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.