Good evening everyone. We will call this meeting to order on September 22nd, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission. If you could all rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance, please. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you everyone. All right we have an agenda before us everyone. Are there any changes to the agenda that anyone would like to make? Otherwise, I would look for a motion to approve the agenda. >> I move to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the agenda as it stands, say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Same sign. Thank you. We have an agenda before us. Also, looking at the minutes from the July 28th planning commission meeting, are there any changes or corrections that need to be made to the agenda for or the minutes from that evening? If not, I'd look for a motion. >> So move. >> We have a motion. >> Second >> and a second. All those in favor of the minutes from July 28th, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. Thank you for that. All right, we have a couple public hearings before us tonight. Um, let's go ahead and start the first one. Uh that would be the Valley View Hotel development. We have a couple actions for us as well. Um looking at a guide plan change on 59.6 acres, zoning change on those 59.6 acres, preliminary plat on the 59.6 6 acres, a PUD concept review, a PUD district review with waiverss on 6.59 acres, and then a site plan review on 6.59 acres. I would ask that the applicant please come forward and state and spell your name for the record and please give us your presentation for this development. All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is John Frier. Um, that's Jo Ferrer R and I'm the vice president of architecture and development for CSM Corporation and we are located at 500 Washington Avenue South in Minneapolis. So I have um others from the design team here with me today. So, two people from Alliant Engineering, um, one is Mark Kronbeck, the other is Nick Cridge. Um, and they did the civil engineering, landscaping, um, traffic and parking, uh, reports. Also, Scott Cross is here, who is the current GM of the current, uh, Eden Prairie residents in. Um, Terry Grunhogen is a principal at ESG Architects and he helped us with the architecture part of it. and John Carland who is CSM's development analyst. We're very excited to present this project today and um you know I first I want to uh thank planning staff for helping us through the process. Um this has been a pretty long process. We've been working on this for almost two years. So um planning staff was extremely helpful. All right. So, as I said, we are the current uh owners of the residence in off Flying Cloud Drive, um which is a first generation prototype built in 1984. So, the concept for these first generation prototypes were there was a separate guest house or clubhouse that housed the amenities and then 16 8-unit separated guest room buildings. So Marriott has indicated that this residence in concept is now obsolete um and needs to be replaced with a new prototype or we fear we're going to lose our flag. So some of the reasons why they considered obsolete is there is an inability now to bring it up to the new prototype. So in hotels they ask every five to seven years to do a PIP which is a property improvement plan that brings it closer to the current prototype. And because of the layout of these buildings, it just it's just impossible to do. And then functionally, it's hard to operate a hotel when you have all these separate guest buildings separate from the amenities. So, you may ask, why a new site? Why not just demo the existing uh residence in um and build the new prototype? So, this is actually a high performing hotel. So, there was a desire to keep this hotel open during construction. So that's why we started looking a couple years ago, several years ago for a new site. Also, the light rail comes about 30 feet um from the development and there's been some impacts from noise and vibrations on on the project. So this is an aerial of the UNFI um site parcels. On the right side is the um site that the school district purchased and then reszoned. Um on the left side is the land that we have um currently under contract. So the outline in red is actually the subject property. So we're looking to develop a small portion of the site about 6.58 659 acres. So almost 60 acres of the site would remain undeveloped. So today we're seeking approval for PUB concept review, guide plan amendment, zoning amendment, site plan review, and preliminary plat. So as part of the PUD approval, um we are asking for a handful of waiverss. The first one is to increase the building height from 40 feet to 52 feet 2 in. So, um, one of the reasons to do this is so that we can build higher, so we get the desired amount of keys without impacting as much of the site. Um, another waiver we're asking for is um, to reduce the shoreland setback from 200 feet to 100 ft from Super Valley Pond. And if you look at the diagram on the upper right hand corner, there is precedent on this water body to going less than 100 ft setback. So the the red lines as you see at the existing office building that's on the site um indicate where that 100 foot setback is. Um in addition we're asking for a waiver to remove vegetation in the shore impact zone um to build the project and then parking. So, they're um we're asking for a um parking setback variance or waiver because we don't have the required setback between the restaurant and the hotel because they share parking. Um so, the the property line is at a drive lane. In addition, um Align Engineering conducted a parking generation study. So, we found at our residence in ins um and we own several of them, the parking is very underutilized. So, we conducted a study and there's four of our locations up there and as you can see on the far right, the average amount of parking used during sellout days is much below the requirement of one stall per guest room. Um, the only one that is a little bit higher is our residents in in Milwaukee. And the reason for that is it's a downtown location. We only have 50 parking stalls there. So, that one kind of throws off the average a little bit. So, this requires a zoning change. So, on the left, currently the property is zoned rural. Um, and we're asking to zone the restaurant and residents insight as a regional service commercial. Um, and that use is consistent with the use across the street, which is also regional surface commercial. And the normal the northern undeveloped parcel would remain rural. In addition, we need a land use change. So, in Eden Prairie's comprehensive plan that was passed in 2019, it anticipated um the the guide guidance for the land use on the left. So, that blue portion of the site um was uh guided office. The middle portion um the tan portion was guided medium high density residential and the upper portion was parks and open space. So we are um proposing um as I said before to change the land use to regional commercial and then the remainder would be parks and open space. Um and as you can see by the diagram we're actually increasing the amount of uh parks and open space. We had originally uh proposed apartments on the upper portion of the site, but the uh city staff did not support this because of the impacts on the bluffs and the steep slopes. So, we feel the land use change is warranted because I'm sure everyone's read um as the office market is in sharp decline. Um the office direct vacancy and sub lease vacancy is approaching 25% across the metro area and is expected to re to reach 30% by 2028. Um absorption for office uses in the Twin Cities has been negative for 17 of the last 18 quarters which means that more space is being vacating vacated than it is being leased. And we think that reszoning to a whole hotel use has less impact than office on the the roadways and uh the site. So here's the proposed site plan. Um in the middle of the site I'm showing a we're showing a fivestory residence in with 157 keys. And then to the right is the restaurant pad site which is just shy of 8600 square feet. So we have placed these buildings where they have the least impact on the site. As a result that no heritage trees will be removed with our development and 88 12% of tree caliber inches will be saved. Um in addition we've placed the buildings where they have the least effect on steep slopes and protected bluffs. So align engineering also um conducted a traffic study. So the conclusion of that was that no significant delay or queuing issues um with the new proposed development. Um so right now the the site access is a right in right out and we're actually proposing to do a left in as well. So it'll be a three/4er intersection and that'll increase the level of service for that intersection and the city is in support of that. So we just need to work through the county process. Um and if you see the numbers um in yellow, so it would be expected that a hotel uh land use and a restaurant would have fewer impacts on uh AM and PM um peak hours. Um so that's what is outlined in the yellow. So we conducted a neighborhood meeting about a week and a half ago. Um, and the proposed development has very little impact on the neighborhood neighborhood from a visual standpoint. So, um, the yellow arrows, we're over 2900 ft from, um, the Bryant Lake residences in that neighborhood and we're over 3,000, uh, feet um, from uh, Beach Road. And also there's about 50 acres of undeveloped site that has steep slopes, heavy tree cover and bluffs that help screen the property. So we did some view corridor studies. So this one is from across Bryant Lake and the whole town and restaurant, if you can see those, they're shown dashed because they're over 2100 ft behind that bluff of trees. So there is they're completely screened from view from across Bryant Lake. One of the neighbors had concerns that when you're on the lake, you'd be able to see the hotel and the restaurant. Um this again shows um um a view from on the lake. You can see what the white thing on the the little aerial that's where the view is being taken from. And also on this uh they're shown dash because there will not be seen from the lake. So this is a view um looking east on Valley View Road with the development on the left. So also we did a study of across 494. There's some neighborhoods that were concerned they'd be able to see the development. Um, and as you can see here, um, there it will not be seen from across the street either. Here's a bird's bird's eye view of the development. So, it's a single building with integrated amenities. It's a very contemporary design. So, there'll be a mixture of studio, onebedroom, and twobedroom suites, and then some meeting space. And then the restaurant, we don't have a user yet, but it'll be a a full-ervice restaurant to support local businesses and the hotel as well. This is another view from Valley View Road. And this is a closeup of the entry of the hotel. So, we're using over 75% class one materials. So, it's going to be a nice looking building. It'll be brick and cultured stone where their prototype is usually a lot more fiber cement board and ephus, but this this is going to have an upgraded look. Um there will be a little bit of stuckco and fiber cement panels, but it'll be mostly brick and cultured stone. And our final view is from this is going north on 494. So you can see just the top of the building and uh the monument sign. So in conclusion, uh our new residence in prototype and restaurant development requires PUB concept review, a guide plan amendment, a zoning amendment, site plan review, and preliminary plat. Um we believe we placed this development um where it has the least in impact on existing slopes, bluffs, and heritage trees, and the northern portion of the site will remain undeveloped. And as demonstrated, the development has little impact on views from adjacent properties and it keeps a very popular hotel brand in Eden Prairie. So, the whole team is here to answer any questions that you might have. >> Thank you so much. Any commissioners have any questions for the applicants? >> I'm just wondering about the meeting space. Uh what um do you envision for meeting space that would be uh open to people? It's uh we haven't completely uh designed the interior of the space yet, but one of the requirements of the residents in prototype is to have a small meeting room. >> Thank you. >> Other commissioners otherwise I'll open up to the public. >> Staff report. >> Staff report. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jeremy. >> Sure. >> Thank you, chair. Uh, commissioners, the applicant really hit the high points in terms of the applications requested, comp plan amendment, zone changes, site plan, and PUB um concept and PUD with waiverss. Just want to highlight the waivers requested. Um, there were four um the building height, they're proposing a 52 approximately 52 foot tall building versus the 40 that's allowed in that zoning district, excuse me, in that proposed zoning district. Um, we've approved a couple of these waiverss for hotels in the past 10 years or so. Um and primarily the objective there is to provide um a feasible development while maintaining kind of the surrounding ground area. So in this case it's trying to preserve the existing slopes and vegetation and other areas is trying to preserve um um minimize the impact on slopes or the water bodies adjacent to it from the uh two waiverss related to the shoreline setback. One is they're proposing a 100 foot setback versus a 200 foot as required by code. Um, and the applicant did point out the neighboring UNFI, excuse me, the the neighboring um, public school building um, that was recently approved or re approved for reuse. Um, usually our properties in the shoreline area have already been developed. So, we don't have the luxury of starting over, you know, with the full 200 foot setback. Uh, in this situation, we are supporting the 100 foot uh, reduction to 100 foot setback. And again in part to ma maximize as much as possible the existing natural features of the property steep slopes um vegetation wetlands. We could put this in a different location to maybe reduce or eliminate that waiver. Um but then that would come at the cost of quite a bit of neighborhood or natural features impact. So we're trying to balance those things which is really the point of the PUD is to balance what's the overall goal of the ordinance and what does the development in the city need for a given property. So that relates to the setback and also relates to the shoreline impact shorland vegetation again trying to balance and minimize that were practical. So Steph supports that waiver also the parking uh setback um highlighted in the applicant's presentation that's parking number um waiver. It's actually not a parking number. They meet the parking requirements from a number perspective. Code allows us to share parking between two uses um with a parking study and some other uh features that are worked into the plan. So, we're not we're not requesting or supporting a waiver from the parking requirement. We're supporting a waiver from the parking setback requirement. If you recall on the site plan, the parking or excuse me, the property line between the restaurant site and the hotel site kind of juts around um the kind of the front entry of the restaurant. Um because of that jutting um the property line actually falls between a couple parking spaces and therefore they can't meet that minimum 10 foot um setback requirement. So that's the waiver for the parking there. Again, relatively minor. uh users um going forward will likely not know where the property line boundary is because it's seamless within the site, which is what we're looking for in a shared parking type situation. Um those are the main points in terms of the waivers. Uh staff is supporting the the project as proposed subject to the conditions that are outlined in the staff memo. There's some work to be done before the planning commission re or excuse me before the city council reviews in terms of small details but we're confident we can get those resolved. Ultimately this uh assuming the planning commission recommends and the council supports the comp plan amendment the me council will have to approve the comprehensive plan amendment and then um the city council will see can is part of the second reading the second reading of the ordinance that adopts basically the council's changes of the land use. So, I stand with any questions, but staff recommends approval uh subject to the conditions outlined in the memo. >> Thank you, Jeremy. Any questions for Jeremy from the commissioners? >> All right, I will open the public hearing. For those of you who are interested in speaking, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Eric Wessles. I live right across uh 494 at 12762 Gordon Drive. So uh my question is and I've actually spoken with the US Department of Fish and Wildlife wondering if you guys have about the you have >> environmental required >> with regards to the eagle's nest. Okay. So, I've been living there since 2004 and have actively watched uh an eagle active eagle's nest for the past decade, probably actually a little bit more. So, that was my first question. So that I reached out to the Department of Fish and Wildlife to find out what the disturbance permit would be required and it there's a measurement of feet that uh that that they need to make sure that they're not doing that uh that they're also that when development takes place during the breeding season. There's also uh the need that they need to research as far as what the impact is going to be for that. Um my other question in actually has to do with the fact that we're a town of 60,000 people and what is the demand for yet another hotel with regards especially something that has this size of a of a restaurant. Is the demand there? Do we see an influx? I I would be curious to know they talk about they're doing studies for parking and this that I'd like to actually know what actually happens how you determine a parking study. But be that as it may, what's the demand? And have they consulted with any of the other people in the hospitality industry? Is there demand? Is there enough demand that they're going to be putting people out of business? Who do they anticipate hiring? Are they going to be having a job fair that brings in people? Is it going to be, you know, what what is their focus as far as how they best serve the community yet not inundate the community with more? I we have we have plenty of hotels already. I don't I don't see the need. But again, if if they've got a demand or if they've got a study that shows that there's a shortage and that there is an occupancy problem because it's so high during the week or not so high during the week, I just don't see the need for yet another uh piece of development of like of this nature. So, that was that's what I really had to offer just cuz I like I said, I've watched the Eagles Nest for for a decade and I'm wondering if they've done any research as far as that and they've contacted it's not the DNR. I found that out cuz I checked. Because it's the bald eagle, they have to talk with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Office. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other one? Any else? Anyone else here to speak? I'm Joe Doctor and I live at 7032 Willow Creek Road and I'm sorry I'm not prepared to speak. I was hoping we could ask some questions. So I don't know if I should address my questions. >> I'll start with the questions and then we can go from there. >> That sounds good. >> What is the lighting going to be for the parking lot, the building, and the restaurant? >> Jeremy, do you want to take that? the lighting. >> Yeah. >> What I would recommend, chair, is receive the questions and then we can respond to >> we can take them all at the at the end. That sounds great. >> Okay. Um my second question is who will own the newly zoned parks and open space? How will it be taxed? And will it be um will there be restrictions on further sale, zoning, and development? uh will it continue to have a no trespassing sign as the current parks and open space has uh that is now owned by the public schools. Um and then my third question um the elevation at the top of the building is 947 feet 6 in. Um, this is on page 31 of the of 59 pages in your big deck. I notice it's not in the planning commission staff report, but it's higher than the highest peak. The highest peak where there's an old foundation is um, excuse me, 938t. And the two peaks that uh come down to the water are 925 ft plus or minus based on the various uh maps I looked at. Um so I just want everybody to know more than anything. Um that this is going to be much much more prominent than it appears to be in some of the pictures. And so then my question I'm finally getting to is it's my understanding that a waiver of a 52 foot2 in high building um has been approved but the top of this building is 58 foot6 in high um and so I don't understand um you know that's including the Marriott signs and the linen chute um and so uh that again makes it even more prominent than just the 52 foot2 inch uh height that has been uh the waiver has been granted. >> So those would be my questions. >> Thank you. Do >> you want me to stand up, stay up here or >> you want to address those now or? >> I can address those now if the commission go ahead. >> So the lighting is the first one I heard the the question about the lighting staff review the lighting plan. I um I don't have it ready to to present to you, but our requirements are that the lighting does not exceed.5 foot candles beyond the property line and then there's height limitations of the freestanding light poles. Um and the the plan met those requirements. Um so there's no waiver requested from a lighting perspective. Um so it it meets the code requirements from a lighting perspective. >> Could you share what those are? Are those 100 foot tall total? >> No, our our maximum is 25 ft above a three-foot base for a freestanding sign or excuse me, freestanding uh light. Okay. >> So, they met those requirements. >> Um in terms of the the open parks and open space question, um the city and um city and the developer are working on acquiring that outlot A is shown on the preliminary plat for city use. So it' be preserved from a uh as a city-owned prop property. That's the northern threequarters of the property. Um in terms of >> can we get rid of the no trespassing signs that are there right now even on the school? >> That's something uh certainly we can work together with on the the parks department parks commission on that. In terms of the height, um the height is measured in a unique way um from what may seem normal. Um height is measured at an average grade around the property to the the top point of the parapit there. Um so that's why the the calculated height is 52 feet 2 in and while some portions of it may appear to be taller than that. So, so you get some credit by embedding um the building into the grade. So, it from a calculated height perspective, that's where we get the 52 feet to inches. >> But the true height, are you in agreement with my math? >> Well, did um the true height is a subjective term, but um from the the the lowest finish grade to the top maybe the 56 or 58. I don't remember the exact number but um we measure based on where the finished the finished floor elevation is and the average grade around the property. All you know all the average grades >> but but so on this map your scale only goes up to the um the corner of the roof. It doesn't go up to the top of the residence in by Marriott sign. >> Yep. >> Are you in agreement that that's repres >> so that was provided? Sorry to interrupt. Um, that's provided as an example for the commission and for the public to kind of see what the building looks like. You're welcome to take a look at the grading plans and the elevations that are also online to see uh that whole kind of calculation. Yeah, I'm just asking because we live across the lake and a whole bunch of us are concerned with what we're going to see and it was presented as a 52 foot tall building, but on the uh on the documents online it all shows the 58 foot 6 in >> which is quite I mean that's more than a 10% difference right there. So >> yeah, a six foot difference but yeah again what's your what's what's being missed there is the the average grades around the property. Um, and I think the applicant's presentation you you may see portions of this built environment across the across 494. The objective necessarily isn't to hide it, especially in this corridor. >> Yeah, we're across Bryant Lake. We're on the side. So, we're looking over the the hills which are lower quite a bit lower than the top of the property. And the property now in in reading the webs your website today is going to be six inch six feet and a half taller than what we were told at the community meeting. >> Sure. >> And so that's why I'm asking the question. I thought maybe it was a mistake. I'm not an architect or builder, but that's a that's a pretty huge mistake in my business. >> Sure. And I apologize. I I got the two speakers confused. Um, I think the applicant could speak to more of the methodology for their uh for their line of sight drawings and provide some insight to the planning commission uh for that. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, would the applicant mind coming up and addressing the rest of the gentleman's question in addition to the two previous questions from the first speaker in regards to the Eagle's Nest as well as the um demand for a hotel? Hello. Uh Mark Kick of Alliance Engineering. Um the Eagle's Nest is uh new information to us, so we'll definitely investigate that. And if the gentleman could, you know, pinpoint on a map where he thinks that is, that probably be helpful. Um I don't remember if there was what the other question was. >> It was the demand for another hotel. >> Oh. Um, I'll take >> Yeah, my name is Scott Cross and I'm the current general manager at the residents in there. We're not adding a new hotel. We're going to replace the hotel. So, the current site will no longer exist as a hotel. So, we are going to add some more um keys to the market, but there is absolutely demand. Um, an example for July with the residence in ran 94% occupancy. So, we've got capacity to add more rooms um especially as we move into a newer property. So, yeah, all all our statistics show that there's absolute demand in the market. >> And what are your plans to do with the other hotel? >> Undecided at this point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead, Mark. >> Um the other question I recall is uh kind of the sight lines. Um and so on the other so between the two properties of the school unifi site and the uh proposed hotel there's super value lake and then kind of northeast of that of super valley lake there's there's two larger mound areas that are vegetated uh I believe that's what he was talking about that are um 925 uh elevation so perspective from across the lake uh and you you look across your sight line is going to essentially be into the trees and and you you won't see the see the building because it's the the trees are closer to your your your >> only vegetation on the trees for a third of the year. I was going to say we're looking >> I'm sorry Mr. um we cannot hear you up here or online if you would like to restate your comments. >> You'll need to step to the podium please. Yep. >> The suggestion was that we wouldn't see the buildings because looking at them from the lake on the other side of the lake, we'd be looking up. And I agree 100%. If we were in our canoe, but we're in when we're in our houses that are at 925 ft looking at a building that's at 941 feet. If you go all the way up to 58 feet, uh, we will see that. Um, especially when the leaves are down. When the leaves are not down, we'll see the the top of the building because it's going to be above the leaves. >> Above the mound, you mean? >> Yes. Above the leaves on the trees on top of those two mounds. And and really there are only a few of us, me included, that live where the mound is right in the sight line. So it may block most of the building for part of the year, but everybody who lives in the South Bay is going to be looking right at the building right that rises above the school building. And everybody that lives in the north part of the lake uh that is to the west of the first mound and second mound actually uh will be looking straight down at the building because there's nothing to block that view. Did everyone hear his comments? >> It was a little hard to hear because you were turned to the side. >> Sorry. Yeah. I I was just saying there there are a few of us, maybe four or five houses whose view will be blocked most of the time except then the leaves are entirely down. But the rest of us who don't have the the one hill that goes right down to Bryant Lake, uh you're either on the your view line is either on the west side of that hill or on the east side of that hill. We'll be looking right at the the building. And and now that we know it's going up an additional six feet, you'll see a huge chunk of the building both in the summer and entirely in the winter when the leaves are down. The the the pictures that the developers are showing are accurate. I'm not saying they're inaccurate, but nobody is going to put their head down on the lake in the middle of Bryant Lake and look up and realize they can't see the building. I mean, that's That's almost a little bit deceptive. >> Appreciate your comments. >> Thank you. Anything more to add from the applicant? Otherwise, we'll ask others if they have public comment. All right. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this item? Otherwise, I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Move to close the public hearing. >> Second. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Same sign. All right, we have a closed public hearing. Any other questions or further discussion from the commissioners for either the applicant or uh planning staff tonight? >> I'd like to I I've been trying to to uh take some notes as as the discussions were going on. Um, I think the the the things that stuck out to me, um, I think the one thing that was interesting is I think the Eagle's Nest comment is, um, a very good one. And I think the developer needs to do their homework on that and make sure we do everything we reasonably can to maintain the environment as best we can. Um the uh I drove out there again today. I've been out there a number of times and the thing that struck me about the site in general is just how damn beautiful that site is, that that whole area. And and I think that the things that are going on regarding trying to minimize the impact on the site and also trying to maximize the open space and particularly the open space that will hopefully ultimately go to the city. that allows the greater community to have po again more potential access and and you know Eden Prairie is a special place from the standpoint of parks and outdoors and conservation areas and things like that and this just gives us I don't know what the plans are but I have confident it gives the city another opportunity to maximize you know the beauty that we have in our community. Um, I I think it's it's good that we're keep, you know, we we'd like to keep an existing business in Eden Prairie. Um, you know, residence in's been there ever since I can remember and I've stayed in those old prototype residence ins and they were unique at the time and they're probably even more unique now. Um, so it's understandable that there's a potential for upgrading that Um and and I'd like to see, you know, again, an active business stay in Eden Prairie if we can. The sightelines are an issue. Um you know, having having been on this planning commission for a long time, the one thing I've learned is is we can't make absolutely perfect answers for everybody in every circumstance. And I think the developer has has made an attempt to address the sighteline issues. Is it a perfect attempt? We'll probably never know until it's built and and and what's happened. Likely it's not perfect, but it it has been an attempt. So, those were some of the things that I was thinking about as I was listening to the presentations. or if anybody else. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else have any comments, questions? >> Well, I think it's interesting that they're literally built down in the hole quite below that or surrounding the bluff for sure, but even the road. So, its height is not as much as it would be if they had been built on a level ground. So, it it's part of their attempt, I guess, to protect the wooded part, which is truly beautiful. No question about it. I want to commend the applicant on their review of the current economic situation. You're spot on and correct on the office demand. It is certainly getting worse and will get worse as the foreseeable future. I also agree with your assessment on the demand for the um hospitality industry that is improving and will continue to improve. The plan looks uh well thought out and well conceived and I'm inclined to approve. >> I have a couple of questions or thoughts. Um first I would commend also the developer and the applicant for the nice uh analysis that's been completed. We have a very thorough packet here of all the information and thank you staff for providing that to us. Um I know there are a few other conditions or quite a few conditions that do need to be met before that is brought to the city council. Um quite a long list actually that um I know staff will make sure is very diligent to get done. Um one question I have about is an environmental analysis. Is that typically done? Has that been done? I don't know that I saw that. It's possible I missed it, but is that something that would have caught the um the bald eagle's nest? Excuse me. The uh there is an analysis, an environmental analysis done as part of an initial application. Um, and that does look at resources from other agencies including the DNR and the Fish and Wildlife Service for information known um at the time. Um, this didn't flag any of that specific the analysis done for this project didn't flag that potential for a eagle's nest. So that's something that staff and the uh and the applicant work together on getting that uh issue understood and and um provide a recommendation going forward. So there is some analysis done, it was not caught on this situation in terms of that specific issue. >> Okay. Thank you. So even though the fish and wildlife had been consulted with for that analysis, it was not determined that there was a nest in the property area. >> It wasn't flagged for for one of a better term. It wasn't identified at that time. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, you mentioned the lighting lighting plan and that meeting the requirements of the city. No concerns there, but that will be included with the council packet and information. Correct. >> Yeah, it will be part of the exhibit B plans which is folded into a development grant. So, all of the details, you don't get, you know, there's, you know, 60 pages of a plan. Um, they're all part all part of the public record. Um, that will be folded into the approval documents. Um and the photometric plan is a part of that. >> Very good. Thank you. Um the other other question I have before I would look for a motion on approval of this is regarding the restaurant. You had indicated that you do not have a tenant at this time. Is the plan to secure a tenant prior to construction prior to construction of the hotel? Can you just elaborate on that please? And thank you for coming back up here. >> Yeah, no problem. Um the plan is once we get approvals, we're going to start marketing the site. Um so that'll happen. You know, who who knows whether the hotel will be complete before we get a restaurant uh owner, but yes, we will be marketing that site after we get our final approvals. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. I think we can always use that. Um >> go ahead. >> Couple of more comments. >> Yes, go ahead, Commissioner. >> Thank you. Um, one thing that one of our commissioners who couldn't make it tonight is is very good at doing is looking at the waiverss and and the PUD, as as I think many of you know, is a is a kind of a a process that allows flexibility give and take in the development process. And so, one of the things that's important to do is look at the waivers because that's what in a sense the city is is giving. And the waivers on on this project, the building height waiver is is not an extreme waiver. I mean, we have done a number of projects, I think Jeremy, you mentioned it in the report that we've done a number of projects where we have allowed similar height waivers. So, this isn't unique or unusual. The parking setback, again, as you mentioned, Jeremy, in your your report, is truly a a non-issue. It just comes with the way it's developed and frankly if you enforce those waiverss it would, you know, kind of blow up the whole project a little bit. So it it it makes perfect sense. The shoreback setback uh shoreline setback is is an interesting one because we struggle with that here in Eden Prairie having a lot of lakes and a lot of things developed around it. So again, this is a a common topic of discussion and the waiverss that are being offered here are are not not in the extreme at all. They're they're very mainline with what has been offered at other developments and also the shoreline impact zone. So, for those of you that don't come to all of these meetings like we do, just wanted to kind of let you know these waiverss are pretty pretty straightforward and and not extraordinary in in the process. And I had one other issue that I lost. So, >> okay. >> Thank you. >> Oh, just I just remembered. >> Go ahead. Uh the other thing is these discussions are fantastic because the purpose of the planning commission is to rise issues and the the charter of the planning commission is to provide advice to the city council. So this process here and the public hearing and everybody's input is is a very important step in the process because the city council who will make the ultimate decision on this now can listen and one of the reasons we ask people to come up is a lot of the city council people listen to these meetings on video and and get uh their input from them. So, we want to make sure everything that goes on here, they have the ability to hear and we'll vote on it and we'll go we'll we'll either pass it or reject it or have some in between, but the most important thing is what the city council does. So, everything that you've said here is great input to the overall process and ultimately the city council's decision- making. >> Thank you for that, Color Commissioner. Any other comments, questions? Anyone inclined to make a motion? >> Well, we should move to close the public hearing. >> We already did that, sir. >> Yes, we did. >> Yes. Looking for a motion on the uh the applicants. >> I move to recommend approval for the guide plan change platin zone change on 59.6 6 acres and PUB concept review, PUD district review with waiverss and site plan review on 6.59 acres as recommended by staff represented in the September 22nd, 2025 staff report. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion before I call the vote? All right, all those in favor of approving the motion as presented and seconded, say I please. I >> I >> and opposed. Same sign. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Good luck to you. Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to our second item of business for tonight. Uh Roars Eden Prairie Apartments. We have a guide plan change on 5.86 acres, zone change on 5.86 acres, a PUD concept review on 5.86 acres. We have a PUD district review with waiverss on 5.86 acres. And lastly, a site plan review on 5.86 acres. Um, would the applicant please come forward and state their name and address for the presentation this evening? >> Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, my name is Nick Asta, Nico Ka. Uh, I'm with Roars Companies. We're at two Carlson Parkway, Plymouth, Minnesota. Um, so Roars Company, just quickly on us, we're a vertically integrated developer, um, general contractor and property management company. Uh, we've been doing it for about 13 years with about 15,000 units across the country, but predominantly here in the greater Midwest, um, and mostly here in the suburbs of the Twin Cities. So, really excited about this opportunity here in Prairie. Um, just one thing I wanted to point out is we did host a neighborhood meeting. uh we actually hosted two neighborhood meetings and and nobody showed. Um but I think the main reason for that is we did go through pretty extensive uh approval process. We this piece of property is in a greater condo association. Uh and so we met with the condo multiple times and we actually do have like formal approvals from them. Um and so you know we can stand here and confidently say that the neighbors in the area are in favor of what we've proposed to date. uh and especially I know earlier we heard uh about office vacancy here in the market and so I think they're excited to see some new life uh in the neighborhood. Um I'll now hand it off to Justin Murkovich with JLG Architects to kind of speak specifically to the project and then we can stand for questions as well. >> Thank you. >> Hi, thank you for your time. Justin Murkovich, JLG Architects and Yeah. Okay. So, Jeremy's showing our presentation here. Um, go ahead. Next page. So the project the proposed project is 195 dwelling units and the uh PUB is currently set for or I'm sorry the land use is currently set for industrial flex tech and the reszoning or I'm sorry the land use proposed is medium um density residential and the zoning is currently zoned for office and is being zone reszoned for medium I'm sorry RM2.5 5. So RM2.5 zoning and medium density residential. 195 dwelling units is a mix of one, two, and threebedroom units. And we have 27 stalls of structured parking all in one level. 117 surface stalls on site and the rest of the site is landscaped. So this is just an overview of that and it's kind of zooming in from proximity to the city center Minneapolis showing some of the land uses uh adjacent to it. Obviously there's a lot of industrial on the Golden Triangle to the west and uh city west station to the north. Go ahead. Okay. So, um I'm hoping this can be a dialogue just like uh as mentioned by the commissioner earlier that uh I wanted to keep the waiverss kind of close to the front of the presentation here so we could talk about those as much or as little as needed. Uh there's a waiver density being sought. I believe the density that we're seeking is in 33.26 if I'm recalling correctly uh versus 17.4 which is what uh the RM2.5 zoning calls for. the zoning. Um, in this case, we're adjacent to a highway and obviously a pretty uh significant transportation asset with the Southwest light rail transit coming online and uh we feel like the density is appropriate given uh the location on the site and the diversity of uses in this area going away from office to uh residential. Okay, front yard setback. So here uh we've got a 24 ft setback from the east. The east is adjacent obviously to highway 212 and the light rail alignment and 35 ft is the required uh setback in RM2.5. But again, obviously, we're trying to um mitigate uh the location and and kind of site the building into the hill and keep it uh close to the highway and maybe away from uh some of the residential uses to the west. And uh this setback achieves that. It kind of is a balance between the TOD uh setback, which is ostensibly zero, and the RM2.5 setback at 35 ft. So we arrived at 24 ft in order to achieve a landscape path that could facilitate a connection to the light rail station at uh city west height waiver. So I mentioned earlier that the building is um buried into the hill on the north side. There's a very significant grade change from the south end to the north end and uh the overall height of the building is kind of mitigated by that. So on the north end you you can only see uh five stories exposed as opposed to six and that's a result of burying it into the hill. Obviously uh the average grade plane comes out to be plus or minus 75 ft but the tallest point uh from the relative grade is uh 69 ft. So that would be to the uh kind of main parapit at the front entry. Okay. The parking waiver. So um obviously the development team can talk more about the operations and the comparable projects that they provided in the narrative here and that was also I think in the um maybe in the packet provided uh earlier in the week or earlier last week but we've got 207 stalls as we're showing here in the uh structured parking with a little bit of amenity uh and lobby entry area and then 117 surface stalls uh with landscaped islands etc. Uh the landscaping does meet the requirements uh that we need to have for caliber inches and replacement and the parking meets the needs for uh the owners and the project and the operations for the units that they have shown. And obviously we can come back to any of this and have more of that discussion. So I'll be quick with the rest of this and if we want to dwell on any any of it I'm happy to do so but obviously we do a very extensive site analysis. Um, my house is 5.5 miles from here. Our best friends live in the city of Eden Prairie. I had an Eden Prairie address at one time, so I'm very well acquainted with this area. And um, I was out on site at the very early stages of uh, Roars looking into acquiring this pro this uh, site. And this is just our analysis looking at viewsheds, uh, existing vegetation, sun angles, etc. And this gets into the architecture and um looking at the historical context here and looking at how this area has developed over time. Uh the earliest photos I could find of the site were from 1956. And then I'm here showing a progression of um how the site has changed in character. And I found this uh old farm site here to be a very interesting uh existing building that kind of stood the test of time. and I thought why not uh study that a little bit further. So go ahead Jeremy. If you look at the historical context uh for the office buildings that are already on site, they all have these kind of curved elements to them. And I think that that's very well could be a result of um some study of what used to be here, grain silos, etc. More of the same. So you can really see uh the old farm sites kind of in the middle there. And then the upper right image is um almost a onetoone kind of repetition of that idea. This is just looking at the materials for the project. We are uh above the 75% class one material requirements for the project. So that's uh brick, glass, and uh fiber cement with the remaining being a profile metal panel. And these are renderings. So from the southwest looking towards uh downtown, you can barely see uh Minneapolis off in the distance there. Here's from the southeast. So you see light rail alignment uh in front of the building there. And you can also see how the building steps down from the north massing to the south massing. It steps down a full story and building height. This is from the main site entry uh where the path along the south edge of the site is proposed. So this is looking at u trying to draw some architectural cues from the context that don't necessarily mimic a grain silo necessarily but are trying to um really draw upon what's going to remain there which is the office buildings which have a lot of these curved elements to them. So, trying not to go too overboard, but still incorporate those elements. So, we've got a curved main entry there along with some uh bumped out residential unit uh terraces that also have a curved aspect to them. Another render from the northwest amenity terrace. So on level two we have a pool terrace uh with proposed saunas and planting beds and seating, fire pit, etc. Uh we have a pet run on the uh southeast corner and then this starts to show the path that runs north south along the east edge of the building that I mentioned earlier. that would be a potential to connect to um a pathway to the city west station if um a partnership could be formed with metroransit to facilitate that. This whole district could be connected in through uh that path which we took great pains to set up as an accessible path. So, I made sure we made sure that our civil engineer set that path up to be um at accessible grades once it gets to the norththeast corner of the site. Uh I think that's probably about it. Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Sure. >> Any questions for the applicant before I turn it over to staff? >> All right. Thank you, Jeremy. Staff report, please. >> Thank you, chair, commissioners. Um Justin did a good job of highlighting kind of the background in terms of the architecture. Um which from a planning perspective we really appreciate there's some thought put into how a building looks and how it fits into the existing neighborhood especially on an infill project such as this one. Uh as the applicant mentioned this is 195 unit apartment building um replacing an office building that was originally built in 1986. uh it will primarily be mercury but there will be some affordable units within uh the property or within the project and that will conform to the city's inclusionary housing standards. Um the building will um be required to meet our sustainable building standards. Uh what they're looking at currently is a all electric heating building. So heating and water uh heating would all be electric which is one of the options uh added with a recent update to our uh sustainable building standards I think last earlier this year maybe. Um so we're excited about that potential. Uh the applicant did mention there's four waiverss. Uh the density waiver uh they're proposing 33.27 units per acre, you know, for the 195 units over 5 86 uh acres for the whole property. Um this we've we've issued a number of waiverss for this uh density um request um because as the applicant did mention the RM 2.5 the maximum density in that zoning district is 17.5 or 174 pardon me. Um however in the medium uh density residential the range is I want to say 14 to 40 units an acre. So, this falls right in that guiding guidance for the land use, but the zoning district needs some adjustment from a from a density waiver perspective. So, um that waivers's on the on the boards. Um the front yard setback, as the applicant mentioned, the front yard in this property um is Highway 212. Um access is through a variety of private drives off of City West Parkway. So, you can kind of hook your way around there, but the front yard is technically 212. So the the waiver there is 24 feet versus 35. Staff supports that because generally when you're looking at a front yard setback, you're trying to create an open space environment um for sidewalks and passers by on on the street and in this situation passers by is in 212 which is in some distance away and also on the other side of some light rail tracks. So um less of an issue in this kind of urban type development. The height requested is 75 feet as a calculated height where 45 feet is allowed in the RM 2.5. Um we've issued a number of these waiverss also uh in these residential projects because we were looking for the density to meet the the guidance or the the land use plan for it. And keep in mind that um the comprehensive plan establishes a range of density, you know, um between four and 14 in some areas or 14 and 40 in other areas. We can't drop below that without a change to the comprehensive plan. So there's certain areas we've identified where we want higher density and this is one of them because it's relatively close to a train station or light rail station and also adjacent to the busy thoroughare. Um, and that's a good opportunity for this type of housing. So, staff supports the height that supports the density. Lastly is the parking waiver. They're proposing a ratio um of 324 spaces to the 195 units or 1.66 uh spaces per unit. Um the the city has analyzed parking waiverss in the past um and have approved several of them and and have kind of been challenged with some others. This is on the kind of the lower end of our range that we've been approving. Uh 1.66. Um the applicant has provided information that supports their parking requirements or what supports their parking proposal and it's part and in it is in part helped um this property kind of at the very beginning contemplated a to zoning because we're within a half mile of of the train station. uh if it was a TOD zone, there would be no surface parking and then the the parking would be based on the number of bedrooms as a maximum. Uh this project would meet that requirement if it was a to zone, but staff did not support a waiver from the surface parking requirement in the TOD zoning. So that's why they elected to go with the RM2.5 zoning district. Um that said, obviously the train station is not operating yet. Uh we do anticipate the train station uh or the train and this building being operational about the same time. Um the planning commission has to feel comfortable that the the parking waiver um is somewhat mitigated by the potential for the train station and by the applicants um experiences and operating uh these type of product and the parking requirements within that experiences. Um, so staff uh supports the waiverss as proposed, but I want to make sure the planning commission is comfortable with that parking waiver in particular because it is a bit different than what we've done in the past. As the applicant mentioned, the landscaping does meet the requirements. Um, tree uh replacement and landscaping requirements are all met on site. Um, so there's no tree payment in lie of uh situation on this project. And um the applicant also proposes some additional landscaping south of the property to help address some concerns from the neighbors. Um that's not a requirement by the city uh necessarily, but it is a is something we always strive for as part of that neighborhood meeting is what are their com what are their comments and how what can the applicant do to address those as part of their site design. So we'd like to see that. Um and the applicant did mention the architecture meets and exceeds the requirements um outlined in the staff report or outlined in the plans. And so staff is recommending approval of this project with the uh the five or six different applications comprehensive plan amendment zoning change PUD site plan etc. Um subject to the conditions they're outlined in the staff report. Now, some of those conditions are satisfied prior to the city council reviewing it, assuming again the planning commission approves it. Um, some of them are incorporated into the detailed drawings and the land alteration permit. So, not all of them are expected to be resolved before the um before the city council meeting, but staff uh is recommending approval um subject to those conditions. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Jeremy. Anyone have questions for Jeremy? Jeremy, just for fun, what do you think? When is the light rail going to go operational? >> Just for fun. >> Um, I've been hearing 2027. >> 27th. Okay. Thank you. I'll write that down. >> Any other questions for Jeremy before we open the public hearing? >> All right. We have an open public hearing. For those of you in the audience who'd like to uh address the commission, please come forward. State your name and address for the record, please. >> All right. Seeing no one. Thank you. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? >> So move second. >> Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor to close, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Same sign. All right. Closed public hearing. Any questions or comments from the commissioner's discussion? I have a few, but I'll wait till the end. Go ahead, commissioner. No. I like this design. It feels like a little bit of a West End coming to Eden Prairie in general. I think it's positive. I love the uh the historical perspective. I I think that's fantastic. Um just just to at least think about that because Eden Prairie needs to have a historical connection I think and and we don't always. Um I think the front yard waiver is a a no-brainer. Um, I always get a little nervous about density waivers and parking waivers, but in 16 years I've been on the planning commission, we when we have given those particularly at at the request, you know, when the when the developer is requesting it and say we know this will work, they've always worked. So, I think I'm okay with them. Thank you, commissioners. Um, just a couple comments for me. I do echo the sentiment about the historical um, history, the historical sentiment of the property, and I appreciate all you've done to do that and to keep it within um, what's being proposed in addition to the neighborhood meetings and ensuring that neighbors are are pretty much consensus with what you're putting together. That does say a lot as you've seen uh just in the previous agenda item. So, thank you for that. Um the light I do have a question about the light rail transit in proximity to this building. Now, you have 212 and then you have the light rail. Can you talk about the distance between the light rail and the edge of this property and do we have obviously we don't have safety concerns or we would bring them forward, but I would love to see what those dimensions are. Oh, go ahead. >> So, >> good question on the on the proximity to the light rail station. Um, kind of a two-part answer. Currently, um, there's a pathway to get to the the station u through existing trails via City West Parkway. That's a little over a half mile. Uh, it's a little convoluted. You go south and then west and then north. So, you kind of go around that big hill that's just to the north of this property. The city is also in the in the process of of working on plans. Um, they've already really updating plans to to construct a trail between this subject property and the light rail station directly to the north. So, kind of cut through that wooded area. Uh, we have uh easements in principle um through that private property to put a trail in. We're working on updating the the cost estimates and the planning and and the budgeting for that and the hope is is that that will be solved in the near future. Um I don't have a timeline for you but we recognize the need for that but currently right now a user of the office building could walk to the light rail station uh through existing trails and sidewalk network. Um but we'd look to improve that. >> Okay. And what about the distance from the that that's essentially the front yard set back though, correct? >> Um so when I'm mentioning um the distance between this property and the light rail station, you know, the roundabout way is point6 miles I think you know around the hill there directly kind of a straight line. You're looking at less than a quarter of a mile if I recall correctly. Um the applicant is providing um easements on both the west and the east um property boundaries so that we can incorporate whatever future design we come up with in terms of our trail. So we have it we have those connections. U the applicant did share during his presentation the the space between the building and highway 212. There's area for a trail and that's shown on the plans currently. So any public trail would connect to that for access to the light rail station to the north. >> Okay. I think >> space in there yet. >> Okay. >> It just won't be an additional trail. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um and I think that's all I have for questions. Any other comments, questions? Or otherwise I would look for a motion. Move to recommend approval to the guide plan change, zone change, PUD concept review, PUD district review with waiverss, and site plan review, all on 5.61 acres as recommended by staff represented in the September 22, 2025 staff report. >> Thank you, commissioner. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion before I call the vote? All right. All those in favor of of the motion presented, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Same sign. All right. We have a an approval. >> Thank you, applicant. And good luck. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on in the agenda, planners report. Jeremy, do you have anything for us? >> Not today. >> Members, commissioners, do you have anything for us? >> Nothing. Other than I would look for a motion to adjourn the planning commission meeting tonight. >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. >> Oppos. Same sign. All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, commissioners. Yeah,