Loading...
Planning Commission - 06/11/2018 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,JUNE 11, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner Rod Rue, City Engineer Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Absent was commission members Higgins, Villareal, and Weber. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis, to accept the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by DeSanctis to accept the minutes of Monday, April 23, 2018. Motion carried 6-0. V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE#2018-01 Location: 6810 Shady Oak Road Request to: Allow a parking setback of 10 feet; City Code requires a 50-foot front yard setback PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 2 Matt Van Slooten, President of CSM's commercial group, presented a PowerPoint overview including schematics and maps, and explained the application. The applicant is proposing to construct additional parking for the property and locate it in front of the building. In the I-2 Zoning District the building and parking setback is 50 feet and the building is currently at the 50-foot setback. On the proposed plan, the proposed parking lot comes as close as 10 feet from the front property line, which prompted the request for a variance. Farr stated he did not see a parking summary in the application materials and asked if the number of parking stalls would conform to or exceed the code requirement. Van Slooten replied the main concern was having close, convenient parking stalls and a driveway for dropping off guests. Mark Kroenbeck of Alliant Engineering replied CSM did not have a code breakdown for compliance but with a request of 125 stalls for a building of 69,000 square feet. Mette asked the planned number of tenants. Van Slooten replied the range was one (which was ideal) to three maximum. Klima summarized the variance to add parking in front of the building. She walked the commission through the statutory requirements: consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,being in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, unique circumstances, and reasonable use of the property. The project was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because it would make subsequent roadway improvements along Shady Oak Road, such as widening the roadway, more difficult. The ordinance required parking lot screening in addition to the 50-foot setback, not allowed by the application, and the proposed 10-foot setback was in fact an easement. The property as is was in compliance with City codes and there were other options to seeking the variance, so there were no special circumstances requiring this variance. Provision of parking was of course a reasonable use, but since this application was inconsistent with the other properties along Shady Oak Road in terms of setback and screening, the character of the neighborhood would be altered with this variance. Staff recommended denial of the variance. Farr asked staff to provide resources or numbers on the future possible expansion of Shady Oak Road. Rue replied according to the Comprehensive Plan Shady Oak Road could be made a three-lane with pedestrian facilities. Its present 37-foot wide section could become 44 feet wide with a six or eight-foot boulevard. Therefore, there would be at least 5-10 feet of additional right-of-way on either side. Also there was the possibility of more residential construction. Shady Oak Road is the backbone of any future development in the area, and the City would not want to preclude any expansion or be limited in its purchase of right-of-way. Farr asked if the variance was granted if the parking lot would have to be taken out in the future to accommodate such an expansion, and if that would incur a cost for the City. Rue replied the City would have to compensate the applicant for the revenue loss and pay for the right-of-way or easement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 3 Freiberg stated he did not wish to see another vacant building sit over time, considering this building sat empty for two-and-a-half years, and asked for a compromise between a 10- and 50-foot set back. Klima replied staff discussed different scenarios, including parallel parking, with the applicant in initial meetings which would decrease the number of parking spaces and allow for a larger set back while still not being code compliant and still requiring a variance. Freiberg asked the number of parking spots a parallel parking design would eliminate. Van Slooten replied an alternative with parallel parking would yield 12 instead of 24 stalls with a 24-foot set back. This was a viable option though not his preferred one and he would be willing to compromise on this. Pieper asked if this compromise would inhibit future expansion of Shady Oak Drive. Klima replied staff would want to review a drawing of the compromise design. Mette agreed it was important to keep vacant buildings leased; however, this application would set a troubling precedent being that this design was very different from all of the neighboring buildings. She also wanted to know the current parking requirement before proposing compromises that could trigger more variances. The option to move the entry seemed to her to be a preferable option, and she expressed approval of the renderings and general design. Klima replied the parking requirements are calculated based on the use of the building, and the building was currently vacant; office parks at five stalls per thousand, manufacturing parks at three per thousand, etc. What was currently known was no parking waivers were given for this site when it was constructed, indicating the parking was compliant then to the"third-third-third" formula, for manufacturing, warehousing and office uses. Mette asked what level of changes would trigger an entire site plan review. Klima replied any number of things could trigger it; she would anticipate any changes to the parking area or the reconfiguring of the entrance could trigger one, though an expedited process could be followed, or a full review could result. Van Slooten displayed the floor plan again and stated the northwest bay would not work as an entrance, given the volume of the building. The present design would still be short of the required 125 stalls. Van Slooten observed most of the neighboring buildings were set back more than 50 feet, yet this building was set back at the 50 foot mark. Two of the existing entries, though dated, function well. Kirk stated there was competing speculations that the building would be easier to lease versus the possibility of Shady Oak Road's expansion and he expressed caution on variances on speculation. This project was near the light rail station which reinforced the staff recommendation. Freiberg's compromise altered Kirk's inclination to deny this variance, however, if a workable compromise could be found. Farr also expressed a conflict between improving a vacant building versus conforming to the area's character and future development near a light rail stop. He was encouraged by the renderings in the PowerPoint and emphasized moving the entrances would give this aged building its needed repositioning. He applauded the landscape plan and design thought process. He thought there was a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 4 solution at hand, though not on the table for tonight, for the commission had to maintain flexibility for the future right-of-way. Freiberg strongly encouraged compromise by both the applicant and the commission. Pieper asked what the redesign process would be in wake of a denial of the variance. Klima replied denial of the variance was an option, with storm water drainage redesign and/or a fagade remodel also being options. There is a statutory deadline with every application, and probably July or early August for this one; the commission could direct applicant to come back with more information, or come back with a site plan review process and a new application. Pieper asked if denial did not preclude the applicant bringing forward other options. Farr asked if staff could give the applicant guidance to change the staff report recommendation. Klima offered to sit down with the applicant and react to alternatives. Van Slooten replied CSM was willing to table this application and meet with staff, and perhaps come back with a parallel parking plan and a minimal variance. The intention was to build the parking lot and to hold off on exterior development to the building. Pieper asked for and received confirmation from Klima if the application was tabled, the statutory deadlines still applied. Reapplication fee for a variance in case of denial would be $300-$400. MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Farr to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Freiberg to recommend denial of variance number 2018-01. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. B. CULVER'S Jeremy Foss, civil engineer for the project, presented a PowerPoint overview and summarized the application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new Culver's Restaurant in the south side of the parking lot in front of Lund's and Byerly's. The property is located at the corner of Plaza and Prairie Center Drives. On the proposed plan, Culver's will face Lund's and Byerly's and a drive thru will wrap around the west and south sides of the building. Culver's is relocating from the Technology Drive location. The applicant is proposing to create a separate lot for Culver's. DeSanctis noted there was an "ill-defined" two-way road in the area south of the Lund's grocery parking area, and asked if there would be coordination between Lund's, Culver's, and the City for a clearly marked two-way passage through that area. Foss noted that area was not in their site plan; he suggested going back to United Properties to see if they would agree to additional striping. Klima displayed the drive aisle in the parking area that served as a"cut-through" which was on United Properties property, therefore not a City street, though the City could make recommendations as to traffic flow. Farr asked for and received clarification the application was cutting this two-way aisle into a one-way during construction, and asked what would be done to maintain a two-way at all times to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 5 prevent congestion. Foss replied a traffic control plan would help stage this area properly, thought it would have to be at least halfway closed down at some point. The project was in the traffic control stage and this would be a one-way temporarily, or the flow could be rerouted. Mette asked if on the site plan there was a blank area or an additional patio space directly east of the building. Foss replied it was a proposed green space with landscaping and sod. Farr noted the applicant had shown a partial landscaping plan on the one-acre parcel and a global plan elsewhere in the application, and asked if this was the final overarching plan. Foss replied it was but somewhat separate from the Culver's development since it is on the United Properties property,but the global plan was part of the commitment. Farr asked if Lund's could also change its lighting to LED to be in keeping with the Culver's lighting design. Foss replied he could not speak for United Properties but they were looking at that and an upgrade may come to the City as a separate application. DeSanctis asked if there was a provision for renewable energy, and Foss replied there was that possibility. Klima presented the staff report. Similar to the recently approved Preserve Village/Starbucks project; the applicant is requesting several waivers such as number of parking stalls and parking setbacks. The architectural details on the building, outdoor seating area, connecting the site to the nearby pedestrian system, and improving the existing parking lot islands to conform to the ordinance are all features that offset the requested waivers. The requested waivers are consistent with integrating a new use into an existing parking lot, and are reflective of existing conditions. Staff recommended approval. Kirk asked how the relative sizes of the existing and proposed Culver's compared, and Foss replied they were the same size. Farr asked if there was enough of an easement for repair and replacement of the west retaining wall. Rue replied it was a fill wall built by MnDOT when the interchange was built, and MnDOT did obtain that easement but may have to acquire more easement if necessary. Klima added staff does send the plans to the relevant agencies, including MnDOT. Mette observed the development was a huge improvement over the underused lot there now and she had no concerns with the parking waiver. However, the design of the building did not meet her expectations. There were few windows and they were small, perhaps limiting future use by another business, and the dining and northwestern area and west of the entry could have more glass. Also, she mentioned the city of Wayzata in its design standards was attempting to avoid "franchise architecture" that stereotyped a building's use even sans branding, and the architecture design with the blue trim reminded her of a Culver's. Also, she was concerned the nearby roads overlooked the HVAC and other equipment on the roof of the building. The proposed crosswalk to Lund's struck her as not pedestrian-friendly and not preferable to the south connecting sidewalk on Plaza Drive. She approved of the LED lighting and would like to see Lund's incorporate it as well,but was not concerned about Lund's implementing that at the same PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 6 time, nor was she concerned about Lund's waiting two year to implement its own parking lot improvements. Chuck Janson, architect, replied the building was wood frame, allowing for an easy change in fenestration for a future tenant. The building was enhanced by increasing the amount of brick and stone, and the colors were Culver's standard colors. The roof would be screened by a ten-foot tall parapet and was also partially concealed by a grove of evergreens. Klima replied the City's standard development agreement includes language about rooftop equipment screening to guarantee no visibility of the Culver's HVAC. Freiberg recognized Culver's could have gone anywhere; Culver's has been a great community neighbor, and he commended the applicant for staying in Eden Prairie. This was a good plan on a good site, and he thanked the applicant. Farr echoed Freiberg's comments and commended the choice of location, but saw no stacking plan for the drive-through, nor any comparison to the existing restaurant, and he was concerned about traffic back up in the parking lot. In addition, electric, telephone, and gas seemed to come through the retaining wall and a grove of large pine trees in the southwest corner of the site, and he did not want to see either the dismantling of the wall or the removal of the trees. Farr added he wanted to see the LED lighting prescribed for the entire property for the two-year window contingent on the commission's approval, as the landscaping was. Farr also asked for a snow storage plan. He agreed with Mette that he would like to see wider windows and added they would enhance the building's design, and he had no concern with screening the HVAC on the roof. Klima replied the traffic study did including an analysis of the drive-through lane; it showed 8-12 stacking spots and staff had no concerns there. Snow storage was being addressed by staff through the development agreement; snow would be hauled offsite. Foss reiterated the agreement to haul snow offsite. Foss added the utilities did go through the pines but the plan was to install a conduit, as there is a break in the retaining wall. The Prairie Center entrance drive aisle was actually wide enough for two lanes, allowing drivers to bypass the drive-through stacking. Janson replied the fenestration design was from prototype, which the franchise provides and requires, so additional windows would need to meet the commission's requirements. Pieper agreed with more and larger windows, but did not object to recognizing the Culver's branding when he was driving and seeking one. Discussion followed on the "franchise architecture" issue and on the timing of Lund's lighting upgrade. DeSanctis asked, considering the asphalt, concrete, and southwest winds, if there was a provision for an underground irrigation system with recycled water, and Foss replied it would be a drip-type irrigation system,but the site did not have a storm water basin as it was not required,but would only manage existing storm water. In addition, the design was increasing the pervious area of the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 7 MOTION: Freiberg moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Mette supported approval contingent on adding glazing. Klima replied the commission has the ability to recommend approval with additional conditions: the developer would revise plans prior to City Council,but it could potentially push that hearing from July to August. Discussion followed on creating a motion with conditions that would allow the Culver's to open by December, preventing the firing and rehiring of employees. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis, to recommend approval of the Culver project, based on staff recommendations and information contained in the staff report dated June 7, 2018 and plans stamp dated June 1, 2018, with the addition of a recommendation to United Properties to include LED lighting for the entire parking lot if the existing lighting is high pressure sodium source. MOTION CARRIED 5-1 with one nay vote by Mette. Mette added she supported the project but wanted to emphasize the important point about the lack of sufficient glass and the architectural character of Eden Prairie. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT A. ASPIRE 2040 UPDATE Klima gave an update on the Aspire 2040 plan: the Planning Commission worked with the City Council over the last 18 months to draft the plan, which has been completed and distributed at the end of May to adjacent communities and outside jurisdictions as mandated by the state's six-month review process. Over the summer, staff proposed to bring a few chapters to each Planning Commission meeting to give and overview and highlights of the plan. The goal and intent was to answer all of the commission members' questions in anticipation of questions during the public hearing expected in the fall. Pieper asked if a discussion regarding "franchise architecture" here would be appropriate. Klima replied it was a general topic of conversation for the City Council during the drafting of the Design Guidelines, with a push for"enhanced architecture" to hold corporate residents to a higher standard and retain Eden Prairie's unique character, while understanding the need for branding. This is likely better as a zoning ordinance or a design guideline topic rather than a policy for a comprehensive plan. Pieper suggested having a discussion around this topic again, and Kirk and Mette agreed. Klima agreed to send a preliminary schedule of Aspire 2040 plan chapters to the commission members. Mette noted the design guidelines did not seem to have a window requirement. Klima replied the zoning ordinances for Town Center/TOD districts did have transparency requirements for street front elevations and specifically defined facades. Other districts did not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 11, 2018 Page 8 have these requirements, although Eden Prairie has requirements for Class 1 materials such as glass, brick and stone. IX. MEMBERS' REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.