Planning Commission - 02/12/2007 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2007 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: 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: Pitzrick.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Kirk, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 22, 2007
Kirk had a change on page 5, paragraph 5. He would like it to read: Kirk said we should
provide guidance on where high density is acceptable but allow for the market to dictate
where the higher density areas are actually developed.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Seymour, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion
carried 5-0. Rocheford and Stoltz abstained.
IV. PUBLIC MEETING
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2007-02
Request:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 2
To permit one free standing sign with a sign area of 100.08 square feet. City
Code permits 80 square feet. To permit one free standing sign with a sign height
of 19.5 square feet. City Code permits 8 square feet. Location: 6385 Beach
Road.
Sue Berg, Director of the International School of Minnesota, introduced herself
along with Trent Mahr, Properties and Purchasing Agent for the International
School of Minnesota. Trent Mahr presented the proposal and started out by
stating because the sign is placed up on the hill, over the years the sign has been
blocked with vegetation. The current sign on the hill is 99 square feet. Mr. Mahr
pointed out the proposed sign would be positioned more towards the entrance
onto Beach Road. The current base falls within Code; 3.5 feet would be below
grade at the 10 feet setback. Mr. Mahr stated they are requesting a higher sign to
be seen from above the snow banks and to be seen from the highway. The sign
itself would only be approximately one foot larger than the existing sign. The
reason for the variance request is the sign would be seen from the highway. The
hardship would be due to the berm and natural surroundings that have grown
extensively throughout the years.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said on page 2 of the
staff report there are four requested commission actions the board can act upon
and explained condition for variance approval.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Stoltz stated the sign presentation was very well put together. Powell concurred.
Powell asked Mr. Mahr how often the sign changes. Mr. Mahr stated it would be
no more than once in every 24 hours. Powell said as long as the project
proponent complies with City Code this was a good request.
Rocheford commented this presentation was very well done and stated the Sign
Ordinance does need to be revisited.
Koenig asked if the reason for the slightly larger sign was because of the grade
and snow. Mr. Mahr concurred it was because of the grade and snow.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Rocheford, to recommend approval of the one
free standing sign with a sign area of 100.08 square feet and a sign height of 19.5
square feet,based on plans stamped dated December 14, 2006, and the staff report
dated February 9, 2007. Motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 3
B. ASSOCIATED BANK
Request for:
Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.25
acres; Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Valley
View Road and Prairie Center Drive.
Phil Blasko, architect for HTG Architects,presented the proposal. Mr. Blasko
said the site as developed was challenging with circulation but with compromises
from Associated Bank and help from the City Planner, they were able to present
the proposal as is tonight. Their intent was to comply with recommendations
from the Planning Commission and City Staff.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated the Staff
recommends approval based on page 3 and 4 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Koenig asked Franzen if the project proponent was subject to cash park fees.
Franzen stated he would review the file and will determine if fees are required and
would inform the city council and the planning commission of the findings.
MOTION by Powell, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Powell, seconded by Seymour, to recommend approval of the
Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 1.25 acres
and Site Plan Review on 1.25 acres based on plans stamped dated February 6,
2007, and the staff report dated February 9, 2007. Motion carried 7-0.
Koenig interjected with a friendly amendment to read as follows: Subject to
further investigation as to whether cash park fees should be paid on this property.
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Koenig, to approve the amended motion.
Motion carried 7-0.
C. STARING LAKE BUSINESS CENTER
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 19.3 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 19.3 acres; Zoning District
Amendment in the I-2 District on 19.3 acres; Site Plan Review on 19.3 acres;
Preliminary Plat of 19.3 acres into two lots. Location: Northwest corner of
Pioneer Trail and Flying Cloud Drive.
Eric Simmer, with United Properties, presented the proposal. This request was
previously seen in 2001 and was approved at that time. Since then there have
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 4
been a few revisions to the plan to accommodate some dedication of right-of-way
and to lower the overall square footage of the site but increase the percentage of
office in the buildings. Other than those revisions, the proposal is unchanged. In
looking at the site plan, the total square footage is approximately 150,000 square
feet. There are two buildings on this site. The first building, which is classified
as the upper building, is approximately 80,000 square feet and the balance of the
building would be mainly office. The second building, referred to as the lower
building, would also include some office space. The entrance to this property will
be off of Pioneer Trail. Ponding will take place in a 5 acre area, which would be
an asset to the property. There will be a dedicating addition right-of-way along
Pioneer Trail to accommodate the future expansion of this road, which should
occur in 2008.
Stoelting asked if there would be sidewalks at the corner of Hwy 212 and Pioneer
Trail. Franzen stated it is in the public right-of-way and will be included in the
improvement project.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated on page 3 and 4
of the staff report are staff recommendations to make sure the project proponent's
plans and the County's plans match. The staff has reviewed the revised plans and
have determined the plans meet city and county requirements. Staff recommends
approval subject to staff recommendations on page 5 and 6 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Seymour asked Staff about the traffic and if they are concerned there is just one
way in and one way out. Gray said there will be some delays but there are not a
lot of other alternatives to the positioning of the roads.
Stoelting asked Gray to comment on the height of the retaining walls. Gray said
the walls are located on the east side of Hwy 212 and pointed out there will be an
opportunity to regrade and lower the retaining walls.
Powell asked how close this site is to the Cummins Grill property. Gray stated it
is adjacent to it. Powell said the City is planning to look for commercial
development of this property or private financing to support maintenance on the
property. Gray stated it would be a good use of this property to provide assistance
with maintenance and also access by the public to enjoy the property. Powell
asked if the project proponent would consider shared parking with the Cummins
Grill property. Gray stated whatever the re-use of the property on Cummins Grill,
they will need parking close up to make it practical for the public. The distance
between the south property line and the house is quite a distance, so shared
parking would most likely not be feasible. Fox said in regard to the access road
coming into Cummins Grill, this will be eliminated with the re-alignment of
Pioneer Trail. There will be a road from the main access road that will lead to
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 5
the back of the house. Because of this, the area will need to have maximum
parking.
Powell asked if there was any dialog with the property owner of the land lock lot
on what type of development they are looking for on that location. Franzen
pointed out it is the current location of Sterling Fence, which has a variance for
outdoor storage that is set to lapse in a few years. At that point they would have
to either construct a building to store their materials inside or look for a new
location.
Koenig asked Fox if the Cummins Grill house is going to lose the little road
coming into it and if the only access would be at the proposed property they are
currently discussing. Fox stated that was correct.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Koenig, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Powell, to recommend approval of the Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 19.3 acres; Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 19.3 acres; Zoning District Amendment in the I-
2 District on 19.3 acres; Site Plan Review on 19.3 acres and Preliminary Plat of
19.3 acres into two lots based on plans stamped dated February 9, 2007, and the
staff report dated February 9, 2007. Motion carried 7-0.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
A. LEED Certification Presentation by Liberty Property Trust
Dave Jellison, Vice President of the City Manager for Liberty Property Trust,
introduced him and said their goal is to build the highest quality buildings and
they believe the LEED Certification promotes that standard. He introduced Rick
Weblen, of Liberty Property Trust, who presented the presentation. Mr. Weblen
pointed out "green buildings" is a term they use for high performance buildings.
With these types of buildings, they are protecting the environment for the future
by making an impact on saving energy and water and recycling materials. Mr.
Weblen pointed out it might cost more to construct the building but it will pay for
itself in the lifetime of the building. Tests have also shown more light brought
into the building will create more productivity amongst employees.
Benefits of Green Buildinizs
1. Reduced operating and energy costs
2. Product differentiation
3. Streamlined approvals
4. Improves employee retention
5. Health and productivity
6. Reduced absenteeism
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 6
7. More profitable
8. Satisfaction from doing the right thing
U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC) Mission Statement:
To promoted the design and construction of buildings that are environmentally
responsible,profitable, and healthy places to live and work.
The organization's activities integrate building industry sectors, lead market
transformation, and educate owners and practitioners. USGBC is a developer and
administrator of the LEED Green Building Rating System.
The definition of LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) is a
leading-edge system for designing, constructing, operating and certifying the
world's greenest buildings.
Why LEED Was Created
1. Facilitate positive results for the environment, occupant health and financial
return.
2. Define "green"by providing a standard for measurement.
3. Prevent"green washing" (false or exaggerated claims).
4. Promote whole-building, integrated design processes.
5. Use as a design guideline.
6. Recognize leaders.
7. Stimulate green competition.
8. Establish market value with recognizable national "brand".
9. Raise consumer awareness.
10. Transform the marketplace.
LEED Assesses in Detail
1. Site Planning
2. Water Management
3. Energy Management
4. Material Use
5. Indoor Environmental Air Quality
6. Innovation and Design Process
Categories of LEED Ratings
1. New Construction
2. Commercial Interiors
3. Existing Buildings
4. Core and Shell
5. Homes
6. Neighborhood Development
7. Schools
Four Levels of LEED Certification
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 7
1. LEED Certification 23-27 points
2. LEED Silver 28-33 points
3. LEED Gold 34-44 points
4. LEED Platinum 45-61 points
Points Earned in the Followiniz Categories
1. Sustainable Sites
2. Efficient Water Use
3. Energy and Atmosphere
4. Materials and Resources
5. Indoor Environmental Quality
6. Innovation
Seymour asked if there was a time difference in construction. Mr. Weblen said it
does not take longer to build but what can be more time consuming is the time
spent with paperwork; an example would be to locate where materials would be
coming from.
Rocheford commended the project proponent and stated this is a great concept for
all builders and contractors to participate in.
Stoltz asked what the decision making concepts are in deciding what level a
building will be certified at. Mr. Weblen said it is determined by looking at the
location and surrounding area of the property and by analyzing the area it can be
determined what points can be received. Stoltz asked Mr. Weblen what his
recommendation would be to educate the public on this concept. Mr. Weblen
stated the market place will start to adopt this concept and eventually it will
become common place.
Kirk commented it was a very informative presentation and thanked Liberty
Property Trust for their time.
Powell stated on the east coast there are more LEED buildings. He asked the
project proponent if the legislators in that area have mandated LEED
Certification. Mr. Weblen said he was not sure if legislation on the east coast has
mandated LEED Certification. Mr. Jellison stated this concept is basically market
driven because it is making the workplace a better environment for employees.
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator for the City of Eden Prairie, said the
Conservation Commission is already addressing this concept and working with
Liberty Mutual to adopt this policy in Eden Prairie.
B. Rainwater Garden Presentation
Leslie Stovring, Environmental Coordinator for the City of Eden Prairie,
presented the proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 8
Infiltration can be Recognized by the Following Names
1. Rain gardens
2. Infiltration trenches or basins
3. Bioretention basins
4. Curbless -curb-cut parking lot islands
5. Road medians with curb cuts
6. Tree pits
7. Vegetated filters
8. Vegetated swales
What are Rain Gardens
1. Strategic puddles for stormwater management.
2. Natural or constructed depressions in permeable soils that capture stormwater
and allow it to infiltrate quickly.
Benefits of Rain Gardens
1. Clean stormwater by filtering sediments and nutrients.
2. Infiltrate runoff to recharge shallow groundwater.
3. Reduce flashiness to creeks and ponds.
4. Aesthetic benefit.
5. Increased awareness of stormwater impacts.
6. Alternative stormwater management where land is no longer available for
ponds.
Requirement for Rain Gardens
1. Located close to source of stormwater.
2. Pretreatment over swath of grass or other filter to prevent clogging.
3. Soils drain within 24 to 72 hours (prevents creation of mosquito habitat).
4. Soils are porous (sandy).
5. Bottom at least 3 feet above seasonally high water table.
6. Sized to store .075 inches of runoff, no more than 1/2 acres in size.
7. Outside of drip line of trees.
8. Beside existing utilities (not over).
Maintenance Requirements
1. Weeding-first couple of years primarily.
2. Can leave stems and seed heads for wildlife cover and bird food over winter.
3. Cut tattered plants back in the spring.
4. Remove dead plant materials in the spring.
5. Replace dead plant materials as needed with plant plugs.
6. Build-up sediment will have to be maintained.
Considerations for Rain Gardens
1. Maintenance
a. City versus private.
b. Combination
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 12, 2007
Page 9
2. Drainage and Utility Easement
3. City Ordinance
a. Requires developer to evaluate use to receive a grading permit.
b. Requires one inspection every 5 years to document maintenance and repair
needs.
c. Requires owner to maintain the rain garden, including removal of silt, litter
removal, cleaning debris, removing noxious weeds, or replace landscaping
as needed unless under a drainage and utility easement.
Seymour asked if the City Ordinance requires maintenance every 5 years. Ms.
Stovring confirmed maintenance is required every 5 years and the City will have
to do more research into maintenance for the residents of Eden Prairie.
Koenig asked what the cost is to clean up the ponds. Gray said the cost is variable
because it is difficult material to get at and also to dispose of.
Stoelting asked if there was a standard on the way rainwater gardens are
constructed. Ms. Stovring stated there is a standard and it is located in the
Minnesota Storm Water Manual. This manual is referenced in the City Code
section and it is the basic criteria used to evaluate designs when they come into
the City.
Franzen stated the next meeting on February 26, 2007, will include a Guide Plan
discussion on the Land Use Chapter and the Housing Chapter. There will also be
a presentation and discussion on Design Standards and an Ordinance for the Town
Center Area. There could also be a minor variance request.
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Koenig, seconded by Seymour, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried
7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.