Loading...
Planning Commission - 04/23/2018 APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY,APRIL 23, 2018 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Charles Weber, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr, Mark Freiberg, Michael DeSanctis, Christopher Villarreal, Carole Mette 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 Pieper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL Absent was commission members Villarreal and Higgins. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Kirk, to accept the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. IV. MINUTES MOTION: Farr moved, seconded by Kirk to accept the minutes of April 9, 2018. Motion carried 7-0. V. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS VI. PUBLIC MEETINGS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HAMPTON INN Request for 0 Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 1.7 acres PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2018 Page 2 • Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 1.7 acres • Site Plan Review on 10.06 acres Chris Flagg, Chief Investment Officer for TPI Hospitality, presented his revised application: the subterranean 25 parking stalls initially proposed became prohibitively expensive between the time of initial application and approval in 2016. With the assistance of planning staff the applicant reevaluated the site plan, with the result being the building footprint was reduced by 1200 square feet, the hotel made taller(to six stories), and all parking was redesigned to be on-grade. The current plan was more economically feasible. He displayed maps of the site as well as elevation drawings and site renderings of the building, and explained its integration with the surrounding community. Flagg explained the decorative elements that distinguished this project from the "Hampton Inn prototype" as well as the original design, and offered to answer any questions about the deviations being requested. Klima presented the staff report. The applicant worked with staff to modify the original design. The current site plan showed the development of a six-story, 105- room hotel on the former I-Hop site with an approximate building footprint size of 11,500 square feet. This footprint would be about 1,200 square feet less in size than the 2016 proposal to allow for the additional surface parking and elimination of the below ground parking. The current plan provided for 98 surface parking stalls. Trash and recycling storage would be contained within the primary structure. The existing trail along the lakeside of the property would be reconstructed as needed due to the construction of a retaining wall. The site plan included parking lot design elements such as pedestrian connections and landscape islands. The pedestrian connections within the site were to direct pedestrians out of the parking area and create a connection to the trail on Technology Drive. Pedestrian connections located within the parking lot would be constructed of a differing surface material in order to provide for clear identification of the pedestrian connection. The plan exceeded the landscape parking island requirements (five percent) of City Code to break up the parking area and provide additional impervious surface areas. The landscaping plan for the site exceeded City Code requirements. The applicant was also requesting several PUD waivers related to setbacks, parking lot design, shoreland requirements, and building design elements. They were similar to what had been approved in 2016. Sustainability features included native plantings and pollinator habitat, LED lighting, a bike rack, and an electric vehicle charging station. Staff recommended approval of the proposal with the waivers and subject to the conditions and sustainability features outlined in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2018 Page 3 DeSanctis asked if this development, which wraps around northeast side of Idlewild Lake, would allow for public access to the lake for fishing. Bourne replied there would not necessarily be access to the lake itself from this property but the existing trail would be shifted to allow for access via an easement. Kirk asked for and received confirmation the setback waivers were roughly the same as before with the exception of the front having been increased slightly. Kirk asked if the parking was approximately the same and Klima replied the current parking waiver decreased number of stalls initially approved in 2016. Staff worked with the applicant to accommodate as much parking as possible and the applicant also analyzed other Hampton Inn sites to determine business needs. Mette asked where the light rail line would be in relation to the development. Klima displayed a map and explained the location of the hotel in relation to the LRT line. Kirk asked the height of the elevation of the light rail line, and Rue replied the light rail elevation was quite a bit higher than the site; there is a retaining wall along Technology Drive but there was sufficient distance to accommodate the slope. Farr asked which shared access easements were on site between the proposed hotel and the curb cuts. Klima displayed the shared driveway and the cross-traffic easement on the map for the Commission. Farr asked if there was a shared parking agreement with the adjacent property owner and this development, and Klima replied there was not. DeSanctis asked if this development would result in the reengineering of the intersection at Technology Drive. Rue replied it would not, but a temporary easement was needed for the light rail line. All would be contained within the public right-of-way with the exception of a small perimeter easement. Farr commented this was a positive enhancement from the 2016 application and expressed appreciation of TPI's efforts. He asked what design guidelines they could expect from Metro Transit for the acoustical glazing. Klima replied she was in contact with the Southwest Light Rail project office to get that specific guidance, and added she expected the language would be included in the development agreement. Freiberg asked for the grade difference at the entrance to the beginning of the footprint, and Rue replied it was relatively flat there, as Technology Drive drops in grade. Weber echoed Farr's appreciation of the architectural improvement over the 2016 application. DeSanctis asked if any structures, such as a ventilation system, would extend above the horizontal profile of the roof. Flagg replied it was possible some equipment would extend but not to a great degree, and it would be screened. He offered to have the architect follow up with City. Klima replied subject to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 23, 2018 Page 4 proposal's approval City staff would be reviewing the mechanical equipment to ensure it remained code-compliant and screened which would also be a condition of the development agreement. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by Farr to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0. MOTION: Weber moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend approval of the proposal based on staff recommendations and the information contained in the staff reported dated April 19, 2018 and the plans stamp-dated April 17, 2018. Motion carried 7-0. VIII. PLANNERS' REPORT A. COUNCIL WORKSESSION—MAY 1, 2018—ASPIRE 2040 Klima reminded the commission members they were invited to the City Council work session Tuesday, May 1, 2018 to discuss the Aspire plan draft update. IX. MEMBERS' REPORTS X. CONTINUING BUSINESS XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Weber to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Pieper adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m.