Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 02/24/2020AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 24, 2020 - 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette STAFF MEMBERS: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. MINUTES A. Approval of the Minutes for the February 10, 2020 meeting V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. THE OVERLOOK (2019-23) Request for:  Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres  Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres  Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres  Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres B. GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (2019-26) Request for:  Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres  Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres  Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 10.258 acres  Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres  Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Julie Klima, City Planner RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, February 24, 2020 _______________________________________________________________________________ MONDAY, February 24, 2020 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE- ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated February 10, 2020. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. THE OVERLOOK (2019-23) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres The applicant is requesting approval to develop 59 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property is located approximately 600 feet south of Prospect Road on the east side of Spring Road and west of the Hennepin Village neighborhood. There is currently a single-family home on the property that will be razed. The proposed plan includes one access point from Spring Road. Both streets in the project terminate with a cul-de-sac. The property has a significant amount of topographic relief. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the property. There are floodplains and wetlands along the creek corridor. There is also a bluff in the southwest corner of the site. There are significant wooded areas on the property. The applicant is requesting waivers for minimum lot width and lot size. The applicant is proposing single level living catering to empty nesters. The plan includes 4 outlots. Outlots A and C are proposed to be owned by the applicant and include stormwater management facilities. Outlot B is proposed to deeded to the City and includes a trail connection. Outlot D is proposed to be deeded to the City and includes stormwater management facilities and environmental features. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. ANNOTATED AGENDA February 24, 2020 Page 2 MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres and Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres based on Plans stamp dated February 3, 2020 and the Staff Report dated February 19, 2020. B. GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (2019-26) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 10.258 acres • Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres • Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 130,130 square foot, single story, multi- tenant industrial building located on the southwest corner of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. The site is currently undeveloped and is next to Nine Mile Creek. A 1 acre outlot covering all of the wetland on the property and most of the wetland buffer is proposed to be created, placed in a conservation easement, and deeded to the City. The applicant submitted 2 site plans to be able to meet the parking needs of a wide range of users. There are existing sidewalks along Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive, and the applicant is proposing 3 sidewalk connections from the proposed building to the existing sidewalks. The building complies with architectural standards. As part of the PUD, the applicant is seeking waivers for landscaping requirements, front yard setback, driveway width, Base Area Ratio, and Floor Area Ratio. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres; Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial I-2 on 10.258 acres; Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres and Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres based on Plans stamp dated February 12, 2020 and the Staff Report dated February 24, 2020. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, 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 Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission members Pieper, DeSanctis and Villarreal were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Mette to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to approve the minutes of January 27, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS EDEN RIDGE, LLC (2019-20) Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres • Preliminary Plat to divide 2 lots into 10 lots on 4.3 acres Jeff Schoenwetter, CEO and founder of JMS Custom Homes, presented a PowerPoint and explained the application. He also introduced project engineer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 2 Aaron Carroll and project manager and director of Homestead Partners, Ralph Murphy. He introduced JMS Custom Homes as a local developer of over 100 developments in the Twin Cities, most recently of Eden Gardens. All homes building are proposed to be green path certified, and are typically s ingle-family homes with a detached garage. The project is a PUD rather than a conventional plat due to the waivers requests. Ten market-rate homes would be built on 4.7 acres creating a small infill, intimate cul-de-sac. Utilizing low impact site development strategies, these homes would be more efficient than most. There were no significant sidewalks within the plat, but had bike and walking trails nearby. One issue to consider tonight was the City staff’ request for two streetlights, whereas the applicant was proposing an alternative that had been successful in other communities: have only on streetlight at the intersection, and in lieu of the second streetlight, the developer would place coach lamps on the garages or recessed LED soffit lighting on every single home that would be controlled by a photo cell on each house. These would contribute a “warm, naturally-lit street” rather than the intensity of a streetlight. This lighting would be included in the HOA documents and covenants. Schoenwetter displayed a map of the site showing the elevations and the housing accommodations to the grade changes. He displayed the floor plans and elevations of models derived from previous developments featuring multiple elevations and an ergonomic floor plan. The amount of differing models would prevent a “cookie-cutter” development. Farr asked Schoenwetter to describe the neighborhood meeting. Schoenwetter replied there were 17 attendees predominantly concerned with density, quality of homes, tree removal and replacement, attached- or affordable-housing, water management and draining. Two ponds would be built and the site grading plan would eliminate standing water issues. Once the developer discussed these issues, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Farr noted the cul -de-sac was narrower than standard and with no sidewalk. Schoenwetter stated that relatively short cul-de-sac and existing trail systems satisfied the need for connectivity. This prevented shoveling sidewalks also. Farr also observed there was no street parking provided. Schoenwetter replied the development would provide sufficient off-street parking to address the needs of the residents, while sparing them the chore of shoveling sidewalks. He could not guarantee no one would park on the street, but it was more likely they would park in the driveways. Mette asked if Schoenwetter had reached out to the additional house directly west and asked if the owner was not interested in selling. Schoenwetter replied that owner did not want to sell and was indeed contacted. Mette noted the one property that was rather large for a single-family home would not work well subdivided but asked if the cul-de-sac could be moved over to make that subdivision possible. Schoenwetter replied the grading and the lack of length at that parcel prohibited such a move. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 3 Klima presented the staff report. This was a PUD, preliminary plat, and rezoning request. The zoning change to R1 -9.5 was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant was also seeking waivers for lot width. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant has already addressed some of the conditions, including the tree replacement. Farr asked if this cul-de-sac would be a City right-of-way. Rue replied this would indeed be a public street. Farr asked for Rue’s response to a narrower curb-to-curb dimension. Rue replied the street as proposed was not narrower than a standard street. A sidewalk there would serve a small number of houses whereas the trail would serve all of these residents. Farr asked his opinion of the eight percent slope. Rue replied eight percent was the maximum, and general the City would have that be in the two-percent range coming up to a stop condition. Farr asked the life expectancy of the long wall along Valley View Road. Rue replied it would be replaced at some point by the City. Kirk stated his residence was a similar circumstance to this development, and the residents did not miss having a sidewalk at all far. He thought it less important than the street itself. Higgins asked for City staff’s response to the streetlight proposal. Rue replied it was standard practice to put in streetlights in new residential developments. Staff requested a streetlight both at the intersection and in the “bulb” of the cul-de-sac. It was up to the commission to recommend differently. Farr asked if there was precedence in Eden Prairie for such a departure. Rue replied there were old neighborhoods without streetlights, but since the 1980s that standard streetlight was included in all residential developments. Farr stated he had heard about the glare on standard streetlights versus the less glaring downward-cast lumières and asked if the standard streetlight was the only choice. Rue replied there was a “cobra-head” type for commercial areas, and there was a coach light style owned by Xcel which utilized LEDs. The older style of streetlight was more diffused. However, the conversion to LEDs made these less diffuse. Farr asked if less diffuse lighting could contribute to any significant increase in crime, according to police departments. Rue replied he was not sure he could answer that; of course lighting on a public street was important. The difference was between a uniform diffuse light in commercial areas, and the nonuniform pattern of dark and light in residential areas. Schoenwetter agreed the standard lighting developing since the 1980s were put in for security, but today this new design, using LEDs, would last longer and be warmer and less intrusive. Safety would not be compromised. Farr asked whose responsibility it would be to maintain this nonstandard LED, recessed lighting. Schoenwetter replied the responsibility would be the homeowner’s but the requirement to maintain it would be in the HOA documents making it the Homeowner’s Association responsibility in the case of a “bad actor.” PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 4 Kirk stated he often drove through an older neighborhood with older lighting; street lighting was absolutely a requirement. However, the new LED streetlights were inoffensive. To his mind the question was between the newer LED streetlights, developed since the 1980s, versus this creative new approach by the applicant. Farr thanked him and noted all the master bedrooms were either on the side or rear of the house, not facing any street lighting. Mette stated she lived in a cul -de-sac two blocks east of the development with only one streetlight, and while she agreed that light was necessary for safety, in her opinion what the applicant was proposing was superior to a streetlight and would be a benefit to the neighborhood. She added she was glad her cul-de-sac did not have a sidewalk, and hers had 14 homes. She did not see this as a safety issue. Kenneth Sien, of 7400 Ontario Boulevard, asked if the developer would be replacing a retaining wall. His property abutted Valley View Road and asked if this was the one to be replaced, and with what result. Leslie Scharpen, of 7312 Franklin Circle, asked why the development included 10 lots instead of eight, since eight would probably not require the width waiver. Also, he asked if the developer’s creative lighting plan was due to a wish not to provide electricity under the street. He added he also heard the residents would not park on the street, but he worried about the addition of curbs, traffic flow and noted some people did indeed park on the street. He expressed concern about visitors and the accommodation of emergency vehicles. Coleen Morehouse, of 7470 Ontario Boulevard, expressed concerns about drainage. Her household had had water issues in her backyard, and there was a culvert beneath the driveway of this development which froze, causing water to back up in her house. The City looked at this and opened the culvert, but said it would not open it again due to it not being City property. She feared a repeat of this nuisance. Kirk stated he would like more detail about the proposed stormwater handling. Farr said he did not believe the wood timber retaining wall along Valley View Road was deteriorating or would be replaced any time soon. Engineer Aaron Carroll replied there was an existing retaining wall directly in front of the development which would be left intact to preserve a large heritage tree. Sien’s property to the east had a different retaining wall not involved in this consideration. Regarding the culvert, it was an eight inch pipe (actually a mix of pipes) beneath the driveway, but the development would provide a much larger pipe. There would be a clear opening to a 15-inch concrete pipe to convey the water to the north. None of the existing conditions were worsened. Rather the pipes were lowered and the drainage improved. The Watershed was looking at the plan. The drainage would not cross Ms. Morehouse’s property even in the worst- case scenario. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 5 Schoenwetter stated the density was not negotiable with regard to affordability. The lots were actually larger than many lots in Eden Prairie and fully sufficient to accommodate this price point. Reducing density would increase costs. Farr asked for and received confirmation from Rue the cul-de-sac street size was actually of standard size. Rue added that parking is allowed on one side. Most homes had garages, at least a double- and many a triple-car garage. Farr asked for and received confirmation from Klima the City could not enforce additions or retractions on private HOA covenants the commission could make. Mette stated “no parking” signs could be erected if parking on the street became an issue. She thought the street could accommodate extra visitor parking. Two houses per acre was still low density, so the number of houses was acceptable. Kirk agreed, and added the benefit of living on a cul-de-sac, particularly near the “bulb,” was the relatively large lot but a small footprint toward the street. He found this development to be a reasonable compromise. He was intrigued by the proposed lighting alternative. Weber disagreed, saying he was uncomfortable with the surprise of this creative lighting plan. He lived on a major corner and his exterior lights did not reach the end of his driveway, whereas the streetlights did a better job of illuminating the street. He was not sure the commission should be called upon to approve an unknown design. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Discussion followed on the streetlight alternative provided by the applicant. Mette stated she understood Weber’s point, but suggested making the lighting an option subject to staff approval. She asked if a streetlight required a waiver. Farr clarified staff recommended approval of this project with the second streetlight; the extra unknown contributed by the applicant was not a part of staff’s recommendation or this commission’s vote. Mette thanked Farr, and asked what would happen had the developer come to staff with the lighting change after the Planning Commission’s vote. Klima replied Farr was correct: the original plans did not include the light at the end of the cul-de-sac, and staff requested the plans be revised to include it. These are the plans being considered tonight. As an advisory body, the commission could only recommend to the City Council. Had this been raised sometime in the future, it would depend upon the timing: after the development agreement was signed, the plans would have to be changed to be consistent with City policy, and it would not be brought back to the commission. Higgins asked if it was possible for the developer to bring this before the City Council. Klima replied the developer could bring this before the City Council and ask the same question. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 10, 2020 Page 6 Kirk stated he was sure the City Council would hear and take counsel from the Planning Commission’s discussion, so a discussion was fruitful. He stated he was “on the fence ” on this issue, and Farr added he was as well. Farr urged coming to a consensus or at least show findings in the minutes. Higgins noted that house lighting can work well. Mette stated she was cautiously for the creative solution as long as City staff found it acceptable, which might involve the Public Safety and Engineering departments. She called for a lighting plan. Weber clarified he would be in favor of the creative solution if it was sufficient lighting, but did not have sufficient information on this. The commission same out in favor of retaining the standard streetlight design until proven otherwise. Farr commended the development with the varied elevations with front porches that promoted a walkable community and was in full compliance with tree replanting. Kirk agreed and added the water management around this development would be an improvement and beneficial to the environment as well. Higgins concurred and congratulated the developer. She also thanked the public for attending and speaking. Rue added the retaining walls along Valley View Road were built when Valley View Road was constructed, and thus were City walls. Some were wooden and bowing; the City had been monitoring them. They were slated for replacement within the next ten years. The City would make every attempt to save nearby trees, but some trees could be lost. A concrete wall would most likely replace the wooden walls. There would be no changes to the plat. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres, a Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres, a Zoning District Change from Rural to R1 -9.5 on 4.3 acres, and a Preliminary Plat to divide two lots into 10 lots and two outlots on 4.3 acres based on plans stamp-dated January 21, 2020 and the staff report dated January 5, 2020. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Higgins to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Project Site STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner DATE: February 19, 2020 SUBJECT: The Overlook LOCATION: 9955 and 9875 Spring Road OWNERS: John and Carol Standal APPLICANT: Gonyea Homes REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to develop 59 single-family lots on 27.51 acres located at 9955 and 9875 Spring Road. The property is located approximately 600 feet south of Prospect Road on the east side of Spring Road. There is currently a single- family home on the property and a portion of the property was used as a Christmas tree farm at one time. The property has a significant amount of topographic relief. There is nearly 150 feet of grade change from east to west. Riley Creek runs through a portion of the west side of the property. There are floodplains and wetlands along the creek corridor. There is also a bluff in the southwest corner of the site. There are significant wooded areas along the creek and on the bluff. In addition the northeast corner of the property is wooded and there is a line Staff Report – The Overlook Page 2 2 of mature trees along the east property line. The adjacent land uses include conservation land to the south, residential to the east, conservation land and one residential building to the west and conservation land to the north. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING The property is currently guided Low Density Residential, which allows a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned Rural. The applicant has requested to rezone the property from Rural to R1-9.5. Zoning around the property includes: Rural, Park and Open Space, RM6.5, and R1-9.5. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat includes 59 single family lots and 4 outlots. The applicant is proposing the main access to the neighborhood from Spring Road with cul-de-sacs near the east property line and near the south property line. Given the topography of the site, the location of the environmental features and the adjacent land uses, there are limited options to make street connections and the cul-de-sac streets allow for development of the property. The proposed lots range in size from 7,695 square feet to 19,996 square feet. The average lot size is 11,474 square feet. The majority of the lots meet the minimum lot size with only 16 out of 59 lots at less than 9,500 square feet. The minimum lot width requirement in the R1-9.5 zoning district is 70 feet. The majority of the lots are between 50 and 70 feet wide with the narrowest being 47.12 feet. The lots around the cul-de-sac bulb average 44 feet wide with the narrowest being 41.68 feet. The setbacks comply with the setback standards established for the R1-9.5 zoning district. Staff Report – The Overlook Page 3 3 Proposed Outlots A and C will be used for stormwater management and a monument sign. They will be privately owned with drainage and utility easements over the stormwater management facilities. Outlot B is proposed to include a trail connection to the trail in the City-owned conservancy land to the south. The Outlot is proposed to be deeded to the City and the City will maintain the trail. Proposed Outlot D will be used for open space, stormwater management, and the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas. The 9.8 acre outlot will be deeded to the City. This enables the City to protect and preserve the wetland, floodplain, and bluff in this corner of the property. In order to get a sense for the topography of the property and how it compares to Hennepin Village, the applicant prepared a number of cross sections to illustrate the relationship between the two neighborhoods. The following are examples of the cross sections provided at the neighborhood meeting. Staff Report – The Overlook Page 4 4 HOME PRODUCT The applicant is proposing single level living catering to empty nesters. The homes will have between 1,700 and 2,100 square feet on the main level with the option of finishing the lower level. The homes will have oversized two-car garages or 3-car garages. All of the homes will have LP Smart Siding or equivalent. Vinyl siding will not be allowed by the Homeowners Association’s Covenants and Restrictions. ACCESS The primary access point is from Spring Road, which is a County Road. Based on discussions with the County, the applicant is proposing a ¾ access from Spring Road. A ¾ access allows all traffic movements with the exception of turning left out of the neighborhood onto Spring Road. The design of the intersection of Spring Road and the proposed road will be reviewed and approved by the County. The streets within the neighborhood will be public streets and designed and built to City standards. The applicant is not proposing a connection to Junegrass Lane in the adjacent Hennepin Village development. The section of Junegrass Lane between Lilac Drive and the west property line of Hennepin Village is a private street. As private property, the connection would require approval of an easement from the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association. The applicant has not yet secured the rights to put a road connection through that private property. The proposed plan shows the street terminating with a cul-de-sac just west of the Hennepin Village property line. The cul-de-sac is designed such that the street could be connected to Hennepin Village in the future. The City is comfortable with the cul-de-sac whether it is permanent or temporary. The Fire Department is comfortable with the cul-de-sac provided the cul-de-sac is designed to allow for a future connection and there is emergency access to Junegrass Lane. The proposed plans include a 10’ wide paved trail connection to the end of Junegrass Lane for emergency access only. This will require approval by the Homeowners Association. The Developer has indicated that the project may be phased at the time of issuance of a Land Alteration Permit and final plat approval; phasing of the project may allow for continued conversations between the Developer and the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association that would allow for the Junegrass Lane street connection to be made concurrent with phase 2 of the project. TRAFFIC A traffic study was conducted on the 59-unit single family housing development proposal. Several access scenarios were analyzed including restrictions to both Spring Road and Junegrass Lane within the adjacent property. With the proposed development generating less than 600 total daily trips and 60 pm peak hour trips, the impact to adjacent Spring Road is low in terms of Staff Report – The Overlook Page 5 5 capacity. Trail grading along Spring Road will allow the City to install a future trail and will also improve site distance for outbound vehicles. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design. As a part of the PUD process, the applicant is seeking waivers to City Code requirements as outlined below. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 zoning district. Sixteen of the lots are under 9,500 square feet. These lots range in size from 7,695 square feet to 9,347 square feet. The waiver would allow Lots 5-6 and 16-19, Block 1, Lots 3-8, Block 2, and Lots 1, 16, 18 and 19, Block 3 to be under the minimum lot size as depicted on the plans. Minimum Lot Width City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet along the street, 55 feet on the bulb of the cul-de sac and 85 feet on corner lots. Forty-nine of the lots are narrower than the minimum lot width requirement. These lots along the street range in width from 47.12 feet to 65.58 feet. The lots on the bulb of the cul-de-sac range in width from 41.68 feet to 46.37 feet. The corner lot is proposed at 63.07 feet. The waiver would allow Lots 1-8 and 15-20, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, and Lots 2-16, 18-21, 23-26 and 28 Block 3 to be narrower than required as depicted on the plans. Front Yard Setback City Code requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of a minimum 25 feet. This provides more flexibility on home placement to deal with potential issues with grades. Homes on individual lots can have a setback deeper than 25 feet based on lot conditions and preferences. The waiver would allow all of the lots to have a 25 foot minimum front yard setback. Over length Cul-de-Sac. City Code states that a cul-de-sac shall not exceed 500 feet in length. Both of the cul-de-sac streets exceed 500 feet. With limited opportunities for street connections, the cul- de-sac streets provide for development of the site. The cul-de-sac terminating at the east property line is designed so that it could be connected in the future if conditions change. TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN Although the applicant is proposing to protect several stands of existing trees, the grading on the site Staff Report – The Overlook Page 6 6 will result in significant tree loss. The project requires 2,936 caliper inches of tree replacement. The Tree Replacement Plan includes 886 caliper inches of trees leaving a deficit of 2,050 caliper inches. The proposed plan includes the installation of trees along the east property line to provide screening between the homes in Hennepin Village and the proposed project, in the front yards of the lots, and along Spring Road. City staff has requested that the applicant revise the Tree Replacement Plan to include additional caliper inches. It was communicated to the applicant that the City is open to counting the addition of smaller caliper inch trees on steep slope areas toward tree replacement. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a revised Tree Replacement Plan reflecting the additional caliper inches prior to the 1st reading. In lieu of planting enough caliper inches to comply with the entire Tree Replacement requirements, the applicant is proposing to comply with the tree replacement requirements by making a cash payment for the deficit as allowed by City Code. The Development Agreement will include language regarding the payment in lieu. Prior to the 1st reading, the applicant will submit a phasing plan for the tree replacement. The Phase 1 trees are those that will be installed when the mass grading on the site is completed. The Phase 2 trees are those that will be installed after each home is constructed on the individual lots. The purpose of phasing the installation is to protect the trees in the front yards and around the building pads from getting damaged during home construction. The Development Agreement will address this in more detail. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The proposed project includes a sidewalk on the east side of the proposed Junegrass Lane and on the west side of Osprey Point. The current conservancy area to the south of the subject property contains a trail. The applicant is proposing to provide an 8’ wide paved trail connection through Outlot B to the existing trail on the City-owned land. The applicant is also proposing to construct an 8’ wide paved trail on the east side of Spring Road from the entrance to the development going north to the property line. This section will ultimately be extended to the existing trail that terminates just south of Prospect Road. Furthermore, the applicant will grade a pad for a trail along the east side of Spring Road from the main entrance into the development south to just beyond the creek. In the future, the City will install the paved trail on this pad. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The applicant is proposing stormwater management in Outlots A, C and D. The stormwater management facilities include infiltration basins, swales, storm sewer piping, and inlets. The applicant is required to comply with Watershed District and City of Eden Prairie requirements prior to issuance of a Land Alteration Permit. WETLAND, SHORELAND AND BLUFF The southwest corner of the property includes wetlands, Riley Creek, and bluffs, which are proposed Staff Report – The Overlook Page 7 7 to be encompassed by Outlot D. Due to Riley Creek running through the property, a portion of the property is located within the Shoreland District. The majority of the shoreland is located within Outlot D. However, the district boundary does extend onto proposed Lots 9-12. Within the shoreland district, the maximum impervious surface on proposed Lots 9-12 is 30%. The Development Agreement will include language requiring the applicant to notify the owners of proposed Lots 9-12 that these lots are located within the shoreland and the 30% maximum impervious surface limit is in effect. ENDANGERED SPECIES There is a potential that there may be endangered species on the property. The applicant is in the process of doing research and has requested some information from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Staff has not received a copy of this preliminary research. The applicant will be required to do a field assessment in the spring. If endangered species are found on the property, there is a chance that there may have to be changes to the plan depending on the location of the endangered species. The Development Agreement will address the process of preserving the endangered species if any are found on the property. RETAINING WALLS Due to the topography of the site, a number of retaining walls are being proposed in order to develop the property. Some of the retaining walls will reach heights of 15 feet. The applicant is proposing modular block retaining walls rather than boulder walls. The walls will be installed by the applicant and maintained by the Homeowners Association. PARK DEDICATION FEES The applicant has indicated to staff that he will be seeking consideration related to the payment of cash park fees. This is a financial decision for the City Council to consider and the Planning Commission is not being asked to make a recommendation on this issue. The intent of providing this information is to help the Commission understand that this issue is part of the overall discussions regarding this project. The applicant has requested that the City consider allowing Outlots B and D, the trail connections in and to the conservancy area and to the existing trail on Spring Road, and the grading of the trail along Spring Road to satisfy the cash park fees. City staff has informed the applicant that the City expects the developer to pay cash park fees on a per lot basis at the time of building permit consistent with other developments. This recommendation is based on the following: • Although Outlot B and D are proposed to be deeded to the City, the outlots are not of value to the community park system. • The majority of Outlot D is undevelopable, a large portion of Outlot D will include stormwater management areas to meet the needs of the developments stormwater Staff Report – The Overlook Page 8 8 management requirements and the City will be responsible for maintaining these stormwater management areas. • The applicant is proposing to grade a trail along Spring Road. Typical practice is to have the developer grade and construct trails. In this case, the City will cover the cost of and complete the construction of the trail. There will be no construction cost to the applicant. • The trail in Outlot B is consistent with the expectations of other developments. As the owner of Outlot B, the City will maintain the trail. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS This property is subject to trunk sewer and watermain assessments with this project in the amount of 164,929.52. Deferred assessments of $245,145.88 and connection fees of $199,323 are also applicable. A special assessment agreement will be required. SIGNS The site plan includes a proposed monument sign in Outlot C near the entrance into the subdivision. The applicant is required to obtain a sign permit for the sign prior to its installation. The sign shall comply with City Code requirements. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING No affordability or inclusionary housing requirements are recommended to be applied to the project, as the suitability of such requirements for this type of for-sale owner-occupied housing are to be considered and addressed by the City’s Housing Task Force. SUSTAINABLE FEATURES The applicant is proposing to incorporate the following sustainable features into the development: • Lumber is certified through NSLB (Northern Softwood Lumber Bureau), CDFI (Community Development Financial Institute), and the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association. • 75% of all light bulbs are LED or CFL • All faucets and toilets are low flow designs • All interior paint is low VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) • Base price furnace is 92.5% • All windows are Energy Star rated (Anderson, Pella) • All appliances are Energy Star Rated • In 2019, homes had an average HERS score of 50.55 • All waste or replaced concrete is recycled • Gas usage is 21.52% better than Code • Electric Usage is 10.31% better than Code AIRPORT The property is located within the Safety Zone C as designated in the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance adopted by the Flying Cloud Airport Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB) on April 10, Staff Report – The Overlook Page 9 9 2019. The allowable construction height limits of the JAZB far exceed the proposed structure heights and the construction equipment heights of this project, but the applicant will be required to submit an application for an Airport Zoning Permit documenting the necessary information. The property is also located within the airport buffer zone requiring noise attenuation. The Development Agreement will address disclosure of information regarding Flying Cloud Airport, interior noise mitigation, and the airport zoning permit. ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT Since the property is in an area with the potential for containing archaeological resources, staff requested that the applicant submit information about the archaeological resources on this property. The applicant submitted a report entitled “Report on Archaeological Reconnaissance-Level Survey Within the Standal Property, City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota” dated June 2005. In 2005, a very similar development was proposed for the Standal property and the developer at that time had this report prepared. The conclusion from the report was that the proposal at that time could proceed without any risk of adverse impact on significant archaeological resources. As part of The Overlook project, the report was sent to the State Archaeologist’s Office. Staff has not received any comments to date. Any comments received prior to the 1st reading, will be shared with the Council. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 9, 2019. After the neighborhood meeting, staff received a number of emails and letters from residents in Hennepin Village expressing concern about the removal of trees along the west property line of Hennepin Village. Copies of the letters and emails are attached. The comment letters include a letter from the President of the Hennepin Village Homeowners Association. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following requests: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres This is based on plans stamp dated February 3, 2020, staff report dated February 19, 2020 and the following conditions: 1. Prior to the 1st reading before the City Council, the applicant shall: A. Revise the Tree Replacement Plan to include additional trees as discussed with staff. B. Submit a tree replacement phasing plan. Staff Report – The Overlook Page 10 10 C. Provide a different street name for Junegrass Lane since it does not connect with the current Junegrass Lane. 2. Prior to release of the Final Plat approval, the applicant shall A. Sign special assessment agreement for City trunk sewer and water assessment fees. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. C. Meet the tree replacement requirements by making a cash payment for the caliper inch deficit from the plan. The exact number will be determined based on the revised plan. D. Provide copies of legal documents, either in Homeowners Association format or private covenant and agreement format to be approved by the City that shall address the following: • Describe the long term private maintenance or replacement agreement for the retaining walls. • Insertion of language in the documents that relinquishes the City of Eden Prairie from maintenance or replacement of the retaining walls. 3. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, wetland, utility, street and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. B. Submit a tree replacement letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping in phases as required in the Development Agreement. C. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. D. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. E. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fees for all of the lots. B. Provide recorded copies of any Home Owner Association documents or private covenants and agreements to the City following recording of the final plat. 5. The following waivers have been granted through the PUD District Review for the project as indicated in the plans stamp dated February 3, 2020. Minimum Lot Size City Code requires a minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet in the R1-9.5 zoning district. Sixteen of the lots are under 9,500 square feet. These lots ranging in size from 7,695 square feet to 9,347 square feet. The waiver would allow Lots 5-6 and 16-19, Block 1, Lots 3-8, Staff Report – The Overlook Page 11 11 Block 2, and Lots 1, 16, 18 and 19, Block 3 to be under the minimum lot size as depicted on the plans. Minimum Lot Width City Code requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet along the street, 55 feet on the bulb of the cul-de sac and 85 feet on corner lots. Forty-nine of the lots are narrower than the minimum lot width requirement. These lots along the street range in width from 47.12 feet to 65.58 feet. The lots on the bulb of the cul-de-sac range in width from 41.68 feet to 46.37 feet. The corner lot doesn’t comply at 63.07 feet. The waiver would allow Lots 1-8 and 15-20, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, and Lots 2-16, 18-21, 23-26 and 28 Block 3 to be narrower than required as depicted on the plans. Front Yard Setback City Code requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of a minimum 25 feet. This provides more flexibility on home placement to deal with potential issues with grades. Homes on individual lots can have a setback deeper than 25 feet based on lot conditions and preferences. The waiver would allow all of the lots to have a 25 foot minimum front yard setback. Over length Cul-de-Sac. City Code states that a cul-de-sac shall not exceed 500 feet in length. Both of the cul-de-sac streets exceed 500 feet. With limited opportunities for street connections, the cul-de-sac streets provide for development of the site. The cul-de-sac terminating at the east property line is designed so that it could be connected in the future. The City has many over length cul-de-sacs with no issues. 6. All signage shall require review and approval of a sign permit and shall comply with Section 11.70. 7. A Steep Slope Permit is authorized through the approval of this project and plans stamp dated February 3, 2010. QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRY LNP R O S P E C T R D P L U MS TONEDR CHARLSONRD WILDFLOWERDRJUNEGRASS LN I N D IGO DR CRABAPPLE LN P O R C H L IG H T L N PINCHERRY LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHT LN LILACDRVERVAINDRTICKSEED LN SWITCHGRASS LNGABLEDRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRINGR D ¯ Location Map: The OverlookAddress:9955 and 9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota 0 340 680170 Feet PROJECT SITE QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRYLNC H ARL S ONRDP LUMSTONEDR P R O SPECTRDJUNEGRASS LN I NDIGO DR CRABAPPLE LN WILDFLOWER DRP O R C H L IG H T LN PINCHERRY LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHT L N LILACDRTICKSEED LN VERVAINDRSWITCHGRASS LNGABLE DRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRINGRDSt ream s Principal Arterial A Min or Arte rialB Min or Arterial Majo r Collecto r Mino r Collecto r City of Eden Prairie Land Use GuidePlan Map 2040 ¯ DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event w ill The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map w as Updated/Created: April 18, 2008 DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Approved 03-19-03DATE Revised 01-07-05DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 03-23-06DATE Revised 06-23-06 DATE Revised 12-06-06DATE Revised 03-01-07DATE Revised 06-01-07DATE Revised 10-01-07DATE Revised 03-01-08DATE Revised 03-01-09 Guide Plan Map: The OverlookAddress: 9955 and 9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, MN Rural Low Density Residential Medium D ensity Residential Medium Migh D ensity Residential High Density Residential Mixed-Use Town C enter Transit-Oriented Development Regional Commercial Commercial Office Industrial Flex Tech Flex Service Eco Innovation Industrial Airport Public / Semi-Public Parks & Open Space Golf Course Utility & R ailroad RIght-of-Way CityLimits 440 0 440220 Feet Project Site QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRYLNPINCHERRY LNPLUMSTONEDR CHARLSONR D P R O SPECTRDWILDFLOWERDRJUNEGRASS LN I N D IGO DR CRABAPPLE LN P O R C H L IG H T LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHT L N LILACDRVERVAINDRTICKSEED LN SWITCHGRASS LNGABLE DRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRINGRDCity of Eden Prairie Zoning Map In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City C enter w ill prevail. ¯ Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Up dated through approve d Ordin ances #26-2008 Ordinan ce #33 -2001 (BFI Additio n) approve d, but not shown on th is map edition Date: March 1, 2009 0 0.150.0 75 Miles DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to T he City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialZoning.mxd Map was Updated/Created: June 11, 2008 Zoning Map: The OverlookAddress: 9955 and 9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, MN Legend Rural R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Airport Office Office Neighborhood Commercial Community Com mercial Highway Com mercial Airport Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial TC-C TC-R TC-MU Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Golf Course Water Right of Way TOD-R Transit Oriented Development - Residential Transit Oriented Development - Residential ProjectSiteProposing to rezone the property from Ruralto R1-9.5 QR4 PROSPECT RD PINCHERRY LNP R O S P E C T R D P L U MS TONEDR CHARLSONRD WILDFLOWERDRJUNEGRASS LN I N D IGO DR CRABAPPLE LN P O R C H L IG H T L N PINCHERRY LNCUPOLA LNPORCHLIGHT LN LILACDRVERVAINDRTICKSEED LN SWITCHGRASS LNGABLEDRPICKET DRSPRINGRDSPRINGR D ¯ Aerial Map: The OverlookAddress:9955 and 9875 Spring RoadEden Prairie, Minnesota 0 340 680170 Feet PROJECT SITE OUTLOT D 21 20 19 18 17 1615 14 13 12 11 10 BLOCK 223 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 12 13 14 16 15 A A' THE OVERLOOK - SECTION A EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 12-9-2019 CONTEXT MAP B'B ROAD BOUTLOT D 22 21 20 19 18 1615 14 BLOCK 2OUTLOT B BLOCK 3 28 2726 25 24 23 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 11 B'B THE OVERLOOK - SECTION B EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 12-9-2019 CONTEXT MAP BLOCK 1OUTLOT A 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 OUTLOT C1 BLOCK 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 789 10 11 18 19 20JUNE GRASS LNSEDIMENTBASIN 1 INFILTRATION BASIN 1 E'E THE OVERLOOK - SECTION E EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 12-9-2019 CONTEXT MAP STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Strain, Planner I DATE: February 24, 2020 SUBJECT: Golden Triangle Industrial Development LOCATION: SW Intersection of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive REQUEST: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial I-2 on 10.258 acres • Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres • Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot 10.258 acres BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 130,130 square foot, single story industrial building. The 10.258 acre site is located on the southwest corner of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. The site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by industrial buildings on the north, east, and south sides. The west side of the property is adjacent to the Nine Mile Creek Conservation Area, a city-owned conservation area. The site used to operate as a gravel pit and has since been filled. Some topography from this pit remains, and the site slopes down to Nine Mile Creek in the west. Most of the trees on the site are located along the wetland area. ZONING The property is currently zoned Rural. The applicant is proposing to re-zone the property to Industrial I-2. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the current guiding of the property in the Guide Plan. SITE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 130,130 square foot, single story industrial building. The proposed building complies with most setbacks, and the applicant is requesting a waiver from the front yard setback along Valley View Road. The building will be multi-tenant and is designed to be flexible to accommodate a range of user needs. The anticipated usage of the building Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 2 2 is 80 percent warehouse and 20 percent office. Based on this usage, 182 parking spaces are required by City Code. These spaces are provided in surface parking lots on the east and south sides of the building. Code allows up to 15 percent of required parking to be located in proof of parking. 26 of the required spaces are included as proof of parking, which is 15 percent of the required number of spaces. The proof of parking is located along the western edge of the truck dock area. Parking spaces, drive aisles, setbacks, and dimensions comply with code requirements. There are three (3) proposed accesses; two (2) on Valley View Road, one (1) for freight trucks and one (1) for vehicles, and one (1) vehicle access on Golden Triangle Drive at the intersection of W 74th Street. 21 truck docks are proposed along the west side of the building, two (2) of those being drive-in spaces. An approximately one (1) acre outlot covering all of the wetland on the property and most of the wetland buffer is proposed to be created, placed in a conservation easement, and deeded to the City. This outlot, outlined above, is adjacent to City owned conservation area. Placing this area in conservation easement and deeding to the City will help to preserve the wetlands on and adjacent to the site. The site meets City and watershed district shoreland setback requirements and is outside of the shoreland area. The applicant also submitted an Alternative User Site Plan (Sheet C3.02), which provides site details for a building usage of 50 percent warehouse, 25 percent manufacturing, and 25 percent office. The alternative site plan shows 294 parking spaces, which is the full amount required by code. Parking spaces, drive aisles, setbacks, and dimensions comply with code requirements. With this shift in Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 3 3 building usage and parking alterations, the number of truck docks would likely decrease from 21 to 14. Separate grading, erosion control, utility, and landscape plans have also been provided for the Alternative User Site Plan. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as stated in the City Code is to provide for a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land within the City; to allow variety in the types of environment available to people and distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where desirable and feasible; and provide for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design. As a part of the PUD process, the applicant is seeking waivers to City Code requirements as outlined below. • Landscaping Requirements for Single-Story Structures over 20' City Code currently requires single story buildings over 20 feet tall to be considered two (2) stories for landscaping requirement purposes. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this standard and seeks to comply with landscaping requirements for a single story structure. This provision requiring single story buildings over 20 feet tall to be considered two (2) stories for landscaping requirement purposes has been seldom used in the City’s history. Most buildings taller than 20 feet have multiple stories of usable floor space, and the square footage of those floors are factored into landscaping requirements. In this proposal, the building is tall to accommodate a range of industrial uses that are demanded by the market. The height is not intended to allow additional office or floor space that would add to the overall square footage of the building. Additionally, planting 814 inches of landscaping would be difficult to sustain for the site long term. Staff will be reviewing the provision requiring single story buildings over 20 feet to be considered two (2) stories for landscaping requirement purposes to determine if code needs to be revised, given its seldom use and concerns about long term maintenance of the site. The landscaping requirements and proposed landscape plan for the site, due to the size of the building, are robust. The proposed landscape plan exceeds the requirements for a single story, 20 foot building. • Front Yard Setback The property has two front yards along Golden Triangle Drive and Valley View Road. Front yard setbacks in the I-2 zoning district are 50 feet. The proposed building meets this requirement along Golden Triangle Drive but is requesting a waiver from the front yard Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 4 4 setback along Valley View Road. The applicant is requesting a waiver for an approximately 36 foot front yard setback along Valley View Road. A mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees will be planted along the north side of the building to provide a buffer and screening between the building and the sidewalk and road. • Driveway Width The maximum driveway width is 30 feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement for the westernmost access on Valley View Road to construct a 64 foot driveway width. This westernmost access is primarily for trucks, which have wider turns and cannot make the turn safely from Valley View Road into the site without a wider driveway at the curb. Other properties with truck traffic along Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive have wider openings than 30 feet. • Base Area Ratio & Floor Area Ratio The maximum Base Area Ratio (BAR) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted in the Industrial I-2 District is 0.3 for single story structures. The applicant is proposing a BAR/FAR of 0.35. The increased area ratio is due in part to the deeding of the outlot to the City. If the one (1) acre outlot were to be included in the area ratio calculations, since it is part of the existing parcel, the site would meet code requirements. The deeding of the outlot to the City preserves the ecological resources of the area, including Nine Mile Creek. The narrative also mentions a parking lot setback waiver request, but plans have been updated to meet code requirements, and this waiver is not needed. LANDSCAPE AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN The site requires 684 caliper inches of tree replacement and 814 inches of landscaping. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the provision that requires single-story structures over 20 feet to be considered two (2) story structures, which doubles the amount of required landscaping. With this waiver, the site will require 407 caliper inches of landscaping. The applicant intends to count any caliper inches over the landscaping requirement toward tree replacement and to pay cash in lieu for the remainder of the caliper inches as allowed by City Code. The Landscape Plan does not currently meet code requirements. Only 80 percent of trees planted may be the minimum size requirement. Currently, 88 percent of trees on the site are the minimum size. Additionally, only 20 percent of landscaping requirements may be met with understory trees. The current plan uses understory trees for 24 percent of the landscaping requirements. Further, all parking Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 5 5 lot islands need to be planted with ground cover, grasses, or shrubs. These items will need to be addressed on both the Landscape Plan and the Alternative User Landscape Plan. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to increase the size of trees planted on this site, which may lower the overall number of trees, and to ensure all parking islands are planted. Prior to 1st reading, the landscape plan should be updated to incorporate larger tree sizes and parking island plantings to meet these requirements and better fit the size and scale of the building. Code allows a maximum of 25 percent of required caliper inches to be comprised of shrubs and planting beds. There are currently an excess of 56.8 caliper inches on the site planted as shrubs that are not being counted toward landscaping requirements. While this maximum is in place for calculation purposes, the abundance of shrubs will make the site feel more landscaped than caliper inch calculations suggest. ARCHITECTRUAL STANDARDS The building complies with architectural standards for the Industrial Zoning District. All façades will be precast concrete panels with exposed aggregate and provide windows or glass doorways to allow for natural lighting. The applicant proposes to use three (3) different colors of panels to provide visual interest along all façades. Building entrances are recessed to provide façade articulation, and the roofline on the north, east, and south façades will be varied with metal parapets. The main entrances on the east side of the building will be covered by bright colored canopies, shown in the rendering below. Façades with dock doors are exempt from articulation requirements, but the façade complies with all other architectural standards. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There are existing eight (8) foot sidewalks along Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct two (2), six (6) foot sidewalks connecting the building entrances to the existing trail on Golden Triangle Drive and one (1), six (6) foot sidewalk from the northernmost entrance to the existing sidewalk on Valley View Road. City Code requires pedestrian connections in parking lots to connect pedestrians to the building. In the Alternative User Site Plan, there are no connections or crosswalks guiding pedestrians Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 6 6 from their cars to the back doors or around the building to the front doors. Prior to 1st reading, the Alternative User Site Plan should be updated to add connections or crosswalks in the western parking lot to guide pedestrians to entrances and highlight pedestrian areas for trucks and other vehicles. GRADING & DRAINAGE The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) infiltration basins to manage stormwater. A small basin will be located near the intersection of Golden Triangle Drive and Valley View Road, and a larger basin will be constructed in the northwest corner of the site. This larger basin will manage most of the site’s stormwater. All portions of the larger infiltration basin are outside of the outlot. The stormwater management meets city requirements. There is a small retaining wall located near the southern property line due to the small grade change to accommodate parking. The proposed wall is less than four (4) feet tall. LIGHTING Downcast, wall mounted lights will line the east, south, and western exteriors of the building. Light poles will be provided around the perimeter of the parking lot. The Photometric Plan complies with code requirements. Lighting in the west portion of the parking lot has been located in a way that should the proof of parking need to be built, or the Alternative User Site Plan is implemented, the installed lights will become part of parking lot islands. Parking lot lighting will be required to be downcast and cut-off. SIGNS The applicant is proposing wall signs near the building entrances for tenants and a building identification sign near the top of the building. Freestanding signs are also proposed on both Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive, but proposed locations are not provided. As a corner lot, two freestanding signs are permitted by code. All proposed signs will require review and approval through the sign permit process and compliance with Section 11.70. UTILITIES The proposed building will be connected to municipal sewer along the south side of the building and to water along the west side of the building. The applicant is proposing five (5) new hydrants on the site, three (3) along the west side of the building and two (2) along the east side of the building. SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES The applicant is proposing several sustainability features, including LED lighting throughout the site, native vegetation, insulated panel construction, and an electric vehicle charging station at the southeast entrance. Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 7 7 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 28, 2020. Of the 12 property owners invited, no one attended. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following request: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial I-2 on 10.258 acres • Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres • Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot 10.258 acres This recommendation is based on plans stamp dated February 12, 2020, staff report dated February 24, 2020, and the following conditions: 1. Prior to 1st reading before the City Council, the applicant shall: a. Revise landscape plan to comply with code requirements regarding minimum tree sizes, understory inches permitted, and parking island plantings. b. Revise the Alternative User Site Plan to include pedestrian connections in the western parking lot to guide pedestrians and highlight pedestrian areas for vehicles. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall a. Sign special assessment agreement for City trunk sewer and water assessment fees. b. Submit detailed storm water runoff, wetland, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and Watershed District. c. The documentation, legal description, and execution of the sidewalk easement. d. The documentation, legal description, and execution of the conservation easement. 3. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant shall: a. Submit a landscaping /tree replacement letter of credit or escrow surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping /tree replacement. b. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. c. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. d. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City. e. Pay the appropriate tree replacement fee. 4. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant shall: a. Pay the appropriate cash park fees. Staff Report – Golden Triangle Industrial Development February 24, 2020 Page 8 8 5. The following waivers have been granted through the PUD District Review for the project as indicated in the plans stamp dated February 12, 2020. • Landscaping Requirements for Single-Story Structures over 20' City Code currently requires single story buildings over 20 feet tall to be considered two (2) stories for landscaping requirement purposes. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this standard and seeks to comply with landscaping requirements for a single story structure. • Front Yard Setback The property has two front yards along Golden Triangle Drive and Valley View Road. Front yard setbacks in the I-2 zoning district are 50 feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver for a 36 foot front yard setback along Valley View Road. • Driveway Width The maximum driveway width is 30 feet. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement for the westernmost access on Valley View Road to construct a 64 foot driveway width. • Base Area Ratio & Floor Area Ratio The maximum Base Area Ratio (BAR) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted in the Industrial I-2 District is 0.3 for single story structures. The applicant is proposing a BAR/FAR of 0.35. 6. All signage shall require review and approval of a sign permit and shall comply with Section 11.70. VALLEY VIEW RDW 74TH ST W 76TH STGOLDEN TRIANGLE DR¯ Location Map: Golden Triangle Industrial DevelopmentAddress: SW Intersection of Valley View Road & Golden Triangle Drive (No Assigned Address), Eden Prairie, MN 55344 0 410 820205 Feet SITE VALLEY VIEW RDW 74TH ST GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRCity of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide Plan Map 2010-2040 ¯ DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event w ill The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map w as Updated/Created: April 18, 2008 Guide Plan Map: Golden Triangle Industrial DevelopmentAddress: SW Intersection of Valley View Road & Golden Triangle Drive (No Assigned Address), Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Streams Rural Low Density Residential Medium D ensity Residential Medium Migh D ensity Residential High Density Residential Mixed-Use Town C enter Transit-Oriented Development Regional Commercial Commercial Office Industrial Flex Tech Flex Service Eco Innovation Industrial Airport Public / Semi-Public Parks & Open Space Golf Course Utility & R ailroad Right-of-Way 340 0 340170 Feet SITE DATE Approved 10-01-19 VALLEY VIEW RDW 74TH ST GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRCity of Eden Prairie Zoning Map In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinanceand attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City C enter w ill prevail. ¯ Shoreland Management Classifications 100 - Year Floodplain Natural Environment WatersRecreational Development WatersGeneral Development Waters (Creeks Only)GD NE RD Up dated through approve d Ordin ances #26-2008 Ordinan ce #33 -2001 (BFI Additio n) approve d, but not shown on th is map edition Date: March 1, 2009 0 0.150.0 75 Miles DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctnessof the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracyof this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages,including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business informationor other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information itcontains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed.Any errors or omissions should be reported to T he City of Eden Prairie.M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialZoning.mxd Map was Updated/Created: June 11, 2008 Zoning Map: Golden Triangle Industrial DevelopmentAddress: SW Intersection of Valley View Road & Golden Triangle Drive (No Assigned Address), Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Streams 100 Year Fl ood Plain 500 Year Fl ood Plain Rural R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. Office Neighborhood C ommercial Community Commercial Highway Commercial Regional Service Commercial Regional Commercial TC -C TC -R TC -MU Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Public Golf Course Water Right of Way SITE VALLEY VIEW RDW 74TH ST W 76TH STGOLDEN TRIANGLE DR¯ Aerial Map: Golden Triangle Industrial DevelopmentAddress: SW Intersection of Valley View Road & Golden Triangle Drive (No Assigned Address), Eden Prairie, MN 55344 0 410 820205 Feet SITE 1 PROJECT PROFILE – FEBRUARY 24, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 24, 2020 1. GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (2019-26) by Opus Development Company LLC (SARAH AND BETH) Proposal for a 130,000 square foot industrial building Location: Intersection of Valley View Road and Golden Triangle Drive Contact: Kit Bennett, 952-656-4546 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.258 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.258 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to Industrial I-2 on 10.258 acres • Site Plan Review on 10.258 acres • Preliminary Plat of one lot and one outlot on 10.258 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 11/27/19 Date Complete 01/03/20 120 Day Deadline 05/02/20 Initial DRC review 12/05/19 Notice to Paper Date 02/05/20 Resident Notice Date 02/06/20 Meeting Date 02/24/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 2. THE OVERLOOK (2019-23) by Gonyea Homes, Inc. (BETH) Proposal for a subdivision consisting of 59 single family lots and 4 outlots Location: 9955 Spring Road Contact: Gonyea Homes, Inc; 612-868-5862 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.51 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 27.51 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 27.51 acres • Preliminary Plat of 3 parcels into 59 lots and 4 outlots on 27.51 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 11/08/19 Date Complete 12/26/19 120 Day Deadline 04/24/20 Initial DRC review 11/14/19 Notice to Paper Date 02/05/20 Resident Notice Date 02/06/20 Meeting Date 02/24/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 9, 2020 1. VILLAS AT SMITH VILLAGE (2020-01) by Halley Land Corp. (BETH) Proposal for re-platting of attached townhouses to detached homes at Smith Village 2 Location: Glory Lane off Eden Prairie Road Contact: Dave Young, 952-837-8667 Request for: • Guide Plan Change from Medium High Density to Medium Density on 1 acre • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1 acre • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1 acre • Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to R1-9.5 on 1 acre • Preliminary Plat to divide 3 lots into 7 lots on 1 acre Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 01/21/20 Date Complete 01/21/00 120 Day Deadline 05/19/20 Initial DRC review 01/23/20 Notice to Paper Date 02/18/20 Resident Notice Date 02/19/20 Meeting Date 03/09/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – MARCH 17, 2020 1. EDEN RIDGE, LLC (2019-20) by Eden Ridge, LCC (BETH) Proposal for 10 single family lots Location: 15807 & 15817 Valley View Road Contact: Ralph M 952-494-3630 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.3 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.3 acres • Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.3 acres • Preliminary Plat to divide 2 lots into 10 lots on 4.3 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/11/19 Date Complete 12/18/19 120 Day Deadline 04/16/20 Initial DRC review 10/17/19 Notice to Paper Date 01/22/20 Resident Notice Date 01/23/20 Meeting Date 02/10/20 Notice to Paper Date 02/25/20 Resident Notice Date 02/26/20 1st Meeting Date 03/17/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – MARCH 17, 2020 1. CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ADDITIONS AND REMODEL 2020 (2019-22) by Eden Prairie Public Schools (BETH) Proposal for building additions, interior remodeling and site improvements Location: 8025 School Road Contact: Jason Mutzenberger, 952-975-7071 3 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 57.4 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers and a Zoning District Change from Industrial, Rural and R1-22 to Public on 57.4 acres • Site Plan Review on 57.4 acres • Preliminary Plat to combine multiple parcels into 1 lot on 57.4 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/11/19 Date Complete 11/12/19 120 Day Deadline 04/09/20 Initial DRC review 10/17/19 Notice to Paper Date 11/20/19 Resident Notice Date 11/21/19 Meeting Date 12/09/19 Notice to Paper Date 12/23/19 Resident Notice Date 12/24/19 1st Meeting Date 01/21/20 2nd Meeting Date 03/17/20 PLANNING COMMISSION – MARCH 23, 2020 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING – APRIL 7, 2020 CITY COUNCIL CONSENT – APRIL 7, 2020 1. TARGET REMODEL (2019-19) by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. (SARAH) Proposal for façade improvement and site improvements Location: 8225 Flying Cloud Drive Contact: Ryan Hyllested, 612-568-0698 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 10.6 acres • Planned Unit Development Amendment with waivers on 10.6 acres • Site Plan Review on 10.6 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/10/19 Date Complete 10/28/19 120 Day Deadline 04/25/20 Initial DRC review 10/17/19 Notice to Paper Date 10/30/19 Resident Notice Date 10/31/19 Meeting Date 11/18/19 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/19 Resident Notice Date 12/18/19 1st Meeting Date 01/07/20 2nd Meeting Date 04/07/20 IN BUT NOT SCHEDULED 1. TILLER CORPORATION PLANT 912 (2019-24) by Tiller Corporation (JULIE) Proposal to relocate the plant processing and stockpile areas within the site Location: 6401 Industrial Drive Contact: Michael Caron; 763-425-4191 4 Request for: • Guide Plan Change from Public to Industrial on 4.49 acres • Zoning District Change from Public to Industrial on 5.58 acres • Site Plan Review on 13.21 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 11/08/19 Date Complete 00/00/20 120 Day Deadline 00/00/20 Initial DRC review 11/14/19 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 Meeting Date 00/00/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 2. FLYING CLOUD COMMONS (CASTLE RIDGE RETAIL) (2019-21) by Oppidan Investment Company (JULIE) Proposal for retail area as Phase 3 of the Castle Ridge redevelopment project Location: 615-635 Prairie Center Drive Contact: Oppidan Investment Company, 952-294-1259 Request for: • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.27 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.27 acres • Site Plan Review on 5.479 acres • Preliminary Plat of one outlot into 3 lots and 2 outlots on 7.27 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 10/14/19 Date Complete 00/00/19 120 Day Deadline 00/00/20 Initial DRC review 10/17/19 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 Meeting Date 00/00/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 3. SOUTHWEST STATION PUD AMENDMENT (2015-23) by SW Metro Transit Commission (JULIE) Proposal for additional parking structure at southwest station Contact: Julie Klima, 952-949-8489 Request for: • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 11.38 acres • Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District on 11.38 acres • Site Plan Review on 11.38 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 00/00/15 Date Complete 00/00/15 120 Day Deadline 00/00/15 Initial DRC review 00/00/15 Notice to Paper Date 11/19/15 Resident Notice Date 11/20/15 Meeting Date 12/07/15 Notice to Paper Date 12/17/15 Resident Notice Date 12/18/15 1st Meeting Date 01/05/16 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 5 4. HUELER PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (2019-18) by Greg & Kelli Hueler (JULIE) Proposal for amendment to the Development Agreement to relocate driveway location Location: 12300 Riverview Drive Contact: Greg & Kelli Hueler, 612-221-4172 Request for: • Development Agreement Amendment 4.45 acres Application Info Planning Commission City Council Date Submitted 09/03/19 Date Complete 10/07/19 120 Day Deadline 04/03/20 Initial DRC review 09/05/19 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 Meeting Date 00/00/20 Notice to Paper Date 00/00/20 Resident Notice Date 00/00/20 1st Meeting Date 00/00/20 2nd Meeting Date 00/00/20 VARIANCES TELECOMMUNICATION