The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-07-25 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers Wednesday, July 25, 2018 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission, May 23, 2018 B.Minutes: Planning Commission, June 13, 2018 C.Minutes: Planning Commission, June 27, 2018 V.Public Hearings A.Variance request for setback from West 59th Street, for a new home at 5901 Oaklawn VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Sketch Plan Review - 7390 France Avenue VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments X.Sta6 Comments XI.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortable being part of the public proc ess . If you need as sistance in the way of hearing ampli9c ation, an interpreter, large-print documents or s om ething els e, pleas e c all 952-927-8861 72 hours in advanc e of the m eeting. Date: July 25, 2018 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion, May 23, 2018 Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: P lease approve the M ay 23, 2018, P lanning Commission M eeting M inutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: S ee Attached. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes : Planning Commis s ion, May 23, 2018 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers May 23, 2018 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker, Communications Coor, Eidsness Absent from Roll: Strauss, Mittal III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the May 23, 2018, meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miranda. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2018 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miranda. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Variance request for a 10.2-foot side street setback to add a second story addition to home. 6101 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN. Planner Aaker informed the Commission Refined Remodeling, LLC/D. Kozitka, the applicant, has submitted a 10.2-foot side yard setback variance at 6101 Oaklawn Avenue on behalf of the homeowners. The proposed project includes a whole house remodel which involves constructing a second story above the existing first floor and building an attached two stall garage with a master bedroom above. To accommodate the proposed changes, the applicant is requesting a variance due to the existing non-conforming setback on the north property line. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. The existing non-conforming setback on the north side property line is 4.8 feet. The zoning code requires a 15 foot side street setback. The applicant is asking for a variance to maintain the current 4.8 foot setback on the north side of the property while adding a second floor above the existing one story home. Engineering has reviewed the storm water management plan and finds it acceptable. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of a 10.2 foot side yard setback variance for the north property line at 6101 Oaklawn Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: • Survey date stamped May 11, 2018 • Elevations and building plans date stamped May 11, 2018 • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Appearing for the Applicant Duane Kozitka, REFINED Remodeling Applicant Presentation Mr. Kozitka addressed the Commission and explained the proposal noting the water runoff was directed to drain to the west and north to the appropriate City services, adding they would comply with the Engineering Memo. Kozitka said there also is the opportunity to construct a French drain if needed. Kozitka asked the Commission for their support. Public Hearing Trudy Landgren, 6104 Brookview Avenue, addressed the Commission and expressed water runoff concern. Steve Botts, 6045 Oaklawn Avenue, addressed the Commission and expressed that he had to go through the aggravation process for a side setback 2 years ago and wanted to know if there were other options for the applicant. Chair Olsen asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All vote aye. Motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions A lengthy discussion ensued on drainage and if the applicant should be held to a higher standard than what was required in the Engineering Memo. Planner Teague reminded the Commission that the Engineering Division has another opportunity to review the storm water management plan during the building permit review process. Engineering has the authority at that time to require that the applicant implement other measures to ensure proper drainage if so needed. It was noted that this proposal increases the impervious surface; however, it was also pointed out that removal of the detached garage actually “frees” up rear yard space, reiterating this variance was not for lot coverage. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. It was suggested that the Commission continue discussions on drainage and on how to fairly apply requirements across the board for all variances and not on a case by case basis. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Lee offered an amendment to the motion to consider adding a rain garden or other measures to ensure that water is retained on the site. Commissioner Thorsen did not accept the amendment to the motion, adding he felt that it was out of step with the process. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. Ayes; Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Nemerov, Hamilton, Berube, Olsen. Nay; Bennett. Motion carried. 7-1. VI. Community Comment None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Appointments to the 50th and France Small Area Plan Work Group Commissioner Nemerov asked the Commission to refer to their packet and the 50th and France Small Area Plan Working Group Memo. Nemerov explained the Memo contains a list of volunteers who applied to participate as a Member of the newly formed working group. There were many qualified applicants and there are available backups if something were to happen to the existing members. The names of the working group are as follows: • Jeanette Auguston • John Breitinger • Jacqueline Crowley • Patrick Huss • Thomas Koon • Christine Pecard • Ede Rice Nemerov said the group is scheduled to meet for the first time on May 31st, at City Hall from 6:30 to 9 p.m. The group is a variety of members from the development community, neighborhood, business community, property owners, and a retired member who worked on government housing programs. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Commissioners wished Nemerov and Hamilton well. Motion Commissioner Lee moved to recommend the above mentioned volunteers to the 50th and France Small Area Plan Working Group. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Sketch Plan Review – 4532 France Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop the site at 4500 France Avenue. The applicant would tear down the former movie theater and dry cleaners building and build a new 52 unit rental apartment with 6,400 square feet of restaurant and retail space. There would be 77 underground parking stalls for the apartments and 40 covered parking stalls for the retail uses at grade. Amenities for the apartments include: a fitness center, rooftop patio, club room and an outdoor courtyard with grilling stations, seating and landscaping. Teague pointed out the property is 1.05 acres (45,738 square feet) in size. The density proposed in the project would be 50 units per acre. This site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which allows over 12 units per acre up to a maximum height of 4-stories. The plans are generally consistent with the 44th & France Small Area Plan. Teague The applicant has responded to the guiding principles within their narrative. Teague stated the request would require a Rezoning from R-1 and PCD-1 to PUD, Planned Commercial District. In conclusion Teague offered the following: • Staff raises some concern that the building does not interact with the public realm open space on the west side of the project. There are no direct connections from the building to the green space. • Pedestrian Connections/boulevard sidewalks. Curb cuts would be reduced and the sidewalk experience along Sunnyside and France would be enhanced. • Store and building fronts. Should follow the guidelines in the Small Area Plan. Staff is concerned that the proposal along Sunnyside does not activate the street. There are no store fronts on that side, only parking for the retail. • Project does minimize the impact of automobiles by providing all the parking within and under the development. • The applicant would bury utility lines. • Traffic and parking impact study required, but would likely generate less traffic than fully occupied retail uses. • Hennepin County will need to review the elimination of the turn lane off Sunnyside. Plans were sent to the County for their review and input. • Turning radius in the enclosed and underground parking area appears to be tight. • Sustainability. The applicant has responded to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Appearing for the Applicant Matt Byers, PLAAD Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Teague was asked what the required 50 parking spaces would look like and how it would be done. Planner Teague responded that the 50 parking spaces could take up the entire site or they would have to go several levels underground. Commissioners asked if the requirement is based on square footage and Teague replied yes. Commissioners wondered what the likelihood is of having the parking extended down on the West side of France Ave. Planner Teague responded that it is something the city could explore with Engineering, but it still wouldn’t add more than approximately 8 spaces. It was also asked if Teague considered pulling the building up to the street and adding the parking behind. Teague responded that it was staff’s initial recommendation, but the narrow width of the site would make it difficult to still get a reasonably wide building and that it would be a good question for the applicant. Commissioners asked if there were additional sketch plans to include what the proposed building would look like from a design standpoint. Planner Teague responded that what is included with this sketch plan review is more typical because we don’t want developers to get into great detail without comments from the city first. Commissioners also asked if the main item to consider with this review is the parking issue. Teague responded that the items to consider might include the building placement in the front or back and the 3 stories in back with the elevation change. Commissioners questioned the community parking and if there is a rough cost estimate how much each space costs the city to build. Teague responded that he has been collecting estimates from other projects and they stall range between $20,000 to $45,000 per stall, not including land cost. Commissions asked how much parking is needed for the existing parking for the tenants. Planner Teague replied that they have been parking in front of the building. Commissioners asked about 44th & France and when we might see centralized parking there. Planner Teague noted it was hard to determine. In idea would be to go to the businesses to see if there was interest in district parking. It’s hard to speculate at this point and it could be years and come up with a type of cost sharing for the surrounding businesses. Commissioner’s commented the small area plan at 44th and France and that it could be used a as a tool to refer to when addressing the district parking situation. Teague commented that was a good point. Commissioners mentioned that we have an affordable housing policy where they can provide housing or pay the city in lieu. The question was asked if anything like that has been considered for parking. Planner Teague responded that nothing formally has been discussed and the construction costs variety. Commissions asked if the parking needs would be different if this site was a multifamily 6 plex? Teague responded that they would be. Housing is allowed in the planned commercial district for multifamily. If you had 8 units, you would need 16 stalls. Commissions followed up asking if a residential parking permit is feasible to discourage parking on the side street for certain time portions and if that has ever been done Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. before in the city. Teague responded that has not been done before with permit stickers and the Traffic Safety committee considers special parking on certain streets. Commissioners commented that the staff report seemed basic and asked if the staff comments will include how it meets the small area plan principals. Planner Teague replied that this is a typical formant and there aren’t a great deal of staff details, beyond what the request needs. Applicant Presentation Mr. Byers introduced himself and thanked Planner Teague and the Planning Commission staff. Byers stated that he is aware the sketch is short parking, but is looking more for input and guidance from the Commission. • According to the small area plan, the parcel is desired to be developed • This is shown as two lots, but it is really 1 lot because the likelihood of the lot to the south being redeveloped is quite low because they just did some work • The existing home is around 3,000 square feet and requires 16 parking spots • With the required setbacks from the front, back, and side, you’re left with a pretty diminished buildable area • The lot is 60 feet wide 150 feet deep • The required parking setbacks of 5 feet from either side, 20 feet from the front, and 5 from the rear • Byers noted that if parking were to go down with the 60 foot wide side and 24 foot drive aisle for vehicular access, it would need to be about 5 layers down which seems almost infeasible • Byers mentioned that an option would be to double load park with only a 14 foot drive aisle, but isn’t any more feasible • If you did nothing that than park the entire lot it would only hold 32 spots • Other options of parking in the back, or below was considered, but are now looking for guidance and feedback regarding street parking Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners made comments that the other proposed sketches were more attractive and more aligned with the small area plans regarding the connectivity, public space in the front, and being closer to the street • Commissions discussed the centralized parking could cost approximately $50,000 per parking spot and asked what the Byers thought of the developer paying $2 million for more building square footage. He responded that for the probable 12 to 16 employees inhabiting the building, the required 50 parking spots may not align with the intended building use and the developer could answer the $2 million parking question • Commissioners questioned if the retail customers would be willing to park farther away and walk to the store location and Byers responded that he thinks they would understand shopping in an urban environment and it would not be an issue • Commissioners asked about the parking option with the building up front and asked about the store front being pulled up close in the front next to R1. Byers responded that the property to the north, ideally would have been brought up closer to the street front. He also stated that the idea of having a bookend to the district coming in from the south and having a presence with pedestrian traffic helps bring people to the area and having employees coming and going Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. • Commissioners stated that they like the choice of materials and it is a good fit for the area. It was also discussed that having 8 parking spots isn’t enough for potential consumers to count on parking. With that, it was recommended that the building be brought up closer to the street • Commissioners asked how many people do you see occupying the building during business hours and Byers responded that their calculations showed anywhere from 12 to 16 depending upon the day of the week with the potential of 4 separate tenants. Byers commented that he would like the developer to speak more to the type of tenant that would be occupying the first floor • Commissioners questioned the building being brought up to the front of the building with a single drive aisle down the side and Byers responded that the issue with that is the dead parking space. He noted that it is possible, but believes the access issues does not make it the better option • Commissioners asked if a second story of parking in the back was an option and Byers replied that it would have an drive aisle access issue with the narrow lot size • Commissions asked Don Schaefer of Landmark Builders to speak. He said the benefits of what they’re trying to accomplish is in line with the small area plan. Schaefer explained that the two other partners are the building occupants and introduced Casey Carl as one of the partners. Carl was involved with the small area plan and shared his retail experience in Edina and pointed out that 50 percent of the building occupants are neighborhood residents not using the building’s parking. Carl expressed the need for visible available parking for impulsive retail shoppers • Commissioners asked Planner Teague if France Ave was a county road and he answered affirmatively. Commissioners followed up by addressing the previous discussions around trying to get more parking off of the main roads for other types of transportation. Teague was asked if we would need to go to the county to get approval to add more parking to the main artery. Teague explained that after talking with Engineering, his understanding was that we have say in whether you can or cannot park on France Ave. Engineering noted that even if that was done, it is still short parked but it is something we can explore with parking on the west side • Commissioners commented that since the 2008 Bike and Pedestrian Plan, France Ave has always been marked as a bicycle throughway, but nothing has been done about it • Schaefer was asked by Commissioners if there were any discussions with the neighbors to the north about using their driveway and driving through the building into parking underneath your building and he responded that they had not contacted them yet, but it’s worth approaching • Commissioners asked why this particular site is the right one, given all of the problems with the site and Schaefer responded that Landmark does a lot of work in Edina and loves the area and the exposure. Commissioners asked if the property was purchased and if they had looked at any other sites and Schaefer replied that they are under contract and looked at other properties in the Linden Hills area. Carl added that the retail location is potential important due to the established 50th and France business district • Commissioners asked if they are open to contributing towards the district parking costs and the response from Schaefer was that he presumed that they would have some contribution when they modeled the financials • Commissioners expressed the concern from neighborhood residents that are worried about the overflow parking into their neighborhoods. The parking of 8 stalls could be increased and other creative parking options could be added to their plans Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. • Commissioners discussed the Gateway Bank Building and how trying to fit in with how that building looks may be a mistake, due to that project passing as an exception • Commissioners asked about contributing to parking and if they are comfortable now to confirm a contribution to get the project approved and Schaefer responded that the amount if unknown between the Give to Get and district parking. Schaefer discussed how they would be willing to contribute because of how it will add to the building in the long term, but don’t have an exact number • Commissioners stated that they were uncomfortable with moving forward this unless the developer and the city on a contribution amount and that would jump start the community parking discussion • Commissioners commented that the scale in this area needs to be addressed and corrected because we need small scaled buildings. It was also mentioned that leasing additional dedicated parking may get you closer an approval and the building must be pulled up closer to the street. • Commissioners agreed that the City Council needs to prioritize and look at the development parking project because this is the type of development we want. It was suggested to bring the building up to the front in the updated sketch plans and maximize the parking to get more than 8 spots. It was expressed that the Commission was pleased to hear that the applicant has offered to contribute to the district parking and this project may spark that initiative. If the parking spots are truly for the retail customers they will understand the parking situation due to the urban environment. It was discussed that the Commission needs to include language in the small area plan that frees up the city to look at exempting from certain things in order to bring that type of development and we can’t be so restrictive in some cases • Commissions suggested that before going to City Council to look into how many parking spaces are really required through the Institute Transit Engineers, not through the city’s ordinance and Planner Teague stated that the parking studies we rely on for parking variances looks at the specific use and what it’s going to generate while being mindful of future uses • Commissioners suggested to maybe use a certain portion of street parking for resident only until district parking comes along to protect residents from parking spilling over into their neighborhood. It was requested to see the future sketch plans from the neighboring structures to see what the building would look like pulled up to the street to look at the flow of structures. It was also requested to see elevation changes between the properties. • Commissioners asked Planner Teague if this plan were to go through if a Comprehensive Plan would be involved and Teague responded negative because the uses are allowed with the current plan • Commissioners commented that the dedicated parking issue is an Edina problem because we want walkable and approachable retail and it hasn’t been resolved how we’re going to get it • Schaefer asked the Planner Teague about shared or borrowed parking and if there was a method in place to rent a certain amount of stalls and get approval and Teague answered that they would consider it and would need to look at the parking needs for both sites • Commissioners discussed the differences in 44th and France versus Lake and Lyndale with the mix of residents and commercial development and the direction of the neighborhood trends. It was followed with a comment that near Red Cow they have restricted parking for resident parking that could be considered Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions None. IX. Chair And Member Comments • Commissioners discussed the lid negotiations and asked Planner Teague for any comments. Teague responded that MN Dot is on board and all of the agencies are in agreement to keep studying it. Teague stated that it is a feasible concept and the study continues • Commissioners asked Planner Teague about the bridge construction with the Grandview development approval and if the informal walking path will be included. Planner Teague responded that MN Dot is still in the design phase and the Engineering Department has some ideas on the width • Commissioners discussed a new home being built on Morningside Road with a prominent garage and the front door is set back. The city doesn’t have form based development but it is something we need to look at if it becomes a trend • Commissions discussed the WSB training for how to become a good Planning Commissioner and suggested a meeting with staff to discuss what was presented with those who weren’t able to attend. It was also recommended to make the annual training suggested, especially to new Commissioners • Commissioners discussed the recycling problem and that the Planning Commission agree to avoid disposable plastic • Commissioners asked Planner Teague about the status of Grandview since it’s been in front of the HRA and Teague responded that the HRA is still considering development on the property and looking at alternatives to the tall tower. The HRA is also considering the potential of flipping the residential down to the south and be more of a 4 to 6 story structure with public space up on the north. They are still exploring the possibility of partnering with Frauenshuh and have a deadline of May 31st to continue the relationship with Frauenshuh or consider something else. X. Staff Comments • Planner Teague informed the Planning Commission that this will be Jackie Hoogenakker’s last meeting after 33 years of service to the city due to retirement. Hoogenakker responded that the Planning Commission is a great group of people and she loves working with the Planning Staff Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the May 23, 2018, meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:50 PM. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Liz OlsonLiz OlsonLiz OlsonLiz Olson Respectfully submitted Date: July 25, 2018 Agenda Item #: I V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion, June 13, 2018 Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: P lease approve the June 13, 2018, P lanning Commission M eeting M inutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: S ee Attached. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes : Planning Commis s ion, June 13, 2018 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 1 of 7 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers June 13, 2018 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Commissioners Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Student Member Mittal. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker, Assistant Planner Bodeker, Graduate Engineer, Gerk, Sr. Support Staff, Wills Absent from the roll: Commissioner Miranda, Jones, and Bennett III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the June 13, 2018, meeting agenda. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes There were no minutes to consider. V. Public Hearings A. Variance. 6301 Westwood Court, Edina, MN Side yard setback variance. Planner Presentation Planner Bodeker informed the Commission the subject property, 6301 Westwood Court, is approximately 32,238 square feet in area and is located on the southeast corner of Westwood Court and Schaefer Road. The existing home on the lot is a one-story rambler built in 1956. The applicant is proposing a 1.9-foot variance to the east property line to allow for an 800 square foot 2-car garage and kitchen addition. The existing home currently has a 2-car tuck under garage. The applicant is undergoing the addition and remodeling project to have garage access on the same floor of the one-story home. Today, the home complies with all required setbacks but the home is oriented closer to the east property line. Planner Bodeker described surrounding land uses and explained 6301 Westwood Court is a one-story rambler built in 1956. The existing first floor of the house will remain and be remodeled. The proposed addition will include space for a 2-car garage and a new kitchen and be approximately 21.75 feet by 37.3 feet, just over 800 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 2 of 7 square feet. The house is oriented toward Westwood Court. The existing house is setback 99.9 feet from the west (side) property line, 60.3 feet from the north (front) property line, and 29.8 feet to the east (side) property line. Planner Bodeker reviewed zoning, grading and drainage, and primary issues for variance justification. She concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 1.9-foot side yard setback variance for the east property line at 6301 Westwood Court based on the following findings: • The practical difficulty is that the lot is not squared. The east property line moves west as it heads south to the rear of the lot. The lot lines gradually get closer to the existing structure heading south. • The existing house is oriented on the lot much closer to the east property line than the west. The house is currently 99.9 feet from the west property line and 29.8 feet to the east property line. • Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The applicants are hoping to continue to age in place in the home. The addition will be seamless and will look as if it were part of the original plan of the home. There are homes of similar scale in the area. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey date stamped May 1, 2018 • Elevations and building plans date stamped May 1, 2018 • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Planner Bodeker was asked if the intent was to add a second garage. Planner Bodeker replied that there is currently a tuck under garage and the intent would be to add a garage that would be accessible from the first floor of the home. Planner Bodeker was asked about the number of homes in the city that have multiple garages and driveways and whether there are limitations within City Code. Planner Bodeker replied that there are other homes with multiple garages and some with multiple curb cuts. Bodeker noted that there is nothing within City Code that limits the number of garages. Planner Bodeker was asked for details about the stormwater plans. Planner Bodeker noted that the stormwater comments are in regard to capacity and advised that mitigation would be required and addressed the engineering during the building permit process. Appearing for the Applicant Craig Scofield and Kevin Roche Applicant Presentation Mr. Scofield addressed the Commission and stated that the original driveway will eventually be removed as the project moves forward. He stated that the applicant will re-landscape the property after the project is complete to mitigate stormwater in cooperation with city staff and the recommendations of the watershed. Mr. Roche explained that as he and his wife age, they would like to avoid climbing stairs. He stated that there are some drainage issues that they will attempt to correct with the project. He noted that the original driveway is in need of repair and therefore will be removed and anticipated that the existing garage would eventually be Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 3 of 7 converted into living space. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No comments made. Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Comments The Commission voiced support for the project, noting that it would have been nice to see additional mitigation plans with the request. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve 1.9-foot side yard setback variance to the east property line at 6301 Westwood Court subject to the survey date stamped May 1, 2018, elevations and building plans date stamped May 1, 2018, and compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Friendly amendment by Hamilton to condition approval on the removal of the existing driveway, friendly amendment accepted by Thorsen. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Ayes; Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Olsen. Nay Lee. Motion carried 7-1. B. Variance. 4707 Townes Road, Edina, MN. Rear yard setback variance. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission that D. Jon Monson, the applicant on behalf of the property owner, has submitted a variance request to encroach the 25-foot rear yard setback requirement for residential lots by 9.1 feet to allow a garage extension 15.9 feet from the rear lot line. There is currently an extensive remodeling project underway on the property that includes additions to the homme and a new garage. The homeowner was concerned about maintaining the integrity of the existing home and did not wat to teardown/rebuild the existing structure. They also wanted to maintain the topography of the lot which is uphill form Townes Road and continues in elevation into the rear yard. If approved, the new garage will have the appearance of a two-car garage from the street. The proposed double deep garage extension into the rear yard setback will be completely below grade and will not be visible from neighboring properties. It allows for the added space with no visible impact to surrounding properties. Planner Aaker described surrounding land uses and explained the existing 21,339 square foot lot is located on the east side of Townes Road. The homeowners are in the midst of adding onto the home and completely renovating it. The goal is to maintain the charm and character of the 1940 home while upgrading it to more modern building standards. The lot has a number of challenges. The lot is wide, but not particularly deep and is considerably elevated from the street with elevation increasing over 21 feet above Townes Road. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 9.1-foot rear yard setback variance to build a below grade garage at 4707 Townes Road, based on the following findings: Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 4 of 7 • The proposed project is a remodel and addition to an existing home built in the 1940s. The project is reasonable given the improvements will bring the home up to a more modern building standard. • All improvements to the property conform to the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of rear yard setback that will not be visible because the addition will be below grade. • The relatively shallow lot dept given the lot size, home placement, and steep topography are unique conditions specific to the property making improvements and design alternatives more difficult for the site. • Maintaining the existing home instead of a teardown rebuild on the lot preserves the character of the neighborhood. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans as presented. Planner Aaker was asked for details on why the variance was trigger. Planner Aaker explained that the variance is triggered because if the garage door was open, you would be able to see the improvement. Planner Aaker was asked details on the original submittal. Planner Aaker confirmed that the applicant has received a building permit for the original plans but resubmitted with the garage extension as it was determined that the applicant would like additional space. Planner Aaker stated that staff does not believe that there is a detrimental effect from an exterior perspective. Appearing for the Applicant D. Jon Monson Applicant Presentation Mr. Monson, speaking on behalf of the property owner, addressed the Commission and stated that the home owners are a young family that will continue to grow. He provided details on the planning process and how the change in design occurred, noting that this plan will avoid impact to two large trees on the property. He asked for approval in the variance, noting that this is a reasonable request as no one will know that it is there unless the door is open and someone going by can see the depth of the garage. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. Peggy Johnson, 4701 White Oaks Road, stated that the drawings are beautiful, and she supports preservation of trees. She stated that her concern would be with spoken variances to the north and concern for that neighbor. She stated that her concern would be for the people to the back of this home, as this would push back further into the already small backyard. She stated that this seems to work with the front of the building and not those to the back. Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Comments The Commission discussed the practical difficulties of the project and reason the variance request was triggered. There was support for the project, with one Commissioner voicing comment that this is more of a want Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 5 of 7 variance than a need variance. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the variance as requested subject to the plans presented. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. Vote of 6-2 (Nay: Thorsen and Nemerov). The motion carried. C. Variance. 5512 Hillside Court, Edina, MN Front yard setback variance. Planner Presentation Planner Bodeker informed the Commission the subject property, 5512 Hillside Court, is approximately 15,635 square feet in area and located on the north side of Hillside Court, south of Nine Mile Creek. The existing home on the lot is a two-story home built in 1966. The applicant is proposing an 8-foot variance for an addition to the front façade of the existing home. The applicant is also proposing a 5-foot by 12-foot addition on the east side of the home that conforms to the side yard setback requirements. Planner Bodeker described surrounding land uses and explained 5512 Hillside Court is a two-story home built in 1966. The proposed addition requiring the variance is a 6.5 foot by 13.33-foot addition to the front of the home and will be an extension of the existing entryway. The proposed addition will be 27.5 feet from the front property line, a difference of 8 feet from the required 35.5-foot setback. The second addition is off the east side of the home and meets the required setbacks. The addition will sit 14 feet from the eat property line. Planner Bodeker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve an 8-foot front yard setback variance at 5512 Hillside Court based on the following findings: • The practical difficulty is that the lot is not square. Hillside Court is a curved street, and therefore the property line is curved to match the curvature of the street. The addition will match the setback of the existing front porch, but due to the addition being enclosed, it needs to meet the required front yard setback. • The front property line is curved to match the curvature of Hillside Court. The proposed addition requiring a variance will not exceed the area of where the existing front porch of the home sits today. • Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The addition to the front of the home will be in the same area of the existing front porch today. The proposed changes will blend in with other homes in the neighborhood. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey dated revisions December 11, 2017 Proposed • Elevations and building plans date stamped May 18, 2018 • Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the environmental Engineer’s memo The Commission asked questions regarding the existing front yard setback. Planner Bodeker provided additional explanation on the front yard setback. Appearing for the Applicant Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 6 of 7 Steven Kelly Applicant Presentation No comments made. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No comments made. Commissioner Hamilton to close the public hearing. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Comments Commissioners indicated their support for the variance noting the addition as presented maintains the character of the neighborhood. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve an eight-foot front yard setback variance at 5512 Hillside Court as requested subject to the plans presented and compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VI. Community Comment None. VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. Chair And Member Comments Commissioner Bennett stated that he noticed the Council rejected the 72nd and France proposal that was recommended for approval by the Commission and asked staff for input on the difference of decision. Planner Aaker stated that heightened density and traffic were discussion topics. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 7 of 7 Commissioner Strauss acknowledged the number of residents that attended and spoke at the Council meeting, noting that the Commission did not have a chance to see that public position and therefore he was surprised at the public opposition. Commissioner Lee stated these projects have been in the Southdale area and perhaps it would be an idea for the Greater Southdale Work Group to have more public meetings on heightened density. She stated that height and density will continue to be issues in that area. Commissioner Nemerov stated that the Southdale Work Group publishes its meeting schedule and allows public comment at each meeting. He stated that the group has engaged people and has opportunity for engagement. The Commission discussed the different roles of each type of group. Commissioner Strauss provided an update on the 70th and Cahill update, noting that a draft form was reviewed with direction for the consultant. He stated that the next review of the proposal final form of the report will be on June 28th. Commissioner Nemerov reported that the second 50th and France meeting will be held the following morning at 7:30 a.m. X. Staff Comments No comments. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the June 13, 2018, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:14 PM. Chair Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Jackie HoogenakkerJackie HoogenakkerJackie HoogenakkerJackie Hoogenakker Respectfully submitted Date: July 25, 2018 Agenda Item #: I V.C . To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion, June 27, 2018 Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: P lease approve the June 27, 2018, P lanning Commission M eeting M inutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: S ee Attached. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes : Planning Commis s ion, June 27, 2018 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 1 of 10 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers June 27, 2018 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, City Planner, Kris Aaker and Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planners, Kaylin Eidsness, Communications Coordinator, Jake Omodt, Communications Assistant, Liz Olson, Support Staff Absent from the roll: Commissioners Mittal and Jones III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Nemerov offered a change to add approving a new member to the 50th & France Small Area Plan Working Group at the end of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the June 27, 2018, meeting agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes City Planner, Teague explained that due to Jackie Hoogenakker’s retirement, the minutes from May 23, 2018 and June 13, 2018 will be completed and in the packet for the July 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting to approve. V. Public Hearings A. Variance Request. 4606 Browndale Avenue, Edina, MN. Addition to home. Staff Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission that Jean Rehkamp Larson with Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc., the applicant, has submitted a variance request at 4606 Browndale Avenue. The proposed home is a pivotal home and landmark in the Country Club District and one of the first ones built in 1925. The two-story home is located on the west side of Browndale and it backs up to Minnehaha Creek. There has been little, if any change, to the home or maintenance done over the years. There was a garage added to the home in the 1950’s. The Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 2 of 10 original home has the garage loading sideways, which was a design standard for Country Club and most of the houses had the garages behind the home. The new home owner intends to completely renovate the home with the inside and bring the exterior up to a more modern building standard by adding on to the home. It is clear that there are some disrepair issues and deferred maintenance issues on the property. Planner Aaker explained that the property does back up to Minnehaha Creek and does sit up higher from the creek so there is an increase in elevation from the creek edge. The lot is a little over 18,000 square feet and the property is quite shallow. Because the property backs up to the creek, there is an increased setback from the creek at 50 feet, which causes the home to be non-conforming. The home does overlap into the required setback from the creek. The back of the home has a doorway and is a walkout. The patio area above used to have a screen porch with a roof and this is the side that backs up to the creek. Continuing, Aaker explained the survey of existing conditions shows that it is a shallow double lot and it’s constrictive in terms of front yard setback, required side yard setback, and the 50-foot setback from the creek. Prior to 1990, the creek’s setback was 25-foot and at that time, the home conformed to the ordinance requirements. The closest point to the home is the lower level door basement area is 31 feet away from the edge of the creek. The closest back corner of the house is on the second floor at 35.5 feet. Those two setbacks are what the property owner has tried to work within in terms of adding on to the house. Aaker noted that while it is a nice size lot, there is not a lot of buildable area opportunity. The home owner has been conscientious and trying to maintain the existing non-conforming setback and not getting any closer to the creek than any portion of the home that currently exists there now. The proposed addition would add about 489 square feet of footprint into the non-conforming setback area and the patio would be about 577 square feet. There is existing patio in that area that extends to that 31-foot setback. This proposal has already been revived by the Heritage Preservation Commission and they have supported the request. They did indicate that while the addition will change the size and massing of the existing home, it does not detract from the essential historic character of the subject property or the neighborhood. It was their opinion that the project meets the requirements of the Country Club District plan of treatment and the secretary of interior standards for the rehabilitation of historic property and recommended approval. Engineering has reviewed the proposed work and it does not require any mitigation. The Engineering department would want to make sure the driveway was pitched correctly and they would go out to look at that. Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Jean Rehkamp Larson, Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc. Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Aaker was asked if the water elevation of the creek was a factor in terms of a flood zone and responded that they are well under. The 50-foot setback mandated by the DNR that dates back to the 1990s is when we had to adopt the new setback requirements. Prior to that all of our water bodies had a 25-foot setback. It was noted that many properties you will see a lot of close structures close to our water bodies because they pre- date our current code. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 3 of 10 Applicant Presentation Jean Rehkamp Larson said that she wanted to preserve the front facade, window proportions staying the same, materials staying the same, and extruded what was there in the roof form to keep the scale appropriate. The hope was to get more room in the floor plan to have the house more in sync with neighbors and in terms of its size and livability. Rehkamp Larson was asked if she was familiar with the two properties to the south of the location and if she knew the distance from the creek to their houses. She was familiar with one and stated that the property was similar, if not closer to the creek, than the proposed property. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners were in agreement that the house and plans presented were incredible and the use was reasonable. The two houses to the south are closer to the creek than the proposed house. This variance doesn’t jump out compared to the neighbors. The documentation and drawings are clear to see the proposed addition going into the zone. The Commission stated that they were very grateful to the architect and staff for the thorough packet and the drawings. It was noted that it is a nice addition that does match the existing. Commissioners commented that it’s nice to have the Heritage Preservation Board weigh in on the presentation and was great background information and were pleased that the garage is being moved back to the original state. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to Staff conditions. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. The motion carried. B. Conditional Use Permit for Rooftop Dining, Life Time Athletic, 250 Southdale Center. Staff Presentation Planner Bodeker presented that Life Time Athletic, the applicant, is proposing rooftop dining at the building currently under construction at 250 Southdale Center, the former site of J.C. Penney at Southdale Center. A Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 4 of 10 site plan for Life Time and an adjacent multi-tenant building were reviewed and administratively approved by planning staff. A formal review of the site plan was not required due to the square footage of the new Life Time is smaller in size than the previous square footage of J.C. Penney. A footing and foundation permit was issued and a second building permit for the remainder buildout is currently under review. Life Time Athletic is a three story building plus a rooftop which includes leisure pools, lounge seating, bocce courts, and the proposed rooftop bistro/restaurant. To accommodate the restaurant request, a conditional use permit would be required for that portion. Planner Bodeker explained that the subject property is zoned PCD-3 and is located in the North East corner of Southdale Center. There would be no change in access to traffic or parking to the site. The rooftop would be utilized by Life Time Athletic members and their guests with no additional parking needs or traffic that would be generated with the approval of the rooftop restaurant. The number of parking studies has been completed with new development and redevelopment at Southdale, that latest one being the parking study completed with untights. That parking study accounted for the redevelopment of the JCPenny site with the Life Time Athletic Fitness retail and office development shown. With the building materials, there are no changes that would be made to the exterior of the approved building materials. Those approved building materials were looked at and reviewed by staff. The rooftop will general be opened seasonally from May until September. The applicant has agreed to the hours of 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. to comply with the city’s portion of the conditional use code. There are no residential properties with close proximity to the proposed rooftop. The Onyx apartments are located over 500 feet away from Life Time Athletic, 66 West is located around 600 feet away, and 1 Southdale Place is roughly 800 feet away. Bodeker concluded that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Ferguson, Life Time Athletic Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Bodeker was asked what happens if the applicant comes back and request to be open until 11 p.m. or later with special events like they originally wanted. Bodeker explained that the applicant has agreed that their hours will be posted until 10 p.m. If they wanted to expand their hours, they could come back to amend their conditional use permit. Applicant Presentation Chair Olson opened the floor for any questions that the Commission had. The applicant was asked if this design is unique or the first time it’s being used. Ferguson responded that it is unique and it would be the first rooftop amenity at Life Time Athletic in the country. The applicant was asked about the materials and the exterior expression of the building and if this would be the prototype if it is successful. Ferguson responded that this would be the first time using the cut limestone and it would be used as a prototype if successful. He also stated that this rooftop dining at Life Time Athletic is currently being proposed in a few other locations around the country. Public Hearing Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 5 of 10 Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Commissioner Thorsten moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked if the 11 p.m. time of the original request could be satisfied now instead of 10 p.m. Staff recommended that the condition stay at 10 p.m. because this is the first rooftop dining request the City has received since the ordinance was amended to allow the use. Commissioners stated that this use is a great example of a conditional use permit. It was suggested that if there are no complaints in the neighborhood for the first year of operation, staff could consider extending the hours of operation based on their feedback from the neighborhood. Teague stated that staff prefers we keep it specific so it runs with the property if residential uses were to be built closer to the property. The question was asked how late other properties are open that have a liquor license at Southdale. Planner Teague answered that he believes Dave and Busters serves alcohol until 1 a.m. Commissioners expressed there might be demand for this type of rooftop dining in smaller nodes and that 10 p.m. may be a good decision for now. Motion Commissioner Thorsten moved to approve the conditional use permit approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. C. AUAR, Alternative Urban Areawide Review, Pentagon Park Area Update. Staff Presentation Planner Teague reported that back in 2007, as part of a potential development proposal in Pentagon Park, the city undertook an alternative urban area wide review. Teague explained that it takes the place of an environmental impact statement. It looks at development scenarios and mitigation factors under certain densities that are built within that area to mitigate those environmental impacts. Teague noted that that project didn’t occur and the City updated this AUAR 5 years ago. Every 5 years if no development occurs, the City needs to update this document. It’s been 10 years since the original so we’re on our second update. Andy Moffit did the study back in 2007 from WSB & Associates, Inc. and was the lead along with Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 6 of 10 Chuck Rickert who did the traffic study portion. They are still with us on the project and are have done the update for us. Appearing for the Applicant Andi Moffatt and Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates, Inc. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked if this AUAR was part of the review when approving the development of North and South properties and if this is updating or changing anything. Teague responded that this is not changing anything and this study does not override the normal comprehensive plan or rezoning process. Some of the transportation recommendations that came from this document were implemented as part of that project so it was used in that regard. Teague was also asked if the purpose of this was so that if a future project comes along, it would not need to do its own environmental study. Teague answered yes, this is an area wide study so it doesn’t need to be done project by project. Teague was also asked what would create the need for this and if that was based on the size or district of the parcel we’re looking at. Teague answered that it was based on the size of the project that was proposed to the city back in 2007. The proposal was dense, so it triggered the need for an environmental review. They could do an EIS or the AUAR. The applicant at that time chose to do the AUAR. Commissioners asked if what we are proposing for the Southdale area does not have set off any triggers in the same way. Teague answered that it does not for any individual project like the 2007 project did. Applicant Presentation Andi Moffit thanked the Commission and Planner Teague and noted that she has been with this project since 2007. • This is the second update for the Gateway study area. • This environmental review runs outside of the specific development area. • It’s required and reduces the need to do lots of many mini environmental reviews because it covers an area. • The area is about 135 acres between Minnesota Drive, Highway 100, the former Fred Richard’s Golf Course, and Pentagon quads and towers. • The study looked at potential redevelopment scenarios within the whole 135 acre area. • An AUAR is an environmental review document that evaluates different development scenarios and includes a specific mitigation plan. • It gets updated every 5 years if no development occurs. • The AUAR 2013 update is smaller than the one from 2007 and is not as extensive because you are generally doing a check to make updates only if needed. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 7 of 10 • Per the rules, in preparing the original AUAR you need to look at the traffic, air, and noise analysis, storm water analysis, ecological analysis, wastewater analysis, water use analysis, parks and trails, historic and archeological resources, and erosion, sedimentation, and geologic hazard analysis. • This particular AUAR looked at the Comprehensive Plan, “Master Plan,” Maximum Commercial Build, and Residential Build, and with this update there was no need to change these scenarios. • When doing an update, it’s necessary to evaluate what has happened, evaluate stated mitigation measures, update environmental review, and agency and public comment period of 10 working days to state agencies and the public. • In the 2013 update, there were a number of areas that had redeveloped around the area. Within the study area, there was a 68,000 square foot medical office near France Ave. and Minnesota Drive that did happen within the study area. • There have been waste water improvements over the past 5 to 10 years to address deficiencies in the system, no water supply changes, 9 Mile Creek Water Shed has updated their rules, and updates on the traffic study. • The next steps are to review it with the Planning Commission and then go to the City Council in July. After City Council reviews it, it will be distributed for a 10 working day comment period. Comments will be reviewed and responded to. It will come back to the City Council to adopt or not adopt the AUAR update. If adopted, it will serve as the required environmental review through 2023. Discussions/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Planner Teague generally when do the conditions get applied. Teague responded they get applied with individual projects that are proposed. An example is the Pentagon Park quads and towers that had asbestos. They needed to dispose of it properly and received grants through the Met Council. Teague was also asked if the demolition or construction permit is when we would check off that all of these mitigation requirements are being met. Teague stated that it would be part of the initial development proposal that came in. • Commissioners asked Andi Moffit about the process regarding cumulative impact in regards to Edina working with Bloomington and potentially participate in a regional traffic study that will assist in anticipating future potential redevelopment within the Highway 100 and Highway 494 area and plan for infrastructure improvements. In context of doing a development, does that have to occur before development can happen or does stating it in this document satisfy the environmental goal so development could occur whether or not Edina actually does do these things. Moffit responded that we recognize traffic impacts and that we’re going to need to work with our neighbors on some of these issues. Highway 494 and Highway 100 area a regional item. Commissioners responded that the example required coordination with another government body outside Edina. It was asked that we don’t necessarily need to do those things per development, we need to assess per development whether or not they need to occur. Moffit responded affirmative. As redevelopment happens, at what point do we need to look at a bigger picture with some of those things. • Commissioners asked Moffit what the review process is like with the state or metro body after the City Council approves it. Moffit responded that the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act is where these rules stemmed from piggybacking on the National Environmental Policy Act from many years ago. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is the state agency that oversees rules and guidance related to an environmental review, whether it’s an environmental assessment worksheet, AUAR, or EIS because Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 8 of 10 they set the rules based on the statute. In those rules and guidance, there are about 25 local state and federal agencies that would receive this. Commissioners asked if this process could take months with the state agency review and Moffit responded that the 10 working day period would stop that from happening. In rare occasions, an agency could file an official objection because of something in the document but there are specific timing within the rules that you work out the timing with the agency. • Commissioners asked Moffit for another example of where one of these may occur inside or outside of Edina and how frequent they are. It was also asked at what point do these go away or do they always get updated. Moffit responded that AUAR started as a popular tool 15 to 20 years ago giving cities flexibility to look at a study area. They aren’t as common as environmental impact statements or environmental assessment worksheets. The examples of cities that have AUARs are Minnetrista, Rosemount, and Maple Grove (large planning areas that you think are going to newly develop or redevelop). • Planner Teague was asked by Commissioners if this kind of document is something we would look at and use it to change some of our zoning or impact some of our different land uses in that area, especially in a Comprehensive Plan year. Teague replied that all the uses that are contemplated here are allowed under the current zoning, it’s a mixed development district that allows office, retail, and commercial. It was also asked by Commissioners if it would get as specific as POD-2, PCD, or PID. Planner Teague responded that and AUAR indicates land uses and does not get specific with zoning. Commissioners followed up with a question asking if everything is done under PUD and we don’t need to have land use. Teague explained that the zoning did change as a result of that project to the current mixed development district. The only change in land use was to allow residential uses, which were allowed in this district in the Comprehensive Plan. • Commissioners asked about the reported forecast under the traffic operations and the levels of service. Rickert responded that during peak hours, level E is considered an acceptable in a congested area. Level F is stop-and-go where we need to make changes. • Commissioners commented on their interest in the mitigation and the importance of improving the intersections. They would hope this information is put in front of all the right bodies of people and it seems very valuable. Rickert noted that they have had conversations with Bloomington and the 77th and Highway 100 interchange had been a subject that the city staffs have been talking about for an extended period of time. Planner Teague added a comment that they have talked to Bloomington about the sewer capacity because there are capacity issues there so they use this tool to help us convince Met Council that we needed to upsize some of those pipes to the South to handle some of these development scenarios. • Commissioners pointed out the transit section and asked when do we go beyond looking at auto traffic and talk about transit. With increased densities, at some point it was noted that not everyone might be able to have a car and asked how that is dealt with in this scenario. Ricker responded that the transportation plan would be more of a part of the Comprehensive Plan. We strictly looked at capacity and what is needed to handle that traffic on the roadway. As more development occurs, those types of things like widening the roads or looking at other forms of transportation will be discussed in more detail. • Commissioners noted the ground water mitigation at Pentagon Park problem and the desire to begin to surface and show it no matter what the use is, light industrial or housing. It’s not clear from reading the report if any of those ideas were addressed or should be. The Southdale small area plan group Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 9 of 10 previously discussed that the water is currently being buried in underground holding tanks and their idea is to express some of that water and have it turned into an appreciated feature. Planner Teague added that the idea may relate more to the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to make sure we are taking care of the storm water issues or mitigating that above ground instead of below. This document is just outlining the measures that have to be taken in order to take care of the storm water. The alternatives can be said through the zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Motion Commissioner Thorsten moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. A discussion ensued from Commissioners on how it is a difficult document to read and comment on. It is not necessarily project specific and more procedural. There is not anything specific to object to other than the great point about widening the roads and we are always looking at it in terms of cars. Planner Teague explained that the Planning Commission doesn’t need an official approve, but more for comments that can be forwarded on to the City Council. VI. Community Comment None. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Commissioner Thorsten introduced Mark Arnold as the new addition of the new member of the 50th and France work group be discussed. Commissioner Nemerov explained that a member of the group is unable to make the working group meetings due to the time of day. The Commission believes that an applicant would do an outstanding job. The Commission would like to propose that Arnold join the working group in place of the member who is unable to attend the meetings. Motion Commissioner Nemerov moved to approve the additional member to the 50th and France working group. Commissioner Thorsten seconded the motion. The motion carried. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Bennett recommended that in some of these sections of the Comprehensive Plan Update to make it clear upfront as to some of the “why.” All of the changes that come before the Planning Commission, often times the Commission doesn’t have good enough reasons, rational, or vision documents to refer to the community to say why we are accepting a change. In sections like economic growth, explain why the city needs to grow and why it’s essential for a community. There is a lot coming to the city that is greater than what the regulations allow for. Commissioner Lee noted that the documents during the Planning Commission working group should replace some of the different types of housing in Edina in the Comprehensive Plan. Lee said at this time the Commission should include why growth needs to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan because this is the shift that has occurred over the last 10 years that we need to pay attention to. Commissioner Lee further discussed the space to accommodate growth, specifically looking at spread-out and lower versus stacked dwelling units. Lee stated she would like to continue to have the working sessions because there is a lot that has surfaced over the last year that needs to be visited. Chair Olsen agreed with Lee’s statements regarding simple statements that make the talking points easier to understand. Commissioner Lee noted that there were several items the Commission would like to have put on the work plan list including the introduction of maximum impervious surface requirements, incorporating the energy environment checklist into the development proposal review process, and the traffic study summary. Lee also requested more advanced notice of proposals and work sessions to know what is on the docket. Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague when the goals for 2019 are set for the work plan. Teague responded that is takes place in the summer and submit in September. Teague also suggested that it can be discussed during the work session. Commissioner Miranda discussed the LimeBike bike share program starting soon and Clover Ride that started last week. Miranda pointed out the transportation studies that the Commission receives are quite variable and most tend to be very car focused. Miranda noted that the transportation studies need to reflect the higher densities and options other than just cars. Miranda noted the increased biking in the city and full bike racks at 50th and France. Chair Olsen discussed the open house for the greater Southdale working group on July 12th at the Public Works facility from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Nemerov discussed the 50th and France working group on July 10th at 7 p.m. at the Edina Community Lutheran Church. X. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsten moved to adjourn the June 27, 2018, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried. Date: July 25, 2018 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Varianc e reques t for setback from West 59th S treet, for a new home at 5901 O aklawn Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the requested variance I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he applicant is proposing a 15 foot variance to the north/east property lines to allow for a new two story home with a two car garage to be built on the property located at 5901 O aklawn Ave. T he existing home currently does not comply with all required setbacks with the home is oriented closer to the north property line adjacent to 59th S treet West. T he new home will be farther from West 59th Street than the existing home. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report with attachments Date: July 25, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ketch P lan R eview - 7390 F ranc e Avenue Disc ussion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested. I N TR O D U C TI O N: P rovide the applicant informal comment and feedback on a potential future development application. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Public Discretion in the Land Use Proces s Location & Zoning Maps Proposed Plans City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 25, 2018 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 7390 France Avenue The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop the site at 7390 France Avenue. The applicant would tear down the existing 6,136 square foot office building on the site and build a new two-story, 10,000 square-foot office building for Alerus, a banking and wealth management service. The building would have two entrances; one off of the parking lot facing west, and the other facing France Avenue. The building would be setback 50 feet from the paved portion of France Avenue per the Southdale Area Framework. A boulevard style sidewalk would be constructed. The 50-foot area would be landscaped green space. The site is small, .57 acres in size and the site shares parking and access to with the office building to the south. There would be 38 parking stalls on the Alerus property; currently there are 28. A parking study is underway to determine the adequacy of the proposed parking. The request would require the following: 1. Site Plan Review. 2. The following Variances would be required (See compliance table on the following page): Building setback (north & south lot lines) Parking stalls AFO, Architectural Field Office is reviewing the plans and will provide a memo in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission is asked to provide informal review comments on this potential future development application. The City does not have as much discretion with this proposal compared to our recent Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. This is a near code compliant project with requests for setback and parking variances. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Below is a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the proposed POD-1 Standards on the lot. Compliance Table City Standard (POD-1) Proposed Lot line Street Building Setbacks Front – France Avenue Rear – West Side – North Side – South 48 feet 48 feet 48 feet 48 feet (based on the height of the building) 40 feet 50 feet 100+ feet 25 feet* 20 feet* Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 3-4 stories & 48 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5 .4 Parking 50 38 spaces* *Variances required Highlights/Issues: The proposed site plan has been designed using the Greater Southdale Area Framework. The plans provide a pedestrian entrance to the building facing France Avenue; there would be 50 feet of green space, landscaping, boulevard style sidewalk between the building and the paved portion of France Avenue. The applicant is open to the idea of closing off the access off France to provide more green space to resemble the site plan layout of the adjacent property to the north. The proposed building height meets City Code requirement. A traffic and parking impact study would be required. Sustainability. The applicant has been asked to respond to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire within their formally submitted plans. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSALERUS FRAN CE AVE.PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE REPORTEDINA, MINNESOTAJULY 11, 2018DRAFT REPORTSKETCH CITY SUBMITTAL July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSSTATEMENT OF INTENTAlerus is in the process of purchasing an existing 6,136 SF 1-story brick building located at 7390 France Ave South Edina, MN 55435. The existing building will be demolished. A new 10,000 SF Class A offi ce building will be constructed on the site. The existing parking area will be demolished and a new parking area will be constructed. The offi ce building will be built using large expanses of exterior and interior glass curtainwall creating transparency and providing views to adjacent properties and France Ave while allowing natural light into the spaces. Private and public offi ces, conference rooms, reception, and support spaces will provide Edina clients with all their banking needs. This project will provide offi ce and banking services for Edina and surrounding areas. This building will provide the city of Edina with a Class A offi ce building on France that aligns with the Southdale Working Principles. Alerus has a long history within the Midwest community and has similar offi ces around the Twin Cities and is excited to be able to serve customers in Edina. ABOUT ALERUSWith roots dating back to 1879, Alerus has been serving individuals, families, and businesses with one core belief: everything we do should be in the best interest of our customers. Our proud history of perseverance and prosperity owes a great deal to the customer-focused approach we’ve held since day one. One of the earliest banks to do business in the Dakota Territory, Alerus committed to helping its customers make Grand Forks the commercial, educational, and cultural center of the region. Since 2000, Alerus has tripled in size, added comprehensive retirement and mortgage services, and expanded into two major markets. Today, Alerus continues to operate true to the words that have guided us going back to the early days of Grand Forks: Always in your best interest. To us this is more than just a slogan - it’s something we truly believe in. We take pride in helping our customers wherever they are on life’s journey. And we mean it when we say, “It’s our purpose to help you achieve yours.”STATEMENT OF INTENT July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSEXISTING SITEEXISTING SITEThe site is located at 7390 France Ave South Edina, MN 55435. The site is has an existing 6000SF one story offi ce building and associated parking lot. The site shares a drive aisle with the adjacent property. The property faces France Ave.500100200EXISTING SITEThe site is located at 7390 France Ave South Edina, MN 55435. The site is has an existing 6000SF one story offi ce building and associated parking lot. The site shares a drive aisle with the adjacent property. The property faces France Ave. July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSSITE SURROUNDINGSFrance Ave & Parklawn AveFrance Ave - looking northNeighboring building to the North Neighboring building to the North Neighboring building to the EastNeighboring building to the Northeast Neighboring parking lot to the North Neighboring building to the West Driveway to the South of the siteNeighboring building to the SouthLooking South along France Ave Intersection of France Ave & Parklawn Ave July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSEXISTING SITE PHOTOSSouth East corner Building steps Existing sidewalk and building sign Main entrance East Building ElevationNorth East corner of buildingNorth building elevation West building elevation South West cornerDriveway easementSouth building elevation Current ADA ramp July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSFIRST FLOOR PLAN40816 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSSECOND FLOOR PLAN40816 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSTHIRD FLOOR PLAN40816 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSMECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN40816 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSEAST ELEVATION801632 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSSOUTH ELEVATION801632 July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSWEST ELEVATION July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSNORTH ELEVATION July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSEXTERIOR RENDERING July 12, 2018 | © 2018 JLG ARCHITECTSEXTERIOR MATERIALS