evening. He pointed out that because of the
triangular nature of his lot he is requesting a 3 foot variance to accommodate his
deck. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the position of the deck and
hot tub and the location of the stairs. He pointed out that some of the hardships
would be per his doctor's orders he needs a hot tub to accommodate his back pain.
The second hardship would be the triangular shape of his lot. The third reason
would be that approximately 20 percent of his lot is allocated to easement versus
10 percent for every other lot in his subdivision. This easement is due to the
sewer, drainage and utility easement on the rear of the lot. Mr. Lintner pointed
out that water drainage from the neighbor's house into his backyard and basement
created another hardship. An additional hardship is the 21 foot Blaze Maple tree
that would have to be destroyed if the deck was moved to accommodate the
current easement.
Stoelting asked Herron to review the staff report. Herron stated that the
Commission should address the three alternatives to this request that are listed in
the staff report. The alternatives would be to change the shape of the deck to
meet setbacks; reduce the size of the deck to meet setbacks; or relocate the deck
to meet setbacks. Herron also pointed out the requested Commission actions.
They are as follows: Approve Variance Request 2006-01 as submitted finding:
the variance will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood, only 6
percent of the deck encroaches into the setback, the deck is 24.72 feet from the
neighboring house to the east. The next action would be to Approve Variance
Request 2006-01 with modifications. And the last action would be to Deny
Variance Request 2006-01 because alternatives exist to design the expansion and
meet City Code requirements.
Stoelting asked Herron if there were any concerns with encroachment. Herron
stated that the deck does not encroach into the easements. Stoelting asked if the
sewer system encroached into the easement. Gray stated that it did not.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Nelson asked if it is allowed to take drainage away from one house to another.
Gray stated that the City would have to look into this particular situation but
currently they have had no complaints in regards to this issue. Gray stated that
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 3
there is a possibility that the workmanship in the building of the house had caused
a nuisance. Koenig stated that Mr. Lintner should have approached the City in
regards to this issue. Mr. Lintner stated that he is working with the builder to
change the flow of drainage.
Stoelting asked Mr. Lintner to address the three alternatives that were in the staff
report and also the steps leading up to the hot tub. Mr. Lintner stated that he had
to have steps to go from the deck to the hot tub. Stoelting asked Mr. Lintner if he
needed to steps that were located to the right of the hot tub. Mr. Lintner stated
that the steps were needed in order to go from the deck to the hot tub. Stoelting
asked where the 7 foot yard setback would be located. Utilizing the overhead
projector, Mr. Lintner illustrated where the setback would be located. He also
pointed out that he did not feel that the lot lines lined up to specification. He felt
that his house was 2 feet further to the west than what the survey states. Stoltz
asked if the City agrees with that information. Herron stated that the Certificate
of Survey that was used was from the Building Department but another option
would be to have the house resurveyed. Fox stated that Certificate of Surveys are
fairly accurate and to prove that it is accurate the homeowner should have the
house resurveyed.
Stoltz asked if the City agrees with Mr. Lintner assessments regarding the lot line
and Herron agrees that there is a possibility that Mr. Lintner could be correct.
Stoelting pointed out that if the homeowner were to get the house and lot
resurveyed this could possibly delineate the variance. Mr. Lintner stated that he
does not wish to spend the money to get the house resurveyed.
Nelson stated that this is an oddly shaped yard and the encroachment is not that
great and she feels that tearing down the Blaze Maple tree would be hardship
enough.
Seymour asked if there would be screening on the deck or lattice work. Mr.
Lintner stated that it would be lattice work.
Koenig asked Mr. Lintner how far the deck would be from the Blaze Maple tree.
Mr. Lintner stated that if would be 3 feet from the steps. Koenig asked if Mr.
Lintner discussed this project with his neighbors and how they felt about it. Mr.
Lintner stated that he has spoken with his neighbors and they are in favor of the
project.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Seymour, to approve the variance to permit a
7 foot side yard setback in the R1-13.5 Zoning District,based on plans stamped
dated December 20, 2005, and the staff report dated January 20, 2006, with the
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 4
hardship being the unusual shape of the land and the location of the tree. Motion
carried 5-0.
B. HORIZON PLACE by Commercial Horizons. Request for:
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to
Regional Commercial on 1.74 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review
on 7.52 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 5.87 acres; Zoning
District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.74 acres; Site
Plan Review on 5.87 acres; Preliminary Plat of 7.52 acres into 1 lot and road
right-of-way.
Pat VanAbel, of Commercial Horizons, a retail and office developer from
Appleton and Green Bay, Wisconsin,presented the proposal. He started out by
stating that Horizon Place is a redevelopment of the Birdies Sports Park. Mr.
VanAbel stated that their company has owned this piece of land since 1990.
Because of the retail development in the area, they felt it best to turn this parcel of
land into commercial use. He stated that they will be using the same architects as
the Fountain Place Development. He pointed out that they would like to put an
Office Max, which would be an 18,000 sq. foot building, into the Retail A lot and
a small shops retail building, an 11,000 sq. foot building, into Retail B lot.
Stoelting asked Herron to review the staff report. Herron stated that there are two
outstanding issues that Staff would like to highlight. The first issue would be the
east elevation to the Office Max building. The City would like to see the
architecture improved along the side of the building. Also they would like the
landscape requirement met. There is an additional 40 caliper inches that need to
be met and the City would like to see that on the south side to act as a buffer to
the neighboring residential apartment. The Staff does recommend a continuance
of this project to the February 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the issues that Herron brought
forward from the staff report. Kim Larsen, of RSP Architects, addressed the
issues. She stated that RSP Architects were the designers for Fountain Place and
that the current design of the building is taken from the Fountain Place buildings.
She stated that what she understood was that the staff report was addressing the
Office Max building. Stoelting asked her to illustrate this building using the
overhead projector. Ms. Larsen pointed out that the east elevation along Hwy 212
is the one in question. She also illustrated that Office Max was designed to mimic
the architecture design of the Michaels building. Ms. Larsen said that she did
speak with Michael Franzen in regards to the elevation issues. She asked him to
look at the whole elevation of this architectural unit and not just one side. She
stated that the east elevation does not have a lot of architectural decoration but
there is more articulation on the front of the building; with the majority of the
articulation being at the entry way. She used the overhead projector to illustrate
the architectural design of the building.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 5
Stoelting asked Herron what the City Staff would like to see. Herron stated that
in looking back at the Fountain Place Design,particularly at the east elevation of
the Michaels building, it appears rather plain. Because it is visible to the public
that is why the City would like to see more articulation on the east side of the
Office Max building. Herron pointed out that there were two options that were
addressed in the Staff report. Option 1 would be to add cornice to the left side of
the building to match the right side and to also repeat some change in material and
also repeat the band. Option 2 would be to repeat the entry element on the right
side of the building. Herron used the overhead projector to illustrate these
options.
Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the options that Staff had
presented this evening. Ms. Larson stated that in repeating the element in Option
1 it would basically make it the same. She stated that they are trying to create a
rhythm and felt that passerbys would also see the highly articulated front side.
She stated that as far as adding repeat change in material, it might be too much for
that side of the building. She said that they are focusing on elevations and having
a resting place for the eyes in regards to traffic traveling by the store.
Ryan Edstrom, of Westwood Professional Services, stated that they are working
with the City Staff to come up with the caliper inches that are needed for the trees.
Stoelting asked the project proponent to address the issue of signage on the
buildings because the staff report has requested some movement of the signs. Ms.
Larson stated that they do not have a problem with moving the signs.
Stoelting asked the project proponent about the issue of meeting the one-half foot
candle lighting requirement at the south side of the building. Ms. Larson stated
that there is not a problem with complying with that issue.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Koenig asked Fox to address the landscaping issue. Fox stated that in regards to
commercial shopping centers, they are in line for what the City is asking for.
Herron stated that when the Fountain Place project was being constructed they
had an excess number of trees on their lot and as part of the approval they were
able to transfer some of the trees over to lot 1 and that is where some of the inches
come from. They did get credit for some of the trees that were transferred over to
the Birdies lot. There is a deficit because the trees on the Birdies lot are not
considered significant. Stoeltz asked how great the deficit was. Herron said
about 12-15 percent.
Koenig asked in regards to transplanting the trees from Birdies, are they subject to
the same bond issues that other trees are subject to if they do not survive the
transplant. Fox stated that they do allow the transplanting of trees but they are
also subject to the same bond issues as landscaping trees would be subject to.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 6
Stoelting reiterated that the plan does still need an additional 40 caliper inches of
trees. Ms. Larson agreed with that amount. Koenig pointed out that increasing
the size of trees would also satisfy that caliper inch requirement. Herron stated
that that would be an option and the City has also recommended using the south
side of the building for landscaping.
Mr. Edstrom said that Westwood Professional Services will continue to work with
the City Staff to resolve the issue of the tree requirements.
Nelson stated that she agrees with the City Staff in regard to the east side of the
building and she would also like to see a bit more design on that side of the
building. Koenig also agrees that there should be more design, as did Stoltz and
Seymour.
Ms. Larsen stated that their office did receive the Staff report earlier that day and
they produced a fallback plan in regards to the recommendations. She illustrated
these changes utilizing the overhead projector. The new design was not in color.
Herron agreed that this was an improvement over the previous drawing that was
submitted.
Koenig stated that she would like to see a continuance in regards to this project.
The Commission members agreed with this suggestion. Nelson stated that when
they do resubmit the proposal she would like to see it in color.
Stoelting asked the project proponent if they would be satisfied working with the
City Staff in regards to the changes of this proposal. Ms. Larsen stated they
would work with the Staff to meet all of the requirements.
Franzen stated that normally the City would request a 30 day continuance,but in
this case the City would make an exception to have it continued for only two
weeks.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Koenig, to continue request to the February
13, 2006, meeting, and to revise the development plans according to the staff
report and other requirements as identified by the Commission. Motion carried
5-0.
C. LONE OAK CENTER BY Dove Capital LLC. Request for:
Guide Plan Change from Regional Commercial to Community Commercial on
5.27 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.27 acres; Planned
Unit Development District Review with waivers on 5.27 acres; Zoning District
Change from Commercial Regional Service to Community Commercial on 5.27
acres; Site Plan Review on 5.27 acres; Preliminary Plat on 5.27 acres into 3 lots
and road right-of-way.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 7
Dean Devolas, of DJR Architecture, located at 333 Washington Ave N,
Minneapolis,presented the proposal. He stated that the project is located on
Mitchell Road and Hwy 5. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the
project. He stated that the basic concept of the project was to put the two main
buildings at the perimeter and pocket the parking in the center, wrapping the retail
area around that. He also pointed out that additional parking would be located
below the retail building. Mr. Devolas stated that the project consists of a
pharmacy, which is 13,000 square feet, and a multi-tenant retail area of 12,000
square feet that would be located in the center of the project, a deck overlooking
the wetlands, a restaurant spot that would be located on the south end of the
building, and on the north side a bank with office area above it totaling 9,000
square feet. Mr. Devolas also illustrated where the entry and exit points would be
to this area as well as the preliminary views of the architecture. He also said that
there would be a monument sign and wrought iron fencing and a gate that would
be located along the perimeter of the site. And lastly, there would be a sidewalk
development. Mr. Devolas pointed out that the three materials that they would
use for this project would be brick, a silver metal, and a few accents of stucco to
give it variety and change of texture.
Stoelting asked Kipp to review the staff report. Kipp stated that this site was
originally the site of the old police department. He said the previously approval
project for the site consisted of a hotel and restaurant but the project did not move
forward. Kipp also pointed out that there are some PUD waivers with this project,
but that these waivers are similar to the ones that were approved in 2000 for the
previous project. He said that basically the waivers are associated with setbacks
to obtaining some additional right of way along Lone Oak Road to include a
sidewalk so that the City has control and ownership of the property, as well as
platting the overall property into separate lots for marketing purposes. Kipp said
that the property is 5 acres, which would be consistent with the community
commercial zoning. He stated that Staff does recommend approval of the project
based on recommendations of page 5 and 6 of the staff report.
Stoelting asked if there were any issues regarding landscaping. Kipp stated that
there is a recommendation in the report that the developer add additional tree
replacement to meet the tree replacement requirement. Kipp stated that he did
talk with the developer and they said they will be meeting this requirement.
Nelson asked Staff if the silver metal that was to be used on this building has been
used on other buildings in Eden Prairie, and if so, would it wear well. Kipp stated
that there are some buildings in Eden Prairie that are using this type of metal.
Dean Devolas said the metal would hold up very well.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 8
Stoelting asked Mr. Devolas to review the traffic flow in regards to the bank
drive-thru and the pharmacy drive-thru. Mr. Devolas stated that from Mitchell
Road, there would be a right turn in and a right turn out. He also said there would
be an additional entry/exit point on Lone Oak Road. He then described the flow
of traffic thru the site and drive-thru areas.
Koenig asked Gray to go over the traffic study that had been completed on this
project. Gray stated that in looking at the traffic around the Loan Oak Road and
Technology Drive area he pointed out that there would be long term challenges in
this area. He also said that these long term challenges would be there regardless if
the project was approved or not. Gray said that to provide a reasonable level of
service for exiting traffic from this project, the developers would be installing a
signal at Lone Oak Road and Mitchell Road.
Nelson asked Mr. Devolas how large the restaurant would be in this area. Mr.
Devolas said it would be approximately 3,000 square feet. Nelson asked Kipp if
there was adequate parking to accommodate a restaurant on this site. Kipp stated
that the plan does meet the code for parking.
Stoelting asked Mr. Devolas to illustrate where the sidewalks would be located
and point out how a pedestrian could walk around safely with traffic flow. Mr.
Devolas utilized the overhead projector to point out the sidewalk structure in
regards to traffic and pedestrian safety.
Stoelting asked if any of the Commission Members had any problems with the
waivers associated with the project. The Commission Members agreed that there
were no problems or concerns with the waivers.
Koenig asked Fox if the City was comfortable with the wetland area being
protected within this development. Fox stated that the tree loss is associated with
the building pads and that there would be no tree loss down the slopes adjacent to
the wetlands. He pointed out that the developer would be clearing up the
buckhom and the buffer area and that the mitigation replacement trees could go
back in this area.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION by Nelson, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the Guide Plan Change
from Regional Commercial to Community Commercial on 5.27 acres; Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 5.27 acres; Planned Unit Development
District Review on 5.27 acres; Zoning District Change from Commercial
Regional Service to Community Commercial on 5.27 acres; Site Plan Review on
5.27 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.27 acres into 3 lots and road right-of-way,based
on plans stamped dated January 17, 2006, and the staff report dated January 20,
2006. Motion carried 5-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 23, 2006
Page 9
VII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
VIII. CONTINUING BUSINESS
IX. NEW BUSINESS
X. PLANNERS' REPORTS
Kipp stated that there will be three items on the agenda for the February 13, 2006,
meeting. The items will be the Horizon Place resubmittal; a new daycare called the
Primerose School of Eden Prairie, and the addition of a clubhouse at Eden Place
Apartments.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Koenig, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
5-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.