Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2023-36 - Eden Prairie Multifamily by Ryan Companies Resolution of Denial - 03/07/2023CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2023-36 RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATIONS OF RYAN COMPANIES FOR COMPREHESIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE FROM OFFICE TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, REZONING FROM RURAL TO RM-2.5, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT REVIEW, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW WITH WAIVERS, SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT ON 7.01 ACRES FOR THE PROPOSED EDEN PRAIRIE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT WHEREAS, on March 31, 2022, the City of Eden Prairie received from Ryan Companies (the "Applicant"), a land use development application requesting approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning from Rural to RM-2.5, Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Concept Plan Review, a PUD District Review with waivers, a Site Plan Review, and a Preliminary Plat (the "Applications") for the proposed project known as Eden Prairie Multifamily, to be located on approximately 7.01 acres of land (the "Property") located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the Project proposes a 5-story, 211-unit multifamily residential rental building; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Applications on June 27, 2022 and voted to recommend approval of the Project; WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan, Aspire Eden Prairie 2040, was adopted by the City Council on October 1, 2019 (the "Comprehensive Plan"); WHEREAS, the Property is currently guided Office by the Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, Eden Prairie City Code Chapter 11 contains the City's zoning ordinances; WHEREAS, the Property is cmTently located in the Rural ("R") Zoning District; WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.40, includes a process and criteria for approval of PUDs; WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.40, Subdivision 11 lists the following findings necessary for approval of a PUD: A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the City. B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. Any exceptions to the standard requirements of this chapter and Chapter 12 of this Code are justified by the design of the development. D. The PUD is of composition and anangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit, and the PUD shall be consistent with an approved PUD Concept. WHEREAS, City Code Section 11.03 Subdivision 6.E provides standards and provisions that must be evaluated by the City when considering approval of a Site Plan; WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 12 contains the City's subdivision ordinance and includes design standards and criteria for evaluating a preliminary plat application; WHEREAS, the City adopted Design Guidelines on December 6, 2016, which apply to all proposed developments in the City; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Applications for the Project at its meeting on August 16, 2022. The City Council considered all of the information presented by the Applicant before the Planning Commission and the Council, the staff report, and citizen comments submitted prior to and at the public hearings, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to prepare Findings of Fact for denial of the Project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that the following Findings of Fact and Decision are hereby adopted: FINDINGS OF FACT I. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of Minnesota Statutes Sections 462.355 and 473.858. As required by Minnesota law, the Comprehensive Plan contains the "objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and waters within" the City. Minn. Stat. § 473.859, subd. 1. 2. The Comprehensive Plan is the City's official policy document that, among other things, guides land use and development in the City and serves as the framework for the City's zoning and subdivision regulations. 3. Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan contains the City's Land Use & Development Plan ("Land Use Plan"), which provides the framework for future planning decisions and "seeks to promote balanced growth and retain an appropriate mix of land uses while enhancing housing opportunities and preserving natural areas to 2 ensure that investment and growth is both economically and environmentally sustainable." The goals expressed in the Land Use Plan were formulated after the City received community input through various methods of outreach, including surveys and focus groups. 4. One of the specific goals of the Land Use Plan is to "continue to develop the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan," with the objective of ensuring "that all future development and redevelopment will reflect the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and a consistent development policy." 5. The Land Use Plan guides all land within the City into one of 19 land use categories that "are a result of reviewing and analyzing existing land uses and local area plans, planned infrastructure, and the vision established by the Eden Prairie community." 6. The Comprehensive Plan guides the Property as "Office." This land use designation is intended to accommodate offices and business parks that are "prominent features along major roadways." 7. The Applicant's proposed use of the Property for multifamily housing is inconsistent with this Office guide designation. Applicant requests a reguiding of the Property from Office to Medium High Density Residential. The Medium High Density Residential designation "significantly increases density in certain neighborhoods by including multifamily housing options." 8. The reguiding requested by Applicant is not consistent with the City's development goals as expressed by the Comprehensive Plan because it would result in an undesirable and unbalanced mix ofland uses in the area of the Property. The parcels surrounding the Property include commercial and office uses to the west and south, and single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and east. Introducing a higher-density residential development into the area would be contrary to the Comprehensive Plan's goals of promoting balanced growth and retaining an appropriate mix of land uses. 9. The Property adjoins Valley View Road, which serves as an exit off ofl-494 and is a busy "A-Minor Arterial" road as designated by Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. These roads "emphasize mobility over land access" and usually include "major business concentrations and other important traffic generators." One of the transpmiation goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to "[p]rovide a safe and efficient roadway system that balances mobility, access, and the diverse needs of transportation system users." 10. The reguiding requested by Applicant is not consistent with these transpmiation goals. A medium-high density residential land use generates more emergency service calls as compared to an office use. In 2022, three multifamily residential buildings in the City similar in size to the proposed Project generated 14, 15, and 20 fire service calls, respectively. In contrast, two office buildings similar to what would be permitted under the Property's current guiding generated 2 and 3 fire 3 service calls, respectively. Increasing the number of emergency trips will negatively impact traffic and safety along Valley View Road due to the need for large fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles to cross the atypical mountable median or preempt the traffic signal controller in order to make a U-tum at the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Drive to provide responders exclusive right-of-way to the site. 11. The proposed single right-in/right-out access point onto Valley View Road will result in residents making U-turns at the Topview Drive intersection in order to access the site. Neighbors of the proposed Project gave concrete factual testimony about the existing traffic conditions at the Valley View Road/Topview Drive intersection and how the Project is likely to encourage U-turns and exacerbate existing safety concerns at the intersection. 12. Amending the Comprehensive Plan to reguide the Property to allow Applicant's proposed use is inconsistent with the community-supported land use goals that were carefully considered and expressed by the Council when it adopted the Comprehensive Plan. The requested amendment would have a negative impact on the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan and on the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City. II. Rezoning 13. Applicant requests a rezoning of the Property from Rural to RM-2.5. The Council may not adopt an amendment to the zoning ordinance that is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1. 14. As discussed above in Section I, the Comprehensive Plan guides the Property for Office use. Rezoning the Property to the Multi-Family Residential District (RM- 2.5) would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 15. Given the current Office guiding, the only permissible rezoning of the Property is to the Office Zoning District. Applicant does not request such rezoning. 16. Even if the Council were to approve Applicant's requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Applicant's rezoning request to RM-2.5 is submitted only in conjunction with its request for PUD waivers. As discussed below in Section III, because the requested waivers to the standards in the RM-2.5 district are not justified, the rezoning request is denied. III. Planned Unit Development Review 17. The purpose of the City's PUD ordinance is to: (1) Encourage a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land in the City; (2) Allow variety in the types of environment available to the people of the City; 4 (3) Encourage more efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled common open space through the distribution of overall density of population and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible; and (4) Provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 12 (relating to Subd.s) of this Code while at the same time preserving the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants. (City Code § 11.40, subd. 4) Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan 18. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.A, requires that the Council find that the Project is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 19. For the reasons discussed above in Section I, the Project is in conflict with the land use and safety-related transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Desirable and Unified Environment 20. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.B, requires that the Council find that the Project is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. 21. Due to the size and topography of the Prope1iy and the size of the building proposed by the Applicant, the Project is unable to provide the minimum number of parking stalls required by City Code. Applicant therefore proposes to provide visitor parking for the building through a written agreement with the owner of the adjacent property for use of that property's parking lot for visitors. The Council's findings regarding parking are discussed in greater detail in Finding 27 below. 22. Relying on an adjacent property to meet the parking needs of the Project does not promote a unified environment within the Project's own boundaries. The use of off- site parking to meet the minimum required parking spaces for a project is not permitted by the City Code. The use of adjacent prope1iy for visitor parking is likely to have a negative impact on the safety and accessibility of the Project. 23. The Project is not designed in such a manner to form a desirable and uniform environn1ent within its own boundaries because it is unable to provide sufficient on-site parking. Justifications for Exceptions to Standard Requirements 24. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.C, requires that the Council find that any exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 are justified by the design of the development. 5 25. Even assuming the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning to RM-2.5 were approved, the proposed Project requests waivers to several standard requirements of Chapter 11 through a PUD, including density, building height, signage, wetland structure setbacks, and parking. 26. The density and building height waivers requested are not justified by the design of the development. Applicant is attempting to fit a large building onto a site with significant physical constraints, including rolling topography and a wetland that reduces the buildable area of the site. A. Density: City Code § 11.03, subd. 2.A.2 provides that the maximum gross density permitted in the RM-2.5 District is 17.4 units per acre. Applicant requests a waiver to allow density of 30 units per acre. This increased density of nearly twice that permitted by City Code is not justified given the size, topography, and other physical constraints of the Property. The increased density is further not justified as evidenced by the lack of parking provided on the site, as discussed below in Finding 27. B. Building Height: City Code § 11.03, subd. 2.B (Table 1) provides a maximum main structure height of 45 feet in the RM-2.5 District. The Applicant requests a waiver to allow a building height of 64.76 feet. This waiver is not justified by any other aspect of the development. The proximity of the Property to neighboring residential uses with sightlines directly onto the roof of the proposed building does not justify the requested increase in height. If properly rezoned according to the current guiding, an office use on the Property would be limited to 30 feet, less than half of the height sought by the Applicant. 27. The physical characteristics of the Prope1iy and the proposed density of the Project require significant waivers from City Code requirements related to parking: A. Parking Stalls: For the RM-2.5 District, City Code § 11.03, subd. 3.H.4 requires 1 parking stall per studio or efficiency unit and 2 parking stalls per any other unit, half of which must be enclosed. The Project therefore requires 388 total parking stalls with 194 enclosed. The most viable option proposed by Applicant requires a waiver to allow 337 total stalls, with 272 current stalls (119 underground and 153 surface stalls) and 65 "proof of parking" stalls. The Council finds that this requested waiver-to provide only 70% of the current required parking stalls-is inadequate to supply the parking needed for the anticipated number of residents of the Project and their visitors. The City's experience with other higher density residential projects indicates that providing adequate parking is crucial to ensure the accessibility of the site and the safety of residents and guests. There are no public transit opportunities within reasonable walking distance of the Property, which 6 will likely result in most residents of the Project owning and needing to park a vehicle. There is a bus stop at the corner of Valley View Road and Prairie Center Drive, which is approximately Y4 mile from the proposed building, but routes at that stop are limited. The new Southwest LRT station is more than Yi of a mile from the Property and will not provide a convenient transit option for residents. Further, the ratio of residential units to parking stalls proposed by the Applicant is lower than the ratio proposed and approved for other recent projects. Applicant has not given sufficient assurances that its proposed number of parking stalls will be adequate to meet the needs of the Project. There is no street parking available in the area to off-set the parking shortage. B. Off-Street Parking: City Code § 11.03, Subd. 3.H.5(d) requires that off- street parking facilities be located on the same parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve. Applicant requests a waiver to allow visitor parking to be provided on the property to the west of the Property so that resident parking can be maximized on site. This waiver is not justified by the design of the development. The proposed off-site parking on the neighboring property is approximately 800 feet from the from the entrance to the proposed building. This poses problems from an accessibility standpoint and it is unreasonable to expect visitors to walk such a distance. Further, Applicant indicates that any such agreement with the neighboring property owner would provide only for evening and weekend parking, and that the owner would retain the right to discontinue the agreement if the neighboring property is redeveloped. This limited usage and uncertainty in the agreement renders such an arrangement an unsuitable solution to the parking issues for the Project. A. Parking Stall Size: City Code § 11.03, Subd. 3.H.3(d) requires parking stalls to be at least 9' wide by 18' deep. Applicant requests a waiver to allow 14 "compact" stalls in the underground parking structure that would not meet this minimum size requirement. The Council does not have specific concerns with this waiver, but notes that it is necessitated by the other unsolved and significant parking shortage issues addressed in the other waiver requests. B. Proof of Parking: City Code§ 11.03, Subd. 3.H.6(d) allows no more than 15% of required parking stalls to be "proof of parking" stalls to be constructed at a later date, provided that an applicant demonstrates that the proposed development does not require the amount of parking required under City Code, among other conditions. Applicant requests a waiver to allow 16. 7% of the required stalls as "proof of parking." 7 The Council finds that, in conjunction with all of the other requested parking-related waivers, this waiver is not justified by the design of the development. The proof of parking provision in City Code is intended to be a limited accommodation when an applicant has shown that a proposed development does not require the amount of parking required under City Code. Given the significant parking constraints on the City, allowing more than the 15% proof of parking is not warranted. 28. The parking requirements in City Code are intended to ensure that uses are self- contained and that adequate parking space is available for residents and visitors. Applicant's proposal is to provide on-site, at the outset of the Project, only 70% of the parking stalls required by City Code. This number of parking stalls is inadequate for the size and density of the building, and the requested waivers are not justified by the design of the development. 29. The waivers sought by Applicant request flexibility from numerous requirements of City Code. The design of the development does not justify the requested waivers. The design does not provide for adequate parking or minimize impacts on neighboring properties. Granting the waivers and flexibility from the performance standards is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and does not provide public benefit to justify granting the request. Composition and Arrangement of PUD 30. To approve a PUD, City Code § 11.40, subd. 11.D, requires that the Council find that the PUD is of composition and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence on any subsequent unit, and the PUD is consistent with an approved PUD Concept. 31. The Project does not include any subsequent phases or units, and therefore this factor is not particularly relevant. For the various reasons stated above in these findings, however, the PUD Concept for the Property is not approved. The PUD is therefore not consistent with an approved PUD Concept. IV. Site Plan 32. City Code § 11.03, subdivision 6.E, contains standards and provisions applicable to the City's evaluation of a site plan and architectural design review application, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances, transitions between differing land uses, provision for safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and compliance with the City Design Guidelines. 33. The site plan for the Project is not consistent with the land use and safety-related transpmiation goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As identified in Section I above, the proposed height and density of the Project conflicts with the current guiding of the Property and does not promote an appropriate mix of land uses or a safe and efficient transportation system. 8 34. The site plan for the Project is not consistent with the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances because it requires rezoning and waivers from the standard requirements and provisions of those ordinances. 3 5. The site plan does not provide for a smooth transition between the proposed building and the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods. Because of the significant density and building height proposed for the Project, sight lines from neighboring properties will be impacted by the building. 36. The site plan does not make adequate provision for safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian traffic. As discussed in Section III above, the Project does not include sufficient parking spaces for residents and visitors. The proposal to provide off-site parking at a neighboring property will have negative impacts on the accessibility of the Project and the safety of pedestrians walking to and from the off-site parking. 37. The Project is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Design Guidelines. The Project does not relate well to the surrounding context. The Project is located close to the existing residential development and will have a negative visual impact on neighboring properties. Functionally the Project is not of high quality because the density and design of the Project creates significant parking shortages. 38. The Project is further not consistent with the City's Design Guidelines because the height, massing, and proportion of the building does not fit on the site. The site constraints coupled with the size of the building creates problems with wetland setbacks, parking, and visibility from adjacent neighborhoods. While the pitched roof proposed by the Applicant is similar to the roof styles in the adjacent residential neighborhood, in this case it adds more height to the building and is not consistent with other surrounding developments. 39. For projects having more than 200 dwelling units, the Minnesota State Fire Code requires two separate access roads for fire and emergency equipment. The site plan for the Project does not provide for these two access points due to the topography and wetlands on the site. While this access requirement can be waived by the Fire Department, the Council finds that this lack of compliance with Fire Code requirements provides fmiher evidence that the site plan is contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City and potential residents of the Project. V. Preliminary Plat 40. City Code§ 12.04, subd. 5.C, provides that a preliminary plat may not be approved if the Council makes any of the following findings (among other factors): that the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations; that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; or that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. 9 41. As noted above in Section I, the proposed subdivision is in conflict with the land use goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 42. The Project site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site contains rolling topography, steep slopes, and a wetland that reduce the buildable area of the site. To overcome these physical challenges while meeting its desired density, the Applicant is proposing a building that is nearly twenty feet higher than that permitted by City Code and that will not contain adequate parking facilities for residents and guests. 43. The design of the proposed subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. As discussed above, the density and design of the Project is not suitable for the site and is not in the best interests of the City. The negative impacts on neighboring properties, emergency response, aesthetics, and safety that can reasonably be anticipated to result from the Project have a detrimental impact on the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents surrounding the Project as well as the community as a whole. DECISION Based upon the above findings of fact, the Council hereby denies the Applications for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Rezoning, PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review with waivers, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat for the Eden Prairie Multifamily Project. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council this 7th day of March, 2023. Ronald A. Case, Mayor ATTEST 10