Planning Commission - 08/14/2017 APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY,AUGUST 14, 2017 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Travis Wuttke, Ann Higgins, Charles
Weber, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg,
Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner
Randy Newton, Assistant City Engineer
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL
Absent were commission members Kirk, Pieper, and Weber.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Klima announced the original copy of the July 10, 2017 minutes the commission received
were inadvertently the unapproved version, and latest changes, asked for at the July 24,
2017 meeting, were reflected in the goldenrod copy distributed to the commission
members.
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded Freiberg, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 6-
0.
IV. MINUTES
July 10, 2017 —MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the
minutes of July 10, 2017 with the revisions indicated on the goldenrod pages. Motion
carried 6-0.
July 24, 2017 —MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by Freiberg to approve the minutes
of July 24, 2017. Motion carried 6-0.
V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 2
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. EDEN PRAIRIE ASSEMBLY OF GOD
Request for
• Planned Unit Development amendment on 10.06 acres
• Site Plan Review on 10.06 acres
Klima presented the staff report: this was a request to amend the PUD and a
request to amend the site plan. The existing development was approved in the
1970s and was in compliance with City Code and City approval at the time of
construction. The current request was to expand the existing footprint and do
some internal remodeling. This expansion is consistent with City Code
requirements with regard to architecture, height, and materials, and there were no
waivers requested. There are a few site amenities that are nonconforming,
primarily the parking lot and trash enclosure, due to recent changes in design
standards. This project does not include any expansion or renovations to the
parking areas. Staff recommended a condition be included in the development
agreement that would require the property owner to submit a plan to address these
nonconformities at the time of future projects.
The landscaping plan conforms to city code requirements, and would connect
sidewalks and trails along Duck Lake Road as well as providing bike racks on
site. Staff recommended approval of the development.
Farr asked in the interests of full disclosure for staff to articulate the legal
arrangements with the community gardens on the western quarter of this property.
Klima referred the question to Bourne, who stated the City has a lease with
Assembly of God Church for the use of the land for public gardens for residents,
churchgoers, and nonprofits, and as part of that lease the City maintains those
gardens. Farr asked for and received confirmation this development would not
impact those gardens, nor limit any future parking expansion.
Applicant Dr. Jack Perrin, senior pastor at Assembly of God Church, summarized
the church's support of the community for the last 18 years, and stated church
attendance ranged from 400-500 people on a week up to 600-700 people. The
church needed additional educational space.
Architect Nicole Thompson, of Station 19 Architects, presented the expansion
project goals: to strengthen the church's identity and curb appeal, to expand the
educational facilities for all attendees, to expand the gathering and hospitality
space, and the expand accessibility to the building. This development would add
12,000+ square feet in a two-story addition with classrooms.
Farr asked for clarification of the disparity between 400-500 attendees currently,
and the 600-700 record attendance with regard to the parking requirements of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 3
church. Perrin replied the church presently has three services, keeping parking
requirements stable,but he did foresee a time when the church would come back
before the commission to bring the existing parking lot into compliance due to
increased attendance, as well as to upgrade the storm water services. At only one
time did the church ask permission to have worshippers park along Duck Lake
Trail for an event that would likely not be held again. Farr mentioned Perrin's
comments at a recent neighborhood meeting and asked him to put Perrin's phrase
about the project being "scaled back" into context of the future improvements that
may be proposed. Perrin explained the budget was 4.3 million, keeping it
conservative. The church also realized there would be a future need for an
expanded administrative area and increased sanctuary size, but he thought the
compliance of the parking area and the trash enclosure were the top priority. In
five years he expected to be back before the commission with a parking plan.
Therefore, the applicant and architects made the budget adjustment, divided the
project into phases, and withdrew some development items.
Farr asked Perrin to summarize the neighborhood meeting. Perrin replied one
person attended the meeting and was present in the audience, and another stopped
by Station 19 Architects who couldn't come to the neighborhood meeting. The
latter person's main concern was the 60-foot trees along the property's south
border. This development would not impact the trees; they would only be
replaced as they aged. Nicole Thompson added she spoke to this gentleman
personally, and he was concerned with the scale of the project,particularly with
the possibility of the infiltration basin impeding or affecting the neighborhoods to
the south of the property. The size of the infiltration basin had been reduced in
size to avoid impacting the trees and properties along the south end.
DeSanctis asked the architects to explain the type and the technical aspects of the
exterior lighting. Dan Torgerson, of Station 19 Architects, explained the lighting
would consist of LED downward facing lights. No extra lighting was being added
beyond what is required by building code.
Farr observed there were a limited number of light fixtures on the fagade, as the
project retained the existing lighting on the parking lot. However, there were also
two flood lights facing vertically into the residential area along the north side of
the property illuminating the church's two driveways. He noted this was an
existing condition. He asked staff to comment on this nonconformity. Klima
replied the lighting that exists is not proposed to change. Staff has received no
negative feedback from the neighborhood. The nonconformities in the parking lot
largely consisted of the lack of parking lot islands and other design guidelines
recently adopted by the commission. This proposal was not specifically intended
to address the lighting requirements;however, the church may look at the lighting
design in future proposals.
Wuttke noted the infiltration basin was oversized by three percent and asked if
this was a measure to proactively accommodate a future parking expansion.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 4
Klima replied there were several discussions with the church as to how to address
the infiltration area as a part of the proposal review. The design is a proactive
approach and the church is trying to be responsive to the City and the watershed
district requirements. The church was hopeful what is being proposed now will
accommodate future proposals.
Wuttke asked if there had been ghost platting of the infiltration basin and utilities
locations and the size and scope of the development. Perrin replied this had not
been done as yet, but had data from some core studies done years before, and
were open to planning as a part of the next stage of the development. He added
the three percent over could even be inadequate in the future, but the church's
intent was to "do it well" and over-accommodate a bit. The church is taking this
step by step and allowing each stage to meet the requirements.
Higgins asked the status of the early release of permits under the grading and
utilities section on page two. Klima replied grading/land alteration permits were
usually not issued until the development agreement is signed. However, with the
approach of autumn it was not out of the ordinary for a developer to request an
early release of a grading permit before the development agreement is signed.
Any work done as a part of that is at the developer's own risk and the City
Council would need to authorize such work. Usually the Planning Commission
doesn't see these requests at this time,but in this instance staff wanted to let the
commission know this was part of the request. No particular action was needed on
the grading permit by the Commission.
Wuttke noted the bike racks at the northeast corner of the existing parking lot
where three pathways intersect. He suggested setting that off to the side, further
away from the walking pathways. Thompson replied the architects could look at
that. Perrin added the Fire Department supports the project because sprinklers will
finally be put into the church.
Farr opened the public hearing.
Resident David Ziggler of 16729 Baywood Terrace stated he and his neighbors
had no objections to the addition,but were in favor of the BMPs to improve the
water quality and address the runoff issues. All neighbors favored not impacting
the trees along the south end of the property, as lights from cars parking could
shine into house windows, and were reassured to hear this development would not
remove them. He said he and his neighbors also favored as much distance as
possible between the infiltration basin and the south property line. The original
design showed a southeast location, and they wanted to see the tree buffer kept,
and a long thin infiltration basin along the south parking lot to not disturb the tree
roots. He added the sidewalk would help.
DeSanctis asked for the caliper and species of the six existing trees that could be
impacted. Perrin replied three were flowering crabapple trees which could not be
moved, a possibility he had explored. These would be replaced with fairly mature
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 5
trees. Thompson replied two maples, three crabapples, and six arborvitaes would
be removed. The crabapples would be replaced. Farr asked for and received
confirmation Ziggler was satisfied with this answer.
Resident John Lafontaine, of 1639 South Manor Road asked when construction
supposed to begin, if the church would remain a polling place during construction
should an election be held during construction and if the church's membership
keeps increasing will the City find it necessary to put a traffic light on Duck Lake
Trail and Eden Prairie Road. He added turning left onto Eden Prairie Road from
Duck Lake Trail is difficult at present. Perrin replied the sanctuary would be able
to serve as polling place. Thompson said the construction would begin in October,
2017, with completion in May, 2018.
Farr asked for comment from commission and staff. Newton noted this was a
county road with county control. He added the times that the church is busy did
not normally coincide with busy traffic times. Farr noted this development did not
have a traffic report, and asked if future proposal might require a traffic study.
Newton replied a future one would;however, this one did not due to there being
no expansion of the parking lot and/or sanctuary.
Higgins urged the developer and Hennepin County be mindful of the traffic while
construction is underway. The way that Eden Prairie Road curves at the
intersection of Duck Lake Trail makes that intersection approach difficult to
navigate.
DeSanctis asked whose jurisdiction it would be to adjust the speed limit on
County Road Four, Hennepin County or the City engineer. Newton replied the
State of Minnesota monitors speeds, whereas the city could write a resolution to
request a speed study. However,history shows such a request tend to result in
MnDOT recommending an increase in speed, so the city reserves those requests
when a lower speed is the likely result. Farr suggested an intersection
improvement rather than a speed reduction at that intersection. Newton replied the
City could continue to look at the County Road Four corridor which is a rural
unimproved roadway for ways to suggest improvements; however, that suggestion
has been made to Hennepin County, and improvements there are not a priority
with the county at this time. Farr asked for and received confirmation from
Newton the bottom line was that corridor performed at a level that is acceptable at
the levels of the city, county, and state.
Wuttke asked if the residents, as a part of the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan
online mapping system, had commented on that intersection. Newton replied he
would have to double-check the results,but was not aware of that intersection
being the target of comments.
Farr closed the public comments section. Farr asked for questions or comments
from the commissioners. Hearing none, if a crosswalk warranted on the north side
of Duck Lake Trail to connect the proposed sidewalk to the trail there. Newton
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 6
replied such an intersection is a legal crosswalk whether marked or unmarked and
would function as one either way, and the current pedestrian volume wouldn't
warrant a marked crosswalk.
Farr noted there was a comment by the architect naming accessibility a design
goal,but the accessible parking stalls in the parking lot remain unimproved, and
there is no accessible route from those stalls into the building. He wished to make
this a condition, and noted the building inspector would likely make this a
condition of the building permit. Farr observed another proposed sidewalk along
parking lot to the north side of the structure leading to new entrance and exit
doors for that north addition that would remove a 20-inch maple tree, and he
suggested such some dialogue on moving the sidewalk around the tree. Perrin
agreed with the avoidance and remarked it was easier and more aesthetic to move
the sidewalk than to take down the tree.
Farr stated he was concerned about the new landscaping concentrated around the
addition, whereas the existing large monument sign along Eden Prairie Road is
unadorned with landscaping, along with the sanctuary building, being a large
structure, also has little landscaping. He urged the developer to look more
holistically at the landscaping and invited commissioners' remarks. The sanctuary
southeast corner has between three and five HVAC air condensers which are not
screened. He wished to make that a condition of approval. Higgins voiced support
for Farr's comments regarding the accessibility issue, as she had driven around
the area that day. DeSanctis asked for and received confirmation there was no
emblazoned crosswalk at the intersection of Duck Lake Trail and Eden Prairie
Road, and added it behooved the City to look at that more carefully and demark it
explicitly. Farr replied crosswalks were always a good idea, and this would
connect to the two trails along Eden Prairie Road from the north and south sides
of Duck Lake Trail and provide no entrance to the church. Anyone walking or
biking to the church from the north on Duck Lake Trail would cross it and take
the new sidewalk. Those coming from the south would have to cut across the
grass, which could be a problem needed a redesign. Villarreal remarked he saw
someone on a bike cut through the southeast corner of the property into the
parking lot.
Farr moved the discussion to the topic of the building architecture and materials,
and asked if the materials board reference in the staff report was available. Klima
presented the materials board. Farr noted the drawings depict the existing
sanctuary as having no new work in this development. Thompson replied they
planned to keep the existing wood siding, and reinstall wood siding in the future.
Klima passed the materials board to the commission. Farr observed the uniclad
500 metal panels proposed were a low grade lightweight sheet metal rather than
something more durable and pleasing to the eye. He said the entire roof at the
location of the barrel vault articulation at the front door is rubber-clad EPDM,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 7
which should function only as a membrane, i.e., not be visible, and he urged the
use of a more suitable cladding material.
Farr also voiced concern the development introduced brick, precast concrete,
modular retaining walls, and the aforementioned metal panels, which he felt are
not cohesive or integrated with the existing building, which was already
nonconforming. He expressed concern about the quantity of new materials and
their lack of relationship to the existing structure or the potential remodel of the
sanctuary. Farr said the new exit stairway from the second floor was not in
keeping with the existing stairwells: it was exposed, not concealed or decorated.
He found the design to be disjointed. He asked for other commissioners'
comments. There were none, and Farr invited the architects to respond.
Thompson replied there was a full master plan for the project, which included
future parking and worship expansion. This development was Phase One. Use of
the pre-cast was cost-effective for a two-story addition. Station 19 Architects has
used the UC500 panel as a cost-effective solution. She appreciated the comments
and would take them into consideration. She added the architects do share Farr's
concern about the north stairway and would look at that as the drawings are
finished. Wuttke asked if the master plan had been worked on privately with the
applicant, and if was of the entire site. Thompson replied both were true, and it
included future parking on the south and north sides of the building and potential
infiltration basins that were not sized in order to be cognizant of the shoreland
boundary. There would also be a western building expansion for a lobby and
administration, and recladding of the entire building. Farr asked for and received
clarification that the exterior would be restucccoed.
Wuttke asked for and received clarification future development would include
more landscaping. He asked if this master plan had been relayed to staff, and
Thompson replied it had. Wuttke asked if the commission should look at this
specifically as a Phase One development, or take the master plan into
consideration. Klima replied this development request pertains to what is shown
in the plans. Future improvements would go through another public hearing and
public review process. For this current request there would be a development
agreement drafted for the City Council to review, and it would include language
to set expectations for future development.
Farr asked for comments from the commissioners. Higgins expressed concerns
about construction activity during the winter and runoff, and asked for City
supervision of the construction. Farr replied a review of the City's erosions
controls would be sufficient. Newton replied the City would implement a standard
review and the developer would be required to get a land alteration permit prior to
any construction, and erosion control would be part of that.
Wuttke noted there was presently a runoff issue on the property, and was not
convinced this would not be an issue in the future. Newton replied the plan in
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 8
front of the commission did not address all of the run off issues on the property
but did capture and treat some of it, which was an improvement and could be
monitored and reviewed. Wuttke urged the possible impact on the neighborhood
north of Duck Lake Trail be a part of this review, and Newton agreed.
Farr asked the architect to address the runoff issue with regard to the applicant's
"aggressive" permit request and the need to get the BMPs installed before
foundations are dug. Torgerson replied the best management practice was to have
a permit before construction begins. The storm water basin was designed to hold
four inches of water for 24-48 hours, preventing standing water, and was moved
from the southeast corner to the south side of the site. Required soil borings
throughout the site were done. Farr replied this answered his question, and
observed the storm pond appears to take drainage solely from the parking lot, not
the roofs, asked if the roof storm water drained to grade and found its way to the
new basin. Torgerson replied the basin was design to treat the new runoff from
the site; some of the roof runoff would drain to grade,but the total volume of
water needed to be treated would be.
Wuttke asked if there would be natural vegetation such as low-mow fescue/deep
root structure plants with high filtration on the eastern low side swale. Perrin
replied there was a full basin planned in the master plan.
Villarreal asked if it would be simpler having the landscaping completely finished
as opposed to having it done in two phases. Klima replied the landscaping plan
being discussed tonight was reflective of the current expansion, and the
recommendations included the provision of a landscaping plan and the security
for that. She confirmed when the applicant returned with a Phase Two
development, the city would review that landscape plan based on the current
requirements at that time, receive landscaping security, go through inspection
again, etc. The applicant originally came in with a broader plan and decided to
scale back. It was staff s opinion it was better to look at what landscaping can be
done with the applicant's capabilities, rather than have a master landscaping plan
that takes more time to implement, risking a change to standards in the meantime
and removal of newly installed landscaping to accommodate development plans.
Farr stated his primary concern was the lack of cohesiveness or integration of the
new materials with the existing structure without the premise of the completion of
the master plan. He saw what looked like two projects with the new project
abutting an old building with no relationship. The applicant was willing to adopt
some additional conditions such as saving the 20-inch maple tree, installing
screening in front of HVAC units, and perhaps improving the northern stairway,
but these did not add up to substantial architectural improvements in his opinion.
DeSanctis asked for a description of dimensions and material for the wall signage.
Torgerson replied it would consist of box lettering, flat-back-lit signage, with
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 9
some pit-mounted signage. The size was undetermined but would fall within City
Codes.
Wuttke stated he understood Farr's concerns; however, staff had recommended
approval and the commission to his mind had no legal standing to withhold
approval of this development. The development agreement could correct
nonconformities during the second phase of the development. Freiberg expressed
concern putting up too many roadblocks to development would drive businesses
and churches from Eden Prairie, and while he wanted the materials concerns to be
considered,he did not see integration of materials as sufficient to vote against the
proposal.
MOTION: Wuttke moved, seconded by DeSanctis to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
Farr urged he did not wish to derail the project but said the project did not draw
details from the current building or from the area in Eden Prairie. He feared the
budget does not support the program. Higgins stated she had some reservations
but would approve the project. She added the architect may want to add value by
taking into consideration the concerns raised in this meeting. DeSanctis asked
Farr by what means he recommended the applicant address the material
integration. Farr replied there were two ways forward: the commission could
recommend approval with conditions, and have the City Council listen to
deliberations on the materials, or recommend a continuance. He asked Klima to
confirm or correct this. Klima replied since the public hearing was closed
alternatives include tabling any recommendation and provide specific direction to
the applicant and to city staff; Recommend approval subject to conditions
presented or added by the Commission; or to recommend denial of the project.
Wuttke asked Farr if the commission had seen the master plan with the phases set
out if that would have alleviated his concerns, and Farr replied he would have had
concerns either way. He would have liked to have seen the master plan,but what
was indicated for a second phase was not acceptable to him. DeSanctis noted the
greatest inertia to overcome is beginning with regard to a project, and suggested
amendments to the development proposal. Wuttke asked if any commission
members had concerns about staff recommended conditions on page four; none
did. Freiberg asked Farr if there was any language that could be inserted in a
motion to address his concerns, and Farr replied there was not. Higgins reiterated
her support for the project despite sharing Farr's concerns, and asked Farr to
articulate the conditions he would like to see other than the issue of materials.
Farr listed the four conditions he had for the project outside of the materials
concerns: 1) save the 20-inch maple tree and reconfigure the sidewalk north of the
building; 2) comply with the Minnesota Accessibility Code regarding southeast
parking stalls; 3) landscaping in front of or screening of HVAC units on the
southeast corner of the sanctuary; and 4) he had a concern about the lack of
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 2017
Page 10
perimeter plantings around the existing sanctuary. Discussion followed on how to
craft language to address these concerns. Klima stated City staff could help the
commission craft language. She repeated the alternatives for the commission were
to approve with the conditions represented in the staff report or with amended
conditions, to table action on this item, or recommend a denial to the City
Council. However, a denial required specific reasons, and staff could also assist
with this. Tabling rather than a continuance was the option because the public
hearing had been closed.
MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Higgins to recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Amendment on 10.06 acres and Site Plan Review on
10.06 acres based on plans stamp dated August 4, 2017 and the information
included in the staff report dated August 11, 2017 and its attachments. Motion
carried 5-1. Farr dissenting
VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT
IX. MEMBERS' REPORTS
X. CONTINUING BUSINESS
XI. NEW BUSINESS
XII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn. Motion carried 6-0.
Vice Chair Farr adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m.