Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 10-13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Draft Minutes Approved Minutest Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 -Y13A.,>? Minutes o e X4' � )44 City Of Edina, Minnesota • o Planning Commission El Edina City Hall Council Chambers October 13, 2016, 7:00 P.M. I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Chair Olsen, Commissioners Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube. Student Members, Kivimaki and Jones. Staff present: City Planner Teague, Support Staff, Hoogenakker, Sr. Communications Coordinator, Eidsness. Absent from the roll: Commissioner Hobbs Chair Olsen welcomed Commissioner Sheila Berube to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Berube told the Commission she was looking forward to her role as a Member of the Planning Commission. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approved the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approved the September 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearing A. Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review. 7700 France Avenue, Edina, MN [1] Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Frauenshuh Companies is proposing to redevelop the 17.1- acre .I- acre parcel at 7700 France with a multi-phase development. The site currently contains a six-story 302,582 square foot office building and a 7,623 square foot single-story office building (bank) in the southeast corner of the site. These structures would all remain. Existing access is available to the site off France Avenue, Minnesota Drive, and 77th Street. Teague explained that Phase One of the project would include dividing off a 4.5-acre parcel on the west side of the site, and building a 68,000 square foot medical office for Twin City Orthopedic. Phase One also includes construction of a freestanding parking ramp on the remaining I 2.6-acre parcel that would accommodate the required parking. A shared parking arrangement is proposed between the two sites. Phase Two would include construction of a ten-story 190,000 square foot addition to the Twin City Orthopedic building. Phase Two also includes three additional levels to the parking ramp. Phase Three would be for a free-standing 7,700 square foot restaurant in the northeast corner of the site. This is the same location for which a restaurant was previously approved for development, but was never built. Teague asked the Commission to note that the entire property was rezoned to PUD in 2015 to accommodate the construction of the restaurant. No other development was contemplated for the site at that time but was anticipated. The maximum FAR allowed on the site currently is .50. To accommodate the current proposed full development of the site, an increase in FAR is requested to 1.0. To justify the doubling of the density on the site, the applicant was requested to address the principles of the greater Southdale Area Planning Framework Vision. Teague reminded the Commission the applicant went through a sketch plan review before the Planning Commission and City Council. To address issues raised during that review, the applicant has revised the plans Changes include pedestrian enhancements, increase in green space, building architecture, incorporating the storm water issues into an amenity, responding the Southdale Area principles. To accommodate the request, the following is requested: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the existing PUD-8, Planned Unit Development— 7700 France. Site Plan Review; and Preliminary Plat Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the existing PUD-8—7700 France and Site Plan approval for Phase I subject to the following findings: I. The proposed uses would fit into the area, and are allowed under the current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. [2] Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes Approved Date: I 1/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13,2016 2. With adequate pedestrian connections and facilities, the project would create a pedestrian-friendly development which would encourage walking in the district, and meet the Southdale area visioning principles. 3. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4. The existing roadways and parking stalls would support the project. Wenck Associates conducted a traffic and parking impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking. Further would also occur when Phase 2 is specifically proposed. 5. The proposed project meets the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • A pedestrian-friendly environment. b. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. c. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the city, and the larger region. d. Increase mixed use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. e. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. f. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create pedestrian scale. Final approval is 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 below: ➢ Site plan dated September 26, 2016. • Grading plan date stamped September 13, 2016. ➢ Landscaping plan dated September 26, 2016. Utility Plans date stamped September 26, 2016. • Building elevations date stamped September 13 & 26, 2016. • Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting. 2. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 3. The applicant shall construct a boulevard style sidewalk along 77th Street and Minnesota Drive. 4. When the restaurant on France Avenue is built, the property owner shall reconstruct the sidewalk on France Avenue into a boulevard style sidewalk from Minnesota Drive to the north lot line. 5. The applicant shall construct the east-west sidewalk along the north lot line within the trail easement area. Final construction plans for the sidewalk are subject to review and approval of the city engineer. This sidewalk shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy for the new medical building. 6. Provision of code compliant bike racks (14 spaces minimum) near the building entrances. 7. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. [3] Draft Minutes❑ Approved MinutesZ Approved Date: I 1/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 8. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 9. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 10. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated October 6, 2016. 11. A shared parking arrangement for use of all parking spaces by both parcels. 12. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revising the PUD-8, Planned Unit Development for this site. Continuing, Teague further recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat to create a new two lot subdivision at 7700 France Avenue for the proposed project based on the following findings: The proposed plat meets all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. Public trail and sidewalk easement shall be established along the north property line from the west property line to France Avenue. Appearing for the Applicant David Anderson, Frauenshuh Companies, Aaron Johnson TCO, Twin City Orthopedics, Eric Reiners, Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. Discussion/Comments Commissioners shared the following: • Commissioners asked why the request includes a replat. Planner Teague explained the replat would provide the option to sell one of the parcels. • Commissioners asked Planner Teague to explain where the City stands on the boulevard style sidewalks. Teague explained that the City encourages where possible boulevard style sidewalks, with this project the applicant is proposing to construct boulevard style sidewalks along Minnesota Drive and 77th Street. Teague said the sidewalks would be constructed during Phase 1 of the multiphase development. Commissioners asked Teague what the minimum width of a boulevard is. Teague responded minimum with is 5-feet. • Commissioners asked for clarification on parking for Phase !. Teague responded that the parking study concluded that the proposed Phase 1 development could be supported by the existing/proposed parking provided. Completion of Phase 2 requires the addition of three ramp levels. Further parking would need to be studied if additional phases are built. [4] Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 • Planner Teague was asked if the developer pays for any changes/upgrades to the intersection(s). Teague responded in the affirmative. • An opinion was expressed that the subject site is a premier site in the City of Edina and it appears the development team did not listen to the Commissions comments at Sketch Plan Review. The subject site as it exists today is a suburban office park and the proposed redevelopment doesn't change that perception. At Sketch Plan review the Commission suggested that the applicant consider breaking up the site into blocks by creating streets where people can walk and enjoy a pleasing environment. The 500-foot long parking ramp is too much and not aesthetically pleasing. The proposed redevelopment doesn't appear to embrace the goals of the City or the Greater Southdale Area Plan. Density is accomplished; however, the outcome wasn't entirely pleasing. Applicant Presentation David Anderson addressed the Commission and have a brief overview of the project and introduced Aaron Johnson with Twin City Orthopedics (TCO) to provide the history on how the plan evolved. Aaron Johnson addressed the Commission and explained that TCO is committed to Edina, reporting that their building on West 65th Street/France Avenue is their largest complex and it already needs expansion. The location of the 7700 site in close proximity to their other office makes it easier for patients to move about for differing services. Concluding,Johnson reiterated the subject site allows for the continued expansion of TCO. Mr. Anderson said the proposed subdivision defines the two properties. Anderson reported that the subject site is a I7.1-acre site that is currently developed with a 302-thousand s.f multi-tenant office building and zoned POD-2. Continuing, Anderson said they anticipate problems with the redevelopment of the site because of the poor soil conditions, being located on a landfill and the lack of existing utilities. The environmental constraints of the site do create challenges. Anderson said their intent is to create a new interconnected well-functioning campus despite the environmental restraints. Eric Reiners told the Commission he understands that to them the proposal doesn't look much different from what was presented at Sketch Plan Review; however, there have been major changes to the plan as noted: • The priority of this development was the pedestrian as per the Greater Southdale Plan. The proposed sidewalks and landscaping are a main feature of this development. • Combining greenspace/pedestrian movement are difficult to accomplish on this site because of the existing infrastructure and environmental restraints. • The subject site is the "watershed" area for much of the area making it challenging to capture and implement the Greater Southdale Area Principles. • It was important to work within the constraints of the site especially with regard to the limited ability to "go down". The water table doesn't afford itself well to below grade ramps, etc. • The future TCO tenants uses as a therapy area and surgery center are low density. Mr. Reiners displayed the materials board to include brick, pre-cast metal panels, copper and metal panels, limestone precast. Reiners also presented a fly-over of the site. [5] Draft Minutes El Approved Minutes© Approved Date: I 1/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 Commissioners stressed that they were disappointed in the plans as presented. They indicated that in their opinion not much was changed from Sketch Plan Review. The Commission said they understood the restraints of the site but in their opinion this site needs to move people and provide a pedestrian experience. It was further noted that the proposed water feature is a huge plus and can be used as a place to gather. Commissioners stressed the importance of movement through the site, the proposed sidewalks were noted as a huge plus and the applicant was encouraged to build at their own expense the sidewalk along the north boundary. They acknowledged the intent to dedicate that area to the City; however, reiterated they would like to see the applicant pay for installation of the sidewalk and if approved construct the sidewalk in Phase I. Continuing, commissioners expressed displeasure with the parking ramp, it's length, height and general lack of architectural features. Commissioners encouraged the applicant to revisit the ramp, the spacing between the sidewalk and the ramp and again the ramps overall appearance. Commissioners also encouraged the applicant to take another look at the ramp and its present location questioning if the ramp can be relocated. The applicants explained to the Commissioners that the site maintains a linear connection adding it is important to have visibility from France Avenue. It was further noted that the soils are better in the eastern portion of the site, the SW corner has a high water table, poor soil and existing grade issues. The discussion continued to focus on the ramp with the acknowledgment the site will also provide auto flow along with pedestrian flow and the importance of creating a safe experience for both the driver and pedestrian. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. Laurie Grotz, 5513 Park Place stated in her opinion if a sidewalk is constructed along the north boundary the applicant should pay for it. Chair Olsen asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issues; being none, a motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. All voted aye. Public hearing closed. Discussion/Comments Commissioner continued their discussion sharing the following: • Some support was given for the project, and the opinion that initial concerns were addressed with the opinion that this works. The south west corner was addressed and the project on the whole implements to the best of its ability the Southdale Principles. Noting the complexity in moving from suburban to urban. • Other opinions were expressed that the redevelopment of the site continues to have a suburban feel. The project as designed especially the ramp appears to create a canyon feel and does not address pedestrian movement as well as it should. [6] Draft Minutes Approved Minutes© Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 Commissioners stressed that they were disappointed in the plans as presented. They indicated that in their opinion not much was changed from Sketch Plan Review. The Commission said they understood the restraints of the site but in their opinion this site needs to move people and provide a pedestrian experience. It was further noted that the proposed water feature is a huge plus and can be used as a place to gather. Commissioners stressed the importance of movement through the site, the proposed sidewalks were noted as a huge plus and the applicant was encouraged to build at their own expense the sidewalk along the north boundary. They acknowledged the intent to dedicate that area to the City; however, reiterated they would like to see the applicant pay for installation of the sidewalk and if approved construct the sidewalk in Phase I. Continuing, commissioners expressed displeasure with the parking ramp, it's length, height and general lack of architectural features. Commissioners encouraged the applicant to revisit the ramp, the spacing between the sidewalk and the ramp and again the ramps overall appearance. Commissioners also encouraged the applicant to take another look at the ramp and its present location questioning if the ramp can be relocated. The applicants explained to the Commissioners that the site maintains a linear connection adding it is important to have visibility from France Avenue. It was further noted that the soils are better in the eastern portion of the site, the SW corner has a high water table, poor soil and existing grade issues. The discussion continued to focus on the ramp with the acknowledgment the site will also provide auto flow along with pedestrian flow and the importance of creating a safe experience for both the driver and pedestrian. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. Laurie Grotz, 5513 Park Place stated in her opinion if a sidewalk is constructed along the north boundary the applicant should pay for it. Chair Olsen asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issues; being none, a motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. All voted aye. Public hearing closed. Discussion/Comments Commissioner continued their discussion sharing the following: • Some support was given for the project, and the opinion that initial concerns were addressed with the opinion that this works. The south west corner was addressed and the project on the whole implements to the best of its ability the Southdale Principles. Noting the complexity in moving from suburban to urban. • Other opinions were expressed that the redevelopment of the site continues to have a suburban feel. The project as designed especially the ramp appears to create a canyon feel and does not address pedestrian movement as well as it should. [6] Draft Minutes Approved Minutes❑Z Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 • An understanding was expressed that the applicant needs to meet the needs of their client; however, if the City was serious about enforcing the Southdale Principles now is the time to do so. The constraints of the site were acknowledged; however, there was the feeling that more could be done to create a better pedestrian experience and a site with more of a campus feel. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton to recommend denial of the request for preliminary rezoning, preliminary plat and site plan for 7700 France Avenue based on the following findings: • The project as designed does not follow the Greater Southdale Area Development Principles, the "give to get" and the focus on the public realm; • The ramp as proposed at 500-feet long and 50-feet high needs to be redesigned to reduce mass; • The north border needs to be developed as part of the plan (preferably Phase I). It should not become the City's responsibility to construct or pay for it. • The existing north/south drive aisle through the middle of the site needs to be better addressed. As presented it does not foster safe connectivity nor is it visually pleasing. • The existing north/south spine lacks adequate spacing. The parking ramp and existing building are too close. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thorsen. Ayes; Lee, Thorsen, Hamilton, Olsen. Nay; Strauss, Nemerov, Berube. Abstain; Bennett. Motion to deny carried4-3-1. V. Community Comment None. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review— Kellogg Avenue/Valley View Road/Oaklawn Avenue Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop four lots at the corners of Kellogg Avenue, Valley View Road and Oaklawn Avenue. Opinions or comments provided to the applicant shall be considered advisory only, and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two buildings on the commercial sites and the single family home at 6136 Oaklawn Avenue. and build four (4) structures with a total of 14 for sale condominium units. The property is .8I acres in size. The density proposed in the [7] Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes❑X Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13,2016 project would be 17 units per acre. This site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which allows up to 30 units per acre in this area. Planner Teague asked the Commission to note this request would however, require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the height limit to 3-stories and re-guide the single family home NN, Neighborhood Node. The condos would be a conditionally permitted use within the existing PCD-I, Planned Commercial District Zoning District. Variances would be required for the setbacks that are proposed. Concluding Teague asked the Commission to note that several variances would be required under the existing zoning standards if this project were to proceed. Appearing for the Applicant Robert Carlson, Gatehouse and Patrick McGlynn, McGlynn Partners Applicant Presentation Mr. Carlson addressed the Commission and explained that over one year ago he began considering the subject property as the perfect location to develop a one level housing project. Carlson said in speaking with Edina residents he learned many residents are frustrated with the current housing options available to them. Continuing, Carlson said the proposal is low density residential and the plan is to build 14 for-sale condominium units. Three stories are proposed along Valley View Road and two stories are proposed where the buildings abut existing single family homes. Two condominiums are proposed for each floor with a common spine providing the homeowner windows on three sides. Carlson also reported that the project will require variances and an amendment to the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan (Comp Plan). Concluding, with graphics Carlson shared renderings of the proposed housing plan. Discussion Commissioners shared the following comments: • The variety in the proposed units was very interesting and seemed a good fit for the neighborhood. • Good addition to the neighborhood. • Adds more density in a positive way; however, attention must be paid to detail to soften the mass especially as you round the corner. • Positive opinions were expressed on the pallet and exterior building materials. • Consider adding public art to anchor the corners to create a more neighborly feel. • Consider a pocket park if spacing is adequate [8] Draft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: 11/9/2016 Planning Commission October 13, 2016 • This proposal provides connectivity with the suggestion that the applicant wok with the City on sidewalk options. • Building height needs to be studied in relationship with the Valley View Wooddale Small Area Plan. This proposal is a test case and much thought was put into building height. The discussion ensued on the requested building height. It was pointed out that building height is capped at two stories or 24-feet in this area of the Valley View Wooddale Small Area Plan. Commissioners said building height may need to be revisited. Continuing, Commissioners said they understand that the current design makes sense at three stories along Valley View and the two story units abutting the single family homes; however, the proposed height does not meet the Comprehensive Plan guidelines contained in the small area plan for this area. It was concluded that if building height is increased it must be seriously considered and justified. Mr. Carlson acknowledged that point and said the Valley View Wooddale Small Area Plan allows for increased density; however, if one is held to the 24-feet not much could be built but retail. Continuing, Carlson pointed out that a single family home on a single family lot can be up to 35-feet, pointing out a single family home couldn't even be built on portions of this site because of building height restrictions. Chair Olsen thanked the applicant for their presentation, adding, all in all, except for building height the Commission finds that this proposal has merit. VII. Correspondence and Petitions Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials. VIII.0 hair and Member Comments Commissioners were reminded to share with staff their comments on the Comprehensive Plan prior to Council. IX. Staff Comments Planner Teague reminded the Commission their next meeting on October 26th would be a work Session. There was no formal business. X. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Berube to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:35 P.M. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye;the motion to adjourn carried. 3cacie, 5G.o.9,e4utUc Respectfully submitted [9]