Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 05/28/2024AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 28, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, , Robert Taylor, Daniel Grote, Frank Sherwood, Charles Weber, Phou Sivilay, Trisha Duncan STAFF MEMBERS: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner; Carter Schulze, City Engineer; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. MINUTES A. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting minutes dated April 8, 2024 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Nexus Innovation Center (2024-04) Request for: • Zoning Change from Office to I-2 on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres B. Code Amendment – Landscaping in the RM-2.5 Zoning District Request for: • Amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.42, Subdivision 5 VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ANNOTATED AGENDA TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner RE: Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, May 28, 2024 _______________________________________________________________________________ TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2024 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Move to approve the agenda. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2024 MOTION: Move to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated March 25, 2024 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Nexus Innovation Center (2024-04) Request for: • Zoning Change from Office to I-2 on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres The applicant is requesting approval to build a 185,733 square foot one-story industrial building on the property located at 6131 Blue Circle Drive. The site is 14.35 acres and was previously occupied by American Family Insurance. The property is in the far northeast corner of the City between the west bound on-ramp to Highway 62 from Highway 212 and the northern city limits. The proposed building is in the middle of the site with parking surrounding the building. The front of the building will face the highway and the back of the building (loading docks) will face Blue and Yellow Circle Drives. The northern edge of the property is the corporate limit between Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. The property is guided Industrial Flex Tech and zoned Office. The applicant is requesting approval of a zoning change to the Industrial (I-2) Zoning District, which is consistent with the guiding. No waivers are requested. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval for Zoning Change from Office to I-2 and Site Plan Review both on 14.35 acres as represented in the May 28, 2024 staff report. ANNOTATED AGENDA May 28, 2024 Page 2 B. Code Amendment – Landscaping in the RM-2.5 Zoning District Request for: • Amendment to City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.42, Subdivision 5 Requesting approval to amend City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.42, Subdivision 5 by inserting a new item F and re-lettering the remaining items. The amendment would allow projects in the RM-2.5 Zoning District with a floor area ratio of 1 or greater to substitute up to 50% of the required landscape caliper inches with shrubs, provided City Council finds that the landscaping plan furthers the goals and objectives of the City’s Design Guidelines. MOTION 1: Move to close the public hearing. MOTION 2: Move to recommend approval to amend Code Amendment - Landscaping in the RM-2.5 Zoning District as represented in the May 28, 2024 staff report. VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT VII. MEMBERS’ REPORT VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Move to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 8, 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 Chuck Weber was absent. Chair Pieper welcomed new commission member Trisha Duncan. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Sherwood moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of March 25, 2024 with the change from “used access agreement” to “shared access agreement” on Item V, page 2, paragraph four. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENCLAVE AT MANOR ROAD (2023-14) Request for • PUD Concept Review of 6.43 acres • PUD District Review with waivers on 6.43 acres • Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.43 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 2 • Preliminary Plat to divide one parcel into 17 lots and one outlot on 6.43 acres Chris Contreras, President of Brandl Anderson Homes displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He introduced his company and described the setback waiver to conserve more of the trees. The development would create 17 lots and one outlot. The landscape plan utilized a tree replacement formula replacing as many as possible, and also to fill in with plantings as many as possible. The timeframe anticipated completion in June 2024, with sales in August-September and the last home and escrow completed by April 2026. The houses would range from 2,400 to 4,000 square feet and be priced in the Low 700s. They would have stone accents, increased roof pitches, smart siding instead of vinyl and would be EV and solar ready. The developer could offer one-level homes but the target buyer was two-story homes. Barnhart presented the staff report. This was a subdivision with a right-of-way and an outlot for stormwater management on the northwest corner of the site. The lots were orientated on the extension of South Manor Road. This was a redevelopment of an existing farm which was not historic, but would nevertheless be documented by the Heritage Preservation Commission. A waiver requested a front yard setback reduction from 30 to 25, and the front yard along 168th would be reduced to 20 feet. Along the north side of the road the lot width would be reduced from 70 feet to 65 feet. Staff supported these waivers to manage and maintain existing vegetation. They allowed more space in backyards away from grading and vegetation. The project would try to design around existing vegetation and stormwater treatment, and it was a challenge because of the soils and slope. The corner outlot was best case scenario of the available option. The developer had a tree replacement plan and screening plan. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Ted Mellby of 11881 Germaine Terrace questioned why no commission members had any questions of the developer. He asked if they had visited the site and stated he would circulate a photograph of the tree removal at Pioneer Trail and Dell Road. He hoped the photograph would move the commissioners to leave as many trees as possible. He stated could not understand the tree replacement formula and would be meeting with City staff regarding his concerns. Adam Driscoll of 6411 Mere Drive stated he respected the rights of the building and property owners but urged the commission members to consider noise and traffic during the construction phase. He asked for hours of operation and contacts to limit noise and disturbance. He stated there had been numerous near-misses in the neighborhood and requested that construction related traffic use the west side of the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 3 Patty Farris stated she lived on 168th adjacent to the outlot and this development would ruin the salability of her house along with the views she enjoyed. It would create an island with just her house on the side. A pipe would be put through her yard tearing up her driveway and she had no assurances of repair. Many of the trees saved would be buckthorn and box elder junk trees. She pleaded for a pause on the development for this month so she could ask the developers for an alternative plan with the outlot in the subdivision itself. She invited the commission members to visit her and visit the site. There was also conflicting messaging about the plan submitted by the Watershed District. She outlined an alternate design with an outlot that would be more attractive with a U-shaped roadway through it and lots based on smaller houses. Marie Jackson, Patty Farris’s daughter, raised concerns about traffic on 168th as she had children and the street was already dangerous with no apparent speed limit. Natalie Martin of 1657 South Manor Road stated there were along 168th no stop signs, and she was concerned about traffic control with children and pets. The traffic study did not address the 17 additional houses with two drivers each and she asked how only 15 additional trips were the result. She requested there be traffic control at Mere Drive or some other alternative. Paul Bloom of Manor Road echoed the traffic concerns with pets and children. Kate Olson of Manor Road raised issues related to the water management issue. She stated the developer in her area did not respect the water plan in the past and she has had water issues in their yard for years. She asked how the City would enforce this. Also she did not understand the zoning change, as the houses in the development seemed closer together than the zoning around it. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Sherwood asked for the speed limit for Eden Prairie on unmarked streets. Schulze replied it was 30 miles/hour. There was always a speed limit in Eden Prairie, whether posted or not. Taylor asked what plans were there in place the ensure the outlot was suitable and would not cause the issues brought up. Schulze replied neighborhood did not have a lot of storm sewers to begin with so water flowed into low yards, particularly across 168th . There would be a separate area dry space where water would be infiltrated per Watershed District requirements, running eventually into a pipe and into the rest of the system. This would be an improvement from both the stormwater treatment and flooding perspective. It was meant to be a pond like other ponds in Eden Prairie, and the City would maintain the site. It had not been PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 4 maintained because heretofore it had not been owned by the City. The water would be captured and treated, improving the situation. Pieper asked staff to address the traffic issues. Schulze replied this was not a highly recorded area for speed problems. At any rate, stop signs were not put in for speed control but to create right-of-way, and putting them in when not- warranted was less safe on a long road. People would speed, and this could be addressed by electric speed signs, more intersections condensed neighborhoods, parking on streets which naturally slowed traffic. More obstacles made streets safer and it was not common to have stop signs at every corner. Farr stated he approved of the development which had many positive points. Street connections offered more dispersion options rather than a funneling of traffic. It would conserve many trees. Eden Prairie had an aggressive tree conservation policy though the formula could be daunting. The City did a good job at allocating land for heritage trees in infill sites like this. The residents had a fair expectation of the rules and regulation regarding construction hours of operation and there would be phone numbers for residents to call. He added the applicant would have someone onsite every day. Farr added he supported the waivers. Kirk stated with 15 years’ experience he had learned how developments evolved. Eden Prairie had an established in-depth process for evaluating developers and all of this was looked at carefully. There were reasons for it. He wished to reemphasize what City Engineer Schulze said regarding the development which would improve traffic and water management and which provided sincere and well-researched answers to staff. He found this to be a pretty well thought out project, despite the challenges an infill project posed. He supported the development. Pieper echoed these sentiments and found the waivers to be minimal. Farr added the outlot natural area was an amenity and planting nine or ten trees between Farris’s house and the pond would help. He urged Patty Farris to work with the developer on their placement. Kirk asked staff to address the zoning. Barnhart replied R1 meant residential single family and 9.5 meant 9,500 square foot lot. The neighborhood to the east was zoned R1-9.5 and the neighborhood to the north and south were zoned R1-13.5 (13,500 square foot lots), and to the west R1-22 (22,000 square foot lots). Duncan stated the residents’ comments were well-received and reiterated she heard major themes: traffic calming, water flow, zoning, and tree conservation. She did find the lots in the development appeared to be smaller than in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 5 surrounding area. Sivilay added that higher priced homes would raise present home values. Taylor asked for and received confirmation the noise during construction would be limited to set weekday times and no pile driving would be taking place. Farr noted backup beeping was required by OSHA. MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to recommend PUD Concept Review of 6.43 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 6.43 acres, Zoning Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 6.43 acres, Preliminary Plat to divide one parcel into 17 lots and one outlot of 6.43 acres as represented in the April 8, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 8-0. B. LOTUS VILLAS ON ANDERSON LAKES (2024-02) Request for • Guide Plan Change from Office to Low Density Residential on 5.0 acres • PUD Concept Plan Review on 5.0 acres • PUD District Review with waivers on 5.0 acres • Zoning District Change from Office to R1-9.5 on 5.0 acres • Preliminary Plan review on 5.0 acres Mike Waldo with Ron Clark Construction displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He explained the hours of operation and that he had met with neighbors regarding noise and dust during construction. He displayed an area map with surrounding land use and explained it was previously zoned commercial. Tim Witten, Witten Associates displayed the site plan showing the existing townhomes to the north and single-family residents to the south. He explained this was a transition project of detached single family homes. They had originally considered a mix of single and twin homes but after meeting with neighbors decided on the villas. There would be 16 walkouts with full basements and three in center slab on grade. He displayed the elevations and explained the benefits of a single developer/builder. Waldo explained the HOA would maintain driveways and do the mowing. There would be a buffer easement instead of a drainage utility easement. The grading plan would tie into berms from existing neighborhoods. Duncan asked for the demolition process. Waldo replied they would empty the building which would take two weeks or 12 working days. The materials would be recycled and dust would be minimized with water. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 6 Barnhart presented the planning report. This was several requests to change the land use from office to low density residential, a zoning change with waivers, a PUD concept and district review with waivers, and Zoning Change and Preliminary Plat review, all on 5 acres. The project converted an existing office building into a 19-lot single family development. The villas were like a ‘detached’ townhome, with individual ownership of the unit, and HOA-maintained common grounds, streets, and driveways. Farr asked for and received confirmation the private drive at the north end terminated without a cul-de-sac and there were no concerns about firetruck access Terry Pearson of 10827 Leaping Deer Lane stated her community (Weston Woods) was very delighted about this project. She and President of the Board Joe Vorheck found the developer accessible and communicative. She asked Waldo to address the dirt, dust, and noise pollution and asked if the fence could be erected prior to construction. Ted Mellby of 11881 Germaine Terrace distributed his photograph and referenced the loss of trees in this development. He urged the commission members suggest the arborist Miss Commers examine the site and calculate the environmental harm. He asked how many significant trees would be removed from this site and noted the replacements would not come close to replacing the diameter of trees lost. He also asked if there was a difference between a variance and a waiver. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Sherwood to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Pieper asked staff to address the tree replacement. Barnhart replied the plan could be shared with Mellby and put on the City’s website. Staff did consider City Code and did consult with the Parks Department and the arborist in replacing these trees with smaller but better quality ones. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation this development would not disrupt the neighboring communities. Waldo also explained there were no short-term rentals allowed. Also the arborist had been contacted directly and there would be an excess of trees in the final result. He would also meet with the residents regarding the timing of the fencing. Taylor suggested a temporary fencing. Waldo agreed a silt fence was a possibility, but he did not want to order fencing before receiving an approval of his application by the City Council. Farr noted on the east side there were lots with decreasing frontage and asked if these could be standardized. Waldo replied emergency overflow of water prevented this in that section. Pieper asked for and received confirmation the City would repair any street damage. Farr commended the development. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 7 MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Duncan to recommend approval for the Guide Plan Change from Office to Low Density Residential on 5.0 acres, PUD Concept Plan Review on 5.0 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 5.0 acres, Zoning District Change from Office to R1-9.5 on 5.0 acres, and Preliminary Plat review on 5.0 acres as represented in the April 8, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 8-0. C. ASIA MALL PARKING LOT EXPANSION (2024-01) Request for • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.69 acres • Planned Unit District Amendment with waivers on 4.69 acres • Site Plan Review on 4.69 acres Lance Eliot of Eliot Design displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. This mall was on the site of Gander Mountain. Parking stalls had been full and patrons had been forced to park across Technology Drive and cross that road to visit the site. Construction would start in summer by Amcon if approved. There were waivers to setback, impervious surface area, parking, and islands requested. The application included landscaping and tree replacement and stormwater improvements. He displayed the existing conditions and explained the area where the parking lot would be expanded. At present there was a 155-stall deficit. He displayed and explained the parking calculations. 445 were required, and 425 were being requested. There were 290 stalls currently. He displayed the tree replacement plan and the parking islands and explained the stormwater treatment plan. Sivilay agreed traffic was heavy especially on Sundays. He asked what vacancy was in the building and what industries were represented in the vacancies. Eliot replied to his understanding the building was at full capacity, which was what the traffic study was based on. There was a potential mezzanine that had not yet been constructed. Sivilay asked for and received confirmation this was the final parking plan. Taylor asked if the developer could exceed safety capacity for the building. Eliot replied the traffic study was based on a safe standard but more visitors to the building were beyond his control. Duncan asked for and received confirmation the new exit was exit only and there would be lighting throughout the parking lot. There would be a sidewalk along the length of the parking lot. Farr praised the popularity of this amenity. He found no visible signage directing drivers to the lower level parking. He disputed the applicant’s traffic counts, which did not actually count cars from current usage. He stated there were four or PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 8 five vacant storefronts when he visited the day before. Peak traffic movements would give more accurate results than the manual. He asked how square footage and restaurant seated contributed to the parking problem which already existed. Eliot replied he was not involved in the restaurant approval but the original proposal was based on the estimates at that time, and the difference was not significant. Farr stated the original application included a parking ramp. Eliot replied there were challenges to building a parking ramp such as overhead power lines and the expansion would not have adverse impacts. The stormwater pond would be difficult with a ramp. Farr suggested alternative stall striping to yield one-way instead of two-way aisles with 60-degree parking. Eliot replied this had been the first concept. The proposal was the best solution after several iterations. Farr suggested pervious pavement alternatives, and Eliot agreed these were originally part of his proposal but he was dissuaded by City staff who found the underground storage system a superior choice. Farr asked for a condition to restore the site to previous conditions should the parking need wane in the future. Eliot agreed to this condition upon talking with his clients. Kirk asked for and received confirmation employees parked elsewhere and were brought in by bus. Eliot added that need would go away with the expansion but that service would still be provided if needed. Eliot conceded the parking problems were ongoing. He added the parking study did not include an actual parking count but the peaks in the study closely matched the numbers onsite, which actually yielded a deficit of 60 parking stalls. The proposal would yield 90 extra parking stalls, making a traffic count irrelevant. Kirk replied actual data was always preferable to estimated. Pieper asked how many stalls were in the expansion, and Eliot replied there would be 80. He suggested no constructing the right expansion, and Eliot replied it did not meet City Code. The point was to maximize the number of parking stalls with the least amount of impact. Farr noted this was essentially a replacement proof-of-parking plan asking for a higher total and stated he still distrusted the numbers. Pieper commented on the signage that did not materialize. Kirk noted this was a unique problem the commission members did not anticipate. He stated the parking needed to be put in now, and the original estimates exacerbated the problem. He agreed the message seemed to be to build for the future need, not a present need that would become inadequate. Pieper asked if there would be designated employee parking spots and Eliot replied there would not be, nor compact parking, but he was open to discussing it. Sivilay commended the attempt to address the problem, but doubted this was a final plan. He asked if the original ramp had been looked into. Eliot replied cost was not always relevant but the cost for a ramp was prohibitive for the number of stalls it would yield, though he had not personally looked into it. He found the parking expansion as a whole was the permanent solution. He agreed with additional signage to direct people to the lower level. Sivilay asked why the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 9 original plans were not followed. Eliot stated he could not answer this. Sivilay asked how the present plans could be followed if the original ones weren’t. Eliot replied he was working with City staff to ensure this. Barnhart added staff could look into all conditions not followed. Pieper asked for and received clarification this was a “permanent solution” to meet the City cold rather than to actually meet peak demand. Eliot added the final number of parking stalls would substantively exceed the need so both were met. Taylor asked if there was a calculation for disabled spaces, and Barnhart replied he did not have a number but it would be ADA-conforming. Barnhart presented the staff report. He explained this was a unique site as there were not many food court malls in Eden Prairie with no real opportunity for offsite parking. Staff tried to maximize the parking on the site which triggered waivers. This proposal reflected a balance of the Zoning Code with the big picture. It did not meet a strict reading of the Code but met the expected parking demand and decreased the ratio parking from the original waiver. Staff recommended approval based on conditions outlined in the staff report. Farr noted the “ghosted in” truck circulation plan did not provide an exit for delivery or fire trucks. Barnhart replied trucks exited the main entrance. Farr added there were no landscape areas for snow storage with the additional parking stalls up against lot lines. Barnhart replied the original agreement included trucking out the snow. Farr commented on the difference between retail and office parking. He warned against the customer becoming frustrated with this parking plan. MOTION: Grote moved, seconded by Taylor to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Kirk stated the mall was a great addition to Eden Prairie and he wanted to see it work, but see it work within safe and reasonable standards. The commission had been behind the proof-of-parking plan from the beginning, which was apparently unrealistic. This had driven many waivers, which he was not enthusiastic about but found reasonable. He was frustrated about not using actual data, and he did not want to see the Planning Commission in this position again in the future. He wished this business to thrive and to adequately deal with the stormwater. Despite his reservations he supported this proposal. Farr stated he agreed with Kirk including the reservations, and found he could not support this proposal. The total impact of the waivers could not make up for the inability to provided adequate parking, which could require a reduction in demand. While he did not want that, it was the unspoken issue needing to be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 8, 2024 Page 10 Pieper stated this business was a tremendous asset but he felt this proposal was overbuilt while not using actual data. In this unique situation he was not sure the commission should allow a build-to-Code and he liked Farr’s suggestion of a return to the original parking if demand decreased. He felt trepidation about this proposal and could not support it. Grote asked if it was a reality that there was no more “build out” in Eden Prairie, only “build up.” Duncan asked for and received clarification the impervious pavement was between 87 and 97 percent. The maximum permissible was 30 percent. Barnhart would solidify the percentage before the application reached the City Council. Duncan expressed concern that a delay in approval would cause the problem to persist. Farr replied the mall would have to address its parking problems, such as closing certain shops or altering the hours of operation. Taylor asked for and received clarification the City Council would vote on this, whether or not the Planning Commission approved it. Kirk urged the commission members go on record for the City Council. Pieper asked for and received confirmation Barnhard was comfortable with the peak use estimates. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Grote to recommend approval for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.69 acres, Planned Unit District Amendment with waivers on 4.69 acres, and Site Plan Review on 4.69 acres as represented in the April 8, 2024 staff report. Motion carried 5-3 (with Sivilay, Pieper, and Farr voting nay). PLANNERS’ REPORT Barnhart stated he did not anticipate another meeting in April, and staff was working on a number of Ordinance Amendments the commission would see in 60-90 days. MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Kirk to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Project Site City of Minnetonka TO: Planning Commission FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner DATE: May 28, 2024 SUBJECT: Nexus Innovation Center Development LOCATION: 6131 Blue Circle Drive APPLICANT: REQUEST: Endeavor Development, LLC • Zoning Change from Office to I-2 on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres 120 – DAY REVIEW PERIOD: September 10, 2024 BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to build a 185,733 square foot industrial building on the property located at 6131 Blue Circle Drive. The site is 14.35 acres and was previously occupied by American Family Insurance. The property is in the far northeast corner of the City between the west bound on ramp to Highway 62 from Highway 212 and the northern city limits. The land on the north side of the subject property is located in the City of Minnetonka. The right-of- way for Yellow Circle Drive and Blue Circle Drive and the improvements within the right-of-way are owned by the City of Minnetonka. The property is served by the City of Minnetonka sanitary sewer and water. The properties to the north are located in the City of Minnetonka in the area known the Opus Business Park. The business park has a mix of uses including the Opus Light Rail Station, residential, office, industrial, and commercial. The property to the east is occupied by a systems engineering company in Eden Prairie, the property to the west is a vacant wooded lot in Eden Prairie and the land to the south is Highway 62 and 212. No specific tenant(s) have yet been identified for the proposed building. At this time, the applicant anticipates the building uses will be office and warehousing. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 2 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING The property is designated as Industrial Flex Tech in the Comprehensive Plan. The Industrial Flex Tech designation allows office uses as well as light manufacturing, warehousing and distribution uses. The current zoning of the property is Office. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from Office to Industrial (I-2). The I-2 zoning is consistent with the Industrial Flex Tech guiding in the Comprehensive Plan. SITE PLAN The applicant is proposing to demolish all the current buildings, the parking structure, parking lots etc. on the lot and build the industrial building in the center of the site with parking and loading along the perimeter of the building. There are currently three access points into the site. There are two driveways from Yellow Circle Drive and one driveway from Blue Circle Drive. The applicant is proposing to modify the driveway access points. The proposed plan includes one driveway from Yellow Circle Drive and two driveways from Blue Circle Drive, which maintains the current number of driveways. The location, width, and number of driveways is regulated by the City of Minnetonka. The front of the building will face the highway with the loading docks facing Blue Circle Drive. The proposal includes three main entrances into the building along the front. Stormwater management facilities are proposed along the east and south sides of the site. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 3 3 PARKING The number of parking spaces is based on speculative uses within the building; 17,440 square feet of office space and 168,293 square feet of warehouse space. The plan as proposed requires 171 parking stalls and the plan includes 278 stalls. Even though the site plan as proposed includes more parking stalls than required under the proposed mix of office and warehouse space, the number of spaces allows for flexibility for possible additional office or manufacturing uses. The number of required parking stalls could be more than the number shown on the plan depending on the mix of office and warehouse space and the potential of adding manufacturing space. Keeping the amount of office space constant at 17,440 square feet and adding a manufacturing component, the number of proposed parking stalls can accommodate the office use plus a maximum of 42,293 square feet of manufacturing and 126,000 square feet of warehouse. If the number of parking stalls required by the mix of uses in the building exceed 278 parking stalls, the owner will be required through the Development Agreement to contact the City to discuss implementing the “Proof of Parking” Plan. The “Proof of Parking” Plan, submitted by the applicant, includes 146 parking future stalls in the loading dock area and 19 future parking stalls south of the parking lot along the south side of the building. The “Proof of Parking” shown south of the parking lot along the south side of the building should be removed from the proposal. Implementation of that portion of the proposed “Proof of Parking” would result in the loss of green space and landscaping. The landscaping in that location is needed to comply with the landscaping requirements. Providing “Proof of Parking” in the loading dock area requires some striping and possibly some modification to the loading docks. This is a simpler and more cost-effective solution. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS The proposed building is 750’ long by 250’ wide. The applicant breaks up the long facades with recesses and projections, changes in building material and colors, and the placement of windows. The main entrances to the building are emphasized through the use of mostly glass at the first level and above the entry, cultured stone and canopies/sun shades. Although the building is only one story, the building articulation and design makes the building appear to be two stories. The south facade includes windows along the first level with portions having similar windows above the first level, which provides light into the building and gives the appearance of two stories. Other portions include clerestory windows above the first level, which provides some light into the warehouse area. In the graphic below, the light gray areas are glass, and the darker bronze areas are painted to mimic the effect of glass, which will often reflect dark color. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 4 4 The east and west facades have articulation similar to the south façade except that the entire façade does not have windows at the first level. The clerestory windows add light into warehouse. The parapets at the main entrances along the south façade has been raised up to emphasize the entrances and visually anchor the corners of the building, but this leaves 225 feet of façade between the entrances with no roofline variation. There is a vertical element on the south building façade between each entrance. Staff recommends raising the parapet at this vertical element to provide more roofline variation. The west and east facades have similar vertical elements. Staff recommends a similar treatment as the south façade. The Industrial zoning requires 75% of each façade to consist of two contrasting yet complimentary class I materials with one color variation. The class I material on the building includes architectural precast with scoring, glass, and cultured stone. The colors of the class I material include light tan, medium tan, dark bronze and limestone. Each façade complies with and exceeds the building material requirements. The rendering at the top of the next page depicts what the building is intended to look like. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 5 5 TREE REPLACEMENT The site was originally developed throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s. As a result, the site has a significant number of mature trees. In addition to the wooded slope on the west side of the property, there are trees along the south, north, and east property lines and throughout the site creating a wooded campus. The applicant is proposing to save as many trees as they can around the perimeter of the site. The removal of the significant and heritage trees on the site results in a tree replacement requirement of approximately 1,080 caliper inches.. The applicant will meet the tree replacement through the payment in lieu option for tree replacement. LANDSCAPE PLAN City Code requires single story buildings over 20 feet tall to be considered two (2) stories for purposes of calculating the landscaping requirements. The proposed building height is 37 feet. In this proposal, the building is tall to accommodate a range of industrial uses that are demanded by the market. The landscaping requirement is calculated as follows: building footprint 185,733 square feet times two and divided by 320, which equals 1,160 caliper inches. The proposed Landscape Plan includes 1,130 caliper inches. The landscaping is robust and includes trees, shrubs, and Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 6 6 perennials. The plan provides a buffer along the east property line, trees and shrubs along Blue Circle and Yellow Circle Drive to screen the loading areas, foundation plantings to add interest at the base of the building, and trees to enhance the existing plantings along the highway. The applicant must revise the Landscape Plan to comply with the landscaping requirements prior to City Council review. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS There is currently a trail on the north side of the property stretching from the easterly driveway onto Yellow Circle Drive to the east property line. This trail connects to a broader trail system that extends to the east and goes north into the Opus Business Park. A portion of the trail is in the Blue Circle Drive right-of-way and part of the trail is located on the subject property. The applicant is proposing to remove the section of the overall trail that is on the subject property. To provide pedestrian access to the broader trail system in the business park, the applicant is proposing a sidewalk along the south and east sides of the building that will continue in the right of way and connect with the trail system in the Opus Business Park. The City of Minnetonka has developed an Opus Area Placemaking + Urban Design Guide which includes a trail along the north property line. The proposed sidewalk should be replaced with a trail along the north property line. The City of Minnetonka will work with the applicant to fine tune the location of tail that better complies with the Opus Area Placemaking + Urban Design Guide than the proposed sidewalk. TRAFFIC STUDY The proposed project consists of a 185,733 square foot warehouse and office building with access from Blue Circle Drive and Yellow Circle Drive in Minnetonka. The project is adjacent to the Opus Business Park area of Minnetonka, which has an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) administered by the City of Minnetonka that was started in 2020. This AUAR includes scenarios for modifying some of the streets and intersections in the area to accommodate current and future development in the Opus Business Park. The proposed development was analyzed for transportation and traffic impacts based on the identified uses and based on these future street modifications. Trip generation was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. The development is expected to generate 115 peak hour trips in the AM and 120 peak hour trips in the PM. Essentially all trips are expected circulate on streets within the Opus Business Park and eventually connect to Highway 169 and Bren Road to the east or Highway 62 and Shady Oak Road to the west. The traffic study concluded that all intersections in their 2024 configuration can accommodate the additional traffic from this development and still operate at acceptable levels. The traffic study projected 2040 trip generation and distribution and concluded that all intersections would operate acceptably if the modifications identified in the AUAR are made. Pursuant to City Code 11.24. Subd. 10, all office and industrial developments and redevelopments require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. For this development, the developer must complete a checklist of TDM strategies that they will commit to implement. Completion of the checklist will be covered in the Development Agreement. DRAINAGE/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Based on the provided geotechnical data, the soils on site are primarily clayey soils belonging to Hydrologic Soil Group D. City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prohibit stormwater infiltration BMPs within Group D soils. Thus, the development will utilize two stormwater ponds to provide rate control and water Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 7 7 quality benefits. One pond is proposed on the east side of the site, while a smaller one is proposed on the south side of the site. WETALND A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared for this property in May 2024. A wetland was identified near the southeast corner of the property. Most of the wetland is located in the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) right-of-way with a very small piece extending onto the property. The wetland must be shown on the plans. This might impact the location of the proposed monument sign. LIGHTING The Photometric Plan includes wall pack lighting around the entire building with new pole lighting at each driveway to Blue Circle Drive. These fixtures provide lighting for the main entrances to the building, the parking areas, the driveways and for the loading dock areas. The Photometric Plan as proposed must be revised to show the new pole lights and the photometrics for those lights. SIGNS The site plan shows two new monument signs on the property and several wall signs. Prior to installing any of the signs, the signs must comply with the City of Eden Prairie sign requirements and the signs require approval through a separate permit. UTILITIES Sanitary sewer and water are provided by the City of Minnetonka. In 1977, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for “sanitary and storm sewer and water facilities and street improvements” for the Eden Prairie properties located in Opus. Under the agreement: (1) Minnetonka constructed these facilities and assessed Eden Prairie; (2) Minnetonka is responsible for the maintenance of the sewer and water improvements; and (3) Minnetonka reads meters and charges Eden Prairie properties directly for sewer and water services. Detailed building use or fixture count information will be provided to Minnetonka prior to City Council review so the demands can be calculated and incorporated into Minnetonka’s AUAR model and the capacity impacts can be better understood. Minnetonka has indicated that they will not approve any increase in utility use. SUSTAINABILITY The applicant is proposing to incorporate the following sustainable features and practices: • Utilize the Energy Design Assistance Program • Incorporate EV charging. The Site Plan includes 7 parking stalls that are proposed to be EV capable. • Design the building so the shell is capable of supporting future installation of solar panels • Use efficient appliances and fixtures • Use Low VOC materials • Use sustainable landscape design principles including diversity in plant species, disease and drought resistant plants and native species • Use water efficient irrigation Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 8 8 The Building Sustainability Standards do not apply to this project because it is not a PUD. MINNETONKA REVIEW Copies of the plans were submitted to the City of Minnetonka. Comments are attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following requests: • Zoning Change from Office to I-2 on 14.35 acres • Site Plan Review on 14.35 acres This is based on plans submitted on May 1, 2024 and the following conditions: 1. Prior to the 1st reading by the City Council, the applicant must: A. In the Site Data, remove the word heavy in front of industrial, remove the word rear from setbacks there are only front and side setbacks perhaps call them front (Hwy 62) and front (Blue and Yellow Circle, the building height cannot be 41 feet without a waiver, what does (ROW) mean after side setbacks just say side. B. The Site Plan includes a label for the trash room. Does this also include recycling? C. The Site Plan must be revised to address the following: the minimum size of a parking lot island is 160 square feet. Many of the islands are labeled as 132 square feet. Measure to the front of the curb and label it 160 square feet otherwise you would need a waiver. Label the 70 square foot islands at the north side of the parking lot and to the east side of the building as 160 square feet. More area around the sidewalk can be counted to reach 160 square feet. D. The project requires 1,160 caliper inches of landscaping. The plan includes 1,130 caliper inches. The plan includes 265 caliper inches of deciduous trees and 575 caliper inches of evergreen trees. The total is 1,130. Revise the Landscape Plan by adding trees to comply with the 1,160 requirement. E. Revise the Landscape Plan by eliminating the removal of trees within the road right-of-way. The tree replacement calculation must be revised to address this change. Remove the proposed trees from the right-of-way and locating them on the subject property. F. Based on the boring logs for SB-17, SB-20 and SB-9, the borings do not extend to a depth of at least 5 feet below the bottom elevation of the basins. Please provide borings to a depth of at least 5 feet below the proposed basin bottom. G. The Plans must be revised to show the wetland boundaries. H. The annual TSS and TP discharges for the site under proposed conditions must not exceed conditions. Please summarize the existing and proposed discharges and provide supporting calculations. I. Either calculate time of concentration using TR-55 methods or use established minimum TOC (eg, MnDOT) J. For HydroCAD, there is a 0.55 acre increase in imperviousness between existing and proposed models. However, the site plan lists an increase in imperviousness of 0.75 ac. Please revise or explain this potential inconsistency. K. Modify plan notes to be Eden Prairie and/or Minnetonka (where applicable) L. Please move all hydrants to the building side of the parking lot on the islands. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 9 9 M. Many trees near the back of the parking lot will not meet the root zone protection rule. Staff recommends adding small retaining walls on the Grading Plan to limit the root zone disturbance. N. Please update the total inches on site in the tree replacement calculation to reflect actual amount on the site. O. On the North Façade building material calculations, add the percentage of the metal dock doors and other doors as a Class II building material. P. Building height is measured to the top of the parapet. It should be measured from the average grade plane along each façade. If the building height exceeds 40 feet, a waiver is required. Q. Revise the Proof of Parking Exhibit by removing the proof of parking on the south side of the building. R. Provide a revised Lighting Plan showing the added lights and the footcandles. S. On the Site Plan, add a striped crosswalk where a pedestrian on the sidewalk would cross the drive lane. T. On the Landscape Plan, clearly label the bike racks. U. Revise the Landscape-Snow Storage Plan to show the proposed landscaping that is most up to date. V. On the Exterior Elevations, show the rooftop mechanicals and how they are being screened. W. Revise the narrative as follows: revise the section on architecture to reflect the most recent design. Describe the material being used, the building articulation etc. with language about how the building is similar to those at Arbor Lakes. Building height is measured to the top of the parapet so the 32' high number should be revised. Revise the section on sustainability to cover the addition of the EV charging, and add language from the sustainable features analysis, revise the square footage of the building listed to match the plans. X. Revise the Exterior Elevations by raising the parapet at all the vertical elements. Y. Complete a checklist of TDM strategies that they will commit to implement. Completion of the checklist will be a condition of the Development Agreement. Z. Revise the plan to show a trail along the north property line, to be verified by the City of Minnetonka and their Opus Area Placemaking + Urban Design Guide. 2. Prior to land alteration permit issuance, the applicant must: A. Obtain permits and approvals from other agencies as needed. B. Obtain City approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the property. C. Submit detailed utility and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. D. Obtain and provide documentation of Watershed District approval. E. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. F. Provide a construction grading limits and tree protection plan for review and approval by the City. G. Install erosion control at the grading limits of the property for review and approval by the City. H. Install fencing at the construction grading limits and tree protection areas as shown on the approved plans. I. Submit and receive written approval of an executed landscape agreement. J. Submit a landscaping letter of credit or escrow equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping. K. Obtain written approval of a Wrecking Permit for the removal of buildings on the property. L. Make a cash payment for Tree Replacement as provided by City Code. M. Obtain a building permit for retaining wall construction from the City for any retaining walls greater than four feet in height. Staff Report – Nexus Innovation Center Page 10 10 N. Submit a land alteration bond, letter of credit, or escrow surety equivalent to 125% of the cost of the land alteration. O. Submit a Wetland Plan for approval by the Water Resources Coordinator. P. Provide proof that the Inspection and Maintenance Agreement for Private Stormwater Facilities has been recorded. 3. Prior to building permit issuance for the property, the applicant must: A. Provide a checklist of TDM strategies and provide financial security equal to the cost of implementing the 1st two years of the plan. 4. Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit, the applicant must: A. Construct the retaining wall(s) in accordance with the terms of the permit and terms and conditions of Exhibit C. B. Complete implementation of the lighting plan in Exhibit B. C. Complete construction of mechanical equipment screening. D. Install EV capable parking stalls as shown on the plans. E. Complete implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan. Memorandum TO: Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner FROM: Mark Kronbeck, PLA, ASLA DATE: March 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Rezoning and Site Plan Review – Nexus Innovation Center, Eden Prairie ____________________________________________________________ Endeavor Development (“Endeavor”) is requesting Nexus Innovation Center be considered for Rezoning and Site Plan Review. The proposed redevelopment will demolish the existing office campus on site and construct a new 187,500 square foot industrial building. The project land area is 14.36 acres. Comprehensive Guide Plan Designation The 14.36-acre site has a 2040 Land Use designation of Industrial Flex Tech. Therefore, no Land Use designation change is being requested. Zoning Classification Currently, the property is zoned OFC Office. We are requesting a rezone to I-2 Park, which is consistent with the 2040 land use designation of Industrial Flex Tech. Proposed Development Overview Endeavor is proposing to demolish the three (3) existing, out-of-date office buildings and parking structure on site in order to proceed with the construction of a new industrial building totaling approximately 187,500 rentable square feet. Endeavor is seeking to replace the functionally obsolete office buildings with a modern industrial facility that will meet the needs of today’s employers. The proposed building will retain and create jobs in The City of Eden Prairie, while also increasing the tax base. Summary of Landscaping and Tree Replacement We have strived to preserve as many existing trees as possible as part of the proposed site layout and grading design. Approximately 54% of existing caliper inches on site are to be preserved. Special consideration was taken to preserve as many trees as possible along the Highway right of way and disturbance is to be minimized near the existing steep slope on the west side of the property. Overall the mature character of the existing trees on site will be preserved and supplemented with new plantings to ensure the long term overstory vegetation on the site. Page 2 We have integrated sustainable design principles into our landscape design, such as diversity in plant species, disease, and drought resistant native and naturalized plant material, along with the reduction of stormwater run-off through the use of water efficient irrigation. A mix of overstory, evergreen and ornamental trees, shrubs and perennials are designed throughout the site to create a vibrant display of color and foliage. Overstory trees are placed throughout to complement the height of the building. The shrubs and perennials are placed throughout the development adding interest, along with softening the transition from building and parking areas to the adjacent roadways. Plantings have also been used to frame and focus views, while softening the proposed parking areas and screening of the loading areas. Utilities: Stormwater Treatment Requirements: Current drainage patterns show the eastern half of the site drains to an existing pond through storm sewer in Blue Circle Drive and the west half of the site drains to MnDOT TH 62 Right of Way along the southern boundary of the property with an abundance of underlying clay soils. As such, two wet ponds are proposed to maintain a similar distribution of drainage under proposed conditions. The project will be permitted under Nine Mile Creek Watershed rules. Due to the clay soils, the ponds will be designed to MN Stormwater Manual Design Level 3 with no infiltration or volume control measures to meet the 60% Phosphorous and 90% Total Suspended Solids Removal efficiencies. Watermain: The existing site is served by City of Minnetonka Utilities due to Highway 62 isolating the site from Eden Prairie utilities. The project will connect to Existing 12” DIP Watermain located south of Blue Circle Drive. Watermain will be run throughout the site to provide hydrant coverage as required. Additionally, the building will be protected with a fire sprinkler system. Sanitary Sewer: The existing 8” sanitary sewer on site will be utilized to the extent possible and drains east down Blue Circle Drive. Dry Utilities: Electric, gas, telephone, and fiber optics are present along Blue Circle Drive and are expected to be sufficient for the proposed use. Architecture: The proposed architectural design consists primarily of exposed aggregate precast concrete wall panels with vertical and horizontal score lines. Panel finishes will include multiple shades of warm grey and beige exposed aggregate and cement to create accents and visual interest. The panels will also incorporate raked areas to create shadow lines and enhance visual interest on each façade. The main building facades are articulated with horizontal and vertical offsets in plane along south, east, and west sides and will include varying building and parapet heights. At main entry locations, expanded areas of glazing will be utilized to emphasize and highlight entrance locations. The building is approximately 32’ high with slightly higher parapets at the ends and center. The main entries located at the building corners have higher proportions of glass and aluminum storefront glazing framing systems along with metal prefinished aluminum sunshades. As the project is planned as a speculative shell, no exterior rooftop mechanical units are currently included in the project scope. As units are added in the future, sight lines will be reviewed to confirm that units aren’t visible from the property lines and if needed, screening will be incorporated to hide them from view. BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRIVE HIGHWAY 6 2 185,733 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING MECH102 S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=869.93 L=431.00 Δ=28°23'11" C.Brg=S88°22'0 3"E C=426.60 Δ N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 Δ WUNDERLICH-MALEC ENGINEERING INC. (OFFICE) PULSE PRODUCTS (OFFICE) ELECTRO-SENSORS (OFFICE) ZUHRAH SHRINE CENTER (FRATERNAL ORG.) AMERICAN PADMOINT SYSTEMS (OFFICE) UNDEVELOPED BOVEDA INC. (OFFICE / RETAIL) M W WIRE WORKS INC. (OFFICE) UNITED HEALTHCARE (OFFICE) FOSS SWIM SCHOOL (OFFICE) CITY OF MINNETONKA BOUNDARY LINE (NORTH OF ROAD CENTERLINE) CITY OF MINNETONKA BOUNDARY LINE (NORTH OF ROAD CENTERLINE) Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ C O V E R . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mi k e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6:4 1 : 0 5 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 0 SCALE IN FEET 50'100'200' N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 C-001 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K CO V E R S H E E T www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. DEVELOPER Endeavor Development 200 Southdale Center #190 Edina, Minnesota 55435 Phone: 952-210-5870 Contact: Josh Budish CONSULTANT Alliant Engineering, Inc. Marquette Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.758.3080 Fax: 612.758.3099 ENGINEER Dan Sjoblom, PE License No. 54821 Email: dsjoblom@alliant-inc.com SURVEYOR Dan Ekrem, PLS License No. 57366 Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA License No. 26222 Email: mkronbeck@alliant-inc.com VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N NEXUS AT OPUS PARK EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA CONTACT LIST SHEET INDEX COVER SHEETC-001 SHEET TITLENO. CIVIL SHEETS SITE PLANC-003 DETAIL SHEET 1C-009 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L-004 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY GRADING PLANC-004 EROSION CONTROL PLANC-005 C-006 SWPPP DETAILSC-007 UTILITY PLANC-008 TREE PRESERVATION L-001 LANDSCAPE PLAN L-003 SWPPP NOTES L-002 TREE INVENTORY DEMOLITION PLAN C-002 AND REMOVAL PLAN PROJECT LOCATION H W Y 1 6 9 HW Y 1 6 9 CROSSTOWN H W Y ( H W Y 6 2 ) CROSSTOWN H W Y (H W Y 6 2 ) HW Y 2 1 2 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P-001 EXISTINGN CONDITIONS 250FT EXTENT BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 185,733 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING MECH 102 60832 (NALST) S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=86 9.9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°23'11" C .Br g=S88°2 2'0 3"E N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg =S64°13'11"E C=295.64 Δ 11 11 11 8 9 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 11 16 11 11 11 11 10 12 11 STOP STOP STOP MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ S I T E . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mi k e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6: 4 2 : 2 7 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 C-003 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K SI T E P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. SITE NOTES: SITE LEGEND: SITE DATA: 52 (X) 100 (MAG SET) 40232 948.152 WATER PUMP 947.91 948.93 S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48" W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=8 6 9 .9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°2 3'11" C .Br g=S88°2 2'0 3"E C=4 2 6 .6 0 N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 Δ Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ D E M O L I T I O N . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mi k e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6: 4 2 : 0 4 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N W S E CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 C-002 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K DE M O L I T I O N P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LEGEND: DEMOLITION NOTES: BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 185,733 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDIN G MECH 102 S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=8 6 9 .9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°2 3'11" C .B r g=S8 8°22'0 3"E C =426.6 0 Δ N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg =S64°13'11"E C=295.64Δ FFE: 942.00 MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ G R A D I N G . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mik e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6:4 3 : 1 7 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 80 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 C-004 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K GR A D I N G P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LEGEND: GRADING NOTES: FFE: 942.00 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 185,733 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING MECH 102 953.65956.10 939.19942.16 60832 (NALST) 11' 18' 15 ' Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ U T I L I T I E S . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mik e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6:4 4 : 0 0 P M FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 N W S E CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 C-008 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K UT I L I T Y P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 DMS DMS 4000129 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. STORM SEWER SCHEDULE: LEGEND UTILITY NOTES: A. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. B. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. C. IN THE CASE OF AMBIGUITIES, DISCREPANCIES, OR IRREGULARITIES IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. D. IN ALL CONSTRUCTION TYPES, ALL WOOD USED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS IS TO BE PRESERVATIVE-TREATED: 1. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND OR WATER 2. WOOD IN EXTERIOR FOUNDATION WALLS. 3. WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE, OR IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE OR MASONRY FOUNDATION WALLS. 4. WOOD WITHIN A CRAWL SPACE OVER EXPOSED EARTH. 5. AT OTHER LOCATIONS NOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 6. E. ALL WOOD USED IN BUILDINGS OF TYPE I OR II CONSTRUCTION (SEE CODE DATA SHEET), IS TO BE FIRE-RETARDANT-TREATED, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: 1. PRESERVATIVE-TREATED WOOD AS NOTED IN GENERAL NOTE "D" ABOVE. 2. INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH AND INTERIOR FINISHES; TRIM AND MILLWORK SUCH AS CABINETRY, DOORS, DOOR FRAMES AND WINDOWS. 3. BLOCKING FOR HANDRAILS, MILLWORK, CABINETS, AND WINDOW AND DOOR FRAMES. F. SEE SHEET A0.2 FOR SYMBOLS, INDICATION OF MATERIALS, PARTITION TYPE DETAILS & ABBREVIATIONS. FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES A3.1 4 A3.1 5 A3.1 1 A3.1 2 1 A B C D E F 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MECH 102 A3.1 3 A3.1 6 AREA A 100 STAIR A STAIR B STAIR C STAIR D STAIR E G TRASH ROOM OFFICE OFFICE 9'-11 27/32" 6'-0" TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: ALLOWABLE AREA: FIRE-RESISTANCE RATINGS (IBC TABLE 601): OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS: CODE DATA SUMMARY: NON-SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES (IBC 508.3): NOTE: BUILDING AREAS INDICATED ARE NOT BOMA RENTABLE AREA CALCULATIONS CODE DATA - 2020 MNBC (2018 IBC) UNLIMITED (IBC 507) TYPE II-B, FULLY SPRINKLERED GROUP B GROUP S-1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 0 HOUR(S) TYPE II-B 0 HOUR(S) SUPPORTING BEAMS AND JOISTS) STRUCTURAL FRAME FLOOR CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING ROOF CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING SUPPORTING BEAMS AND JOISTS) 0 HOUR(S) OFFICE STORAGE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A NEW 185,733 SF SINGLE STORY PRECAST WAREHOUSE BUILDING. THE BUILDING IS TO BE FULLY SPRINKLERED, TYPE II-B CONSTRUCTION WITH NON-SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES AND UNLIMITED ALLOWABLE AREA. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE COMPLETED AT A LATER DATE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. MOST RESTRICTIVE OCCUPANCY: GROUP S-1 APPLICABLE CODES: CHAPTER 1303 MN PROVISIONS TO THE STATE BUILDING CODE ASHRAE 90.1-2016 CHAPTER 1305 MN ADOPTION OF THE 2018 IBC CHAPTER 1323 MN COMMERCIAL ENERGY CODE CHAPTER 1341 MN ACCESSIBILITY CODE CHAPTER 1311 MN CONSERVATION CODE FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED HEIGHT:1 STORY, 40' - 0" FIRE-RESISTANCE RATINGS, EXTERIOR WALLS (IBC TABLE 602): <5' 2 HOURS ≥5' <10' 1 HOURS ≥10' <30' 0 HOURS ≥30'0 HOURS ASSUMED OCCUPANCY LOAD: 90% GROUP S-1 AND 10% OFFICE (EXACT OCCUPANCY LOAD BREAKDOWN TO BE DETERMINED DURING TENANT IMPROVEMENT PHASE AT A LATER DATE) D E S I G N G R O U P ISSUES & REVISIONS COMMISSION NO: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET 767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 651.642.9200 WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM POPE DESIGN GROUP NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE DATE 5/1/2024 3:59:23 PMC:\Revit Projects\2023\25221-24040_Endeavor C3_R23_hschmidt_pdg.rvt A2.1 FLOOR PLAN BTM LL 25221-24040 ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT NEXUS AT OPUS PARK EDEN PRAIRIE, MN NORTH FLOOR PLAN KEYED NOTES 1" = 30'-0"A2.1 1 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL 3-25-24 1 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 5-1-24 SD FLOOR PLAN: 05/01/2024 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 132'-0" A PCAST-1 B C D E F PT-01 PT-02 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY AFS-1 SV-01 FLASH-1, TYP. PT-03 AFS-1 PT-02 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 SV-01 PT-02 SV-01 PT-01PT-03 SV-01 PT-02 PT-03 41 ' - 0 " 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03 7' HM DOOR, PAINT TO MATCH PT-03 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 132'-0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PT-02 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY SV-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY FLASH-1, TYP.FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 PT-01 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01 40 SF SIGN PT-01 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 AFS-1 PT-02 PT-03 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01PT-03 PT-02 PT-02 SV-1 PT-01 PT-03 AFS-1 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 132'-0" 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 PT-01 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY FLASH-1, TYP.FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 PT-03 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY SV-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY PT-01 PT-01 PT-02 SV-01PT-02 SV-01 PT-02 PT-03 PT-01 SV-1 PT-02 PT-03 AFS-1 AT OFFICES 40 SF SIGN FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 132'-0" ABCDEF PT-01 AFS-1 OVER ENTRY MC-1 AT ENTRY PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. SCORE ACCENT AFS-1 ENTRY FLASH-1, TYP. FLASH-1, TYP. PT-02 AFS-1 AT OFFICES PT-01PT-03 PT-02PT-03 PT-02 SV-01PT-03 SV-01 PT-01 PT-02 SV-01 FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 132'-0" 8910111213141516 PT-02 AFS-1, 4'X4' CLERESTORY PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. 12'X14' DRIVE-IN BAY & OVERHEAD DOOR 9'X10' DOCK DOOR AFS-1, 1'-8"X4' CLERESTORY PCAST-1 FLASH-1, TYP. 9'X10' DOCK DOOR AFS-1, 1'-8"X4' CLERESTORY PT-02 PT-01 7' HM DOOR, TYP FIRST LEVEL 100'-0" ROOF LEVEL 132'-0" 1234567 PT-02 PT-01 FLASH-1, TYP. 12'X14' DRIVE-IN BAY & OVERHEAD DOOR 9'X10' DOCK DOOR PT-01 AFS-1, 1'-8"X4' CLERESTORY PT-02 PT-02 7' HM DOOR, TYP PT-01 EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH KEY MATERIAL ID MATERIAL MANUFACTURER FINISH COLOR SAMPLE MC - 1 FLASH - 1 METAL CANOPY CAP FLASHING ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAMES AFS-1 KAWNEER OR EQUAL MATTE DARK BRONZE MAPES OR EQUAL MATTE DARK BRONZE - MATTE LIGHT TAN (TBD) PT-01 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP LIGHT TAN (TBD) PT-02 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP MED. TAN (TBD) PT-03 PAINTED PRE-CAST SHERWIN WILLIAMS LOXON XP DARK BRONZE (TBD) SV-01 STONE VENEER - - LIMESTONE EXTERIOR FINISH PERCENTAGES EAST FACADE : GLASS 8% STONE 10% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 82% SOUTH FACADE : GLASS 8% STONE 10% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 82% WEST FACADE : GLASS 16% STONE 6% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 78% NORTH FACADE : GLASS 1% ARCHITECTURAL PAINTED PRECAST 99% * GLASS, STONE & ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST ARE CONSIDERED CLASS I MATERIALS IN CHAPTER 11 SECTION 11.46 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, SUBD.5. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. *ENDEAVOR IS INTERPRETING ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST TO INCLUDE PRECAST PANELS WITH FORM CAST REVEALS AND PAINT. D E S I G N G R O U P ISSUES & REVISIONS COMMISSION NO: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SHEET 767 N. EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 190 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 651.642.9200 WWW.POPEDESIGN.COM POPE DESIGN GROUP NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE DATE 5/1/2024 3:59:31 PMC:\Revit Projects\2023\25221-24040_Endeavor C3_R23_hschmidt_pdg.rvt A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, EXTERIOR MATERIAL FINISH SCHEDULE Checker Author 25221-24040 ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT NEXUS AT OPUS PARK EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 1 WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 2 SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 3 SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 4 EAST BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 5 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"A3.1 6 NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION SD EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS: 05/01/2024 1 CITY RE-SUBMITTAL 5-1-24 YELLOW CIRCLE DR I V E BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE STATE HI G H W A Y N O . 6 2 STATE H I G H W A Y N O . 6 2 S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=869 .93 L=431.00 Δ=2 8°2 3'11" C.Br g=S 8 8°2 2'0 3"E C=426 .6 0 N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg=S64°13'11"E C=295.64 N1 ° 2 7 ' 1 5 " W 4 8 3 . 1 4 REMOVE (Tag 1804) 13" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1830) 31" White Oak Tag 182926" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1828) 19" Horse Chestnut REMOVE (Tag 1826) 11" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1825) 10" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1823) 15" Black Pine REMOVE (Tag 1822) 9" White Pine REMOVE (Tag 1820) 17" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1821) 8" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1819) 12" Black Pine REMOVE (Tag 1816) 8" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1817) 17" Douglas FirREMOVE (Tag 1818) 17" Colorado Blue SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1815) 25" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1788) 30" Bur Oak REMOVE (Tag 1785) 35" Norway Maple REMOVE (Tag 1784) 15" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1783) 16" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1782) 22" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1781) 40" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1780) 14" Honeylocust REMOVE (Tag 1786) 16" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1778) 17" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1779) 18" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1792) 0" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1794) 9" Scotch PineREMOVE (Tag 1795) 13" Douglas Fir REMOVE (Tag 1796) 23" Douglas Fir REMOVE (Tag 1798) 22" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1799) 12" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1800) 13" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1802) 41" Black Locust REMOVE (Tag 1801) 25" Flowering Crab REMOVE (Tag 1793) 10" Scotch Pine REMOVE (Tag 1787) 12" Boxelder REMOVE (Tag 1771) 16" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1772) 12" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1773) 16" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1774) 26" Northern Red OakREMOVE (Tag 1776) 24" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1775) 47" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1777) 24" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1847) 29" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1848) 18" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1849) 12" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1905) 17" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1906) 17" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1907) 18" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1762) 17" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1761) 14" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1760) 17" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1858) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1857) 28" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1856) 31" Bur Oak REMOVE (Tag 1854) 15" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1853) 16" Colorado Blue SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1855) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1851) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1850) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1852) 11" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1831 17" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1832 15" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1833 19" Northern Red Oak Tag 1834 15" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 1835 13" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1836 11" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1837) 19" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 183813" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1928) 13" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1929) 22" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1954) 10" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1953) 9" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1952) 10" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1951) 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1950) 15" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1949) 9" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1948) 15" White Spruce Tag 195830" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1957) 15" Basswood Tag 196015" Basswood Tag 1961 23" White Oak Tag 196221" White Oak Tag 196522" White Oak Tag 196324" White Oak Tag 196414" White Oak Tag 196723" White Oak Tag 196826" Northern Red Oak Tag 1966 17" White Oak Tag 197016" White Oak Tag 197126" White Oak Tag 197622" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1955) 15" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1956) 17" Basswood Tag 1959 21" White Oak Tag 197219" Northern Red OakTag 197519" Northern Red Oak Tag 197447" Northern Red Oak Tag 197312" White Oak Tag 1977 24" Northern Red Oak Tag 196923" Northern Red Oak Tag 197826" Northern Red Oak Tag 197925" White Oak Tag 198022" White Oak Tag 1981 22" Northern Red Oak Tag 198326" White Oak Tag 198431" Northern Red Oak Tag 1943 14" White OakTag 194418" White OakTag 194517" White Oak Tag 194629" Northern Red Oak Tag 1947 27" Northern Red Oak Tag 1989 26" Northern Red Oak Tag 199017" White Oak Tag 198719" White Oak Tag 198523" Northern Red Oak Tag 198618" Silver Maple Tag 1988 17" White Oak Tag 1982 17" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1701) 26" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1702) 25" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1704) 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1703) 28" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1705) 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1706) 13" White SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1707) 9" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1708) 23" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1709) 13" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1718) 25" Flowering Crab Tag 1719 22" Green Ash Tag 1720 25" Green Ash Tag 1723 24" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1717) 40" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1716) 23" Green Ash Tag 1715 25" Green Ash Tag 1714 27" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1712) 16" Flowering Crab Tag 1713 38" Flowering Crab REMOVE (Tag 1711) 20" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1710) 10" White Spruce Tag 1722 15" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1724) 18" Green Ash Tag 1725 18" Green Ash Tag 172612" Green Ash Tag 172716" Green Ash Tag 1728 16" White Spruce Tag 1729 13" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1770) 23" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1769) 15" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1768) 20" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1767) 14" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1766) 26" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1765) 21" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1764) 24" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1763) 19" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1735) 34" Silver Maple Tag 173447" Silver Maple REMOVE (Tag 1733) 10" White Spruce Tag 1732 25" Silver Maple Tag 173036" Basswood Tag 1731 36" Eastern Cottonwood Tag 1736 23" Northern Red OakTag 1737 17" Boxelder REMOVE (Tag 1738) 31" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1742) 13" Colorado Blue SpruceREMOVE (Tag 1743) 12" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1741) 16" White Spruce Tag 173934" Northern Red Oak Tag 174026" Northern Red Oak Tag 174429" Northern Red Oak Tag 174524" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1746) 33" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1747) 41" Northern Red Oak Tag 1749 22" Northern Red OakTag 1748 14" Black Cherry REMOVE (Tag 1750) 41" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1751) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1752) 11" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1753) 8" White Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1754) 18" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1755) 22" Green Ash Tag 1756 15" Black Cherry REMOVE (Tag 1757) 20" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1758) 18" Green AshREMOVE (Tag 1759) 21" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1859) 18" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1860) 19" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 186116" Northern Red Oak Tag 1862 29" Northern Red Oak Tag 186325" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1864) 30" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1865) 13" Red Pine Tag 186614" Red Pine Tag 186712" Red Pine Tag 186811" Red PineTag 186939" Northern Red Oak Tag 187226" Northern Red Oak Tag 1871 33" Northern Red Oak Tag 1874 24" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1870) 28" Northern Red Oak Tag 18758" Red Pine Tag 18769" Red Pine Tag 1877 9" Red Pine Tag 18789" Red Pine Tag 187911" Red PineTag 18809" Red Pine Tag 188110" Red Pine REMOVE (Tag 1883) 10" Red Pine Tag 188226" Boxelder Tag 188415" Northern Red Oak Tag 188510" Red Pine Tag 188612" Red Pine Tag 1887 17" Northern Red Oak Tag 188915" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 188814" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 189015" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 189112" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 189214" Northern Red Oak Tag 189312" Red Pine Tag 1894 10" Red Pine Tag 1895 12" Red Pine Tag 1896 11" Red PineTag 1897 12" Red Pine Tag 1898 11" Red PineTag 189911" Red Pine Tag 1900 11" Red Pine Tag 1901 18" Basswood Tag 190215" BasswoodTag 190314" Basswood Tag 190418" BasswoodTag 190812" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1909 15" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 191012" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 191110" Colorado Blue SpruceTag 191214" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 191316" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1914 18" American Elm Tag 1915 16" American Elm Tag 191620" Black Willow Tag 191717" Black Willow Tag 191819" Black Willow Tag 191930" Black Willow Tag 192014" Boxelder Tag 192130" White Oak Tag 192624" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1846) 9" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1844) 15" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1843) 13" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1842) 14" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1841) 14" Green Ash Tag 192735" White Oak Tag 1922 12" Northern Red Oak Tag 1923 12" Northern Red Oak Tag 1924 29" Northern Red Oak Tag 1925 21" Silver Maple Tag 1930 13" Black Cherry Tag 193113" White Oak Tag 193718" White Oak Tag 193225" White Oak Tag 193317" White Oak Tag 193430" White Oak Tag 193518" White Oak Tag 1936 24" Northern Red Oak Tag 194225" Northern Red Oak Tag 194124" Northern Red Oak Tag 194019" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1939) 27" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1938) 26" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1839) 19" Basswood REMOVE (Tag 1840) 16" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1808) 32" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1809) 20" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1806) 24" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1805) 30" White Oak Tag 181032" Eastern Cottonwood Tag 181117" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1812) 19" Northern Red Oak REMOVE (Tag 1814) 29" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1813) 25" White Oak REMOVE (Tag 1803) 20" Sugar Maple REMOVE (Tag 1797) 20" Red Pine REMOVE (Tag 1791) 13" Eastern Red Cedar REMOVE (Tag 1790) 17" Colorado Blue Spruce REMOVE (Tag 1789) 30" Douglas Fir Tag 1721 23" Green Ash REMOVE (Tag 1824) 13" Red Pine REMOVE (Tag 1845) 12" Colorado Blue Spruce Tag 1873 22" White Oak STATE H I G H W A Y N O . 6 2 STATE HI G H W A Y N O . 6 2 YELLOW CIRCLE DR I V E BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE 26222 TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ T R E E - I N V . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mi k e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6: 4 4 : 4 5 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N W S E CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 L-001 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N A N D R E M O V A L PL A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LEGEND: MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ T R E E - I N V . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mi k e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6: 4 4 : 5 0 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 L-002 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N A N D R E M O V A L PL A N D A T A www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. TREE REPLACEMENT Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ D E T A I L S . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mik e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6:4 5 : 4 4 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 L-004 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K LA N D S C A P E D E T A I L S www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. L-004 4 MULCH AT SIDEWALK NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NOTES FOR COLOR AND TYPE OF MULCH. CONCRETE SIDEWALK 2" M I N . MULCH TO BE LEVEL AT SIDEWALK MULCH SEE NOTES 4" T Y P . PLANTING SOIL DEPTH VARIES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI OR EQUAL L-004 5 MULCH AT SOD NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NOTES FOR COLOR AND TYPE OF MULCH. SOD 2" M I N . POLY EDGING MULCH SEE NOTES 4" T Y P . PLANTING SOIL DEPTH VARIES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES FILTER FABRIC MIRAFI OR EQUAL 12" SPIKE MULCH TO BE LEVEL WITH FINISHED GRADE PERENNIAL PLANTING NOT TO SCALEL-004 3 EQUAL SPACING PERENNIALS (TYP.), PLANT IN STAGGERED ROWS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLAN MIN. 3"-4" DEPTH HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC, SEE NOTES FOR TYPE & COLOR. MIN. 12" PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED, SEE NOTES. UNDISTURBED AND UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE L-004 2 SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE MULCH, DO NOT BURY STEMS OR TRUNK. SEE NOTES FOR TYPE AND DEPTH REQUIRED. UNDISTURBED AND UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES ROOT BALL SHOULD SIT DIRECTLY ON TOP OF UNDISTURBED SOIL. BACKFILL WITH TOPSOIL FROM HOLE AND WATER THOROUGHLY. PROVIDE PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED IN NOTES. PROVIDE FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI OR EQUAL PLANT TOP OF ROOT BALL 1-2" ABOVE SURROUNDING GRADE. PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL L-2.0 1 TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.TREE STAKING IS OPTIONAL. 2.DO NOT PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. 3.FOR TREES IN CONTAINERS, REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOR BARE ROOT TREES, PLACE TREE IN MIDDLE OF PLANTING HOLE, SPREAD ROOTS OUT RADIALLY FROM THE TRUNK AROUND THE PREPARED HOLE. PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR PER PLAN IF PLANTED IN A BIORETENTION OR LARGER PLANTING AREA PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL EXPOSE TRUNK FLARE MULCH RING, DIAMETER PER PLAN OR LANDSCAPE NOTES. PLACE MULCH SO NOT IN CONTACT WITH BASE OF TREE. COMPLETELY REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL TWINE, ROPE AND BASKETS. DISPOSE INTO PROPER LOCATION. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT THE ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. PLANTING SOIL, BACKFILL PLACED IN 6" LIFTS GUYING PLAN SOD UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL ROOTBALL PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES 16" POLY STRAP, 40 MIL. 1-1/2" WIDE 1 FLAG PER WIRE 3-GUY CABLES, DOUBLE STRAND, 14 GA. WIRES AT 120° SPACING, SEE GUYING PLAN 18" MIN.MACHINE EDGE V-DITCH AROUND ALL TREES IN SODDED AREAS 2"X2"X24" WOODEN STAKE AT AN ANGLE LANDSCAPE NOTES SEEDING NOTES LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE © DERO "HITCH" BIKE RACK - SURFACE MOUNT NOT TO SCALEL-004 6 FFE: 942.00 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 185,733 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDIN G MECH 102 8 - GGS 5 - WBP 4 - GOJ 3 - GGS 3 - DNS 6 - WLC 5 - WBP 6 - AWS 5 - WBP7 - PPR 7 - GGS 5 - LDN 3 - BBH 3 - DNS 6 - AFS 3 - DNS 3 - BBH 5 - LDN 7 - GGS 5 - WBP 6 - AWS 5 - WBP 7 - PPR 5 - LDN 7 - GGS 5 - LDN 3 - BBH 6 - WLC 3 - DNS 3 - GGS 4 - GOJ 5 - WBP 9 - BBH 5 - RO 2 - BH 1 - AB 1 - AB 3 - AP 3 - AP 1 - AB 1 - AB 2 - BH 1 - CH 3 - AP 1 - CH 1 - CH 1 - BH 3 - BH 3 - BH 1 - CH 3 - AP 2 - BH 1 - NF 1 - SW 1 - RB 1 - RB 3 - HL 6 - BF 1 - SW 5 - AP 1 - CH 1 - SW 1 - SW 5 - BF 1 - RB 1 - SW 3 - BF 1 - NF 1 - HL 1 - RB 1 - AB 1 - BF 1 - BH 1 - HL 1 - SW 3 - BF 2 - RB 3 - BF 3 - BH 1 - RB 3 - AP 3 - BF 2 - CH 2 - CH 2 - CH 3 - BH 1 - RB1 - RB 3 - BF 2 - SW3 - AP1 - RB 3 - BH 1 - SW1 - RB 3 - BF 1 - AB 3 - AP 3 - BH 6 - NF 3 - DNS 3 - GGS 5 - PPR 5 - PPR 6 - LDN 7 - BBH 3 - MFG 7 - AWS 5 - WBP 5 - MFG 9 - GOJ 3 - MFG 3 - MFG 9 - GOJ 5 - MFG 7 - AWS 3 - MFG 4 - DNS 5 - PPR 5 - PPR 6 - LDN 9 - GGD 4 - TGA 8 - GGD 6 - LDN 5 - TGA 5 - IBC 5 - GGD 5 - TGA 6 - IBC 5 - LDN 9 - GGD 4 - TGA 8 - GGD 5 - LDN 5 - TGA6 - IBC 5 - BH 5 - BF 3 - BH 10 - TGA1 - AB 1 - AB 5 - BH 10 - TGA 4 - RO 2 - AB 2 - AB 4 - HL 3 - AP 3 - AP 3 - AP 3 - AP 3 - AP 5 - BF 1 - NF 1 - NF 1 - RO 6 - BMJ 3 - GLS 3 - BMJ 5 - GLS 4 - BMJ 4 - BMJ 4 - GLS 4 - GLS 4 - BMJ 4 - BMJ 4 - GLS 4 - GLS 4 - BMJ 4 - BMJ 4 - GLS 4 - GLS 4 - GLS 4 - BMJ 4 - BMJ 6 - GLS 7 - IBC 7 - GGD 6 - IBC 5 - GGD 7 - IBC 7 - GGD 6 - GGD 9 - IBC 5 - GGD 9 - IBC 7 - IBC 7 - GGD 7 - GGD 9 - IBC 6 - GGD 8 - IBC 9 - IBC 6 - GGD 2 - RB 2 - RB 5 - BH 3 - BF 2 - SW 1 - HL 1 - HL 1 - BF 3 - AB 3 - BH 3 - AP 3 - BF Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ L A N D S C A P E . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mi k e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6: 4 5 : 2 6 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 40 80 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 L-003 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G R E S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K LA N D S C A P E P L A N www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: 4000129 Mark Kronbeck PLA, ASLA 26222 MK TLM, MLS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE YELLOW CIRCLE DRI V E HIGHWAY 6 2 185,733 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING MECH 102 60832 (NALST) S85°24'37"E 1139.42 S4 ° 3 5 ' 3 5 " W 4 7 0 . 0 0 S77°29'48 " W 2 7 7 . 7 5 N12°47'09"W 10.04 S77°12'51 " W 1 2 7 . 1 2 R=869.9 3 L=431.0 0 Δ=28°23'11" C .Br g=S8 8°22'0 3"E N15°56'08"E 15.00 R=854.93 L=297.13 Δ=19°54'47" C.Brg =S64°13'11"E C=295.64 Δ MK TLM, MLS Fil e L o c a t i o n : X:\ 4 0 0 0 1 2 9 - 0 0 \ 0 0 1 \ 4 0 D e s i g n \ 0 0 S h e e t s - P r e l i m i n a r y \ S I T E - P R O O F O F P A R K I N G . d w g P l o t t e d B y : Mik e S h a n n o n o n Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 4 a t 6:5 3 : 3 8 P M Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E V I E W O N L Y PRE L I M I N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 N CI T Y C O M M E N T S CI T Y C O M M E N T S 5- 1 - 2 4 4- 2 - 2 4 C-003.1 ED E N P R A I R I E , MI N N E S O T A 6 1 3 1 B L U E C I R C L E D R I V E PL A N N I N G S U B M I T T A L NE X U S A T O P U S P A R K SI T E P L A N - P R O O F O F P A R K I N G www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no. DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N Project No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Dan Sjoblom, PE 54821 4000129 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. SITE LEGEND: PARKING DATA: NEXUS AT OPUS PARK May 28th Planning Commission 6131 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MN ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT About Us 2023 Top Six Developer in Minneapolis - St. Paul by Square Footage •Endeavor Development is a locally based real estate development company that was founded in 2020. •Endeavor has developed over 3 million square feet of finished space in 3 states. 2022 Top Ten Developer in Minneapolis - St. Paul by Square Footage Minneapolis-St.Paul Des Moines Milwaukee Minnesota Arbor Lakes Buildings 3 -8,Maple Grove Highview 610 Business Center,Brooklyn Park I-94 Logistics Center, Rogers Nathan Lane Business Center,Plymouth Pilot Knob Business Center, Mendota Heights Blu Dot Global Distribution Center,Otsego Yankee Doodle Business Center,Eagan Zachary Distribution Center,Maple Grove Iowa I-35 Distribution Center,Ankeny I-80 Distribution Center,Altoona Wisconsin I-94 Business Center,Mt.Pleasant ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Project Highlights •The property is the former office campus for American Family Insurance. •The Applicant (Endeavor) is proposing a new 185,733 square foot modern business center. •The applicant is requesting a rezone to I-2 Industrial Park. •The requested rezone is consistent with the Aspire 2040 guidance of Industrial Flex Tech. ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Existing Property City of Edina City of Minnetonka City of Eden Prairie OFC OFFICE Current Zoning IndustrialFlex Tech Aspire 2040 Guiding MinnetonkaUtilities Sanitary & Water Proposed Redevelopment ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Site Plan Development boasts robust landscaping plan with the conservation of perimeter trees. Sustainable Strategies •Utilization of existing onsite materials •Infrastructure for EV vehicles •Preservation of forested areas Ample parking expandable to ~400 stalls as needed to suit user requirements. ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Elevations Exterior Material Finish Key Painted Precast Stone Veneer Metal Canopy & Window Frames ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Rendering ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Character – Images Exterior ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Character Images - Interior ENDEAVOR DEVELOPMENT Conclusion •The Applicant (Endeavor) is requesting a rezone to I-2, Industrial Park. •I-2 zoning is consistent with the Aspire 2040 guidance of Industrial Flex Tech. •Endeavor’s redevelopment will revitalize an underutilized and obsolete office campus and bring jobs and tax base back to a prominent site that serves as a gateway into the city of Eden Prairie. Questions TO: Planning Commission FROM: Beth Novak-Krebs, Senior Planner DATE: May 28, 2024 SUBJECT: Landscaping Text Amendment in the RM-2.5 Zoning District BACKGROUND In the past seven (7) years, there have been eight (8) multifamily developments approved in Eden Prairie in the RM-2.5 Zoning District. Six of these projects requested and received landscaping waivers (75%). This prompted Planning staff to review the landscaping requirements in the RM-2.5 Zoning District and determine if modifications are needed. These approved projects are infill projects that include large buildings on relatively small sites. The majority of these approved projects have a floor area ratio of 1.0 or greater. This is an indication of the intensity of the development. The landscaping waivers that were granted for these projects waived anywhere between 29% to 55% of the total required caliper inches. The issue is that large buildings have greater landscaping requirements, as the caliper inch requirements increase as the total square footage of the building increases. Projects with a higher floor area ratio have less area within which to plant the trees, shrubs, perennials, etc. and can have other factors that limit the placement of trees. Given this, it can be difficult to comply with the landscaping requirements. City Code currently* allows 25% of the required caliper inches to be substituted with shrubs and other Project Name Site Area Acres Number of Units Gross Building Floor Area Sq. Ft. FAR Required Landscaping Landscaping Provided Waiver % of Total with 25% shrubs Waiver % of Total with 50% shrubs Smith Village Applewood Pointe (2019) 3.88 100 199,602 1.2 624 346 55 30 Trail Pointe Ridge (2019) 2 58 86,558 1.0 270 49 Townhomes (2019) 1 6 25,000 0.6 78 41 The Ellie (2022) 6.4 239 349,800 1.3 871 448 49 24 Paravel (2019) 4.96 246 420,240 1.9 914 648 29 3 Castle Ridge (2019) 6.8 274 444,160 1.5 1388 629 55 25 Southview of Eden Prairie (2018) 2.88 116 138,222 1.1 388 502 No Waiver No Waiver Prairie Bluff Senior Living (2017) 4.53 138 188,481 1.0 490 490 No Waiver No Waiver Staff Report – RM-2.5 Zoning District Landscaping Amendment Page 2 2 plantings such as perennials. Most development projects include many more shrubs beyond the 25% that are counted toward the project’s caliper inch requirements. Shrubs provide value to the landscape, including screening, color and texture variety. Based on staff’s review and evaluation of the projects that were given waivers for landscaping, staff has concluded that certain projects should be allowed up to 50% of the required caliper inches to be substituted with shrubs without compromising the landscaping goals of the code. As an exercise, staff applied the 50% allowance to the projects with waivers and it brought many of the projects much closer to complying with the landscaping requirements and it would have reduced the waiver request. Staff recommends that in certain circumstances, the developer should be allowed to count a greater percentage of shrubs toward the required caliper inch requirements. *Prior to 2016, only trees were counted toward the landscaping requirement. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS There are times when a site has limitations on the number of trees that can be used to comply with the landscaping requirements. In this situation, (high FAR), the proposed amendment allows shrubs to be counted toward compliance with the requirements. For a project to utilize a 50% allowance, the project must have a floor area ratio of 1.0 or greater and meet four or more of the design objectives outlined in the design guidelines. The City Council must find that the landscaping furthers the goals and objectives of the design guidelines. Most projects incorporate some of the recommendations in the design guidelines. With this amendment, the City expects the applicant to provide a design that quantifiably meets the design guidelines in exchange for being allowed to count a greater percentage of shrubs toward the total caliper inch requirements. The proposal involves amending City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.42, Subdivision 5, by inserting a new Item F. and relettering the remaining items: F. Shrub Substitution in RM-2.5 Zoning District. An applicant may request to substitute up to 50% of the required landscape caliper inches with shrubs, if the project has a floor area ratio of 1.00 or greater and the City Council find that the landscaping plan furthers the goals and objectives of the City’s Design Guidelines by meeting five or more of the following criteria: 1. The project includes xeriscaping, raingardens/bioswales, rooftop gardens, public art, native landscapes, pollinator gardens, green roofs, garden plots or similar features to provide variety in meeting the landscaping requirements. 2. At the entrances to the building, the landscaping activates the space, creates a human scale environment and makes the space inviting. 3. The project provides screening that considers safety. Screening of the parking lots limits views of cars from the right-of-way and adjacent land uses. 4. The project includes landscaping covering more than 75% of the lineal feet of the foundation. Staff Report – RM-2.5 Zoning District Landscaping Amendment Page 3 3 5. The project exceeds the required percentage of the parking lot covered in islands and/or exceeds the parking lot island size requirements. 6. The project utilizes landscaping to define and enhance outdoor spaces such as fire pit areas, outdoor kitchen areas, seating areas, pools, outdoor courts, walking paths etc. 7. The project utilizes plant material that preserves and conserves resources, reduces waste, and minimizes maintenance. Use a variety of plant materials that are drought tolerant, salt tolerant, pollinator friendly, disease resistant, native, low maintenance and shade producing. Use plant material that provides visual interest throughout the year including a variety of periods of blooming, leaf color, bark, and branching structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the code amendment to the Landscaping Requirements for the RM-2.5 Zoning District as represented in the May 28, 2024 staff report. Landscaping in the RM-2.5 zoning district May 28, 2024 •Landscaping caliper inches are based on the floor area of a building divided by 320. •Currently, shrubs, perennials, and planting beds can account for up to 25% of the total required caliper inches. •3 caliper inches = 500 sf of planting beds = 6 shrubs •Issue: The RM-2.5 district has seen 8 new projects in the last 7 years •7 had a FAR of 1.0 or greater •6 received waivers from the landscaping requirements, in part because they didn’t have the space for trees. •These waivers reduced the required landscaping by at least 30%, and up to 82%. When the Council finds that 5 of the 7 guidelines are met, up to 50% of the required caliper inches can be met with shrubbery and flowers. Guidelines include goals related plant to variety, color, texture, conservation, and pollinator habitat. The amendment allows additional use of shrubbery and perennials (up to 50% of the required landscaping caliper inches) without compromising the overall goals of the design guidelines. Questions Seven guidelines 1.Xeriscaping/ raingardens/ rooftop gardens/ art/ native or pollinator gardens 2.Landscaped entrances 3.Parking lot screening 4.75% of the foundation screened 5.Exceeds parking lot island requirements 6.Defined outdoor spaces 7.Specifically selective plant material