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.