Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 05/28/2024APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 28, 2024 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Trisha Duncan, Robert Taylor, Dan Grote, Charles Weber; Phou Sivilay CITY STAFF: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL John Kirk was absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Sivilay to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the minutes of April 8, 2024 . MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. NEXUS INNOVATION CENTER (2024-04)) Request for • Zoning Change to I-2 on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres Josh Budish, founder and Principal of Endeavor Development, presented a PowerPoint and detailed the application. This development would construct a new 185,733 square foot modern business center on the former office campus for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2024 Page 2 American Family Insurance. The applicant requested a rezone to I-2 Industrial Park, which was consistent with the Aspire 2040 guidance of Industrial Flex Tech. Budish displayed the existing property along Highway 62 and explained it was and would continue to be served by Minnetonka regarding sewer and water. Budish displayed the site plan showing the front parked, rear loaded modern business center, which he explained would include EV readiness and would preserve many existing trees. He explained the robust landscaping plan and displayed elevations with exterior materials and a finish key. Painted precast concrete would be used along with stone veneer and metal canopy and window frames. He displayed the glass and signature materials on the first and second floors via a rendering. Glazing and paint on the second and third floors would create a faux fenestration to give a pleasing appearance. He displayed interior renderings showing light manufacturing, warehouse, and showroom uses. Budish stated this project would revitalize an underutilized site, providing jobs. Barnhart presented the staff report. The flex building would offer 17,000 square foot of office space and the balance for warehousing. The parking offered flexibility that met the Zoning Codes and Standards of I-2 without requiring waivers. Staff was confident the attached list of required changes could be fulfilled before the City Council meeting later in June. Minnetonka would issue the utility and right-of-way permits and staff would continue to work with the applicant on wayfinding goals before final approval. Staff recommended approval of the application. Weber referenced staff’s “to do” list of changes, stating it appeared in the style of requests. Barnhart confirmed these were indeed requirements, not merely requests. Taylor asked how many warehouses existed in Eden Prairie. Barnhart replied he did not know offhand, but added most were a combination of warehouse and another use as here. Taylor asked what the occupancy was in Industrial warehousing in Eden Prairie. Barnhart replied three or four buildings in Eden Prairie were completely vacant, with the rest at least partially occupied, according to the assessor. Sivilay asked if there were loading docks attached to the proposed building, and Barnhart replied they were on the north side of the building. Sivilay asked if there were concerns with the one way road, and Barnhart replied there were no access concerns. Farr asked for and received confirmation the widened center driveway met City standards for access and turning. Barnhart stated this was not dedicated solely for personal vehicles but also provided for truck and pedestrian traffic. Farr asked about possible parking assumptions for a potential second floor mezzanine. Barnhart replied staff did not take that into account in this situation. Staff did not anticipate a second floor mezzanine. If it was proposed in the future it would trigger a waiver, and therefore another public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2024 Page 3 Duncan asked if it was common for this many conditions (via the “to do” list) required before City Council approval. Barnhart replied this was not typically provided; usually these were worked out beforehand during the development review process but this project was more time-sensitive. Duncan asked if the City of Minnetonka’s access guidelines would govern this project, since the City had jurisdiction in that regard, and Barnhart replied this would follow the City of Minnetonka’s requirements. Minnetonka staff had not commented on the driveway but on the trail and right-of-way, not the number of accesses. Duncan asked for and received confirmation there was no need to change the access. Duncan noted this was an attractive building, and commended the development. She asked how the painting would work in conjunction with the windows. Budish displayed the materials slide again and replied the charcoal paint on smooth concrete would look like windows from afar and even close in, meant to trick the eye and be an extension of the glass fenestration. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Farr commended the infill project’s design and the site’s change in use and expressed support for the development. Sherwood agreed and this was also good timing for the project. MOTION: Duncan moved, seconded by Weber to recommend a Zoning Change to I-2 on 14.35 acres and a site Plan Review on 14.35 acres as represented in the May 28, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 8-0. B. CODE AMENDMENT – LANDSCAPING IN THE RM-2.5 ZONING DISTRICT Request for • Amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.42, Subdivision 5 Barnhart presented the Code Amendment. In the last seven years the City had approved eight different projects in the RM-2.5 zoning district, six of which had waivers for landscaping. There was a difference between landscaping requirements based on the size of the building and the tree replacement requirement. The landscaping requirements for the building were based on the size of the building. In certain situations a large building on a lot left little space to include trees, so waivers were granted to reduce the required landscaping. Five of these six developments with waivers had a floor area ratio of one or greater, a trend that made staff think about addressing this in the Code. What staff proposed was, if a floor ratio was a ratio of greater than one, up to 50 percent of the caliper use requirement could be addressed by perennials/flower beds or shrubs. This would introduce color and texture without reducing the landscaping requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2024 Page 4 This allowed for more flexibility to allow developments to meet the landscaping requirements without waivers while supporting the overall design guidelines in terms of color, texture, seasonal interest, variety, and sustainability. This change would remove barriers to development and redevelopment while supporting the City’s vision. Staff recommended approval. Farr noticed the metric for computing landscaping requirements were based con floor area ratio and asked if this requirement should be based on the base area, not the floor area ratio in the example of a high rise. However, he found this change to be a good idea. He noted that many developments do have some undeveloped, undisturbed area off the side, many of which were topographically challenging. He asked for assurance that this change would not allow any building to stand alone without surrounding landscaping just because it mathematically met the criterial via the unused side parcel, but that the change in Code would emphasize the building in context of the required landscaping. Barnhart replied staff chose the floor area ratio calculation from the examples identified, all of which were multi-story buildings, so Farr was correct, and this ratio would increase with multiple stories. Barnhart assured Farr staff would not allow spotty landscaping but would require it throughout the development, even in the case of an undeveloped side parcel. MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Duncan commended the seven items for promoting flexibility and creativity. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Grote to recommended approve to amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.42, Subdivision 5 as represented in the May 28, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 8-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Duncan to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.