Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 06/27/2022APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2022 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, Community Development Director; Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Parks & Natural Resources Manager Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Vice Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Absent was commission member Pieper. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. [Mette arrived at 7:01 p.m.] IV. MINUTES MOTION: Gooding moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the minutes of June 13, 2022. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EDEN PRAIRIE MULTI FAMILY EDEN PRAIRIE MULTI FAMILY Request for: • Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on 7.01 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.01 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.01 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 2 • Zoning Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 7.01 acres • Site Plan Review on 7.01 acres • Preliminary Plat on 7.01 acres Tony Barranco, President of Ryan Companies, north region, introduced Josh Ekstrand, Joe Conway, MaKinnah Collins, Justin Baggenstoss, and Chad Lockwood. Josh Ekstrand displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He stated the site was bordered by Valley View Road and Topview Road east of the Home Depot north of Menards. The applicant proposed to construct 211 units on the seven-acre property with 268 parking stalls resulting in 1.3 stalls/unit. The Site Plan showed a natural setting with many amenities including walking trails in this heavily wooded site. 47 trees were to be removed and 49 would remain, and 224 trees were to be planted. There would be one access from Valley View Road which would be a right in right out only. Ekstrand displayed trip generation data and traffic impacts to compare with how the site was guided in the Comprehensive Plan. The multifamily building would be 35,000 square feet. Ekstrand displayed renderings of how the development met the neighborhood. There would be common spaces within the lobby connecting to the natural spaces outside. The materials were cement panel lap siding and brick, which would extend all the way around the building on three stories to the bump-outs. The plan incorporated variation in height and scale, and the pitched roof was designed to give a residential feel. Ekstrand displayed the view overlooking the pool deck and the walking trails northeast side of project, which also had a pet exercise area and space for outdoor sporting/games areas. Barranco stated his team worked with staff on the landscaping plan to incorporate the wetlands and stated this project had a comparable parking ratio of 1.3. He displayed several of these comparable sites which included Ironwood, The Fenley, The Barnum, and Eden Glen Apartments. Mette expressed concern that this was the lowest parking count on average and asked if there was a perpetual agreement with neighbor. Barranco replied his staff was in discussions with the neighboring office, which was interested in utilizing the trails. However a perpetual lease would be difficult to secure and he could not guarantee one. Mette recommended using the neighboring property for overnight/overflow parking only, and to incorporate this in the lease. She added she understood this would be challenging. Mette noted drivers coming in and out needing to make a U-Turn on Valley View Road and asked the developer to consider gaining access through the neighboring traffic light near Home Depot. Chad Lockwood, Associate Director, stated the traffic study did include analysis PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 3 of the turns. There were substantial constraints on site and cutting through the neighboring property was not a benefit as it would require them to negotiate easements. Mette asked if the eastbound left hand turn light on Valley View was a blinking yellow and Lockwood replied it was. Gooding stated he had looked at the site today around rush hour and many drivers making U-turns waited for 20-25 seconds after light changed with no one behind him. This was a concern, especially if there would be two or three cars in a queue. The alternative route across from the pet store seemed a better choice. He urged this issue be addressed. The data chart cited other projects in Hopkins and Bloomington but gave no data in relation to public transportation which is not a strong point of Eden Prairie. Joe Conway stated the only project with significant transit around it is among the examples was the Fenway; all the rest just had local buses. Taylor stated there was only one entrance in and out of the development and asked if there were plans to build another entrance. Lockwood replied there were numerous site plan revisions, but this site had a significant topography challenge with a 20-foot hill, and with county spacing guidelines only one entrance was possible at that point. Taylor asked how emergency vehicles would enter while people were trying to exit, and Lockwood replied upon review, one entrance was found to be acceptable. Taylor urged the Fire Marshall look at this development, and Lockwood replied Emergency Services did look at the plan. Farr asked for another look at the views, and Conway reviewed the site sections and property lines with the commission members, also showing the roofline views. Farr noted the traffic report identified a potential issue of the U-Turn at Valley View and Topview Roads and recommended that Valley View Road be widened to create a left-turn lane. Lockwood replied the County did not want the left-turn lane and found the existing arrangement to be acceptable. Mette asked why the window trim was white compared to the dark balconies. Barranco replied this was to break up the façade, and they wished to minimize the number of different window colors. Dark trim looked more jarring against the lighter background areas whereas the white was similar to a single-family scale. Mette asked if the HVAC vent was also white, and Conway replied it was a tan color close to the cement board siding. Mette asked for an explanation of how to deter people from cutting across the grass median at the firetruck left turn. Lockwood replied that was addressed by signage and an insurmountable curb. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 4 Farr asked for a summary of the neighborhood meeting. Barranco replied there was one neighborhood meeting and one person attended who spoke about the project. Klima presented the staff report. The applicant proposed to construct a 211-unit, five-story multifamily apartment building with one level of underground parking and some surface parking on a seven-acre property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Valley View Road and Topview Road. The property was currently guided Office in the Aspire 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant was requesting an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to reguide the property to Medium High Density Residential, which allowed 14 to 40 units per acre. The density of the project was proposed at 30 units per acre. The property was currently zoned Rural. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to RM-2.5. Provided the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved, the RM-2.5 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The project also met and exceeded the open space requirement of the multi-family district. The building materials complied with requirements. The original submittal did not include as much brick; the applicant worked with staff on incorporating more brick. Staff recommended visitor parking be provided off-site in the neighboring office park. Staff also recommended at least one stall be provided per unit. This application requested TIF financing with 20 percent units affordable at 50 percent AMI, with an inclusionary housing requirement at 80 percent AMI. Staff recommended additional review of the site be done to identify areas where structured parking under or aboveground could be provided. Klima noted the staff report had been written before the plans were revised to include the additional 16 parking stalls, bringing the ratio to 1.3 instead of 1.2. The applicant sought a wall signage waiver for one sign of 12 square feet. Staff recommended approval of the application. Mette asked for and received confirmation the building setback did not encroach on the wetland or trails. Grote noted younger people often did not have cars so he was not as concerned about the parking and asked if the development was targeted at any age or income demographic. Klima replied the project as proposed had no age restriction but was a market-driven general occupancy development. Mette asked for a parking comparison to the other projects given in the presentation. Klima replied her conversations with the applicant did explore the questions the commission members have asked. This site was unique in its constraints. Parking standards being applied to this project did reflect the recent PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 5 standard adopted in the last year, which was one parking stall per studio, and there were no plans to revise that downward. Gooding asked for and received clarification City recommended at least one stall per unit attached to a lease. He noted the applicant’s financial risk versus risk in providing less parking than usual. Kirk stated the City did have a concern regarding the parking because residents might have multiple vehicles and expect more parking. He worried about the impact to City streets in the area which were no-parking streets. Markos asked for and received the allowed height of 45 feet; the applicant was requesting a waiver 65 feet. If a story were added to provide additional parking below the building, she did not know if that would be requested and more research would be needed to know the consequences from a design standpoint. Grote asked how a building’s height was calculated and Klima replied it was measured from the grade plane of the building to the height of the midpoint of the roof . Mette asked if three parking islands could be eliminated to free up more parking, and Klima this could not be done without another waiver. Farr asked if staff agreed with the traffic study SRF, and Rue said they did. He did look at the U-turn at the flashing yellow arrow and said that traffic light’s timing could be programed to be protected (made green) at some times during the day if needed. Farr asked if there were potential negative impacts to City infrastructure or utilities, and Rue replied there were not. Farr asked for and received confirmation from Klima there were no concerns with the tandem parking layout. City Code did not distinguish or provide different standards for compact car stalls. Farr asked if stormwater pond consolidation was possible. Rue replied that had not been explored in detail but discussions with water resources staff discouraged this as too challenging. Farr asked what process there would be to allow the neighboring property to the west to provide easement parking. Klima replied the intention would be for visitor parking to be provided only during when the neighboring lot was vacant since that was an office space (for example, overnight, weekends). This would not be a nonconforming issue but an agreement, and therefore would not come before the commission. Gooding asked how Eden Prairie’s standard for parking compared to other jurisdictions, and Klima replied two stalls per unit per bedrooms was in line with other jurisdictions, though some offered even less. The City of Eden Prairie would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 6 not monitor a private property for compliance in the case of this agreement with the neighboring property; remedy would be sought from the property owner/manager. Farr asked if eviction would be the solution in the case of noncompliance, and Klima replied she would need further research to answer. Eric Vinson, 12771 Vina Lane Vinson stated he was a 23-year resident of Eden Prairie. He lives across the street from this property. He encouraged the commission members to pull the previous minutes regarding traffic in the area and expressed concern about the number of units proposed. Further there was lack of neighborhood input with short notice of a neighborhood meeting, and with only property owners within 500 feet receiving a notification despite it affecting the entire neighborhood. This was a dangerous intersection and he feared for children in the development. Height was also a concern as he would be forced to look at a five-story building next to a residential neighborhood. Also, 220 residents with an outdoor swimming pool was a concern when he presently he could hear even a flock of turkeys in his yard. The neighboring office space was very quiet and he feared the development would not be. Karen Keeley, 11447 Anderson Lakes Parkway Keeley stated this was a historic area and the development would contribute more carbon dioxide, result in the loss of trees, with “replacement” only with smaller trees. She lamented the destruction of prairie land and forest and the encroachment of a concrete jungle. She added the developers were from out of town and disagreed Eden Prairie needed more growth. She opposed the project and the rezoning, and the removal of heritage trees, and warned more development brought more cars. She asked if an EAW had been done. Megan Dowtal-Olson 12781 Vina Lane Dowtal-Olson expressed concerned about pool when she hears church activities and asked if there would be noise restrictions. The view from Roberts looked impressive but her property and her neighbors’ were elevated, so the new development would become part of the horizon. She added larger lots were a big draw to this area and this development was not in keeping with the neighborhood. She also expressed concerned about lighting and asked for an estimate or rendering of potential light pollution. She asked where extra cars would park. She had moved from Minneapolis a few years ago and the first couple of blocks around light rail there were inundated with parked cars. She also asked what PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 7 “acceptable” meant in terms of the U-turn: a number, or some other metric? This was a vague answer to a very serious question. She feared people would park on Topview were the no-parking area stopped. Regarding the entrance, drivers entering the area from Highway 494 almost never obeyed the yield as it was and she found the U-turn to be in a terrible place. She also asked for a construction timeline, and if there would be noise from the construction. MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Farr asked Rue to explain the SRF traffic reports. Rue quoted from the traffic study. The intersection running west was uncontrolled and without a signal. There were nine U-turns during the peak hour, west to east, in the morning and during evening peak hours. The Intersection at Plaza saw two U-turns during the morning peak hour and eight during the evening peak. 2024 future conditions projected 30 western intersection U-turns in the morning peak hour to 40 in the evening peak, and at Plaza these ranged from ten in the morning peak hour to 30 in the evening peak hours. U-turns were based on sightlines, requiring a minimum of 460 feet. There was no ultimate number for a metric. Another diagram showed the amount of U-turn vehicles caused by this development: at the west intersection, there were 165 per day. Farr stated the impact to the neighborhood would be felt at the intersection of Topview and Valley View but would still be safe, and there would be no impact north of this intersection. Rue agreed. There was a marked crosswalk and pedestrian indicators on the east side, though not on the west. Farr asked what could trigger an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) or EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). Klima replied the Minnesota State Statute threshold for an EAW had not been met in this case, and the EIS had an even higher threshold. A Phase One Environmental Review had been completed. Farr suggested that noise complaints (such as a loud party) could go through the proper channels, and Klima agreed. Farr noted this was a private property development. The City had strategic plans for open space and allowed for private development, which could include tree removal, impacts to small animals, et cetera, that still fit the City’s Vision and Plan. He encouraged the public to study the Plan and documents. Farr noted the site lighting plan in the commission packet which called for downcast pole LED lighting, minimizing light pollution. Conway confirmed this, and added the lights were lower than the tree line. Farr stated property owners on high ground were not guaranteed to have or expect certain views. The zoning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 8 change under discussion was part of the regular work of the commission to discuss. Residents of this development would probably park in the aisles rather than drive around the neighborhood, but if so such behavior would become a nuisance and would be dealt with accordingly. Mette asked how long residents could park on any Eden Prairie street and Rue replied one could park up to 24 hours in parking areas on the street. Taylor asked if there was data on accidents at the intersection of Topview and Valley View Road, and Rue there was but this required research. Mette stated she was a real estate multifamily developer and wished she had looked more into the parking ratios of this development. The average parking ratio was 1.3. She wondered how well the owner could educate his tenants to turn left or go straight to avoid U-turns. Gooding stated parking was a concern, however the younger generation did not buy as many cars and the commission had to be careful not to plan for an inappropriate tenant group. The U-turn was a concern but could be solved by a controlled turn if it became an issue. Kirk stated he was on the fence regarding this development. He saw some good ideas to develop this awkward piece of property, and all remaining buildable properties in Eden Prairie were awkward. He commended the creation of 55 affordable units and the effort to save trees. He was not as worried about traffic impact and thought the City did good job with planning infrastructure in general so no disasters arose. Parking was the main concern if it overlapped the City streets and neighborhoods with car with residents having no other place to park. Taylor stated he was also torn. Parking was the big issue and he warned against asking residents and neighbors to administer traffic patterns and to wait to see what happened as a result. He wanted to see the accident data and feared more accidents without suitable engineering. He urged there be another neighborhood meeting. Farr noted the density of units and traffic were concerns cited by residents. The building height was fine as he was concerned as demonstrated by cross-sectional views. The units were well screened and this zoning change was a better zoning transition to the neighborhood than office zoning. He agreed the City had a concern here with the number of parking stalls. The applicant was taking a financial risk that could impact the neighborhood and he wished the applicant success but that came with a caution: problems on the property had to stay on the property. Architecturally he found this to be a nice project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2022 Page 9 Markos stated she was also on the fence but thought this could be a positive addition to the neighborhood. She was a frequent user of this intersection and the U-turn was a concern as people flew through the intersection. She agreed with Taylor not to wait for something to happen and wished the developer would add underground parking. She agreed the development fit well into the forested neighborhood. Mette replied the staff report did reference a development agreement requirement for parking, and if the commission recommended approval these conditions would be included as well. Conversations with staff about solutions would continue and perhaps a few more stalls could be squeezed in. Kirk commented for the public’s benefit: commission members were volunteer, unpaid and charged to advise the City Council, who was also an audience member to this discussion. The commission members in holding their meetings want the City Council to understand the concerns, strengths and weaknesses of a project so that when the City Council made the final decision it had all the relevant information. MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Gooding to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium High Density Residential on 7.01 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 7.01 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 7.01 acres; Zoning Change from Rural to RM-2.5 on 7.01 acres; Site Plan Review on 7.01 acres; Preliminary Plat on 7.01 acres based on the conditions in plans stamp dated June 1, 2022, and the staff report June 23, 2022. Motion carried 6-1 (Grote nay) with one abstention (Kirk). PLANNERS’ REPORT Klima introduced Jeremy Barnhart, new City Planner. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.