Loading...
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