Loading...
Planning Commission - 12/11/2023APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2023 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Frank Sherwood, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Carole Mette, 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 7:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL Commission members Grote and Sherwood were absent. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Weber to approve the agenda. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the minutes of November 13, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ALDEVRON Request for • Planned Unit Development Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23 acres • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 23 acres • Site Plan Review on 23 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2023 Page 2 Lance Monilaws, director of Industrial Project Management for Aldevron, displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. He explained Aldevron was a leader in biological science serving scientists around the world with locations in Lincoln, Nebraska; Fargo, North Dakota; and Madison, Wisconsin, supporting cell and gene therapies globally. Jackie Beck, architect, explained the applicant wished to renovate the existing building built in 1982, which had been vacant since 2019, and construct a 96,334 square foot addition to the northwest side of the 345,503 square foot two-story building at 7075 Flying Cloud Drive. The site was currently asphalt covered. The application also called for renovation and recladding of the existing building, with a proposed pedestrian connection from the building to the new adjacent light rail station, and adding new trees and shrubs/grasses/perennials, which would bring the site into compliance with landscaping requirements. Sustainability improvement included providing 7 EV charging stations for 14 vehicles, a solar ready addition, energy efficient fixtures, appliances and equipment, occupancy sensors and daylight harvesting, and low or no VOCs. She displayed renderings of the main entrance (the western elevation), with examples of the materials such as the bronze, orange, and white metal panels, the precast white and black concrete, along with the northwest view showing the roof screening, and the southeast view along the light rail which would be painted to provide interest. The waivers requested were for 669 parking stalls instead of the 748 stalls required, which would accommodate the 420 employees and 15 visitors anticipated on site; the building height in the I-2 Zoning District, asking for a height of 42 feet instead of the maximum height of 40 feet; the request for a 64.1 percent impervious area, less than the existing 64.2 percent but more than the 30 percent impervious area required by City Code; and the building materials. This request was for the north façade to have 57 percent Class I and 43 percent Class II materials (which was the most variance, involving the loading dock area and screening electrical and mechanical equipment), the south façade to have 74 percent Class I and 26 percent Class II materials, the west façade to have the same, and the east façade would be compliant, with 75 percent Class I materials, instead of each façade having 75 percent Class I materials. Mette asked Beck to summarize the main Class I and II materials. Beck replied they were a precast textured concrete exposed aggregate Class I material and curtain wall. Farr observed the existing office building in the southwest corner would be connected to the addition with the courtyard behind being kept. He asked how utilities would be brought in. Beck replied the applicant was working with the building codes department but utilities would be rerouted via the north side of the addition. Farr noted the entry gates came very close to the curb and raised a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2023 Page 3 concern about the stacking distance for cars that would not spill out onto the public way. Beck replied there were three curb cuts with security gates that were additional entrances, and this entrance had 40 feet between the curb to the gates, which allowed two vehicles to queue. All employees would have card access for quick entrance. The west entrance would have guest parking. The applicant still needs to work out details, such as an intercom. Farr stated his main concern was the 150 thousand square feet of shell space not included in the traffic study or the parking counts. He found there were over 430 cars required which would result in a parking deck for which there were no accommodations. He requested a proof of parking plan which would address the parking deck, and the square footage. Beck replied the proportions of the shell space would not be the same as the entire project, but would be largely manufacturing. The officing proposed would accommodate a future expansion, as would also the warehouse, and the shell space manufacturing area had a lower per person count. It would be similar to what is going into the addition, perhaps 80- 100 more employees on site. She acknowledged that when the shell space was built out the applicant would have to return to the Planning Commission for approval. Barnhart added he would address this in his staff report. Mette asked where the shell space would be and Beck replied it would be on the lower southeast first and second floors. There would be 150,000 square footage of shell space. Beck added the ceiling height did not meet their requirements after conducting extensive studies for reuse; there were not the same head-height clearances, which would require the second floor and roof to be demolished if it was built today. Different head-height clearances would be used in the future shell design. Barnhart presented the staff report. There were three requests: a PUD concept review, a district review with waivers, and the site plan review, as noted above. There were four waivers requested: impervious surface, building height, building materials, and parking. The proposed site would reduce approximately 1,000 square feet of impervious surface, which was located far from the shoreland in the shoreland district. The requested building height of 42 feet based on length and slope-change of this building would likely be imperceptible. Staff did examine the parking waiver thoroughly, and determined that the shell space was different that typical flex industrial/commercial space; it was not accessible from outside, did not have its own entrance, and was not finished or conditioned. Staff felt comfortable addressing parking issues based on known issues. Other environmental factors, ridesharing, etc. would influence this future condition, and he suggested the commission could handle it in the future and a little differently than other projects. The building materials were also examined by staff. Barnhart stated it was difficult to “morph” a large addition with an existing building to today’s standards PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2023 Page 4 without destroying the character of the building, so instead staff tried to identify the key components to the design process. After revisions the building articulation met the requirements. The east side exceeded the building materials requirements, the south and west side were very close, and he found no example of where to logically take away material and add windows or brick. From staff’s perspective the existing and the proposed materials tied together. The north façade which faced the light rail station had been closely examined for visual impact, and it did add landscaping staff recommended. The screening wall as a metal wall was preferred over an extension of the precast panel, which would not be as beneficial an alternative, as metal added texture and variety to the area. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions in the staff report, some of which would be addressed before the City Council meeting. Farr asked for and received clarification of percentages in the north façade nonconforming percentages, which were found mostly in the loading dock, and were included in the calculations. Farr asked Schultz to comment on the lack of stacking distance at the gated entrances, and the fact the traffic report had been conducted only for the day one scenario and not after shell space was occupied. Schultz stated the traffic report indeed looked at the existing condition, then added the 97,000 square footage for the addition, also including the shell space, for the number of trips. There was stacking close to the intersection but the lengthy turn lane plus having staff use all three entrances did not raise a concern for cars waiting for the turn lane. If there was to be an issue it could be brought to their staff to use alternative entrances. This was not a concern as this was not a busy road with the turnoff to the entrance. Mette suggested taking the lowest denominator of parking requirement for the shell space and provide a waiver that included that minimum, and then requiring the applicant to come back to the commission under the development agreement if this was exceeded. Barnhart replied staff did not want to waive the requirement and arbitrarily set it low. He recommended staff examine the true need when the next portion of the project came through rather than being backed into a position that could not be easily corrected. Mette stated she still had concerns, but the other option was a parking ramp, so she was satisfied with the staff recommendation. Mette asked the requirement of parking per 1,000 in City Code, and Barnhart replied the range was based on size at 4.7 per 1,000. The Code had been adjusted in August, 2023. Kirk noted the facility was next to the light rail station, which could provide another mode of transportation into this facility. He stated he agreed with bringing back the shell build to the commission rather than locking in the total parking at this meeting. Farr stated he could not disagree more, having spent his career establishing proof of parking plans. He asked the applicant to establish a parking benchmark, rather PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2023 Page 5 than have an unknown number of cars with nowhere to go. Either the applicant would warehouse this and request no more parking, or come back with greenspace waivers, or request a parking ramp, which would move a bunch of utilities. Being that there was no mystery to how to other three facilities would be employed, he thought the applicant should show the plan for it. The commission’s charge was to future proof plans like this, rather than to allow for no plan for how the applicant would return before the commission in the future. MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by Kirk to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. Farr commended the project but objected to the parking waiver. He suggested the commission approve the concept, but delay the district and site plan review. Barnhart urged these be done at the same time, and that the commission members suggest changes instead to the motion. Mette suggested the commission move to recommend approval with the added condition of a proof of parking plan. Discussion followed on whether to require a parking plan or approve the existing motion as proposed. MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to recommend approval for a Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 23 acres; Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 23 acres; and a Site Plan Review on 23 acres as represented in the December 11, 2023 staff report and based on plans listed in the December 11, 2023. Motion carried 5-2 (Mette and Farr voting nay). Mette stated she disagreed with the administrative process of allowing the shell space to not count toward the parking waiver, adding ideally she would have preferred to see a proof of parking plan so the future possible parking ramp could be shown as possible. Farr agreed, stated that was his objection as well. Both supported this application otherwise. PLANNERS’ REPORT MEMBERS’ REPORTS VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Taylor to adjourn. Motion carried 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.