Loading...
Planning 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.