HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 02-08 Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes0
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8, 2017
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
.,m Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
February 8, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
I. Call To Order
Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll were: Commissioners Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett,
Berube, Bennett, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Kivimaki and Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague,
Assistant Planner, Aaker Senior Planner, Repya, Sr. Communications Coord., Eidsness, Support Staff,
Hoogenakker
Ill. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the February 8, 2017, meeting
agenda. 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 approve the minutes of the January 25,
2017, meeting, The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
V. Public Hearings
A. Variance. 27 Woodland Road, Edina, MN. A side yard setback variance.
Staff Presentation
Planner Aaker presented her staff report for a 4.9-foot setback to add a second story above a flat roofed
garage for Donald LeWin.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following
conditions:
• The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans and
conditions.
Page 1 of 10
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8, 2017
• The home must be constructed per the proposed plans date stamped,January 6, 2016.
Appearing for the Applicant
Mike Mills, representing the Lewin's, property owners.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Mills informed the Commission the property owners apologize for not being present; noting at this
time they are not in the State. Continuing, Mills said the property owners intend to age in place and the
proposed improvements make it possible for them to achieve that goal. Mills further explained that
renovations would also include an improvement in drainage.
Comments/Questions
Commissioner Nemerov asked Planner Aaker if an engineering report was required. Planner Aaker
responded that a report was not required because the "remodeling" did not create a change in building
footprint. Commissioner Lee commented that she observed a" bump out" off the rear of the house
noting that is also part of the project. Planner Aaker agreed; however, the "bump out" was over an
existing concrete patio.
Public Hearing
Chair Olsen opened the public hearing.
No one spoke to the issue.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Commissioners expressed the opinion that the proposed alterations to the home were a good solution to
allow the property owners to age in place. The applicant was also complimented on the thoroughness of
the materials submitted to support the variance request.
Motion
A motion was made by Commissioner Nemerov to approve the variance based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berube.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
B. Variance. 6754 Valley View Road, Edina, MN. Sign Variance.
Page 2 of 10
Draft Minutes LI
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8, 2017
Planner Presentation
Planner Repya informed the Commission that Edina High School, 6754 Valley View Road is requesting a variance
to allow four (4) wall signs on the east and west face of the building to identify the High School entrances and
new gymnasium. The signs proposed include:
I. EHS - Individual Letters on the W wall of the new gymnasium - 94 sf
2. EDINA HORNETS - Individual Letters (stacked) on the S wall of the new gym - 88 sf
3. EHS - Individual Letters (vertical) on W wall at new main entrance - 43.5 sf*
4. EHS - Individual Letters (vertical) on E wall at bus entrance - 43.5 sf
* = Illuminated
Repya explained that Edina's sign code# 36 - 1711 provides for one wall sign per building for schools that are
located in the R-I Single Dwelling Unit District. The code also allows for one wall sign per building not to
exceed 24 square feet in area; and one freestanding sign per frontage not to exceed 36 square feet in area.
Currently, there is one freestanding monument sign at the entrance to the school on Valley View Road which is
compliant with the code. The proposed wall signs, all subject to the variance request are proposed as part of the
building expansion at the high school.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff approves the requested variances based on the following findings:
I. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because:
a. The proposed variances are reasonable since the proposed wall signs will provide necessary way
finding.
b. The practical difficulty is based on the large size of the site (55 acres); the site containing both Edina
High School and Valley View Middle School; the High School being located behind the Middle
School; and that there are now 10 exterior building entrances.
c. The signs have been designed to be in proportion to the facades where they are proposed
2. The circumstance of the 900-foot setback to the High School's main entrance from Valley View Road is
unique to this site. Granting variances would not set a precedent for similar requests. Approval of the variances
are subject to the following conditions:
I. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:
• Site Plan C I.20 date stamped April 29, 2016.
• Sign plans and elevations date stamped June 13, 2016.
Appearing for the Applicant
Sal Bagley, Eric Hamilton, Wold Architects and Engineers
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Bagley explained that the school district is proposing to add additional signage to the growing campus which
includes an addition to the current High School campus to house the 9th grade and the existing Valley View
Middle School. Ms. Bagley said that after renovations are completed the High School building would be roughly
550,000 square feet; much larger than any of the district's elementary campuses. Bagley further stated that their
Page 3 of 10
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8,2017
intent was to provide for way finding without an overabundance of signage.
With graphics Bagley pointed out the proposed signage package for the 4 signs.
Comments/Discussion
Bagley was asked why the large individual letters depicting EHS was picked. Bagley explained that the EHS
letters identify the High School and distinguish the High School from Valley View Middle School. Continuing,
Bagley also asked the Commission to note the importance of branding for the campus and school district.
Continuing, some Commissioner's expressed the opinion that the sign variances requested to enhance way
finding fall flat. Ms. Bagley responded that the Edina High School campus is very challenging for a number of
reasons, reiterating the goal of the design team was to provide way finding with minimal signage. Bagley noted
the following:
• The High School campus is large at 55-acres.
• The High School shares its campus with Valley View Middle School.
• Valley View Middle School sits closer to Valley View Road and has a stronger presence.
• The High School is recessed back on the campus 900-feet from the street
• Currently the Edina Performing Arts Center is the "face" of the building to the street; however, the new
addition to the High School was situated to provide a "face" to the High School from Valley View Road
minimizing the confusion on entrance to the Performing Arts and High School.
• All doors are numbered to provide further identification for visitors.
With graphics Mr. Hamilton explained the signage for the gymnasium/activities center; noting signage was
designed to direct visitors to this entrance, differentiating it from the High School and Performing Arts
entrances. He explained many activities besides physical education take place in this facility to include robotics
and other activities. Hamilton said the design team felt if this part of the building was labeled "Gym" it wouldn't
be telling the whole story of the use. Hamilton said their goal was to be intuitive with the district's messaging
and respect its branding while incorporating it into way finding.
Public Hearing
Chair Olsen opened the public hearing.
Jeff Hill, 5861 Creek Valley Road, addressed the Commission in support of the signage package adding in his
opinion the plans are perfect and respect the neighbors.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Discussion/Comments
A lengthy discussion ensued with a number of Commissioners expressing their support for the signage package,
acknowledging the uniqueness of the topography, the size of the campus, the placement of the High School from
the street, the location of the Middle School, the close proximity to residential properties, and the goal of the
signage team along with the school district to provide for way finding to the campus while maintaining the
district's branding goal.
The signage team was asked if they considered pedestrian and bike way finding. Ms. Bagley responded that plan
Page 4 of 10
Draft Minutest]
Approved MinutesM
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8,2017
is moving forward.
The discussion continued with some Commissioners expressing their opinion that the signage proposed was
inadequate and the goals of the proposed signs to create way finding fell short, and confusion would still exist
especially for the "gym/activity center", noting the "Edina Hornets" sign on the gym/activities center may not
achieve way finding. Those Commissioners further stated they found it difficult to consider a variance for the
proposed signs as a practical difficulty. It was also expressed that the proposed bus entrance sign providing a
"welcoming" presence may not be a practical difficulty
Planner Teague addressed the practical difficulties by explaining that the Commission could consider the
practical difficulty the site itself and its physical characteristics. He noted the district has to work with the
existing location of the High School and Valley View Middle School, this isn't a "clean" site. Teague also pointed
out the site in large, and its topography reduces site lines. Teague stated what the Commission needs to
consider was if the request was reasonable. If additional signage was deemed to be reasonable the Commission
could support the request.
Motion
A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the variances based on staff findings
and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. Ayes; Lee,
Strauss, Hamilton, Nemerov, Berube, Olsen. Nays, Hobbs, Thorsen, Bennett.
VI. Community Comment
None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close Community Comment. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried.
VI. Reports/Recommendations
A. Project Update—The Link (Pentagon Park)
Staff Update
Planner Teague informed the Commission that Scott Tankenoff with Hillcrest Development
requested to appear before the Planning Commission to provide the Commission with a
summary background of the planning efforts and City land use approvals that have taken place
on the 43-acre Pentagon Park properties. Teague further explained that no new development
has been proposed or built since preliminary approval, adding when the property owner is
ready to develop, the entitlement process would include sketch plan review and final rezoning
for each phase. Should there be a significant change to the approved overall development plan;
a revision to that approval would be required. Development of the property north of 77th
Street is anticipated in 2017.
Page 5 of 10
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8,2017
Teague presented a time line since Hillcrest acquired the property. The time line is as follows:
2007 —Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
A proposal was submitted to staff to redevelop the entire 43-acre Pentagon Park
property. The proposed project was to include up to I,300,000 square feet of
office/retail space; 800+ units of senior housing; and a 150 room hotel. The senior
housing would be located on the north parcel, adjacent to the then golf course; the
office, retail and hotel was to be on the south parcel. The proposal triggered the
need for an environmental review. The City Council authorized the AUAR, and
expanded the study area to include all the property on the south side of 77th Street.
An AUAR is a substitute review allowed by State Law that can be used when an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. AUARs are more flexible in the
development approach.
An AUAR allows the flexibility to examine different development scenarios, including
what would be allowed under the current zoning and comprehensive plan; and other
development scenarios, including, what the developer is considering. An AUAR
enables cities to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area
without significant environmental impacts.
2008 Rezoning Approval
Following the AUAR, a Rezoning was approved for the entire 43 acres from PCD-2,
Planned Commercial District and POD, Planned Office District to MDD-6, Mixed
Development District 6. The specific proposal was to build 634 senior housing units,
an 80,000 square foot hotel, two office towers that would total 737,000 square feet,
and two above ground parking structures. (See approved overall development plan
on page A9.) The project was never built.
2013 — AUAR Update
After five years of no development, the AUAR needed to be updated. WSB was
again hired and the AUAR was evaluated, updated and approved.
2014 — Preliminary Rezoning Approval
Following the AUAR Update, a new development project was proposed by a new
land owner of the site. Preliminary Rezoning was approved. The Rezoning was from
MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The
approved overall development included the following: office, medical, retail,
restaurants, a hotel and potentially housing. The list below is a breakdown of the
anticipated land uses at that time:
➢ Office — 1,420,000 square feet.
➢ Retail — 40,000 square feet.
Hotel — 250,000 square feet (375-425 rooms)
➢ Parking structures — 6,400 parking stalls.
:> Housing (would likely replace some of the office if built.)
Page 6 of 10
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8,2017
Teague concluded that Final Rezoning has not yet been granted. When development is to be
proposed on any of these parcels, the land owner would bring back a sketch plan review for each
phase prior to any Final Rezoning Approval. Teague added as he mentioned earlier, if a new
development proposal is not consistent with the approved overall development plan, an
amendment to the original overall development
Appearing for the Applicant
Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development and Tom Whitlock, Damon Farber
Comments/Discussion
Chair Olsen informed Commissioners this will be an informational update on a site in Edina; the
Pentagon Office Park. Olsen said the update would be beneficial for new Commissioners.
Mr. Tankenoff was asked when the site was purchased and how long before the TIF expires. Mr.
Tankenoff responded the site was purchased in 2010. Planner Teague interjected that he was
unsure when the TIF agreement expires.
Applicant Update
Mr. Tankenoff addressed the Commission and reported that over the past few years they have
met regularly with staff about the redevelopment options for the Pentagon Office Park
properties, adding they also held neighborhood meetings. Tankenoff said their goal was to do the
redevelopment of this large parcel correctly; which was one of the reasons their progress was
measured. Tankenoff said to date certain office buildings have been renovated; however, the
redevelopment goal is large. Tankenoff pointed out the site is served very well by transit and its
proximity to a major highway system and arterial roads. He added the site is also very fortunate
to be located along the "Fred" (Fred Richards Park). Tankenoff said one of their goals in working
so closely with City Staff was to ensure compatibility with the "Fred" and preserve access. He
stressed the "Fred" is an excellent amenity. Continuing, Tankenoff said they created six principles
to guide the redevelopment of the site.
Continuing, Tankenoff reiterated the importance of the "Fred", acknowledging the uniqueness of
the properties. Tankenoff said the PUD zoning designation allows for flexibility in uses; however,
he said the "right fit" in uses was important, adding they don't want to create a cookie cutter
development.
With graphics Tankenoff and Whitlock shared redevelopment options highlighting the following:
Page 7 of 10
Draft Minutes CI
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8, 2017
• The development would create a more efficient use of the property.
• The redesign would include public open space creating linkage uniting the site.
• The goal is to design the public streets to service not only vehicles but also pedestrians,
bicycles, etc.
• Create walkable connectivity.
• Preserve and enhance the natural area and features of the open space.
• Encourage pedestrian circulation and provide access points to the park amenity.
• Where appropriate the goal is to use podium height. This concept will create a consistent
street and a comfortable pedestrian environment.
Tankenoff also noted the build-out of the site would be accomplished in phases that tie into the
on-going renovations of the office buildings and approved development plan. Tankenoff thanked
the Commission for their time, adding he believes he will be before them in the near future with
development plans.
Comments/Questions
A question was raised on the site's high water table and soils and if that creates problems. Mr.
Whitlock said the high water table was a point of study and would be more fully addressed to
ensure there are no pitfalls. Whitlock said they anticipate achieving one level of underground
parking; however, with regard to soils haven't delved into that detail at this point.
The development team was asked the current status of the adjoining property to the west and if
that property could become part of the redevelopment plan. Mr. Tankenoff responded that site
is stand alone and headquarters for a company; it is not part of the project.
The development team was asked about connectors/block size to ensure the site when
redeveloped was cohesive and would be easily navigated by both pedestrians, vehicles and bikes.
A comment was made that the redevelopment of the site first appeared to lean more toward
office use. Mr. Tankenoff agreed, adding the first redevelopment thought was to take this "run-
down" office/commercial complex and renovate it. Continuing, Tankenoff said the addition of
housing was at the request of the City, adding he believes that use would serve this site well at
this time.
A question was also raised if the redevelopment of the site could be similar to Centennial Lakes;
noting the water issue could be used as an amenity. Tankenoff responded that would take a lot
of thought and work to "celebrate" storm water, however, all ideas would be considered.
Page 8 of 10
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8,2017
Questions were raised on West 77th Street and how the redevelopment would enhance it.
Tankenoff said they continue to work with engineering staff on the street and its functionality.
He added their intent was to add a green center with turn lanes and enhance the boulevard.
Tankenoff said one issue that needs to be addressed is that West 77th Street would remain a
truck route which adds a challenge in redesigning this roadway and its relationship with bike
traffic.
Mr. Tankenoff was asked what investments would he want from the City. Tankenoff explained a
TIF Agreement was entered into with the City, adding everyone is clear on committed resources
to the project.
Chair Olsen thanked Mr. Tankenoff and Whitlock for their update.
VII. Correspondence And Petitions
Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials.
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
None.
IX. Staff Comments
Chair Olsen asked for an update on the Greater Southdale Area work group. Planner Teague reported
the group met last week with the mission to close out Phase 2 of the project and bring it before the City
Council for their comments. Plans for Phase 3 and 4 will be developed.
Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague if the Commission can look forward to viewing a 3-D model plan of the
area. Teague responded he envisions the model will be available to view at a Comp Plan work session.
Commissioner Nemerov asked Planner Teague if the Comprehensive Plan consultant contract was
approved. Teague responded that the contract was approved at last evenings City Council meeting.
X. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning
Commission at 9:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bennett. All voted
aye. The motion carried.
Page 9 of 10
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutest
Approved Date: 3/8/2017
February 8, 2017
(/QG C
//oqaSLii
Respectfully submitted
Page 10 of 10