Planning Commission - 10/10/2016 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jon Stoltz, John Kirk, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins,
Charles Weber, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark
Freiberg, Tom Poul
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Rod Rue, City Engineer
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Kirk, Poul, Stoltz, and Weber
were absent.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Wuttke wanted to change the order of the public hearings. He would like it in this order;
Commercial Kennels, Automotive Services, Screening and Landscape, Tree Replacement.
Klima suggested if the concern was to have the tree replacement and screening and
landscaping discussion occur sequentially, then another option would be to move the tree
replacement discussion as the second public hearing. Wuttke stated his revised order would
be preferred.
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Farr, to approve the amended agenda. Motion
carried 5-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
Wuttke had the following changes to the minutes:
Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke commented the
City should be written as exempt from these requirements or that transparency in any
issue by the City is paramount.
Page 2, 3rd paragraph, l st sentence; he would like .05 changed to .50.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 2
Page 2, 3rd, 0h sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke commented this
replacement factor change would alleviate maintenance and overcrowding.
Page 2, 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked what the
test was for the health of Heritage trees,because the nature of large trees in certain
circumstances could pose significant cost and risk long term after site improvements
and alterations occur.
Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence;he would like it to read: Wuttke asked what
historically developer agreements state in regards to tree replacement.
Page 3, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence;he would like it to read: Wuttke asked who
would be responsible for the tree replacement many years later and/or owners later;
would the current homeowner pay for tree replacement.
Page 3, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked members
and representatives what type of involvement developers have had with the drafting
of these potential language changes.
Page 3, 5th paragraph, 3rd sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke asked if the City
could meet with members of the private sector prior to this public hearing and get
their feedback.
Page 3, 8th paragraph, 1st sentence;he would like it to read: Wuttke asked, in regards
to tree replacement, can we find a way to substitute land dedication versus paying a
fee for caliper inch replacement and could these costs be offset when this occurs.
Page 4, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence; he would like it to read: Wuttke said he would
like cottonwood and basswood trees put on the list of exceptions because of the
extensive shedding they do and the risks associated,respectively.
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Freiberg, to approve the amended Planning
Commission Minutes. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CODE AMENDMENT—COMMERCIAL KENNELS
Request to:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 3
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 Section 11.02 to add a definition of
"commercial kennel" and Section 11.30 to add "commercial kennel" as a
permitted use in the Industrial Zoning Districts.
Klima said in Eden Prairie commercial kennels have occurred in the Industrial
Zoning Districts and in the Commercial Zoning Districts. Research regionally and
nationally has shown it common and generally accepted for the commercial kennel
to be located in the Industrial Zoning Districts. To remove any ambiguity from the
Eden Prairie Code staff believes a code amendment to clarify location of
commercial kennels in a specific zoning district is prudent. Staff recommendation
is for approval.
Freiberg asked if a person in a residential area breeds for profit, is that allowed.
Klima said the commercial operations should occur in an industrial district and not
residential.
Wuttke asked if it could be allowed to breed once a year or something comparable
in a residential area. Klima said the definition for a private kennel is where 2 cats or
dogs over 6 months are allowed, to be in compliance with the ordinance.
Higgins asked if it is possible to arrange it in reverse order, that the birth and raising
be done off site. Klima said that would be acceptable.
Wuttke asked what the City Council did regarding recreation fires this summer.
Did the residents not have an opportunity to go on survey monkey and give their
opinion? Wuttke stated this could be done with the dog breeders.
Farr said he does agree with City Staff and feels we may be developing a problem
that is not there. Klima said since her time at the City, she has not received
complaints of this type of activity.
Wuttke asked if there have been any issues with the garage sale ordinance. Klima
said there have been no complaints with the garage sale revision.
Higgins said she is fine with going ahead with staff recommendations.
Wuttke said he does have some reservations approving this code amendment,but
will move it forward.
Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Farr, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Freiberg, to recommend approval of the
amendment to City Code Chapter 11 to add a definition of commercial kennel and
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 4
to add commercial kennel as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District based
on the information in the staff report dated October 4, 2016. Motion carried 5-0.
B. CODE AMENDMENT—AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SERVICES
Request to:
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 to add a definition of"Automotive Repair-
Major and Automotive Repair—Minor"; to add "Automotive Repair-Minor" as
a permitted use in the Commercial Zoning District and"Automotive Repair-
Major as a permitted use on the effective date of the code amendment; to add
"Automotive Repair-Major" as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District.
Klima said many communities do acknowledge the difference between major and
minor automotive repairs and what zoning districts they should occur in. The
purpose of the proposed code amendment would be to:
• Remove ambiguity surrounding automotive repair service uses and the
appropriate zoning district to location.
• Will support policy that automotive repair services Major or Minor are not
permitted in the TC or TOD zoning districts.
• Provide for existing Automotive Repair Service establishments with
"minor" characteristics to remain in the Commercial Districts.
• Provide for existing Automotive Repair Services establishments with
"Major" characteristics to remain in the Commercial Zoning Districts by an
established date. The use does not become non-conforming.
• Provide for existing and future automotive repair services with"major"
characteristics to locate in the Industrial Zoning Districts and remove
ambiguity on the uses within the Industrial Zoning District.
Staff recommendation is for approval of the code amendment.
Freiberg asked where car washes would fall. Klima stated they would be classified
as retail operation.
Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Frieberg, to recommend approval to amend
the City Code Chapter 11 to add a definition of"Automotive Repair-Major and
Automotive Repair—Minor"; to add"Automotive Repair-Minor" as a permitted use
in the Commercial Zoning District and "Automotive Repair-Major as a permitted
use on the effective date of the code amendment; to add"Automotive Repair-
Major" as a permitted use in the Industrial Zoning District based on the information
included in the staff report dated October 4, 2016. Motion carried 5-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 5
C. CODE AMENDMENT—SCREENING & LANDSCAPE
Request to:
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to screening and landscape
requirements.
Klima said the purpose of this code amendment is to apply consistency. Staff has
contracted with Hay Dobbs & Associates to work to create Design Guidelines to
communicate the City's intent and expectations for development within the City, as
well as, drafting amendments to the City Code to convey the requirements
associated with development objectives. The proposed changes include:
• Provide a purpose statement to the screening and landscaping section of the
Code
• Defines public art
• Clarifies minimum size requirements for landscaping materials
• Requires inclusion of planting beds and/or decorative containers
• Provides a holistic and flexible approach to meeting the landscape
requirements
• Requires species diversity and use of native species
• Establishes standards for parking lot islands
• Requires parking lots to be designed to enable safe pedestrian movements
between the parking areas and the building(s) it serves
Staff recommendation is for approval of the amendment.
Farr said on page 2 of the staff report, under screening in (m), he would like the
word"all" eliminated to provide consistency with the 75% opacity language
elsewhere in City Code.
Farr said in regards to containers, he would like The language revised to require
seasonal planting of containers.
Wuttke asked if the term bare soil is taken "as is" or can it be clarified. He stated
he would like to see more clarification on what is meant by bare soil in the
landscape application.
Farr asked, on page 4, under e, if the unit is required. Bourne said it could be
changed to caliper inches.
Farr commented under h, Parking Lot Islands,he sees some conflict with the stated
purposes and code requirements. He suggested staff review this language. Farr
also stated he felt the 60 feet in width requirement is excessive and he would
exempt single aisle parking lots. Klima said they are also working on design
guidelines and stated this feedback is very helpful.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 6
Farr said on pages 5-6, under Mechanical Equipment Screening, under 1, there is
not guidance on the level of screening and asked how that would be satisfied He
also asked, under item 2, what does differing land use mean. Klima said land uses
are addressed in the comprehensive plan.
Farr stated, in regard to corridors, such as at Eden Prairie Center between Sears and
Wild Fire, parking is diagonally striped and he said as an architect he would design
it so get people could safely across the area. If individuals are walking
perpendicular, they could walk over 3 diagonals to reasonably walk safely. In
regards to walking parallel, it should be no more than 200 feet.
Wuttke asked, in regard to public art,how different is this from the public sculpture
code amendment adopted in 2013. Klima said the 2013 amendment addressed
private property issues and this one addresses public art. Wuttke asked if public art
has to be in the right of way. Klima said it just has to be visible in public spaces.
Wuttke said on page 7, under s, it says public art should be situated in a way that it
can be viewed from an adjacent right-of-way. Wuttke asked if there needs to be
some clarification with this, to something like, "it could be viewed from public
property". Klima asked Wuttke if he would like to see maximum signage stay the
same. Wuttke said we should not refrain a developer from using public art and also
not have it interfere with signage. Klima clarified the intent is that public art has no
correlation with the signage.
Farr asked if rooftop gardens are considered art as they cannot be visible from
public way. Klima said, Projects may include public art on a rooftop as the area
may be visible from public right of ways
Freiberg said, in regards to public art, it is personal interpretation of what is good
taste. He believes public art is good but would hope there is a safeguard in place.
Klima said the City does work closely with the art staff when public art is proposed.
Wuttke asked on page 3, under 5-b-ii, does it mean the minimum 6 feet standard
applies everywhere. Klima said this is existing language that is being relocated
within the City Code. No changes to current practice of this issue are proposed.
Farr commented on page 3, in regards to calculating caliper inches on trees,he
stated that 20 feet is hard to stay below. He askid if the City has received any
challenges to this requirement. Klima said staff has not received any challenge on
this.
Wuttke asked what increase costs would developers incur because of these
proposed changes. Klima said the ordinance changes are not necessarily new in
practice as the City has been working already with developers to accomplish these
goals over the years. She stated staff is are trying to accomplish with these
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 7
amendment changes is to ensure the design standards are universally applied. This
is not new practice but rather documentation of what the City has largely been
doing.
Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Vice Chair Pieper commented he saw many concerns raised tonight in regards to
the amendments and asked if the Commission should see the changes first before
approving them. Wuttke agreed. Vice Chair Pieper asked if this should be
continued and brought back with changes. Klima said the changes are very straight
forward. She also noted the Planning Commission minutes are provided to the City
Council and there Will be a cover report provided with the feedback from Planning
Commission to the Council.
Wuttke asked if we should keep this public hearing open until the tree amendment
is discussed. Klima said the landscaping amendment addresses new development
whereas the tree amendment addresses existing development.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Higgins, to recommend approval to amend
City Code Chapter 11 based on the information included in the staff report dated
October 4, 2016 as well as multiple items of discussion relayed to City Staff.
Motion carried 5-0.
D. CODE AMENDMENT—TREE REPLACEMENT
Request to:
• Amend the City Code Chapter 11 relating to tree replacement requirements.
Klima said there are significate changes to this amendment. They are:
• The definition of Heritage Tree and replacement requirements for Heritage
Trees
• Language that would allow tree replacement requirements to be met through
a restitution program
• Exempting the TOD and Town Center zoning districts from the tree
replacement requirements due to the type of development expected in these
districts.
Other housekeeping changes reflecting current practices and correcting grammatical
or typographical errors are also proposed as part of the update. Staff
recommendation is for approval.
Higgins asked why the cottonwood tree is on the list of Heritage trees. Bourne said
because it is native to Minnesota and it is a very hardy tree. He pointed out the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 8
female tree is the only one that sheds. Farr asked Bourne how many landscaping
plans he has seen that contain cottonwood trees. Bourne said there have not been
any. Wuttke asked what the average size of a cottonwood tree is. Bourne said it is
hard to say because there are so many out there ranging from 4 inches to 50 inches.
Wuttke asked why some trees, such as a cottonwood tree, could not be replaced
with more pleasing trees. He also asked what changed from last meeting to this
meeting. Bourne said in the tree inventory section, under subsection 4, most of the
changes came about because of developers' feedback over the years. The changes
that are being proposed are for a reduction in the amount of tree replacement and
not adding to it. Wuttke commented the Heritage trees were added and now there
is a delta on that and he is not particularly sold on that change.
Wuttke asked what the adopted fee proposal is all about. Bourne said this fee
would be set by City Council and is typically $100 to $125 per caliper inch of tree.
Vice Chair Pieper asked, in regards to restitution, could someone buy their way out
of replacing trees. Bourne said yes, that would be an option but would have to go
through the approval process. Klima said the language in the code amendment is
intended to supply flexibility to the developer. Vice Chair Pieper asked what the
restitution fund is used for. Bourne said it could be used for planting trees or other
natural resources elsewhere. Farr said in regards to the fee, it would be nice if it
was set high enough to deter the developer from going that route. He also asked, in
regards to tree quality versus quantity, was there any discussion on that. Bourne
said it was discussed And the language was proposed as it is to allow for review on
a case by case basis.
Wuttke commented he is not completely sold on the concept of heritage trees. Farr
said at the last meeting there was a discussion regarding removing heritage trees
and it was discussed how homeowners could possibly take down significant trees
before they become heritage trees. Farr said he is fine now with how the ordinance
is written.
Higgins commented, in regards to global warming, some of these heritage trees may
be needed or it could possibly cut their life short.
Wuttke asked under B, Tree Replacement/Restitution Requirements, what lost and
damaged meant. Bourne said the definition of"lost" is under Inventory.
Vice Chair Pieper opened the meeting up for public input.
Chris Bunn, of 9815 Eden Prairie Road commented he has lived at his location for
over 20 years and asked why the City is making these changes now in regards to
heritage trees. He stated where he lives now there are at least two heritage trees.
From his understanding, if he were to subdivide his lot, he could not because of the
heritage trees. He also commented he would not be able to replace with other trees
because it would add up to way too many trees on his land and because of that,he
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 9
feels he is losing control of his property. He said it seems like the City did not care
before when the development was taking place.
Bourne responded by stating the "why now" came about now because there are a
large number of significant and heritage trees. One distinction Bourne did want to
make was that as a private property owner, you would be gaining more flexibility
with the proposed language. Bunn said he does not understand how he could be
gaining rights. Bourne said as a single family dwelling, they are removing some of
the requirements for removing trees.
Bunn said if he wanted to develop his property, this amendment would impact him.
Bourne said in one development the requirements went down and they had heritage
trees on their land. Bunn asked why restitution would have to be paid. Klima said
to allow flexibility as a part of the development process. It provides options for
both the City and developers. Bunn stated he still does not understand why he
would pay the City. Klima said the City would like to see the heritage trees saved,
but this restitution gives an option for the developer if the tree has to be removed
and the site does not have the capacity of replace trees. Vice Chair Pieper asked if
the City was exempt from this requirement. Bourne said yes, the City is exempt
from this requirement. Bunn asked if he has to pay for taking the tree down why he
would not be compensated by the City for keeping it. Bourne said tree
replacement is an option and not just restitution. Bourne reiterated the fee schedule
is set by City Council and Klima said that is reviewed annually.
Farr commented that the City is significantly reducing the number of significant
trees on property, so that could be a benefit to the homeowner. Bunn commented
this is frustrating on all levels because he has heritage trees on his property.
Freiberg stated he has not been on the Commission very long but he would support
heritage trees.
Freiberg commented this sounds like a hardship for the homeowners and pointed
out it may be hard to say that one design fits all. He said this is a very difficult
situation for this resident and asked City Staff if an appeal process or variances
from code requirements could be put into place. Klima said there are opportunities
to seek waivers. Farr commented the City is only trying to protect the trees and not
take anything away.
Wuttke commented the City should be very transparent in what they do in regards
to improvements and the City being exempt from tree replacement. Rue said the
concern is with a lot of public projects and they are definitely trying to meet those
requirements. He stated every project has gotten replacement features.
Vice Chair Pieper asked if the City could put money into the fund and have it put to
something else if they cannot replaces the trees. Bourne said the tree replacement
fund is new and that suggestion is something to take into account.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 10
Wuttke asked about C-3, General Exemptions, what about homeowners with platted
land. Bourne said this was written to protect them. Freiberg said there should be an
avenue for hardship. Vice Chair Pieper said that does exist and would be the
variance or waiver process. Wuttke commented he does not like how this
paragraph is worded. Bourne said on December 1st, 1990, this is the date the first
tree ordinance went into place, so anything prior to that would not have had
anything done in regards to tree replacement. Vice Chair Pieper asked what Wuttke
was opposing. Wuttke stated it was the private property rights and cost of
limitations. Freiberg said he is not in favor of moving this forward without a
process for hardship. Vice Chair Pieper asked if Freiberg was comfortable with the
variance/waiver process. Freiberg said he was comfortable with the
waiver/variance process and would move forward with this amendment.
Higgins said the waiver process could be a hurdle for the homeowner. She is
uncertain about moving forward with this code amendment as is. Vice Chair Pieper
clarified there is a waiver process in place. Higgins said when it is just one parcel
there are issues with it because it is hard to finance that if you are a single property
owner.
Klima said if there are undue hardships they can go through the PUD process or
variance process. She pointed out this is and always has been available to
homeowners and developers.
Vice Chair Pieper asked if someone cannot meet the tree replacement or cannot pay
restitution, what would happen. Klima said it would be a variance or PUD waiver.
Farr stated he had listened to everything tonight and can see the City is valuing their
natural resources and he is in favor of the code amendment.
Vice Chair Pieper said he thinks the City should be held to the same standard as
anyone else.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried 5-0.
MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg, to recommend approval to amend
City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.55 based on the information included in the staff
report dated October 4, 2016 and note Commission has concerns about
discrimination of certain property owners' rights.
Motion carried 4-1, Wuttke opposed.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 10, 2016
Page 11
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORT
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Farr, to adjourn the Planning Commission
meeting. Motion carried 5-0.
Vice Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m.