HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 03/08/2021APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2021 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr,
Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette,
William Gooding
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Matt Bourne, Manager of
Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commissioner Pieper was absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Gooding to approve the minutes of February
8, 2021. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
CHASE BANK (2020-12)
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 0.61 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 0.61 acres
Site Plan Review on 0.61 acres
Brian Wurdeman, the civil engineer representing the applicant, presented a PowerPoint
and explained the application. This was a proposed redevelopment of the former Baker’s
Square restaurant east of the Culver’s Restaurant and west of the Starbuck’s. It was zoned
commercial, which would fit the proposed development use. The site plan showed the
3,300 square-foot bank footprint, the location of the ATM, and the shared private
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 2021
Page 2
(existing) driveway. There would be 20 parking stalls on the north and south side, with
two entrances. The north driveway would be converted to a two-way, 90-degree driveway
from a one-way. Enhanced pedestrian connections would be included as a part of the
development, as well as bike racks on the south side of the building. The new
development would have slightly less impervious surface area than the former site and
utilize an underground stormwater management system which would collect runoff from
both the bank area and the parking lot. The landscape plan would preserve three mature
trees onsite and remove one, which would be replaced, and include a compensatory
replacement of trees. Foundation plantings would be added around the parking areas, and
they would be irrigated by the onsite managed stormwater system. Another sustainable
feature was the LED lighting.
Terron Wright, the architect, explained the floor plan. There would be eight offices and a
dual entry, one north and one south. Class One materials comprised the cladding. He
displayed the building elevations and explained a waiver was being sought for the
inclusion of Class Two materials on the north and south facades. Mechanical equipment
would not be visible from the street due to the low roof design and the screening. A
single-story drive-up ATM canopy was also proposed.
Mette asked if the doors on the north and the south were intended for public access
during business hours, and if there was an additional employee entrance. Wurdeman
replied these two doors would remain open during business hours. DeSanctis asked what
lifespan the aluminum composite panels would have. Wurdeman replied they had a 20-
year lifespan. Farr asked the reason for the four accessible parking stalls, which were
above requirements and could free up green space. Wurdeman replied it was preferred to
have at least two accessible parking stalls, so the number of stalls could be reduced. Two
were typically provided.
Klima presented the staff report. The site’s proposed use was consistent with the existing
zoning and the proposed development did comply with all parking, setback, and building
height, and the only waiver requested was for the two percent of materials (ACM) that
were Class Two materials. Staff recommended approval. A condition regarding the
removal of trees was included in the staff report and could be resolved a number of ways.
Mette asked why metal panels were not considered a Class One material. Klima replied
in 2016 when the City was updating its design guidelines and building materials
requirements the City Council and Planning Commission conducted visual surveys. A
robust conversation ensued about metal panels and the consensus was while neither party
was opposed to this material they were also not ready to allow it to be a Class One,
allowed at 75 percent by right. Requiring a PUD process allowed the commission and
City Council to review and allow this material. Mette asked if the project would meet the
requirement regarding the needed caliper inches for the trees. Klima replied if the
applicant either added a tree or added a couple of inches to the existing trees, either
would meet the requirement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 2021
Page 3
Farr asked if the offsite utility runs on the east side was a suggestion of staff and/or was
acceptable by the City. Rue replied staff did not have an issue with it as long as the
applicant had permission. He would, however, like to know why the applicant requested
this. Farr also asked if the temporary fence would compromise safety during construction.
Rue replied the City would like to see a bypass plan. He anticipated a one-day closure to
install the storm sewer. Wurdeman replied the utilities were located on the east side in
coordination with the watershed and the site to the east was owned by the same entity that
owned the Baker’s Square. Other utilities would be connected in the same location as was
the case for that restaurant.
DeSantis asked if there would be any environmental hazards during the actual
construction, if the building materials would be recycled materials, and if there was a
plan for recycling the deconstructed materials. Wurdeman replied a Phase I
environmental assessment was completed, and there was a continued investigation as to a
Phase II assessment. At this time, he had not considered reused materials, but may still
review that idea with the contractor; the applicant was not yet at that point. Wright
replied the previous developments were an infill site and a parking lot, respectively, so
there was no precedent for recycling deconstructed materials. Klima added from a zoning
code standpoint this did not raise concerns.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
Mette agreed with removing one or two accessible parking stalls to save an existing tree
or replant a threatened tree. She requested the applicant use a solid, high quality metal
such as zinc rather than the proposed composite materials. She commended the cast stone
trash enclosure but suggested the gate be made to blend in. DeSanctis requested the
northwest Basswood tree that encroached on the building might not be realistically saved,
and he suggested the applicant investigate what species of tree would best fit that
cramped space.
Kirk asked for and received clarification that the material substitution Mette suggested
was a Class Two material, not a Class One. He noted the difficulty of trying to make a
company’s design standards mesh with the City’s standards. He wished to solicit
opinions from the commissioners in the construction industry on the anodized aluminum,
because he was inclined to allow it but did not know its lifespan. Farr replied he
considered the aluminum composite to be a sturdy material and in the landscaped area as
proposed by the developer, it would not be impacted as it might adjacent to the sidewalk,
for example. It came in different thicknesses, such as a six-inch rather than a four-inch.
He considered the ACM a high-class material and had no objection to it. He commended
the interior circulation plan and the two entrances. He again urged the applicant to reduce
the number of accessible stalls to gain 120-150 square feet for tree replacement.
Gooding commended the design and also approved of the aluminum composite (ACM).
He was more inclined to add larger trees than to decrease the number of the accessible
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 2021
Page 4
parking stalls. Markos suggested the pavement/colored cement work near Culvers could
be carried through this development, as it added nice features with a minimal amount of
work. Mette seconded this suggestion, saying it would tie the pedestrian walkway with
the rest of the site. She added she was concerned about the visibility of the pedestrian
crosswalk so that cars taking a quick corner into Starbucks will see them. Farr noted the
driveways along Plaza Drive were wide-entrance and served other businesses than the
immediate business in the sites. He stated Plaza Drive might be a greater risk area to
pedestrians than the internal traffic onsite. He suggested the City have a discussion on
this in the future.
DeSanctis he was not aware that the strip of commercial outlets to the northeast of this
proposed building had a sharply defined crosswalk to the proposed site. He expressed
concern that an assumption was being made that this secondary effect was a safe
transition,. Farr replied he preferred crosswalks not be located in the middle of the
parking lot, but he noted DeSanctis’s concern.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 0.61 acres, the Planned Unit Development District
Review with waivers on 0.61 acres, and the Site Plan Review on 0.61 acres, based on
plans stamp dated March 3, 2021, and the staff report dated March 8, 2021. MOTION
CARRIED 7-0.
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
Klima announced new candidates for Planning Commission were recently
appointed by the City Council. Commission members Mette and Farr were
reappointed, and Robert Taylor was appointed to the vacant seat on the
commission. The terms would begin April 1.
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Markos moved, seconded by Gooding to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.