Planning Commission - 09/11/2006 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
PLANNING COMMISION John Kirk, Vicki Koenig, Fred Seymour, Ray Stoelting, Jerry
MEMBERS: Pitzrick, Frank Powell. Jon Duckstad, Peter Rocheford, and
Jon Stoltz were absent from tonight's meeting.
STAFF MEMBERS: Alan Gray, City Engineer, Regina Herron, Planner I, Scott
Kipp, Senior Planner, Deb Sweeney, recorder.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL
Stoelting called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Absent: Rocheford, Duckstad
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Kirk, to approve the agenda as published.
Motion carried 6-0.
III. MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 28, 2006
Pitzrick corrected his comments on page 5, paragraph 4 to clarify that he "prefers
duplexes without a basement as a first choice, or single family homes as a second
choice."
Pitzrick corrected his comments on page 8 to add paragraph noting he "questions a
potential need for a third option for circulation in the MCA to accommodate Segways or
other personal electric vehicles."
MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes of the August 28,
2006 meeting as published and amended. Motion carried 6-0.
IV. PUBLIC MEETINGS
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. VARIANCE#2006-09 (A continued public bearing) by Paul Thomas
Vogstrom.
Stoelting said the request is to permit a shore land setback variance from 150 feet
to 100 feet at the northeast corner of the proposed structure. The property is
located at 7887 Shamrock Trail. The proponent requests a continuance to the
September 25, 2006 meeting.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Koenig, to recommend a continuance to
the September 25, 2006 meeting. Motion carried 6-0.
B. TWIN CITY CO-OP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION by Twin City Co-op
Federal Credit Union.
Stoelting said this is a request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on
4.22 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.22
acres, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service
District on 1.48 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.48 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
4.22 acres into two lots. The site is located west of T.H. 212, east of Columbine
Road, and south of Fountain Place.
Architect Jeff Pneupsen gave a brief overview of the project, reviewing the site
plan and building elevations and sharing concerns about Staff recommendations.
This would be a 5,900-square-foot, single-level building with no basement,
housing a typical banking operation including a lobby, tellers, conference areas,
and a four-lane drive-thru including ATM. Access would be a shared drive with
the adjacent Office Max project, with the main entrance north toward Columbine
Road. Pneupsen said that while the parcel was planned as retail with flat roofs, a
financial institution requires a slightly different look. Twin Cities Co-Ops Federal
Credit Union (TCU) would prefer a sloped roof. TCU has been operating in Eden
Prairie since 1985, and this would be its first freestanding building here. The
sloped roof helps establish a brand identity by mirroring elements from TCU's
Coon Rapids site.
Pneupsen showed elevations of both the sloped and flat roof. Both plans would
use similar materials and colors as the rest of the development. Pneupsen noted
the site is very low—the difference in elevation between the finished floor and the
intersection is 16 feet. Pneupsen showed photos of the site with the two options
superimposed. If a flat roof were used, the mechanical unit would be obvious
from the intersection. A sloped roof would be more attractive and would allow
some windows and eaves to be seen. The peak of the sloped roof is 30 feet
(versus 20 feet for the flat roof)but no rooftop mechanicals would be visible with
a sloped roof.
Herron noted the project is an amendment to the Horizon Place Planned Unit
Development requiring a waiver for a zero-foot setback to parking from the
common lot line. No other waivers are required. The project is also part of the
Foundation Place Planned Unit Development. The current elevations lack the
detail of the Horizon Place and Fountain Place PUD's. Herron said the
Commission's options were to approve the project as proposed, continue the
hearing to give the proponent time to work with Staff on the architectural details,
or to deny the project. Staff recommends continuance. There were no comments
from the public.
Powell asked how the building would look with the Office Max (not yet
constructed)behind it. Continuity with Office Max is key. Herron said the Office
Max would have a height of 29 feet. Pneupsen said the TCU building measures
30 feet 8 inches on the slope peak and 20 feet for the flat roof(with a 31-foot
architectural element at the entrance). Herron said a parapet could easily be
added to screen mechanical equipment and add height for visibility. Koenig
noted the City requires screening for mechanicals and asked what was being
shown in the photo. Pneupsen said the photo is still conceptual and just shows a
typical size screen. The building does have a parapet.
Kirk asked for clarification of the building's placement on the site. Herron said
the rest of Horizon Place (the Office Max) is currently under construction to the
southwest. Kirk said the road does provide a possible natural break in the
development,but not if the Office Max mirrors Fountain Place, leaving the TCU
building in the middle of two unified buildings. Herron said Office Max does
play off the Fountain Place development. A flat roof for the bank would be a step
in the right direction to promote consistency in the PUD.
Stoelting asked for clarification on the two lots that form the development. Kipp
said these two lots were part of the original Fountain Place PUD. The lots were
approved for Office Max and a retail building. Both Fountain Place and Office
Max were continued for architectural detail and significant horizontal and vertical
elevation changes. Herron explained the original plan called for a 18,000-square-
foot Office Max and an 11,000-square-foot retail strip building. Powell
commented this new proposed use would create redundant parking. Green space
or a rain garden could be added instead. Herron said revised plans do show a
wide landscaped strip between the lots. Powell said looking at both projects
simultaneously would be helpful. Kipp noted removing parking from the Office
Max project could be difficult, as it has already been approved.
Pitzrick said he favored the sloped roof. It would be bad design to have the same
vertical design as the adjoining big box stores on this small building if you used a
flat roof. The view from T.H. 212 is critical, and it would be difficult to screen a
flat roof. The planned foundation plantings would look more natural with a
sloped roof. The canopy over the drive-thru would also look unattractive with a
flat roof. With a sloped roof, the drive-thru could pick up a Prairie School look
with columns. More detail is needed on the elevations and there should be front-
door architecture on all four sides of the building.
Stoelting noted Office Max, Michaels, Sports Authority, and Home Goods all
have flat roofs and create continuity on both sides of Foundation Place. He asked
if there were a PUD for the whole area. Herron said this site was part of the
Fountain Place PUD and then the Horizon Place PUD was created comprising the
Office Max and a retail strip. The retail strip has now been replaced by the bank.
Pitzrick agreed there is east to west continuity with major retail,but going
perpendicular to T.H. 212, there are apartment complexes with sloped roofs,
which could provide continuity. Koenig said residential architecture is a
completely different issue and that using it as a basis for changing a retail design
sets a bad precedent. The area is part of the MCA. Further development could
make the bank stand out even more. Pitzrick argued the flat-roof design would
stick out as well because it wouldn't fit the use or the site.
Stoelting said he was not convinced which roof design was preferable,but wanted
more continuity with Office Max since it is a shared drive. He suggested a
continuance. Jim Chamberlain of TCU noted that from the corner of T.H. 212
and Fountain Place, you see a huge senior housing complex with all sloped roofs.
It is the Office Max and the other big box stores that are out of place—even with
the architectural details, they still look like a box. TCU has the corner spot and
wants a compelling building that is visually attractive. With 21 years in the
community, TCU would like to stay in Eden Prairie.
Pneupsen agreed that raising the parapet to 30 feet to match Office Max (an
18,000-square-foot building) or the originally planned 11,000-square-foot retail
strip would create an undesirable silo effect on a 5,900-square-foot building. He
would be happy to show more detail and work with Staff if the Commission
thought it might be convinced to go with a sloped roof. Plantings could also be
added. Office Max has already agreed to take a row of their parking for more
green space. Banks almost always have "four fronts" and this project will too.
Pneupsen was very open to more detail facing T.H. 212. He referenced a retail
development off I-94 in Woodbury that is also sited lower than the road, and all
you can see is rooftops. With the low site, it seems inevitable motorists would see
the rooftop if a flat roof is used.
Seymour said he liked the sloped roof better at first but the flat roof fits the whole
context of the development better. A lot of thought went into the details during
the PUD process to get a continuous-looking development. The sloped roof
would look out of place between the two similar developments. Indeed, even a
flat-roofed bank might look out of place due to its smaller size. The bank may not
belong in that spot at all.
Pitzrick asked if TCU might consider a 10,000 to 15,000-square-foot building that
could be partially rented. Pneupsen said there would not be enough room for
parking and TCU probably does not want to be a landlord.
Kirk said it is important to have continuity,but Fountain Place provides a natural
break. If there is continuity with Office Max, the project could work. Koenig
agreed. Similar landscaping and rainwater gardens could also be a unifying
element, including the border area with Office Max.
Kipp said he could look at adding green space to the lot,but it would have to be
designed to convert back to parking in the future. Landscaping could be easily
converted but a rainwater garden that serves a functional purpose for drainage
could be problematic. He expressed optimism that the plans could be modified to
work with the site and the surrounding area. The original retail building for there
was not designed to meet the Office Max look and was not very tall either. A
continuance would give Staff time to discuss the PUD and TCU's branding needs
with the proponent. Kipp noted other establishments such as Culvers and
McDonalds have changed their normal architectural brand to fit in with Eden
Prairie, so such changes are not unprecedented. Koenig said redevelopment in the
MCA would require a close look at the architecture and landscaping of all
projects to create a downtown feel. I trust staff to work with the developer to
come up with a better project.
Stoelting asked for review of the traffic patterns and safety. Pneupsen said the
key issue in designing traffic flow through a bank is to separate drive-thru traffic
from pedestrian traffic. Cars would enter through the shared entrance off
Columbine Road and drive around to the south to get to the drive-thru (employee
parking would also be located on that side). Member parking would be on the
opposite side of the building well away from the drive lane and immediately
outside the door. Koenig asked how traffic would be prevented from cutting
through the lot rather than following the loop around to the drive thru. Pneupsen
said there would be signage. In addition, the "cut-thru" drive lane is one way
traffic compressed to 18 feet, so it would require drivers to swerve to go that way.
This makes the correct route more obvious.
Stoelting asked to see where the zero-foot setback waiver is. Herron pointed it
out along the lot line between Office Max and the bank. There are no other
waivers. Koenig asked what grounds there would be for denying the project.
Kipp said the Commission could recommend denial of the project or direct the
proponent to change it based on the waiver or architectural continuity throughout
the PUD. Koenig commented the project might not fit the PUD. Stoelting
recommended a continuance.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Pitzrick, to recommend a continuance to the
October 9, 2006 meeting and directed Staff and the proponent to review architectural
consistency with the original PUD, looking at both sloped-roof and flat-roof
alternatives and particularly showing architectural details with the Office Max
development and sight lines from several different angles; to explore expanded green
space or rainwater gardens in the buffer between the two parking areas to eliminate
the zero lot line waiver,retaining the option to expand parking in the future, and to
review the recommendations within the Staff report. Motion carried 6-0.
VII. PLANNERS' REPORT
Herron said the agenda for the next meeting would be the Public Hearing on Variance
2006-09 continued from tonight's meeting, and a discussion of the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Franzen will inform Commission member regarding which sections of the guide
plan will be discussed.
VIII. MEMBERS' REPORTS
Koenig said Commission members had stopped receiving copies of the City Council
minutes and asked for the practice to resume. Kipp said they were not intentionally
discontinued and he would look into it. Minutes are also available on the City website
and the Council meetings are broadcast live. Powell said he would like to get the
unapproved minutes soon after the Council meeting, since it is difficult not having the
minutes when items are already being reported in the newspaper. Kipp said he would see
if this could be arranged.
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Pitzrick, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:14 p.m.