Loading...
Planning Commission - 10/09/2006 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Jon Duckstad, John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Jerry Pitzrick, Frank Powell, Peter Rocheford, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jon Stoltz STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Al Gray, City Engineer Mike Franzen, City Planner Julie Krull, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Chair Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Koenig, Rocheford, and Seymour. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Pitzrick, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. III. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 MOTION by Pitzrick, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 4-0. Duckstad and Stoltz abstained. IV. PUBLIC MEETING V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 2 A. OAK CREEK AT HENNEPIN VILLAGE by Hennepin Village Limited Partnership. Request for: Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Medium Density Residential on 3.1 acres and from Medium Density Residential to Public Open Space on 3.2 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 73.7 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 73.7 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 18.74 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.0 acres; Preliminary Plat of 73.7 acres into 96 lots and 6 outlots. The developer is asking for a continuance. This will allow time to complete the EAW process for reviewing road options. Franzen stated that the project would be continued until the March 12, 2007 meeting, to allow for the public review process. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to continue this hearing to the March 12, 2007 meeting. Motion carried 6-0. B. WILLIAM SMALL PROPERTY by Pemtom Land Company. Request for: Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.01 acres; Preliminary Plat of 5.01 acres into nine lots and road right-of-way. The developer is asking for a continuance. This will allow time to complete the EAW process for reviewing road options. Franzen stated that the William Small project falls under the same process as Oak Creek and will be continued until the March 12, 2007 meeting. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Stoltz, to continue this hearing to the March 12, 2007 meeting. Motion carried 6-0. C. VARIANCE#2006-12 by Elena Bates. Request for: To permit outdoor storage and display area for dogs outside a completely enclosed building; to permit a fence height of 8 feet, for dog enclosure. Location: 9051 Flying Cloud Drive. Elena Bates,project proponent for Camp Bow Wow,presented the proposal. She stated that there are two principles associated with Camp Bow Wow. The first one being the safety of the dogs. The second one would be a strong desire to be a good neighbor in the community. She gave a brief overview of Camp Bow-Wow, pointing out that this facility is both a doggy day care and an overnight boarding facility. She stated that Camp Bow Wow is a franchise with facilities located throughout the United States. She also pointed out that there would be one staff person per 15 dogs and that staff would be on site from 6:30 am to 7:00 pm. She also said that there would be at least one staff member present at all times when Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 3 the dogs are outside. Ms. Bates utilized the overhead projector to give an example of what the Camp would look like. She showed where the current facility would be located and that this Camp would need the two variance requests to make it operational. Ms. Bates stated that in regards to the first variance request, they require this space for the "pottying" of the dogs. She stated that there are alternatives to this concept; one would be to have the dogs go to the bathroom indoors,but she pointed out that if this were the case the surroundings become less sanitary and it often confuses the dogs. She also stated that without this outside area the dogs would not get the exercise that they would need, hence the staff would have to walk the dogs, which is not safe for them and most likely not conducive for the neighborhood. She pointed out that the outside area would be on the south and west side of the property and that she is asking for a little more than 1500 sq. feet. Ms. Bates also address some of the potential concerns that this Camp could bring about. The first concern would be that of noise; uncontrolled barking. She said that in regards to this concern, if a dog is barking uncontrollably, that is grounds to terminate attendance to the facility. She pointed out that the campers would be supervised at all times. The second concern would be that of cleanliness. In addressing this issue, she stated that waste would be continually removed and secondly, that there is a disinfectant product that would be used daily to eliminate odor. Ms. Bates addressed the second ordinance. She said that the request is for a fence height of 8 feet. This would ensure that the fence is high enough to prevent a dog from jumping over it; which would ensure dog safety. She pointed out that this fence would also eliminate some of the noise. The fence would be a white PVC fence, which is a type of fence that is more aesthetically pleasing. Stoelting asked Ms. Bates if she had a meeting with the neighbors in regards to this project. Ms. Bates stated that she has not meet with the neighbors as of yet. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said that on page 3 of the staff report lists three choices for the commission and identified the impacts of outdoor storage and the eight foot high fence. He also explained the purpose of the industrial districts and why outdoor storage is not allowed in I-2,but would be allowed in I-General. He added that there are areas of I-General where this use could locate. Franzen stated that John Blake, of the Aztec Town Office Park, wrote a letter to the City opposing this project. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. Manoj Moorjani, of 9008 Cold Stream Lane and Cheryl Edwards of 9079 Cold Stream Lane stated that they are at the meeting representing the residents of the area. Mr. Moorjani stated that they acquired a list of residents in the area that signed a petition opposing this project. He said the main reasons for opposition Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 4 would be the noise level and odors from the area. Ms. Edwards stated that she feels that this type of business is not appropriate for the area. Stoelting asked Mr. Moorjani how many people signed the petition. Mr. Moorjani stated that there were approximately 50 residents who signed the petition. Mike Lilja, owner of the business at 8953 Aztec, and Mel Schultz, manager at the Aztec Town Office Park presented their concerns. Mr. Lilja stated that this project sounds like a good business but is concerned with the noise it would generate. Mr. Schultz read a letter from the Aztec Town Office Park Association that basically opposed the project and felt that it was not a good fit for the area. Stoelting asked Mr. Schultz how many businesses signed off on the letter. Mr. Schultz stated that there were 10 of the 12 businesses that signed off on the letter. Jim Durda, of 9047 Cold Stream Lanes, stated that he has lived in this area for quite awhile. He pointed out that they are off the property line,but he feels that this business could impact their neighborhood property values. He said that he is also concerned with the predecessor of this project and that they might not take the care and precautions as Camp Bow Wow would. Mr. Durda also feels that the fence would act as an echo chamber for noise. Powell asked Ms. Bates who currently owns the property that Camp Bow Wow would be located at. Ms. Bates stated that his first name is Lou but the last name is unknown. She stated that Lou owns the Modern Auto Care building and is in alignment with Camp Bow Wow. Stoelting asked if there would be modifications to the building. Ms. Bates stated that there could possibly be a wall coming down, flooring changes and cosmetic changes. She also stated that they would be adding heating and air-conditioning. Powell asked Franzen if the auto business is considered commercial and if so, why is it in industrial. Franzen stated that auto services can be placed on industrial districts, as well as commercial districts. Powell asked if this was in a commercial area, would the project proponent still need the two variance requests. Franzen stated that they would not. Franzen stated that if the proponent cannot have her business at this location there are other areas in Eden Prairie where it is permitted without variances. Pitzrick asked Ms. Bates what the capacity of the building would be. Ms. Bates stated that it is 5,000 sq. ft., giving 125 sq. ft. per dog, which they can then house approximately 40 dogs. Pitzrick stated that when he parked over by Rainbow Foods he could hear the dogs at Hound Dog Hotel. Ms. Bates stated that she has seen on two occasions that the dogs outside were not supervised. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 5 Stoltz asked Ms. Bates why she had picked this location. Ms. Bates stated that she had a hard time finding a landlord for this type of facility and that Lou was very acceptable of this business. Stoltz asked Ms. Bates if this project was denied would it mean taking her business out of Eden Prairie. Ms. Bates stated that most likely it would mean moving her business out of Eden Prairie. Stoltz asked Ms. Bates if she would be willing to talk with the neighbors to address the issues brought forward in the meeting tonight. Ms. Bates stated that she definitely would talk with the neighbors and commented that if she could not change their minds then it would not be a good fit for the area. Stoltz stated that he has concerns for this business, only because of all of the opposition in the audience this evening. Duckstad asked Franzen if Ms. Bates is required to identify a hardship with the variance requests. Franzen stated that the Commission must also determine if a hardship exits. Duckstad stated that he does not feel that there is a hardship with these two variance requests and would be inclined to vote no. Stoelting asked Ms. Bates what she felt her hardship would be. Ms. Bates stated that the first hardship would be that within the City of Eden Prairie she has not found a land owner who would be willing to accommodate her business. The second hardship would be that she invested a great deal in Camp Bow Wow with purchasing the franchise and finding the area. Stoelting stated that there is neighborhood opposition to this request. He also added that this variance request could be continued to a further meeting. Ms. Bates asked if the neighbors and businesses in the area would be willing to meet with her and they stated that even after meeting with her they would still strongly oppose the project. MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Kirk, to deny the variance requests. Motion carried 6-0. Franzen stated that the Commission should modify the motion based on reasons for denial. MOTION by Duckstad, seconded by Kirk, to deny the variance request based on the following; to grant this would create a precedent for future requests, there has been no showing of hardship by applicant, and based on the facts tonight, the variance does not fit the parcel, it is too close the office and residential areas and would cause impacts that cannot be mitigated. Motion carried 6-0. D. TWIN CITY CO-OP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION by Twin City Co-op Federal Credit Union. Request for: Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 6 Planned Unit Development concept Review on 4.22 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.22 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service District on 1.48 acres; Site Plan Review on 1.48 acres; Preliminary Plat of 4.22 acres. Jeff Pflipsen, architect representing Twin City Co-Ops Federal Credit Union, presented the proposal. He said that in tonight's presentation he was going to show the combination of slop and flat roof options. He pointed out that they would be matching all of the colors of the adjacent buildings. He stated that Office Max is willing to work with them in regards to the expanded green space and rain garden issue. Mr. Pflipsen illustrated where the rain garden would be located by utilizing the overhead projector. Mr. Pflipsen also pointed out that the building is 16 feet lower than the intersection and by bringing in a sloped roof it would allow for more visibility for the building. Mr. Pfipsen stated that he would like the Commission to consider Option 1 in the staff report. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that this would not be a question of which design would be better—pitched roof or flat roof,but which roof is consistent with the approved plan. From Staff point of view,based on consistency, Franzen stated that he would recommend the flat roof design. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Powell said that he agrees with Staff regarding the flat roof and feels that this is the way to go. He also asked if the common property line requires a zero lot line waiver. Franzen confirmed that is does require a zero lot line and both Office Max and the Credit Union would have to request a waiver and it would need to be granted to both of them. Pitzrick asked Mr. Pfipsen what he would do if the plan was denied. Mr. Pfipsen stated that he would be willing to redesign the project with a flat roof. Pitzrick stated that he would like to see consistency with this project and would like to see a design for a flat roof option. Pitzrick stated that if the slopped roof design is approved,he is concerned that this would set a precedent for future projects. Mr. Pfipsen stated that he would be willing to come back with a flat roof plan if that is what the Commission would want. Duckstad stated that the Commission should be making positive recommendations to project proponents. He is concerned that at times the Commission could micro-manages projects. He stated that the Commission should be looking at individuality of projects that are brought before the Commission in good faith. Kirk stated that in regards to this project,he felt that there does need to be continuity with the project but that we also need to respect the project proponent Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 7 and their hard work on the project. At this point he said that he is leaning more towards continuity and would like to see a plan for a flat roof. Stoltz asked Mr. Pfipsen why he feels so strongly about the pitched roof design. Mr. Pfipsen stated that with the flat roofs, you tend to just see the flat roof tops and that it is not architecturally pleasing. Pitzrick asked if it was a flat roof design could it be a green roof. Mr. Pfipsen stated that they would have concerns going with a green roof and they were leaning more towards a white roof. Cindy Hartly, architect for the project, stated that they would be willing to continue the request to the October 23, 2006 meeting. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Duckstad, to continue the request to the October 23, 2006 meeting and to revise the development plans according to the staff report and other requirements as identified by the Commission, which would be to present design alternatives for both a flat roof and sloped roof design. Motion carried 6-0. E. LOCK UP STOREAGE FACILITY by BRB Development LCC. Request for: Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 2.11 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.11 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 2.11 acres; Site Plan Review on 2.11 acres; Preliminary Plat of 2.11 acres into one lot. Peter Beck, of BRB Development, presented the proposal. Mr. Beck stated that there is a Lock Up Facility that his company owns that is currently in Plymouth. He pointed out that they have worked with Staff for months and that Staff has come up with three options that are listed in the Staff report. Mr. Beck stated that his company requests that the Commission would go with Option 1. He pointed out that that he feels that this project would be a good fit for the area. He also stated that the waivers requested are for floor area ratio and parking; which would be consistent with the plan. He utilized the overhead projector to illustrate the project and show the upgraded landscaping plan. Mr. Beck stated that in regards to Option 1, the coloring could be whatever the Commission desires. In regards to a decorative door,he felt that it would not fit into the commercial area. Mr. Beck said that in regards to more parking spaces, there would be 27 spaces that are in conjunction with the storage areas that are accessible from the outside. He said that in regards to a wetland buffer plan, they would be willing to work with Staff to come up with a plan. Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated that there are three options in the staff report that the Commission needs to consider. Based on the presentation tonight, Franzen stated that the Staff recommends approval of the project. Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 8 Stoelting asked Franzen if he felt that the decorative doors would not fit in with the commercial area. Franzen stated the concern is to deemphasize the doors so that the building does not look like a warehouse. Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input. Kirk stated that he was concerned that the building should look like a commercial building,hence the decorative doors,but that he would go along with Staff recommendation to leave that decision up to the architect. Kirk asked Franzen about the height standpoint and would it fit into the area. He also questioned the MCA requirements. Franzen stated there are three and four story buildings in the area. The MCA plan called for uses outside the town center to be less intense uses and lower traffic generators and the plan fits the MCA plan. Stoelting asked Franzen about parking and what were his thoughts about converting the garage stalls to parking stalls. Franzen stated there is room, without having to convert the garage stall for proof of parking. Kirk stated that he does not like the idea of using the garages for proof of parking and asked Mr. Beck if there were other alternatives. Mr. Beck stated that these are stalls for vehicle storage anyways to that they can be used for parking. MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION by Powell, seconded by Kirk, to approve the Planned Unit Development concept Review on 2.11 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 2.11 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 2.11 acres; Site Plan Review on 2.11 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.11 acres into one lot based on plans stamped dated September 27, 2006, and the staff report dated October 6, 2006. Motion carried 6-0. Powell amended the motion by adding that the project proponent would need to submit a proof of parking plan that is to be filed with the City and additional plans to include a landscaping plan. Kirk seconded the amendment to the original motion. Motion carried 6-0. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT Franzen stated that the October 23, 2006 meeting will include the Guide Plan Update and a presentation of the parking study. IX. MEMBERS REPORTS Planning Commission Minutes October 6, 2006 Page 9 Stoltz stated he previously requested that the City Staff address the issue of rain gardens and asked if that has been planned for a meeting. Franzen stated that could be addressed at the November 13, 2006 meeting. X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.