Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-12 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers Wednesday, June 12, 2019 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission, March 22, 2019 V.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. VI.Reports/Recommendations A.Sketch Plan Review - 4404 Valley View Road B.Sketch Plan Review - Corner of Hankerson Avenue and 52nd Street West (5132 and 5136-48 Hankerson Avenue) VII.Correspondence And Petitions VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta6 Comments X.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: June 12, 2019 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, March 22, 2019 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 22, 2019, P lanning Commission M eeting M inutes. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes : Planning Commis s ion, March 22, 2019 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 1 of 9 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers May 22, 2019 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Mangalick, Nemerov, Bennett, Berube, and Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Melton. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the May 22, 2019, agenda. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the May 8, 2019, meeting minutes. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. Commissioner Lee offered up the amendment to strike the following wording from Community Comment, “with his concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan.” Commissioner Lee also offered up the amendment to strike the following wording from the motion regarding 7075-7079 Amundson Avenue, “to take a further look at the connection and try.” Motion carried as amended. V. Community Comment Chair Olsen read the statement regarding John Hamilton’s resignation from the Planning Commission. VI. Public Hearings A. Variance Request- B-19-09, 4604 Browndale Avenue Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 2 of 9 Planner Bodeker explained that the application is for a variance request to extend the back wall addition of 4604 Browndale Avenue to be within the 50 foot required setback of Minnehaha Creek with an alternate setback standard proposed that exceeds the allowable 200 square feet of encroachment and a front yard setback variance for a 98 square foot front porch. Staff recommended approval of the variance from the alternate setback standard to build additions to the existing home, subject to the findings in the staff report, and subject to the findings and conditions to the plans stamped April 22, 2019, and the Engineering memo. Appearing for the Applicant Sarah Nymo, Rehkamp Larson Architects, introduced herself and explained that over the last year they have really been refining the design. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if Edina’s Water Resources Coordinator has reviewed the application and Bodeker replied that Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson’s name is not on the Engineering memo, but any concerns would have been discussed amongst the Engineering Department. • Commissioners commented that the changes in the new plans are minimal and they enhance the character of the neighborhood. • Commissioners commented that the Engineering Department or Energy and Environment Commission should give more guidance about encroachments with setbacks to water in the future. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings outlined in the Engineering memo dated April 30, 2019. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Variance Request- B-19-06, 5053 Windsor Avenue Planner Aaker explained that the application is for a 4.8 foot side yard setback variance request to allow a garage expansion from a one stall to a two stall garage at 5053 Windsor Avenue. Staff recommended Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 3 of 9 approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the conditions in the Engineer’s memo dated May 2, 2019. Appearing for the Applicant James MacMahon, homeowner, introduced himself and explained that he is doing the project to make the home more livable and focusing on maintaining the character of the home. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Aaker if any correspondence from neighbors was received and Aaker replied that the neighbor across the street was in favor of an approval. • Commissioners commented that it was nice to see a project that wasn’t a tear down and was still in character with the neighborhood. Commissioners stated that the setback encroachment is only the garage and the property owners won’t be looking into the neighbor’s home. Public Hearing Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings outlined in the Engineering memo dated May 2, 2019. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. C. Preliminary & Final Plat for Edina Market Street Director Teague explained that the City of Edina and Edina Market Street LLC are requesting a subdivision to create lots consistent with the constructed Market Street project on the north side of Market Street. Teague stated that the purpose of the request is simply to create tracts for the uses and elevations within the project for the Edina HRA to sell Tracts B & C to the developer, and retain ownership of Tract A. Teague made a comment that there are no changes proposed to the approved development plan. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked how the City of Edina owns the parking ramp above the tracts. Teague replied that it is similar to a condominium plat. Teague stated that there are legal descriptions for all of the sidewalls and ceilings, and similar to a 3D plat. Public Hearing Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the preliminary and final plat for Edina Market Street as outlined in the staff memo. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review- 6950 France Avenue Director Teague explained to the Planning Commission that they are asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop the site at 6950 France Avenue. Teague explained that the applicant would tear down the existing 28,000 square foot office building on the site and build a new 10,000 square-foot retail building with surface parking in the rear and the building would have entrances that face both France Avenue and the other facing the parking lot to the west. Teague described the building would be set 50 feet back from the paved portion of France Avenue per the Southdale District Experience Guidelines and the applicant has demonstrated several examples of how the 50-foot area could be designed, including a boulevard style sidewalk. Teague went on to explain that the site is relatively small at 1 acre, and that it demonstrates 62 parking stalls, 11 of which would be proof-of-parking. Teague explained that the future west promenade, suggested in the Southdale District Plan, could be provided for in the future along the west lot line. Director Teague stated that the request would require a site plan review and a side setback variance and also explained that the Planning Commission is asked to provide informal review comments on this potential future development application. Teague stated that the City does not have as much discretion with this proposal compared to recent Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests because this is a near code compliant project with a request for a minor setback variance. Appearing for the Applicant Ed Farr, Farr Architects, introduced himself and explained that he represented Luigi Bernardi, the property owner. Farr explained that there were two things that he wanted feedback from the Planning Commission on and that was the façade consisting of 75 percent transparency at the ground level and the building materials consisting of fiber cement paneling. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Teague if West 69 ½ Street was a platted street and Teague replied in the affirmative and commented that it was originally to go all the way through. Teague explained that that with this plan, the west promenade could still happen. Commissioners asked if the county Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 5 of 9 would be involved and Teague replied that it is something that will be looked at in the parking and traffic study, but they are not proposing any changes so it would basically remain as-is today. • Commissioners asked Teague where the western promenade continues down to join the 7200 project. Teague replied that it would potentially go down Sandell Ave and potentially through that property and maybe jogs to Lynmar Lane and proceeds to the south. • Commissioners asked about the type of tenants that plan to occupy the retail space and Farr replied that a high end furniture store and a high end lighting store are interested. • Commissioners expressed different preferences between exterior landscaping options from the applicant. Commissioners also discussed exterior materials and that there was a conscious decision to move away from materials such as fiber cement paneling. • Commissioners asked about the bike racks and the reason why they are located so far away from the building. Farr replied that they would be used more for visitors than employees and locating them next to the active pedestrian way along France Avenue would be the most appropriate place to promote bike traffic. Farr commented that additional bike racks on the west side could be added. Commissioners stated that location closer to the building would be convenient. • Commissioners expressed appreciation for the landscaping ideas and commented that the exterior materials can be changed to something a little more modular, such as brick. Commissioners also commented that two stories of glass may not be necessary if a great ground floor level is established with upper windows. Commissioners commented that they appreciated the 50 foot setback, and that one part of the Greater Southdale Plan was to establish a Champs-Elysées feel with a real emphasis on the boulevard style tree line and run them down the front side of the building and more room for pedestrians. Commissioners continued to have discussions about trees needing to be added to the front of the building. • Commissioners asked Farr about the future plans for a promenade being added to the western portion. Farr replied that he wasn’t able to answer that question that evening, but stated that one of the reasons the building is so far away from France Avenue is so that the idea could be a possibility. • Commissioners discussed the Southdale District plans and that the single story building doesn’t seem to fit. Commissioners also stated that they would like to see the sidewalk further away from the curb line on France Avenue. Commissioners suggested that when the applicant comes back, they would like to see how the project fits in with the Greater Southdale District Plan and possibly make the building higher and put more on the site. • Commissioners commented that there are some more things that the applicant could do to make the building more distinctive. Commissioners suggested to focus on the pedestrian realm, materials, finishes, and design. B. Sketch Plan Review- 4404 Valley View Road Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to revise the approved site plan for 4404 Valley View Road, which is part of the Edina Flats project. Teague explained that the proposed change would be from the approved four-unit, two-story condo, to a three- story 13,620 square foot commercial building and the applicant states in their attached narrative that the construction cost of a four-unit condominium with underground parking is not financially feasible to Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 6 of 9 construct on the site. Teague stated that the small area plan for this site calls for a maximum height to be 2 stories and 30 feet maximum and the proposal is for 3 stories and 38 feet. Teague stated that the applicant would tear down the existing 1,400 square foot commercial building and build the 13,620 square foot office and that parking for the building would be on the first level with 20 parking stalls. Teague commented if the site were developed with entirely office uses, 68 stalls would be required and if the first level were to be retail uses with office above, 74 parking stalls would be required. Teague commented that the proposal would be significantly short parked. Director Teague explained that the proposal is significantly short parked and staff would be concerned about parking spilling out into the adjacent neighborhood. Teague also stated that a parking and traffic study would be required, proposed height exceeds the small area plan and city code requirement, and the building does not transition to the single family homes to the north. Teague added that there would be improved sidewalks and an increase in greenspace from what exists on the site today and that the applicant will be required to respond to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire within their submitted plans. Appearing for the Applicant Dave Remick, Tanek, introduced himself and explained that the Burley site is referred to a building 1 and buildings 2, 3, and 4 are under construction. Remick stated that building 2 is expected to be completed to shell by June 7, 2019 and buildings 3 and 4 are expected to be completed in August or September 2019. Remick stated that the reason for change with the building is market driven. Remick also explained that parking is proposed on grade because there are challenges of drivers getting in and out onto Valley View Road. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Student Commissioners asked Teague if it was typical for applicants to have such a large amount of variance requests for all 4 sides of the building and Teague replied that it is not typical. • Commissioners asked about the interest from residents with the units built on Kellogg. Remick stated that of the 15 units, there have been 4 sales. Remick commented that the predominant interest has been from empty nesters who live elsewhere in the winter. Commissioners asked Remick if the use is being changed from residences to business because there is concern it won’t work economically as residences and Remick replied in the affirmative. • Commissioners asked Remick about the lack of parking and where the under parked 50 cars would go. Remick replied that the potential tenants don’t anticipate to be intense parking users and Teague commented that the numbers in the report are what the zoning ordinance requires based on the square footage of the use and commented that if the applicant moved forward there would be a parking study. • Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the first floor of the building is only parking, lack of street level interaction, and the proximity to the home on the north side. • Commissioners stated that in the Wooddale and Valley View Small Area Plan, this parcel was identified as the eastern gateway that was seen as the first potential commercial use into the Node. Commissioners expressed that they couldn’t support a building height over 2 stories because of the proximity to residential homes. Commissioners added that the use of retail and Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 7 of 9 commercial at this site would be supported. Commissioners also expressed concern about the mass of the proposed size of the building. C. Sketch Plan Review- 4388 France Avenue Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to build a two-story 11,800 square foot addition, with 31 underground parking stalls to the existing two- story 9,350 square foot building at 4388 France Avenue. Teague stated that the proposed uses in the new building would be a childcare and pre-school; there would be seven staff members and 136 students. Teague explained that the existing uses include a children's clothing store, a salon and a co-working space and the total square footage of the building with the addition would be 21,182 square feet. Teague stated that the small area plan for this site calls for a maximum height to be 2-3 stories on the west side of the site and the proposal is for 2 stories and 28 feet. Appearing for the Applicant Andrew Commers & John Gross, property owners, and Dan Pelanin, Tushie Montgomery Architects, introduced themselves and gave a brief overview of the project. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Teague if it was possible to build a project that wouldn’t require variances on the site and Teague replied that it would be difficult. • Commissioners asked if the applicants will continue the architecture of the existing 2 story building and Teague replied in the affirmative. • Commissioners asked about the start time of the daycare to know when the heaviest traffic and parking would be and Gross replied that he was unsure, but that parents will likely go in the parking garage. Commissioners stated concerns that another school in the area have parents lining up with cars to drop their children off. Commissioner’s also asked how many children would be in the daycare and Gross replied 136 children maximum. • Commissioners expressed that the sketch plan seemed well thought out and it was clear that the Small Area Plan was considered. Commissioners asked the applicant to consider some varied architecture or elements would complement the building. • Commissioners complimented the street engagement, landscaping by the sidewalk area, greenspace on top of the building, and hidden underground parking. Commissioners also expressed concerns about the impact with the neighbor to the west. Commissioners commented that traffic is likely to be the biggest concern with this project because traffic is already a concern in the area. • Commissioners expressed concern regarding the setback to the north and west because of the proximity to neighbors. • Commissioners asked if there was any plan to restore or upgrade the finishes on the existing building and Gross replied that they recently painted the brick and the awnings for the Riveter will complete the look. Gross also stated that Sloan’s Beauty Bar will be talked to about changing lights and other things. Commissioners suggested making the exterior look iconic with something like a Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 8 of 9 token hip roof up on the elevator stack or over the mechanical. Commissioners suggested mimicking the original building in terms of the scale, rhythm, material, and color. • Commissioners asked about what type of wood is being used for the fence and Pelanin replied that it is more of a trex type. Commissioners suggested to explore what possibilities there are with patterns, aluminum materials, or alternate different types of perforated panels with posts. • Commissioners asked if the daycare center would have the blinds closed all day for security or privacy and what the look to the street will be on the 44th side of the building. Gross replied that he doesn’t know what the daycare’s protocol is for visibility into the daycare. • Commissioners discussed how they can continue moving forward with the district parking idea. Commissioners also discussed possibly charging for parking in the future. D. Commission Procedures and Devices Director Teague discussed that the City of Edina has been using Novus Agenda, online agenda management tool, since 2014. Teague stated that City Council and all other commissions receive an electronic meeting packet for review in lieu of a paper packet and beginning July 17, this practice will be followed by the Planning Commission. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments • Commissioner Bennett explained that Commissioner Berube and himself were presented with the Edina Heritage Award for the 44th & France Small Area Plan. • Commissioner Miranda discussed the E Line and explained the discussion on the route being on Xerxes or France Avenue. • Commissioner Berube discussed that the Southdale Library will take the Herberger’s space at Southdale Mall. • Director Teague stated that he handed out correspondence from Xcel regarding the Amundson site. Teague stated that they received the plans and didn’t have any issues and there were suggested minor edits to the plan that can be made. X. Staff Comments None. XI. Adjournment Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the May 22, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:33 PM. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Date: June 12, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.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 - 4404 Valley View R oad 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 with non-binding comments on a potential future re-development application. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Proposed Plans Floor Plans Lands cape Plan Applicant Narrative Small Area Plan City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: June 12, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4404 Valley View Road The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to revise the approved site plan for 4404 Valley View Road, which is part of the Edina Flats project. The proposed change would be from the approved four-unit, two-story condo, to a two-story 6,400 square foot retail/office building. The applicant states that the construction cost of a four-unit condominium with underground parking is not financially feasible to construct on the site. The small area plan for this site calls for a maximum height to be 2 stories and 30 feet maximum. The proposal is for 2 stories and 38 feet. The applicant proposes to build a 6,400 square foot office/retail building. The 1,400 square foot commercial building on the site was recently removed. Parking for the building would be on the first level with 21 parking stalls. Based on a 1,900 s.f. retail space and a 4,500 square foot office space 36 stalls would be required. The site is currently zoned PCD-1, Planned Commercial District. Retail and office are a permitted uses. The request would require the following: Site plan review; A parking stall variance from 36 to 21 stalls; A building height variance from 30 feet to 38 feet; and Building setback variances (See table on page 2). The following page provides a compliance table that demonstrates how the proposal would comply with the existing PCD-1 Standards on the lot. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (PCD-1) Proposed Lot line Building Setbacks Front – Valley View Front – Oaklawn Side – North Side – West Drive Aisle West Drive Aisle North 38 feet 38 feet 38 feet 38 feet 10 feet 20 feet 3 feet* 3 feet* 7 feet* 23 feet* 1 foot* 6 feet* Building Height 2-stories & 30 feet 3 stories & 38 feet* Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 .54 Parking All Office - 22 retail – 14 36 total 21 spaces proposed* *Variances required Highlights/Issues: Proposal is still short parked. Staff would be concerned about parking spilling out into the adjacent neighborhood. A parking and traffic study would be required. The retail portion of the building encroaches into the right-of-way. Proposed height exceeds the small area plan and city code requirement. Though improved from the previous plan, staff is still concerned about the way the building transitions to the single family home to the north. There would be improved sidewalks and an increase in greenspace from what exists on the site today. Sustainability. The applicant will be required to respond to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire within their submitted plans. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 tanekP:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152www.tanek.com118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project managementmassing studyedina flats(PROPOSED)NEW HORIZONSEDINA FLATS- elevation from valley viewIssued 05.30.2019 tanekP:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152www.tanek.com118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project managementmassing studyedina flats(PROPOSED)NEW HORIZONSEDINA FLATS- elevation from oaklawn aveIssued 05.30.2019 tanekP:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152www.tanek.com118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project managementmassing studyedina flats(PROPOSED)NEW HORIZONS- elevation from kellogg aveIssued 05.30.2019 tanekP:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152www.tanek.com118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project managementmassing studyedina flatsIssued 05.30.2019 June 4, 2019 Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Edina Flats Building One at 4404 Valley View Road, Edina, MN Change to Commercial Building PROJECT NARRATIVE BACKGROUND: The Edina Flats project is a recently approved residential development of 5 buildings. Building 1 is located at 4404 Valley View Road. Buildings 2 through 5 are located at 4416 Valley View Road and are currently under construction. As described in a previous communication, the complex designs of buildings 1 and 2 (particularly the underground parking structures) have resulted in construction costs that are and would be significantly higher than what was expected and budgeted when the project was approved. The developer is committed to making the entire Edina Flats project a success and that has prompted the reevaluation of Building 1. We are now proposing to convert the development of 4404 Valley View Road back to Commercial Use. This conversion would keep with the previous commercial use of the site (formerly the Burley Site) and be consistent with other retail and commercial buildings near the intersection of Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road. THE BUILDING, SITE AND LANDSCAPING: The current proposal (which is a revision of a prior proposal) is a two-story commercial building with a rooftop deck that will be for tenant use. It is our expectation that the first level would be retail space and the second level would be office space. The first level retail space will be approximately 1,900 SF and connect to an outdoor patio area that would be located near the corner of Valley View Road and Oaklawn Avenue. The second level will be approximately 4,500 SF and will be office space for a single tenant or 2 to 3 tenants. There will be a deck on the front of the building along Valley View Road and another deck along the back of the building. The building height at the top of the second level along Valley View Road will be 24 feet. The building height at the top of the second level along the North side of the building will be 20 feet. The grade of the site rises by approximately 4 feet from Valley View Road to the North property line. In order to access the rooftop deck, there will be a lobby space of 700 SF for the elevator and a staircase near the Southwest corner as well as a second staircase on the East side of the rooftop deck. The top heights of the lobby space and second staircase on the rooftop will be about 38 feet, which will be below the adjacent proposed and approved New Horizon building and similar to Building 2 of Edina Flats that is currently under construction. Design features of the proposed building will resemble those of the previously proposed and approved buildings 1 through 5 of Edina Flats. The materials will be similar, but the character will be modified to accommodate the commercial use, which would primarily consist of more glazing, less porches and more decks. 21 enclosed parking spaces are proposed. We expect the main floor tenant would be a business that primarily draws foot traffic from the surrounding neighborhoods and would not be a destination where customers would park for extended periods of time. We plan to target executive office space tenants for the second level space(s). Vehicular ingress/egress is proposed at a location along Valley View Road. Landscaping design will be like the previously approved design for Building 1 – see proposed Landscape Plan. BUILDING 1 DATA COMPARISON – PROPOSED VS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED: BLDG. 1 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. 1 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL Use Residential Office/Commercial Parking Deck Partially below grade At grade Parking Spaces 12 21 Building Footprint 6,350 SF 8,820 SF Number of Stories 2 ½ Story above grade 2 Story above grade + rooftop deck Height @ SW Corner 29’-0” 38’-0” elevator/stair tower, 24’-0” at rooftop deck Height @ NE Corner 24’-0” 8’-0” at back deck, 20’-0” at rooftop deck SETBACKS East (Oaklawn) 16’-0” to 19’-0” 3’-0 to 14’-0” South (Valley View) 4’-0” to 6’-0” 3’-0 to 5’-0” West 31’-0” to 32’-0” 23’-0” North 5’-0” to 7’-0” 7’-0” Building Location Required vacation of public Right-of-Way Required vacation of public Right-of-Way LANDSCAPING Trees 10 overstory trees 7 overstory trees Shrubs 40 shrubs 57 shrubs Grass Alternating areas of turf, no mow grasses, and decorative grasses Alternating areas of turf, no mow grasses, and decorative grasses Landscape design @ City owned right-of-way property @ east side and southeast corner? Yes Yes Date: June 12, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.B. 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 - C orner of Hankers on Avenue and 52nd S treet Wes t (5132 and 5136-48 Hankers on 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 non-binding comments on a potential future re-development request. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Site Location Applicant Narrative Site Plan Site Plan Grandview Planning City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: June 12, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – Corner of Hankerson Avenue and 52nd Street West (5132 and 5136-48 Hankerson Avenue) The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop the property at the corner of Hankerson Avenue and 52nd Street West (5132 and 5136-48 Hankerson Avenue. (See attached property location.) The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two-story four-unit apartment at 5136-48 Hankerson and the single-story single-family home at 5132 Hankerson, and build a new 12-unit, three-story row townhome. (See attached applicant narrative and plans.) The two properties are currently zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District; the four-unit apartment is an existing nonconforming use. The site is guided low density attached residential, which allows between 4-8 units per acre. The properties total .67 acres or 29,185 square feet in size. The proposed density is 18 units per acre; therefore, this request would require a comprehensive plan amendment. The request would require the following: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide the site from low density attached to medium density, which would allow up to 20 units per acre; and A Rezoning from R-1, Single-Dwelling Unit District to PRD-4, Planned Residential District with setback variances or PUD, Planned Unit Development. The table on the following page is a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with a PRD-4, Planned Residential Development-4 standards on the lot. Please note that several variances would be required. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (PRD-3/4) Proposed Front – Hankerson Avenue Front – 52nd Avenue Side – North Side/Rear – West 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 30 feet* 15 feet* 6 feet* 20 feet* Building Height 4 stories 2-3 stories Building Coverage .30 .43* Density 20 units per acre (13 units) 12 *Variances required Highlights/Issues: Per the Grandview Transportation Study and Development Framework, a new intersection is planned with 52nd Street and Vernon Avenue. The intersection would include improved pedestrian and bike facilities. (See attached pages from the Transportation Study and Development Framework.) This project could be the trigger to implement that plan with the County. Increased density was not considered for this site as part of the either the Transportation Study or Development Framework. The proposal would be an increase of seven additional units. The property to the south contains apartments that are zoned PRD-3. There are duplexes to the west. Pedestrian Connections/boulevard sidewalks. Demonstrate how the project fits into the neighborhood, and how pedestrians will move through the site. There is excess county right-of-way across Hankerson Avenue to the east. Perhaps as part of intersection improvements at 52nd Street, this right of way could be developed as a small park. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 9655 – 63rd Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 1 Kestrel Design Group and D O N N A Y H O M E S Re: Hankerson Ave Redevelopment PID 28-117-21-32-0147 PID 28-117-21-32-0148 Background: The Donnay Family has been building homes for Twin Cities residents for over 78 years – Donnay Homes is the Oldest Builder in the Twin Cities and is still Family-owned. Donnay Homes has been constructing Homes and Townhomes for over 4 decades, and has built thousands of townhomes. Donnay Homes is well-versed in constructing multi-family homes, for both sale and rent. Donnay Homes has been redeveloping properties in the City of Edina for about 14 years, and is well regarded for quality and design aesthetic in their replacement homes. Kestrel Design Group is known for their ecological landscapes including the green roofs on the Target Center Arena, Minneapolis City Hall Minneapolis Library, and restoration projects on the Minnehaha Creek and Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Kestrel Design Group staff, and Donnay Homes staff, are both Edina residents and landowners, and have a vested interest in providing quality residentia l product to the citizens of Edina. Proposal: Kestrel Design Group and Donnay Homes are teaming to create an urban scaled, energy and stormwater sensitive 12-unit row townhome at 5132 and 5136-5148 Hankerson Avenue. This project would replace an existing single family home (5132), and a 4 unit apartment building (5136 - 48). Please note our project occupies the 2/3 acre site in the yellow box in the Site Image below. Hankerson Townhomes To the left is an image from a City Comp plan document that is similar to the type of product we are proposing (right). These are possible images of the proposed project. We are proposing replacing the existing 5 units, a 4 unit apartment building and a single-family residence, with an urban-scaled 12-unit row townhome. Each unit would have a (tandem) double garage and up to 3 Bedrooms. Reviewing the City of Edina’s Grandview Small Area (GSA) and Grandview Transportation plans, we note several goals that we feel our proposal addresses very well: 9655 – 63rd Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 2 The City is proposing densities in this area that reach up to 30u/a; we are proposing a project that will reach ~20u/a.  Hankerson Townhomes occupies the area in the yellow box.  Placing a higher density project in this location can help buffer the surrounding SFR area from the additional noise and traffic opening that connection will create.  Recommending this concept to move forward could offer the following benefits: eliminate the current ‘under-parked’ situation for these lots, freeing up on-street parking in this area. Also would add tax base to help fund the street improvements conceptualized in the Small Area Plan.  We believe that recommending approval for this project now will perpetuate the time-based approach in this area; that this will enhance the forward momentum toward positive change to meet the goals of the Plan.  Further, adding density to retail nodes can help support the surrounding retail area(s).  We believe townhomes are under-represented in this area and Edina in general (Edina does not have a Zoning Classification for Townhomes). Townhomes provide a less costly option for young families and downsizing residents.  In the Short Term Change segment of the Small Area Plan, the City is proposing to opening/reopening the intersection of 52nd Ave and Vernon via a direct intersection or round- about to improve access and non-motorized access to the Grandview Small Area proper and the Jerry’s Grocery retail block. Further, a round-about or intersection, just north of the Link Rd and Vernon Avenue intersection would slow down traffic on Vernon Avenue improving walk-ability, safety and access to Jerry’s Foods mall.  This would fulfil the direction to improve the connections in the 50th and Vernon area. The addition of the proposed ‘Improved Transit Stop’ just north of the Link Rd and Vernon Rd intersection could also benefit from the additional density provided by this building. Grandview Heights Wedge Park concept There is a remnant parcel south of the Wells Fargo Bank and directly across the street east of our Property and Hankerson Road (Red triangle in the image on the previous page). This appears to be County-owned ROW and as such could possibly be transferred to City ownership , or developed as a Pocket Park to benefit the neighborhood. Grandview Heights has 116 homes, but no tot-lot or simple play space within its boundaries. Young children must cross Interlachen Blvd to reach Todd Park or cross Vernon to reach Sherwood Park. The current parcel has only a few Ash tree remaining which will likely need to be removed due to Emerald Ash Borer in the future. We believe we can piggyback the development of this pocket park with the development of the Hankerson Townhomes. The synergy of these two projects developing together can complement the work being done in the Grandview Small Area. A fenced park would provide a welcome addition to 9655 – 63rd Avenue North, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 3 the neighborhood and this site has enough space to provide for a play structure, benches and swings. Appropriate play furniture and tree selection could turn this under-utilized green space into an asset for the community Conclusion: We believe these two additions to the neighborhood could meet the stated goals of the City in the Grandview Small Area plan to turn barriers into opportunities. In the case of the park, we can turn a publically-owned, vacant parcel into a recreational amenity and an enhanced civic presence, as well as enhance the neighborhood, the streetscape of Vernon and improve the condition of this crossing location across Vernon to the Jerry’s Grocery. In the case of the Townhome development, we believe the proposal offers a type of life-cycle housing currently in short supply in Edina, enhancing property values in the neighborhood, and improving walk-ability and access by improving the Vernon streetscape.