Loading...
Planning Commission - 01/10/2022APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette, William Gooding, Robert Taylor CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, Community Development Director; Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod Rue, City Engineer; Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Acting Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Absent was Chair Pieper. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 8-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Mette to approve the minutes of December 13, 2021 amended to change the language in Item VA from “Taylor asked what the frontage waiver gained the applicant” to “Taylor asked what the frontage waiver would gain the applicant.” MOTION CARRIED 8-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BLUE STEM NORTH Request for: • Guide Plan Change from TOD to Parks and Open Space on 11.17 acres • Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.28 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 15.28 acres • Zoning Change from OFC to TOD-R on 5.79 acres and from OFC to P/OS on 11.17 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2022 Page 2 • Site Plan Review on 15.28 acres • Preliminary Plat of 2 lots and 2 outlots on 16.96 acres Josh Brandsted, of Greco Properties LLC, introduced himself and his team. He displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The site was located adjacent to Highway 212 in an area zoned industrial, near the Golden Triangle Light Rail Line Station. The existing site was vacant and comprised of mostly wetlands. Roughly one-third of the site would be developed. What sat there now was the foundation of a previously approved 128,000-square foot office building but construction was stopped in 2008 and the land has remained vacant since. Light utilities and soil corrections had been started on the site. A high water table and soil composition were challenges to development on this site. Brandsted displayed the site plan and explained this would be an environmentally sustainable two-phase development connected to both natural resources and the light rail. Phase I would develop the north portion, and Phase II the southern portion along Flying Cloud Drive. Phase I would be a 237-unit development, including studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, 311 underground parking stalls and 12 surface stalls, a connection to the light rail, a public trail around the wetland, and turn land restriping. Phase II would be a 188-unit development also including studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, , 256 underground parking stalls and five surface parking, a connection to the trail and a sidewalk along Flying Cloud Drive. TIF would be sought, and affordability would be provided consistent with TIF and City Code requirements. A public art installation would also be budgeted. He displayed the amenities package and the sustainability features and methods. Mike Krych from BKG Group Architects explained the design choices. He stated this was a unique site containing wetlands but also surrounded by highways and adjacent to an industrial site. This transit-oriented development was an opportunity to embrace the wetlands and orient the development to face them. There was an urban street wall facing the streets but courtyards facing the wetlands and a view of them even as one pulls into the site. Public art such as sculptures or murals would be incorporated in the courtyards. He explained the color choices, which pulled from nature and used more glass and lighter colors facing the wetlands. Pervious paving would be used on the paths. He displayed a material board gave an overview of the metals and the color pallet, which emphasized neutrality but drew from local natural colors. Mette asked if the amenities would be shared between the two development phases, and Brandsted replied each building would have its own amenities. Mette PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2022 Page 3 asked for an explanation of the grade and the water table in relation to the parking. David Bade from Westwood replied there were multiple access points throughout the parking and a new at-grade entrance would be created at Flying Cloud Drive. The north parking entrance would be at a higher grade. Independent entrances would come in separately. Mette asked what percentage of parking would be at or above grade and Bade replied it was approximately 50 percent. Mette asked Krych if the ocher color was meant to have a flat metallic effect to avoid a “fake copper” effect. Krych replied it would have a matte finish to give off an earth tone and was not intended to look like copper or any reflective metal. DeSanctis asked for and received confirmation that 60 percent of the property was wetland. He asked if an environmental study had been commissioned and Brandsted replied the development was still in the EAW process. DeSanctis asked what the unique challenges were at this site in terms of borings and foundation footings. Brandsted replied the prior development did a good job with its soil corrections. The other third of the site which had not been improved would have to use a piling system. Markos asked for the timing of Phase I and Phase II. Brandsted replied that was still being worked through that. Once Phase I was 80 percent completed of Phase I would begin, but also perhaps sooner than that. The current timeline was to have a July groundbreaking and then 18-19 months for Phase I, then at approximately the 9-month mark for Phase II. Taylor asked for a ballpark figure of per-unit square footage, and Brandsted replied the studios ranged from 485 to 560 square feet, the one-bedroom units at 575 to 900 square feet, the two-bedroom units from 900 to 1,250 square feet, and the three-bedroom units from 1,385 to 1,500 square feet. Farr asked if there would be visitor parking underground. Brandsted replied the on-grade parking would be visitor parking as well as for vendors and daytime visitors, however it was possible to section off the first level of the garage for visitors. Farr noted there was plenty of queueing space, and he urged sufficient queueing space at Phase II as well. Brandsted agreed and stated the entrance would route drivers by the Phase I entrance first. Gooding noted there was low EV support. Brandsted replied this was a starting point and the actual use rate did not justify installation although this could easily be expanded. Farr asked for and received confirmation the landscape plan with trees in containers on top of the underground parking were large enough to hold a root ball. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2022 Page 4 Klima presented the staff report. This site had previously been approved for the Liberty Plaza development, so the existing zoning was office. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan reguided this entire site to TOD, and staff requested the outlot areas be reguided as Park and Open Space. Commercial was required on the ground floor of this development as a part of the TOD zoning district, and the applicant was requesting a waiver to have the first floor be residential and a waiver on what would normally be the first-floor commercial transparency. The applicant also sought setback waivers and a waiver on the Class One materials requirement. The site met parking as well as offering various sustainability features. There were several surfaces that offered the potential for public art, at a cost not to exceed an amount set in the development agreement and agreed upon by a committee of City staff, the developer, and members of the community. Staff recommended approval. Mette asked if the area around the development were also guided TOD by the Comprehensive Plan. Klima replied the City took a minimalist approach, so this and the TAGS properties were guided TOD, but other properties could request the TOD guiding as part of the development process. Mette asked for and received confirmation the burnished block was not a Class One material. She commended the blocking design. Farr asked if the site was in a more traditional urban environment if the front yard setback along Flying Cloud Drive would require the public sidewalk to be reconfigured to be closer to the building. Klima replied in that scenario the building would be located closer to the street and the sidewalk. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Gooding to close the public hearing. Motion carried 8-0. Kirk commended the project for its TOD concept design and its flexibility, expressing the City’s vision of transit-oriented development. He stated the waivers were reasonable and it put density in the right place while also offering affordable housing. Higgins noted the size and variety of housing opportunities in this project, and she asked a long-term question: where were nearby schools located and how would students living in this development be served? How would school buses or other services access students at this site? Farr noted the apartment complex due south of this development had bus services to schools. DeSanctis complimented the thoughtfulness and the concept of the project, and its pallet of sustainable features. He found this a very forward-looking project, shoe- horned in but brilliant use of space. Taylor stated he was excited about this project for its affordability and urged there be traffic-calming and safety mechanism features in and around the garage such as mirrors, sounds/alarms and/or speed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2022 Page 5 bumps. Markos agreed this was a thoughtful project and did not require the amount of compromises the commission members often saw this checked all the boxes. Mette agreed with the comments and commended the development with its appropriate waivers and art installation solved that corner from being a “heavy block” with a creative solution. Gooding stated he was supportive of this project but noted it was an isolated spot, however well designed. Farr also commended the project and agreed with the waiver requests. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change from TOD to Parks and Open Space on 11.17 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.28 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 15.28 acres; Zoning Change from OFC to TOD- R on 5.79 acres and from OFC to P/OS on 11.17 acres; Site Plan Review on 15.28 acres; and a Preliminary Plat of 2 lots and 2 outlots on 16.96 acres based on plans stamp dated January 4, 2022 and the staff report dated January 6, 2022. Motion carried 8-0. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Gooding to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.