Loading...
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.