HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 27, 2013
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Staunton called the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission to order at 7:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were Commissioners Forrest, Scherer, Schroeder, Kilberg, Potts,
Platteter, Cherkassky, Carpeter, Grabiel, Staunton
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Agenda was approved as submitted.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the February 13, 2012, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
No comment.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Variance. Oertel Architects /City of Edina. 7450 Metro Blvd., Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission the City of Edina is requesting a 24 -foot setback
variance to construct a 16.5 -foot tall, 40' x 30' protective canopy over the existing fuel island.
The canopy would be constructed of prefinished metal panels to match the panels on the
existing Public Works building.
Page 1 of 18
Teague reported that the subject property is 7.8 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains the
Public Works building, surface parking, loading do and a salt storage building.
Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested variance based on the
following findings:
a) The practical difficult is caused by the existing location of storm water utility lines
that mandated the fuel islands to be located where they are; and the tight drive
aisle area in which to move trucks through the site.
b) The encroachment into the setback is a relatively minor area compared to the size
of the existing building on the site.
C) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing fuel islands.
Approval of the variance is also subject to the following condition:
1. The canopy must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped February 5,
2013.
Appearing for the Applicant
Wayne Houle, City Engineer
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest asked Planner Teague if the proposed canopy is considered an
accessory use. Teague responded in the affirmative.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak to this
issue; being none, Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved variance approval for the canopy based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 8 -0.
B. Variance. Hemberger. 5601 Countryside Road, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker informed the Commission the subject property is located on the south
Page 2 of 18
side of Country side Road consisting of a 2 story home with an attached two car garage,
The property owners would like to expand the back wall of the garage by 4.9 feet and
add a second floor to include bedroom area and bathroom over the garage. The existing
garage is located 8.1 feet from the west lot line and conforms to the minimum 5 foot
side yard setback requirements for a garage. Currently there are storage trusses above
the garage; however, it is not convertible to living space given the low roofline. The
homeowners are proposing to increase the roof height in order to accommodate
a bedroom area. The second floor area will be setback and indented from the
front wall of the garage to reduce impact from the street view.
The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 10 foot side yard setback for living
space, however, six inches of setback must be added for each twelve inches the
side wall height exceeds 15 feet. The height of the addition from grade to mid-
point of the gable roof is 21.5 feet requiring a side yard setback of 12.5 feet.
The existing garage provides a side yard setback of 8.1 feet therefore a 5.15 foot
side yard setback variance is required.
Aaker explained the neighboring house adjacent to the expansion area has their garage
next to the improvement so the neighbor's living space is not directly affected. Spacing
between structures will remain the same at approximately 12 feet between the
two garages. It should be noted that a similar room space above a garage at a
nonconforming setback is just down the block at 5525 Countryside.
Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance
based on the following findings:
1) With the exception of the variance requested side yard setback variance, the proposal
would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R -1, Single Dwelling Unit
District.
2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because:
a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing
conditions without reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors.
b. The imposed setback and existing house location does not provide opportunity for
an increase in roof pitch or adequate room space above the existing garage.
c. The original placement of the home closer to the west lot line makes it difficult to
adjust living spaces within the existing structure.
Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions:
1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions. Survey date
stamped: 5/31/2012.and building plans/ elevations date stamped: February 12, 2013.
Page 3 of 18
Appearing for the Applicant
Mr. and Mrs. Hemberger
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion this request appears self- imposed.
Planner Aaker responded that the applicant wanted to preserve the trees in the rear yard,
adding their difficulty was that the house was constructed closer to one property line than the
other, adding most houses in the immediate area weren't sited that way. The majority of
houses in this area appear centered on the lot.
Mrs. Hemberger said it was very important to them to preserve the trees in the rear yard and
achieve additional space in a reasonable manner.
Mr. Craig builder for the applicant explained that another issue they faced was the location of
the load bearing wall. Mr. Craig noted a possible conforming location would require placing a
support beam through the garage which would create difficulty in vehicle parking.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. No public comment.
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded
the motion. All vote aye; motion carried.
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest said that although she likes the project she was struggling with practical
difficulties. Continuing, Forrest said if approved she would like added to the findings that the
practical difficulties were the mature trees, location of the house on the lot and load bearing
wall.
Commissioner Platteter asked if any trees need to be removed to accommodate construction.
Mr. Hemberger said all trees would remain.
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved variance approval. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the
motion. Commissioner Forrest asked if they would accept an amendment to the motion to
include as practical difficulties the mature trees, load bearing wall and location of the house
on the lot. Commissioners Grabiel and Carpenter accepted those findings. All voted aye;
motion carried.
Page 4 of 18
C. Variance. Williams. 3915 Morningside Road, Edina, MN
Applicant Presentation
Planner Aaker reported the subject property is located south of Morningside Road and west of
France Ave. consisting of a two story home with a detached two car garage.
The property owner is planning an addition to the back and east side of the home to include a
new basement, 15Y and 2nd floor area. The plan also includes a front porch addition which
requires a front yard setback variance. The front porch is proposed to be 6' x 32, or 192 square
feet in area, and run the full length of the front facade. The zoning ordinance requires that the
front yard setback is established by averaging the front yard setbacks of the homes on either
side. The average front yard setback for the subject property is 35.8 feet. The existing home
provides a 35.9 foot front yard setback which is slightly farther back than the average. The
ordinance allows a porch to encroach into the front yard setback area by a maximum of 80
square feet. The porch would extend the length of the facade and is proposed to
be 6 feet deep. The porch exceeds the allowable encroachment of 80 square
feet in the front yard area by 108.8 square feet.
Planner Aaker explained that the home was built in 1923 and has had no improvements with
the exception of the installation of airconditioning and maintenance. The plan improves upon
an existing sturcture and provides needed space with an addition without a complete
teardown - rebuild of the home. If the existing home were removed, a conforming plan could be
designed with a front porch. Retrofitting the existing structure can be difficult given the current
code requirements.
Planner Aaker concluded that it is difficult for staff to support the variance given the porch
allotment afforded by ordinance. Staff puts forth the following findings:
1. With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required
standards and ordinances for the R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The additions are to an
existing home and must conform regarding current conditions. A porch would be easily
attainable with all new construction, (tear- down /re- build).
2. The proposed porch will blend well with the eclectic nature of the Morningside
neighborhood.
3. The imposed setback limits design opportunity for a porch. The intent of the ordinance is
to provide adequate spacing from the street. The proposed porch will be no closer to the
street than one home located on the block and within 1.5 feet of another.
Page 5 of 18
Appearing for the Applicant
Nicole and Ryan Williams and Rita Larsen, architect.
Discussion
Commissioner Platteter commented if the City allows an encroachment of 80 square feet
this proposal must exceed that allotment. Aaker responded in the affirmative, adding this
"porch" is proposed as a full front porch across the entire length of the house. Aaker
further explained that the ordinance was amended to allow an 80 square foot
encroachment no closer than 20 -feet to the front property line. This change was in
response to the desire of residents to cover their front "stoops ", creating a safe entryway
free of snow, ice and rain. Aaker reported that this request is the first challenge since the
ordinance was amended.
Chair Staunton asked if in this instance the front yard setback continues to be established
by averaging the houses on either side. Aaker responded that is correct; reiterating
ordinance allows an 80 square foot encroachment into the front yard setback area with a
setback of 20 -feet.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Williams said their goal was to have a front porch, adding the style of the house created
the need for a full length porch not just a "bump out" as permitted per ordinance. Mr.
Williams acknowledged their request is the first challenge to the ordinance, adding having a
front porch means a lot to his family.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak to the issue.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Discussion
Commissioner Grabiel asked Planner Aaker the rationale behind the change in the
ordinance to permit 80 square foot "front porches ". Aaker said the amendment to the
ordinance to allow this encroachment resulted from the need for residents to provide
coverage from the elements.
Commissioner Potts said he likes the design and also likes the idea of front porches. Potts
said he appreciates the intent of the porch design, adding that in his opinion shrinking the
porch down to 80 square -feet doesn't make sense and wouldn't look good.
Page 6 of 18
Commissioner Platteter stated that he agrees with Commissioner Potts, adding in his
opinion this is a nice addition to the home. Platteter added that he's not a fan of lining up
houses in a row.
Commissioner Carpenter said if the "porch" is cut back it would appear to him to be too
narrow and nonfunctional. Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Forrest commented that she is a big fan of front porches; however, the staff
report doesn't present findings that would support approval of the request; there are no
practical difficulties and is self- created.
Commissioner Carpenter commented that every variance could be considered "self -
created" just because someone asks. He added to him the test is what are the practical
difficulties and how is /are it /they justified. Carpenter pointed out State Statute also states
that practical difficulties can also include functional and aesthetic issues and in this instance
the practical difficulties could be the functionality of the "porch" and the aesthetics.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of a 5.9 -foot front yard setback variance.
Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. Approval is based on the porch being an
improvement to the house and neighborhood, pointing out the neighborhood has many
homes with front porches and this is a positive addition to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Forrest questioned if those should be considered practical difficulties.
Commissioner Schroeder suggested as a finding of approval that City ordinance references
functionality as a practical difficulty and the City's 80- square foot allowance doesn't allow
for a functional porch area. In this instance the City ordinance created the difficulty.
Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Platteter, Carpenter,
Grabiel, Staunton. Nays; Forrest. Motion carried 7 -1.
D. Wernke. 401144th Street West, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker reported that the subject property is a corner lot located south of 44th
Street and west of Curve Ave. It consists of a split level home with an attached two car
garage built in 1958.
Aaker explained the property owners are hoping to add a garage extension west of the
existing side wall of the garage.The owners would like to convert an area within the
Page 7 of 18
garage to accommodate a mud room. The existing garage does not have direct
access into the house. Access into the garage is through two exterior doors over
an open deck behind the home. The existing garage is narrow at 19.33 feet in
width. The owners would like a more usable, 24 foot garage width while
incorporating a mudroom for access to the house. The owners are also
proposing a screened porch addition behind the home in place of an existing
deck. The porch conforms to all ordinance requirements.
Planner Aaker reported that the existing garage is slightly nonconforming regarding rear
yard setback. The minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet with the garage side wall
located 24.5 feet from the west lot line. Any addition to the side of the garage requires a
setback variance. The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks. The property
must match the front yard setback of the home to the west fronting west 44th Street and
the front yard setback of the home to the south fronting Grimes Ave.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends variance approval based on the following
findings::
1. With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required
standards and ordinances for the R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District.
2. The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because.
3. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with surrounding
properties and will not alter the character or street views.
4. The imposed setback limits design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide
adequate spacing between structures and lot lines. Spacing will remain generous
between the west wall of the garage and the adjacent home to the west. The unique
circumstance is the original placement of the home relative to the lot configuration and
orientation to the street.
Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions:
1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the survey and building plans
date stamped February 12, 2013.
Appearing for the Applicant
Dorene and Alan Wernke and Bob Ganser
Motion
Commissioner Potts moved to approve a 12.17 -foot rear yard setback variance based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
Page 8 of 18
E. Preliminary Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary Redevelopment Plan, and Preliminary Plat.
Anderson -KM Builders. 7171 France Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Lund Food Holdings is proposing to tear down the
existing 59,000 Byerly's grocery store, located at 7171 France Avenue and build a two phase
project. Phase 1 would include a new 47,000 square foot Byerly's store, a six /seven story 109 -
unit apartment building with two levels of underground parking and a six /seven story, 77- unit
apartment building with a first floor 10,450 square foot retail area and two levels of
underground parking. Phase 2 would consist of a six -story 60 -unit apartment building with
10,500 square feet of retail space on the first level and two levels of underground parking.
Teague reported In building the first phase, the new Byerly's store would be constructed in the
parking lot of the existing store at the northwest corner of the site. The existing store would
remain open. When the new store is finished the existing store would be removed, and then
the two apartment buildings would be constructed. Concluding, Teague explained to
accommodate the proposed redevelopment the following is requested; Preliminary Rezoning
from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; Preliminary
Development Plan; and Preliminary Plat.
Teague noted if "preliminary' requests are approved by the City Council; the second step
would be Final Development Plan, Final Rezoning and Final Plat review which would again
require review by both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Continuing with his presentation Teague reminded the Commission that the applicant has gone
through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council and from
those meetings developed the proposed plans by attempting to address the issues raised by the
Planning Commission and City Council. Those revisions include bringing the Byerly's store up to
France Avenue, relocated the loading dock away from the Promenade, have the project
embrace the Promenade, better pedestrian connections and providing some sustainable
concepts.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary
Rezoning from PCD -3, Planned Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District
and Preliminary Development Plan to build a new 47,000 square foot Byerly's store; a six -story
106 -unit apartment building with two levels of underground parking; a six - story, 77 -unit
apartment building with first floor 10,450 square foot retail area and two levels of underground
parking; and a six - story, 60 -unit apartment building with 10,500 square feet of retail space on
Page 9 of 18
the first level and two levels of underground parking. Approval is based on the following
findings:
1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD, as most of the above
criteria would be met. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Mixed Use
Center — MXC," which encourages a mixing of uses, including retail and multifamily
residential. The proposed uses are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. The
Byerly's store would be pulled up close to the street, with sidewalks in front, and
separated from the street by green space to promote a more walkable environment.
5. Pedestrian connections would be made from France Avenue to the Promenade from the
north and south sides of the site, as well as through the middle.
6. The applicant is also proposing some sustainability principles within their project
narrative.
7. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, metal and
glass building.
8. The site circulation would be improved with a right -in and right -out added along France
Avenue.
9. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan:
Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a
consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian
environment. On existing auto - oriented development sites, encourage placement of
liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement.
• Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots.
• Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of
buildings, rather than between buildings and the street.
b. Movement Patterns.
Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent
neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways.
A Pedestrian - Friendly Environment. Improving the auto - oriented design pattern
discussed above under "Issues" will call for guidelines that change the
relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement.
c. Appropriate Parking Standards. Mixed use developments often produce an internal
capture rate. This refers to residents and workers who obtain goods and services
from within the development without making additional vehicle trips. *Parking ratios
Page 10of18
for mixed use development should reflect the internal capture rate and the shared
parking opportunities this type of development offers.
d. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure
and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor context and character.
Approval is also subject to the following Conditions:
1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Development Plans dated January 28, 2012, and the materials board as presented to the
Planning Commission. Final Development plans should include specific locations of trash
enclosure areas, number of bike parking spaces provided, and where loading /deliveries
are made to the retail space and apartments.
2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section
850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section
850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Submittal of a complete sign plan for the site as part of the Final Development Plan
application. Signage should include monument sign locations and size, way finding
signage, and wall signage.
5. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated February
22, 2013.
6. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned
Unit Development for this site.
Planner Teague further recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to
create a new four lot subdivision at 7171 France for the proposed project based on the
following findings:
1. The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements.
Approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the Final Rezoning of the subject property to Planned Unit Development,
PUD.
2. The Final Plat must be considered within one -year after approval of the Preliminary Plat,
or the Preliminary Plat shall be deemed null and void.
3. A shared parking and access agreement must be established across the Plat.
4. The Park Dedication fee of $1,230,00 shall be paid prior to release of the mylars
approving the Final Plat.
Appearing for the Applicant
Jim Vos, Cresa, Greg Anderson, Anderson Builders, Paul Holmes, Pope Architects, Maureen
Page 11 of 18
Michaliski, Schaefer Richardson
Questions /Discussion
Commissioner Grabiel noted that presently there is a grade change from France Avenue onto
the site and asked Planner Teague if the site would continue to be elevated from France.
Planner Teague responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Forrest commented that she understands housing is a permitted Conditional Use
in the PCD -3 zoning district and asked Planner Teague if the Commission could limit the type of
retail "use" in the residential component of the project. Continuing, Forrest said if limiting
uses are allowed how would the Commission do it - would it be per parcel. Planner Teague
responded that presently all uses allowed in the PCD -3 zoning district are permitted; however,
the Commission can limit those uses per site. Continuing, Teague noted that any "use" not
"called out" in the ordinance is prohibited.
Commissioner Forrest questioned if the developer could choose to develop this area through
the PCD -3 zoning process and not through PUD. Teague responded that could occur; however,
rezoning the site to PUD solidifies a "what is approved is what you get" development. A
straight PCD -3 rezoning allows all uses permitted in that zoning district to be "used ".
Applicant Presentation
Jim Vos, Cresa, representing Lund Food Holdings, said they are happy to be back with a
redevelopment proposal developed from the feedback they received from the Commission and
Council at Sketch Plan Review. Vos introduced the development team.
Paul Holmes addressed the Commission and explained the proposed redevelopment plan will
be accomplished in two phases. Phase 1 includes a replacement for the Byerly's store of 47,000
square feet, and two market -rate rental apartment buildings Building A is a 6- story, 124,250 -
square foot, 106 unit building, with two levels of underground parking. Building B consists of a
6- story, 81,375- square foot, 77 -unit building with 10.450 square feet of retail space on the west
of the ground level, and two levels of underground parking. Phase 2 consists of a 50,400 square
foot, 48 -unit apartment building, and 10,500 square feet of retail area on the west side of the
ground level and two levels of underground parking. Concluding his presentation Holmes said
RLK completed a traffic study, adding that the housing element would be managed by Steven
Scott.
Steven Manhart, RLK reported on the findings in the traffic analysis that indicated that this
redevelopment would result in acceptable levels of service for traffic using existing roadways.
Mr. Manhart said in particular it was found that the additional access points to and from the
Byerly's redevelopment site greatly benefit the traffic operations despite there being more trips
generated than in the current situation.
Page 12 of 18
Chair Staunton asked City Engineer Houle to present his findings on the France Avenue TE,
specifically because it relates so closely with what's occurring in the area as far as
redevelopment goes. Houle delivered a power point presentation highlighting the following
design elements:
• Consider narrowing lanes
• Widen and landscape medians
• Enhance pedestrian crosswalks
• Enhanced intersection corner treatments (suggested Biscuit Planters)
• Traffic signal improvements
• Pedestrian /bike phasing and detection
• Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) countdown timers, etc.
With graphics Houle illustrated traffic and pedestrian movements. Houle reported the schedule
that would be followed. 1) Plans to Hennepin County /Federal Aid (2/4/2013); Plan approved
for Letting (March 31, 2013), Construction June, 2013 — September 2013. Houle also reported a
volunteer is needed at the Planning Commission level for Urban Design review. Houle stated
this working group would focus on urban design for the corridor. Houle said he believes the
working group would meet for roughly three months.
Discussion
Commissioner Grabiel asked if the proposed residential units are rental. Mr. Voss responded in
the affirmative. Grabiel questioned their intent to replat — who would own the apartment
buildings and could they be sold to another party. Vos responded the intent is a long term
partnership with Schaefer Richardson, adding the parcels are being split to accommodate
financial requirements for construction.
Commissioner Forrest asked for clarification on the elevation of the residential community
area, adding to her it appears above grade. Mr. Vos responded that area is above grade by
roughly 7 -feet at its highest point.
Chair Staunton asked if more units had been added since Sketch Plan Review. Mr. Vos
responded in the affirmative. Mr. Holmes interjected and explained the siting of the buildings
guided unit quantity, adding he believes there is an increase of 40- units. Staunton questioned if
any consideration was given to pulling Building B closer to France Avenue. Mr. Holmes said
their goal with the residential element of the project was to have the housing address the
promenade as suggested by the Commission and Council. Continuing, Holmes said that their
intent was also to separate the commercial from residential and to have the parking for the
store be in front.
Commissioner Scherer questioned if unit size was determined. Ms. Michalski informed the
Commission there is a wide range of unit size. Studio apartments begin at around 590 - square
Page 13 of 18
feet, 1- bedrooms between 620 -830, and the range goes up from there with some loft units in
excess of 1,500 square feet. Ms. Michalski gave a brief presentation of the housing units adding
the design team went with a more classic look and feel to the residential building component of
the project. Commissioner Scherer referred to a letter received from the property owner at
3655 Hazelton Road and asked if the lot line issue was clarified. Mr. Vos said they are working
with that owner and are trying to strike a balance.
Commissioner Potts said he is having a difficult time appreciating the pedestrian connection
from the promenade. Potts added he imagined a more "formal" pathway from the promenade
into the site and to the new store. Mr. Vos said options are still open, and pointed out the
plans indicate a pedestrian grid throughout the site. Potts suggested they "take this to the next
level" by emphasizing the paths and reduce parking spaces. Concluding Potts said there are
some great features in this project; however, more needs to be done. Mr. Holmes responded
that at this time the plans are in the preliminary stages.
Commissioner Schroeder commented on sustainability referenced in the submitted materials
and asked the development team if they have a target or set of goals they want to achieve. Mr.
Vos responded that the proposed new store would be smaller, which reduces energy and other
measures such as mechanical design and lighting etc. would also be implemented. Ms.
Michalski told the Commission the development team is also working with Excel, White Group
on energy design. Mr. Vos reiterated with the use of better mechanical systems, lighting and
the shrinking of the foot print there would be measurable energy savings. Commissioner
Schroeder stated that may be true; however, he would like to see the applicant formulate an
outline and frame a target that illustrates the energy efficiency measures that will be
implemented for this project. Schroeder said he there are ways to document differences in
energy consumption from a building constructed in 2013 to one that was constructed in the
1970's or 80's. Ms. Michalski said working with the White Group should help the process.
Commissioner Forrest asked in reference to Engineer Houle's presentation if Metro Transit is
part of the discussion. Houle responded in the affirmative.
Public Testimo
The following spoke to the project:
John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place
Janet Bohan, 800 Coventry Place
Bill Wolfson, 3655 Hazelton Road
Resident of 7220 York Avenue
Resident 7220 York Avenue
Page 14 of 18
Motion
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to this project; being none;
Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded
the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed.
Chair Staunton asked if the store would have carry outs or would it be parcel pick up. Mr.
Holmes responded parcel pick up is proposed for the store. Staunton further questioned if the
type of retails uses have been determined. Mr. Holmes responded that he envisions a mobile
phone store, a Noodles or Punch restaurant, adding the retail tenant mix is still being worked
out.
Commissioner Schroeder referred to the traffic figures and questioned if Byerly's was expecting
to lose customers. He pointed out the traffic analysis standard considers building size;
however, in this instance Schroeder said he doesn't believe the smaller Byerly's building makes
any difference with regard to traffic to and from the store.
A discussion ensued on traffic calculations, pedestrian access and site circulation. Chair
Staunton noted that this is a two -step process; however it is very important the Commission
gets preliminary right. Continuing, Staunton said from the discussion so far there appears to be
building site issues on the east side, lack of sustainability measures and limited future build out
analysis.
Commissioner Kilberg said he would like to add a youth view to the discussion. Kilberg said he
enjoys walking the Centennial Lakes pathways, adding that the access to the promenade is a
huge plus for this redevelopment proposal. Kilberg said in his opinion, this proposal should be
developed as a destination; especially the Byerly's store and the small retail spaces. Kilberg
also added the proposal is good for the community and achieving easy access for vehicles and
pedestrians is beneficial for all. Concluding, Kilberg said he views this redevelopment as a
continuation of Centennial Lakes park and promenade walking path. The walkability is very
good and will flow as one large circle. Kilberg said he also envisions opportunity on the site to
develop a "square" or meeting area, adding the current plan doesn't seem to achieve that level
of pedestrian interaction.
Commissioner Platteter stated he has continues to have concerns with the project and in
general has trouble envisioning this parcel as pedestrian friendly; especially its relationship to
the promenade. Platteter also noted that the interior pedestrian flow needs clarity - how will
the pedestrian navigate between landscape islands and the retail components. Concluding
Platteter stressed the importance of walkability. He said to achieve walkability the residential
components may need to be pulled back from the promenade. With regard to sustainability
and working with the White Group a certain percentage of measurability needs to be
documented. He also said he was a bit uncomfortable with the water feature.
Page 15 of 18
Commissioner Scherer also noted positive features of the plan; however expressed the
following concerns: better refine connectivity, reconsider the variance from the promenade,
will these apartment buildings be "light stealers" from the properties to the east; adding she is
also uncomfortable with the loading dock.
Commissioner Potts suggested that the applicant return to the Commission with a revised plan
to include more information on sustainability, energy design and further explain the joint
program with Excel.
Commissioner Forrest said that the Commission and development team should work together
in developing this site as a PUD. Forrest stated she was a little disappointed with the PUD
process, noting, what's occurring isn't much different from a straight PCD -3 rezoning. Forrest
reiterated she thought that through the PUD process the Commission and applicant would
work together and come up with ideas that fine tune the project. Forrest pointed out this is the
first time the Commission has viewed this proposal; it's an important proposal and in her
opinion it requires more thought.
Chair Staunton commented that instead of a continuance the Commission "could" grant
preliminary rezoning approval and list the categories Commissioners feel need more work.
Staunton relayed what he heard so far is:
• Provide more clarity on pedestrian circulation within the site and how the pedestrian
addresses the site from the promenade and vice versa.
• Consider reconfiguring the apartment building layout; possible look at reducing the
variance.
• Hammer down the water feature on the site.
• Some Commissioners expressed displeasure with the loading dock scenario; location
and screening. Can this be reconfigured?
• How does the pedestrian element tie in with the retail components of the apartment
buildings?
• Create a better blend or "tie in" between the residential component of the site and the
promenade and the Byerly's store itself.
• Consider "use" restrictions.
• Develop sustainability measures.
Mr. Vos questioned if the Commission was at least supportive of the site plan (building
arrangements). Commissioners commented that they have little opposition to the west side of
the site; however the east side of the site needs work. Mr. Vos asked if that could mean
relocating or moving the buildings. Commissioners said that was a possibility.
Chair Staunton commented that in all fairness this has been a long meeting, agreeing that it
may be best to continue the hearing to the next meeting of the Planning Commission on March
Page 16of18
13th. This would allow the Commission more time to revisit the plans and also to allow more
time for the applicant to possibly re -tool the project.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to continue the request for preliminary rezoning, preliminary
plat, and preliminary development for Lund Holdings until the next meeting of the Planning
Commission on March 13, 2013. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion to continue the meeting to March 13, 2013 approved.
The applicants stressed how difficult it is to modify a site plan when certain factors can't be
changed; one being the existing store must remain open during the construction of the new
store and in terms of a loading dock; this is a grocery store, a loading dock is needed, and the
Commission and Council have both indicated their desire to have the store relocated as close to
France Avenue as possible. Mr. Holmes asked if the Commission had any suggestions on where
the loading dock should be located; adding, there aren't many options. Concluding, the
applicants asked for clarification and direction with the density and the orientation of the
residential components of the project.
Chair Staunton asked Commissioners to clarify if they "were OK" with the layout of the store
and residential buildings. A number of Commissioners reiterated they were OK with the siting
of the building on the west side (Byerly's store); however, were uncomfortable with the
residential element on the east side. A number of Commissioners indicated they can't rule out
the possibility of rearranging the buildings in the residential component.
Commissioner Grabiel questioned what would happen if the applicant comes back and informs
the Commission they can't change certain aspects of the project. It was noted if that were to
occur the Commission would have to vote the project either up or down.
Chair Staunton thanked everyone for their participation adding the request has been tabled to
the next meeting of the Planning Commission on March 13, 2013.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
VIII. CHAIR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
Chair Staunton thanked everyone for attending the ULI Workshop held at the Senior Center last
week. Staunton also noted that in speaking with Planner Teague they felt it may be time to
have a Planning "refresher" course with the City Attorney, Roger Knutson. Staunton said he
and Teague would work on finding the right date for that event.
Continuing, Staunton said it may be time to revisit the "Work Plan ", adding he would speak
with Teague to set a date to add it to the agenda. Concluding, Staunton introduced new
Page 17 of 18
appointee Claudia Carr, adding he would be working on a new seating arrangement for
Commissioners.
Commissioner Platteter reported that he wouldn't be attending the next Planning Commission
meeting (March 13th)
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague asked if one member of the Planning Commission would like to volunteer to
serve on an Urban Design board as mentioned by Mr. Houle. Claudia Carr volunteered to serve.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Grabiel moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 pm. Commissioner Platteter
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
auks
Respectfully submitted
Page 18of18