Planning Commission - 09/24/2007 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 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,
Kevin Schultz
STAFF MEMBERS: Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Al Gray, City Engineer
Michael 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 and Powell.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Schultz, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
MOTION by Seymour, seconded by Stoltz, to approve the minutes. Motion carried
7-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2007-21
Request to:
To permit an outside storage area for dogs (product) outside a completely
enclosed building. City Code requires all raw materials, supplies, finished or
semi-finished products and equipment to be stored within a completely enclosed
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 2
building; to permit a fenced outside storage area for dogs within a front yard
setback.
Stacie Shaw, owner of the franchise for Central Bark Doggie Day Care, presented
the proposal. She gave a history of how she got into the business and stated the
reason for this day care would be to provide a safe and fun environment for dogs
during the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. Ms. Shaw pointed out dogs need to be
both inside and outside. For this business use of the building, the inside of the
property is properly zoned. The goal this evening is for a proposal to have an
outside area for the dogs from the hours of 8:00 am— 11:00 am, and 2:00 pm—
4:30 pm. She pointed out there are trees and a berm to help control the noise of
the day care. Ms. Shaw stated there is a high level of supervision; 1 person per 10
dogs, and no dog will ever be left alone outside. If a dog's barking becomes a
problem when they are outside they will promptly come inside. If it persists, the
owners will get called to pick up their dog. Ms. Shaw pointed out there was a
noise study done on a different facility and it concluded the outside decibel level
was 55; without any barking dogs. The average noise level increased to 62
decibels with the dogs being outside. Average noise level is 60 decibels. She
said,in conclusion, that herself and staff do not want to hear barking and they will
control it.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen stated on page 3 of the
staff report are options to consider. Another aspect to consider is the industrial
aspect of this proposal. He pointed out the City tries to keep these areas clean,
quiet and attractive. He pointed out this is not about barking dogs but about
having products outside. There are other places in the City which would be more
conducive for this business; one example would be the area behind the Dairy
Queen.
Stoelting asked the proponent what her undue hardship would be. Ms. Shaw said
her hardship is they cannot do business without the outdoor area for the dogs.
The reason for this location was the ease of pickup and drop off.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input.
Kelly Landaeta, of 6530 Leesborough, said she appreciates the letters of
notification that went out. She said the definition of attraction of the
neighborhood is the quietness of the neighborhood. The noise is the number one
issue of the neighbors. There is also a bike trail in this area and a lot of wild life.
The barking dogs would scare away the wild life.
Robert McGovern, of 6519 Leesborough, was here to talk about the decibel level
of the park. He stated if you standby Rainbow Foods or Snyder's Drug Store,
you can hear the dogs barking at the Hound Dog Pet Hospital. He believes the
decibel level would be above 62 decibels and feels there would be a better place
in the City for this business.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 3
Anthony Landaeta, of 6530 Leesborough, believes the dogs' barking would be
bothersome and would be another unwanted noise in the neighborhood.
Michael Johnson, of 6580 Leesborough,had three points he wanted to bring up.
The first point would be the zoning for this type of business and that this is not the
location for it. The second point would be the west asphalt area would not be a
quiet area. The third point would be there are enough dogs in the neighborhood
now that create enough noise.
Mary Hamilton, of 6506 Manchester Lane, has a concern because there is a
walkway by her house and she does not want a lot of dog walking in the area.
She is a nurse and does sleep unusual hours and is concerned with the barking.
Pat Hromatka, of 6518 Leesborough, agrees with the neighbors that one dog will
set off another dog and they moved into this neighborhood for the quietness of the
area. He had a question; how are the dogs going to get outside? Would there be a
hole cut in the building or would they walk them out the door?
Rick Chilton, of 6521 Leesborough, said the noise seems to be a big issue and
asked what precedence the City would be setting here. This is a beautiful, quiet
neighborhood and he is not for this project.
Ned Hirschler, of 6601 Canterbury lane, wanted to know how many dogs this
facility could hold and how many would be outside at one time. He also asked if
the outside area could be in the back of the building versus the front of the
building; and if this is granted, could a solid fence be put up versus a chain link
fence. He stated he likes dogs but feels they could find a different location.
Cayla Huck, of 14140 Vail Court, said she likes to bike and walk in this area and
would not like the noise the dogs would create.
John Hromatka, of 6518 Leesborough, said the businesses in the area would be
affected by the noise level of the barking dogs.
Shawn Landaeta, of 6530 Leesborough, said he is concerned the barking dogs
would scare off the wildlife in the area.
Stoelting summarized the questions and concerns of the residents.
1. Main concern would be the noise.
2. How many dogs would this facility house and how many would be outside at
once?
3. Why is the outdoor area in the front of the building and not in the back of the
building?
4. Could the fence be solid versus a chain linked fence?
5. What would be the impact on wildlife in the area?
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 4
Ms. Shaw said she would have liked the residents to have been able to see this
type facility and how quiet it really is. She said the proposed fenced-in area is on
the opposite side of the bike trail; which would create limited activity in the area.
She also pointed out there would be two doors on the building. The front area
would be for the owners coming and going, and the other door would be for the
dogs when they go outside. As far as the fence, she said they will do whatever the
City proposes. With regards to dogs, the goal would be 20 dogs by the end of
year one. She said the beauty of this facility is that you would never smell it.
Any mess is cleaned up and disposed of properly and while the dogs are sleeping
between 12:00 pm—2:00 pm, the facility is cleaned.
Schultz said he has a few concerns with the facility. The first would be the
growth factor. He asked the project proponent if she had looked at other areas
within the City that would have complied with the zoning regulations.
Ms. Shaw said that Eden Prairie demographically, had so much to offer and she
wanted a facility to have air conditioning for the dogs and pointed out some of the
other facilities did not have this.
Schultz asked what feedback was received from the neighboring multi-tenant.
Bob Corson, landlord of the property, said he is concerned because it is a multi-
tenant property and they do not want to cause issues for the other tenant. Mr.
Corson has spent time with Ms. Shaw to make sue this business was not going to
be a problem down the road.
Schultz said his concern would be the expansion of the business and asked the
landlord how this would be handled.
Mr. Corson said the co-tenant has the lease until 2013 and they would have first
rights to expansion. Since Ms. Shaw has a franchise, he feels confident with the
business's track record.
Ms. Shaw said she was not interested in expanding.
Stoltz said he appreciated Ms. Shaw's passion for the business and liked the plan
proposed but tonight he is the voice of the audience. Their voice is load and clear
they do not want this in their neighborhood and he would vote against this project.
Stoelting asked the Commission Members how they felt about the project.
Rocheford said there are considerations to look at in regarding neighbor issues,
but he feels the dogs barking would not be a problem and he would be in favor of
the project.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 5
Pitzrick said this is definitely a business that is needed in Eden Prairie and with
his own experience does not feel it would be a problem, but if it is approved and
becomes a problem they could not go back on the ruling so because of that,he
would have to disagree with the project.
Kirk said he would like to see this business in the City but the Commission
Members have to preserve the integrity of the industrial zone and secondly,
neighborhood concern is an issue. With that being said, he would decline the
project.
Schultz agrees with what Stoltz said and as Commission Members believes you
have to weigh on certain decisions. He believes there are other options in Eden
Prairie for this business. The main concern for not approving this project would
be compromising the zoning integrity. Based on that,he would deny the request.
Seymour agrees with Schultz and the biggest concern would be zoning. He also
feels there was no undue hardship present.
Stoelting stated it was clear the audience and the majority of the Commission
members were not in favor of this project. He pointed out it was a very good
project but questioned the project proponent if she did her due-diligence in
finding different locations. Stoelting asked Franzen what would be the options to
this proposal.
Franzen stated the applicant can withdraw the project or it can be denied by the
Board.
Stoelting asked what Ms. Shaw's preference would be; a vote or withdrawal.
Rocheford said Ms. Shaw presented a very good case and reason for denial would
not be showing hardship,because she has done that,but feels the reason for denial
would be because the neighbors do not want it, and that is not a reason to deny
this request.
Stoelting stated the neighborhood input should weigh into this proposal and in
regards to this project, it weighs in heavily.
Kirk said the reason we grant variance requests for the change in the industrial
area would be for the betterment of the neighborhood and clearly this proposal is
not the case.
Schultz said what would convince him would be a better explanation of her
hardship; how many locations did she look at before choosing this one?
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 6
Bob Corson said in regards to other locations in the area, they are somewhat
limited. You have to find and indoor/outdoor facility. He suggested to Ms. Shaw
to see what other options are available out there before a vote takes place.
Stoelting asked Ms. Shaw if she was ready for a vote. She confirmed she was.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Stoltz, seconded by Seymour, to recommend denial of the
Variance to permit outside storage for dogs (product) outside a completely
enclosed building and permit a fenced outside storage area for dogs within the
front yard setback based on plans stamped dated August 17, 2007, and the staff
report dated September 21, 2007, and since a hardship or unique circumstances
has not been identified. Motion carried 6-1.
B. VARIANCE#2007-22
Request to:
Permit one ground mounted sign of 86 square feet. City Code permits one 50
square foot sign for one frontage and 36 square feet for the second road frontage.
Mark Ozer, of Integrated Design Studios,presented the variance request on behalf
of C.H. Robinson Worldwide. He showed a picture of the sign location and
pointed out this property sits on a hill and there is a retaining wall that was
constructed to prevent water run-off. Because of the location of the wall, the
request is to have the sign placed on the retaining wall. The sign would be
constructed out of aluminum.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said there are 3
options on page 2 of the staff report that Commission Members should consider.
He also pointed out this would be the only sign on the building.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Kirk asked if the drawings included in the packet were to scale. Mr. Ozer
confirmed they were to scale.
Pitzrick asked the project proponent if he could ask C.H. Robinson if they would
be willing to put in two benches next to the trail. Mr. Ozer said he would talk to
C.H. Robinson.
Seymour asked Franzen if they are allowed one sign on the road, could they still
have two signs on the building. Franzen confirmed they could still have two signs
on the building.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 7
Stoelting asked Mr. Ozer why they wanted to put the sign up on the retaining
wall. Mr. Ozer said because it is in a prominent location and provides visibility
for people driving by.
Stoltz asked how the sign would adhere to the wall and if it would light up. Mr.
Ozer said they would drill holes into the retaining wall and the light would
illuminate from a ground-projected light.
Kirk commented it was a good alternative and it fits very well into the area.
MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Stoltz, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Seymour, to recommend approval of the
Variance to permit one ground mounted sign of 86 square feet based on plans
stamped dated August 24, 2007, and the staff report dated September 21, 2007.
Motion carried 7-0.
C. LAMETTRY COLLISION
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres; Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 3.2 acres; Zoning District
Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 3.2
acres; Site Plan Review on 3.2 acres.
Richard LaMettry, owner of the property,presented the proposal. He stated they
moved from 1248 Plaza Drive to this new site. They are requesting additional
space for their business. One of the reasons they need additional space is because
they are working on aluminum cars and need different rooms to work on
aluminum cars versus metal cars to avoid cross contamination.
Stoelting asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said the Staff
recommends approval based on page 2 of the staff report.
Stoelting opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Schultz, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 7-0.
MOTION by Kirk, seconded by Pitzrick, to recommend approval of the Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 3.2 acres; Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 3.2 acres; Zoning District Amendment within the
Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 3.2 acres; Site Plan Review on
3.2 acres based on plans stamped dated September 14, 2007, and the staff report
dated September 21, 2007. Motion carried 7-0.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 8
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
Active Community Planning
This is the first of three workshops relating to health and the Comprehensive Plan.
Monique MacKenzie, from SRF Consulting Group, gave a presentation on tasks, scope of
work and the homework assignment.
Ms. MacKenzie stated Eden Prairie was given a $73,000 grant from Blue Cross Blue
Shield. In order to get this grant, the City had to decide how to make Eden Prairie a
healthier community. This was done by creating the Active Community Planning
project. This refers to the planning practices that lead to the design of communities with
improved physical and social qualities of life. Ms. MacKenzie pointed out that King
County, Washington, is an example of Active Community Living.
The topics that would be addressed in this project would be as follows:
1. Accessibility
2. Air Quality
3. Environment and Housing Quality
4. Food
5. Mental Health
6. Physical Activity
7. Safety
8. Social Capital
9. Water Quality
The homework assignment given to Commission Members is to take a site walk around
the Town Center's catalyst sites and routes, to experience the environment on foot or by
bike as it exists today. At the October 22nd Planning Commission Meeting, consultants
and Staff will facilitate the Planning commission in a Rapid Health Impact Assessment
workshop, focusing on the Town Center of the major Center Area.
Guide Plan Update
Franzen stated this is a draft of Chapter Two (Policies). It is a collection of the policies
from each of the chapters. The positive environmental impacts and energy efficiency
policies have been added as previously requested and are shown in red. This is an FYI
and will be returning to the chapter after the Active Community Planning project is
complete.
Improving the Desisn of Chains and Franchises
This is an article from the Urban Land Magazine relating to better design of chains and
franchises and how to incorporate these designs into new developments or redevelopment
areas.
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2007
Page 9
November 12, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting
This meeting is on Veteran's Day. The Commission will meet on November 14'if there
is a need to have a meeting.
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
Franzen said he has a request from Michael Campbell from Cambria to have 60 days to
take the sign off the roof and replace it with another sign elsewhere. It was decided they
would have 30 days to take the sign down and then they could have as much time as they
needed to replace it. Stoelting asked if there would be a hardship if they were asked to
take the sign down before this is resolved. Franzen stated there would be no hardship
because there are other signs on the building.
Kirk had a comment about an article in the newspaper addressing the Wayfinding
process. Franzen said he would address this at the next meeting.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Schultz, seconded by Kirk, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.