Planning Commission - 08/26/2019APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew
Pieper, Ed Farr, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher
Villarreal, Carole Mette, Balu Iyer
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, City Planner; Rod Rue, City Engineer;
Matt Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources;
Kristin Harley, Recording Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Commission members Pieper, Kirk, Iyer and Weber were absent.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Higgins to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Mette moved, seconded by DeSanctis to approve the minutes of August 12,
2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PARAVEL APARTMENTS
Request for:
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.962 acres
Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 4.962 acres
Site Plan Review on 4.962 acres
Preliminary Plat of an outlot into one lot on 4.962 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 26, 2019
Page 2
Ryan Sailer, of Timberland Partners Development, presented a PowerPoint, gave
an overview of the history of his firm, and presented the application. He described
the stakeholder engagement process, which included a community open house
held in September, 2018 and a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities
Design Workshop held in April, 2019. The planned community consisted of 246
total units, a mixture of studio, one-, and two- units, with 63 affordable units and
425 parking stalls, 358 of which would be covered. Included would be 327
bicycle parking spaces.
He addressed the development’s density, the increase in the number of the
parking stalls, the increase in the available green space due to the reduced
building footprint, more effective public connection with better articulation at
building corners and site connections, and the change from the original design of
multiple towers to one fully connected and integrated building. He described the
community amenities offered by the development. The redesign included a
number of sustainable community characteristics.
Evan Jacobson, Principal, Tushie Montgomery Architects, displayed the site
overview and the site master plan and described the site layout and circulation.
This was Phase II of a three-phased development. The landscape plan included a
mix of programmed active and passive spaces, with plantings, benches, bike
racks, an elevated terrace with a fire pit, grill stations, a pool and a community
garden. Jacobson displayed a rendering of the courtyard design and aerial views
from two angles.
Sailer described the proposed timeline and the community outreach process.
Mette asked for and received clarification on the number of affordable units
during the TIF period would be 50 affordable units at 50 percent AMI for the TIF
requirements and 13 inclusionary units would be provided in perpetuity. She
asked if the affordable units would only be in the five-story portion of the
building. Sailer replied the units in the north side of the building held larger units
making it challenging to make these the affordable units , but the entire building
was integrated and the amenities will be available to all residents. He noted that
21 of the units on the north side of the building fell within the 100 percent AMI,
and that the affordable units could “float” and were not expressly set out in the
building. Mette asked if other projects in Eden Prairie were likewise seven story
wood construction, and Sailer replied several were being proposed in the Twin
Cities but this project would be the first to do it.
Villarreal thanked the applicant for the EV charging stations and asked if the
development would allow for level two/DC fast-charging stations and for
composting. Sailer could not answer absolutely. Villarreal asked for and received
clarification that the southeast line was a median that separated the development
from traffic, and which property was reserved for Phase III development. He
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 26, 2019
Page 3
asked if there could be a three-point turn onto Prairie Center Drive. He also asked
for an estimate of the setback between the building and Prairie Center Drive.
Jacobson replied it varied between 22 to 28 feet.
Higgins urged that underground parking be sensitive to the wetland and creek area
adjacent to the property. Sailer replied there had been extensive geotechnical
testing to determine the soil composition prior to construction. DeSanctis asked if
there was a need for a beacon due to its proximity to Flying Cloud Airport, and
Sailer replied the project would be submitted to the FAA to determine this.
DeSanctis asked for the policy for removal and disposal of construction materials.
John Fletcher of Presbyterian Homes replied with the 200-foot height limit he did
not see the need for a beacon. Regarding the construction materials, there would
be asbestos testing, and would work with Futures of Minnesota to remove and
deconstruct appliances, doors, et cetera. He expected the actual deconstruction of
the buildings themselves within the next four weeks.
Farr asked if at the access to the short term parking/delivery area one makes a
loop turn past the median Villarreal asked about, or if one had to make a right turn
to access Columbine Road. Sailer replied he hoped drivers would not make a U-
turn around the median and instead exit to Columbine. Farr asked for a general
phasing of the street system. Sailer replied Presbyterian Homes would complete
the entire road infrastructure, other than the back side of the site coming in from
CVS.
Klima presented the staff report. There would be coordinated site amenities
throughout the project: streetscaping, crosswalks, benches, light ballards, et
cetera. Density and height waivers were being requested. The project is also
seeking a waiver for parking. Staff recommended revision of the landscaping plan
calculations to include additional areas as noted in the staff report. There is also a
waiver requested to the group usable open space accessible to all residents. Public
art was also a part of this project. Staff recommended approval of the
development with conditions, as noted in the staff report.
Farr asked Rue to address prosed three-quarter turn at the access from Prairie
Center Drive. Rue replied Presbyterian Homes was building the “spine” or main
roadway and the initial access would be a full intersection, then become a three-
quarter turn in the future as would be warranted by safety concerns. He had no
specific dates for this change. Farr asked if the unnamed street could be used for
solely southbound traffic or if there could be a U-turn through the median to go
north on Prairie Center Drive. That would be the busiest internal intersection. Rue
replied he would not encourage a U-turn but it could be done. There were other
alternatives for egress.
Mette asked what the inclusionary housing policy requirements were since the
proposed inclusionary housing with this project is different than what has been
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 26, 2019
Page 4
provided in other projects. Klima replied the City does not have a formal
inclusionary housing policy as the Housing Task Force is working toward a
recommendation to provide the City Council. Inclusionary housing has been
addressed on a project-by-project basis. She offered to keep the Planning
Commission members informed. Mette asked if the sidewalk along Columbine
Road between CVS and the wetland had a crosswalk planned there, or if the only
access was across Prairie Center Drive. Rue replied the City would discourage a
crosswalk at the CVS entrance. One could be marked either at Castlemoor Drive
or the center unnamed east-west street, both of which had better sightlines. Mette
noted pedestrians would use whatever was convenient whether or not a crosswalk
existed. Higgins concurred this was an important point, and stated it was difficult
to turn left and go up the hill from CVS due to the lack of visibility. Villarreal
asked for a response to Mette’s recollections on how the inclusionary units were
distributed. Klima replied the dispersion of affordable units met the requirement
because it was one building within the TIF district.
Farr noted the property line to the north formed an acute angle within the
driveway leaving the CVS and asked if the southerly driveway, which was one
lane in each direction and was not busy, could not be repurposed into a one-lane
driveway, or removed entirely, and turned over to green space. Even though this
driveway was not part of the project review, he thought this was the opportunity
to make better use of this land. Klima agreed the southerly driveway was likely
put in to support the 2008 development but added there had been no conversation
with the CVS ownership. Farr asked for feedback from other commissioners and
the applicant. He also noted the metric of parking based on bedrooms rather than
on units made more sense to him and asked for staff comments. Klima replied the
parking requirements for this zoning district were established some time ago and a
bedroom count was more flexible and has been utilized in other zoning districts.
This development did provide one parking stall per bedroom.
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Villarreal to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Higgins asked for clarification of the TIF period. Janet Jeremiah, Eden Prairie
Community Development Director, replied the maximum TIF period for a
housing district was 26 years. The City would expect the affordability to remain
during that period, even if the TIF were to be paid off earlier. This was subject to
negotiations. Villarreal asked for the setback of the north section referenced by
Farr. Jacobson replied there was a point intrusion there at 12 feet with an average
of 20-22 feet. No negotiations had been undertaken for an easement. DeSanctis
noted according to the legend with a scale of one inch to 80 feet, there was less
than a 12 foot encroachment. Jacobson replied the legend might not be accurate.
Klima replied the minimum setback was indeed 12-13 feet. Farr urged the
applicant to dig deeper and explore the feasibility of converting the encroaching
property on CVS and explore green space. Sailor replied the developer would
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 26, 2019
Page 5
have to track down ownership; this was a difficult question to answer but the
possibility could be explored.
Villarreal stated he was largely in support of the project. He had one concern
related to the location of all affordable housing in the five-story section with the
limited number of two-bedroom apartments, which he calculated to be around 13
percent of units available for families or other residents than empty-nesters and
residents who wished for studios. Farr noted on page seven of the staff report
there was a minimum listed two-bedroom units that were to be affordable. Sailor
replied there was no “us and them” difference in this project. There was one
building and would be marketed that way to all. The units themselves would be
the same finished packages and everyone would have access to all amenities.
Villarreal stated he wished to make more of the two-bedroom units available.
Mette agreed, but stated the affordable units (24 percent) were proportionate to
the overall mix, and this was how the commission members should approach the
question. Villarreal concurred.
DeSanctis noted one of the sustainability would be green roofing trays over
portions of concrete podium and asked if there was an opportunity for a rooftop
garden or community garden. Jacobson replied the green roofing trays were
exclusively on the courtyard side because that was where the podium ended.
Rooftop gardens were an option, but this would require decreasing the patio to
make room for planting. Farr noted occupant loads could be an issue with rooftop
gardens. He commended the project and appreciated the refinements, saying the
white cast stone materials were a strong element. He asked the applicant to ensure
the scale and pattern did not approach a “concrete block” appearance. He
appreciated the wide variety of useful interesting and inviting amenities.
Mette agreed the white stone should avoid looking like “concrete block” and
suggested the applicant use something like the beige stone used in City Place in
Woodbury. She said she was happy with the parking redesign and approved of the
design overall; the amenity space justified the waivers. Higgins stated she looked
forward to the development and reminded the applicant there would be children
eventually. School buses would be important to consider. DeSanctis stated this
was truly a 21-century project and was deeply impressed with the effort,
considering it a substantial contribution to the aesthetics and skyline of the
commercial district.
MOTION: Villarreal moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend approval of
the Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 4.962 acres, the Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 4.962 acres, the Site Plan Review
on 4.962 acres, and the Preliminary Plat of an outlot into one lot on 4.962 acres
based on plans stamp dated August 16, 2019 and the staff report dated August 26,
2019. MOTION CARRIED 5-0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 26, 2019
Page 6
VI. PLANNERS’ REPORT
Klima stated the Planning Commission was being asked to adopt a resolution finding that
a modification to the redevelopment plan for project area number 5 and tax increment
financing plan for tax increment financing district number 24 conformed to the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City. Staff recommended approval.
Farr asked if it mattered if the district was first in conformance in the 2030 or the 2040
plan, and Klima replied in either case the district would be in conformance. Farr asked if
this would include the entire City and Jeremiah replied the district encompassed only the
property. The project area was coterminous with the City boundary, allowing staff to be
more nimble in finding funding, and county sources were also possible funding sources.
Higgins asked if a development that was not part of this district would take advantage of
this funding, and Jeremiah affirmed the City could not collect TIF from other areas
without establishing an actual district. Mette asked if it was typical to have the project
area be the entire City. Jeremiah replied it was very common for the redevelopment area
to be coterminous with the City boundaries. Farr asked if the commercial development
would be asking for TIF funding. Jeremiah replied Presbyterian Homes did not request
TIF and did not expect the commercial development would request TIF either.
MOTION: Villarreal moved, seconded by DeSanctis to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution number 2019-01 finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for
project area number 5 and Tax Increment Financing plan for TIF district number 24
conformed to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City.
MOTION CARRIED 5-0
VII. MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Higgins moved, seconded by Villarreal to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 5-
0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.