HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 09-27 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
% ' f\\ Minutes
- Guif City Of Edina, Minnesota
i Planning Commission
" Edina City Hall Council Chambers
September 27, 2017
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, Mittal and Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant
Planner, Aaker, Sr. Communications Coord., Eidsness
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the September 27, 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 September
13, 2017, Planning Commission meeting The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs.
All voted aye. The motion carried.
V. Public Hearings
A. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment— OR, Office Residential District for the Estelle
Edina. West 69th Street at Valley View Road.
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague reported that Ryan Companies on behalf of Luigi Bernardi is requesting an amendment to the
Edina Comprehensive Plan regarding height and density in the OR, Office Residential District. The specific
request is to increase the density from 30 units per acre to 60 units per acre, and increase the height maximum
from 4 stories and 48 feet, to 26 stories and 360 feet. Teague explained that the purpose of the request is for
Ryan Companies to construct a multi-phase mixed-use development at the southwest corner of 69th and
France. Phase I of the project would include 11,000 square feet of retail that would include a restaurant, office
and bank; 6 owner occupied townhouse; 92 owner-occupied condominiums. Phase 2 of the project would be a
22-story building with retail on the main level and 75 owner occupied condominiums. Of the housing units, 20%
would be included for affordable housing in each phase.
1
Draft Minutes❑
Approved MinutesZ
Approved Date: 10/1 1/2017
Teague asked the Commission to note that this request before the Planning Commission and City Council does
not include a Rezoning or Site Plan review. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment were approved by the City
Council, the applicant would then come back with Rezoning and Site Plan review applications. It is at that time
that the details of the project would be reviewed, and considered for approvals.
Teague pointed out that because this request includes 20% of the housing units to be for affordable housing,
this would require a 3/5 vote of approval by the City Council. Minnesota State Law mandates that if projects
contain 20% of the units for affordable housing to persons with incomes no greater than 60% of the area
median income then the approving vote for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment be done by a majority vote. A
super majority vote (2/3) is typically required. As this is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the
City has complete discretion as to approving or denying this request.
Teague concluded that Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase density
to up to 60 units an acre in the OR, Office Residential District, and allowing height to be exceed four stories
and 48 feet subject to the following:
Approval is subject to the following findings:
I. The proposed density range is reasonable for the west side of France Avenue. The density proposed
is less than what is allowed on the east side of York, which is considered a similar area, as it also
transitions to single-family homes to the east. East of York, south of 66th Street and North of 70th
Street allows up to 105 units per acre, nearly double the density considered here.
2. Higher Densities are generally located on arterial roadways. The OR district is generally located on
France Avenue, an arterial roadway that connects to both Crosstown 62 and 1-494.
3. The densities are consistent with those contemplated in the Great Southdale Area Study.
4. Density proposed is similar or less than density for mixed use areas for surrounding communities
including Minnetonka, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, and St. Louis Park.
5. Allowing higher densities allows the City greater opportunity to provide affordable housing units.
6. Height is typically a function of a Zoning Regulation and not a specific requirement in a
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Traffic studies done by Spack Consulting and WSB conclude that densities of 60 units an acre on the
west side of France can be supported by the existing roadway system.
8. The amendment would give the Council specific criteria to review when considering a project with
height limits over four stories.
9. Public benefits in allowing building height over four stories would include: significant contributions to
the city's stock of affordable housing units; high quality architecture and overall development;
increase in public space; added green space; significantly pedestrian friendly developments; increase
tax base; catalytic development for future high quality development in the area; public art;
elimination of surface parking; and underground parking.
Conditions:
Figure 4.6.B in the Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows:
In the OR, Office Residential District, at 3905 69th Street West, a portion of 3939 69th Street West, and 6900
and 6950 France Avenue, the allowed density may be up to 60 dwelling units per acre, and the allowed height
may exceed 4 stories and 48 feet. The increased density and height are subject to City Council approval of a
rezoning to PUD for a project that must include:
2
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/1 1/2017
I. Affordable housing. "Affordable housing" means a development in which at least 20 percent of the
residential units are restricted to occupancy for at least ten years by residents whose household
income at the time of initial occupancy does not exceed 60 percent of area median income,
adjusted for household size, as determined by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and with respect to rental units, the rents for affordable units do not
exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size, as
determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. Project must meet the City's affordable housing policy.
3. At least 75% of the floor area in every building, excluding accessory buildings, must be used for
dwellings.
4. Project must provide underground parking.
5. Project must include public art.
6. Public enhancement of the sidewalks around the perimeter and through the site; including a 50
foot setback from the paved portion of France Avenue and 30 feet back from 69th to include
sidewalks and green space.
7. Building must be of high quality architecture subject to review and approval of the City Council as
part of a Rezoning.
8. Project must include sustainable design principles subject to approval of the City Council.
9. The development must adequately respond to the Greater Southdale Area Guiding Principles.
10. Project must include public space.
II. Project must include accommodation for bikes.
12. Buildings over four stories must be separated from the single-family homes on the west side of
Valley View Road by buildings four stories or less to provide a transitional area between taller
buildings on France Avenue and single-family homes to the west.
Appearing for the Applicant
Luigi Bernardi, Arcadia on France LLC, Mike Ryan, Ryan Companies and Carl Runck, Ryan
Discussion/Comments
Commissioners questioned/expressed the following:
• Planner Teague was asked if this project would benefit from TIF funding. Teague responded that
TIF funding is not proposed for the project. TIF funding is an action of the City Council.
• Teague was asked to clarify the request. Teague explained that at this time the applicant is only
requesting approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for building height and density.
If the applicant proceeds with a proposed project, rezoning and site plan applications would need
to be submitted.
• It was noted that in reviewing all the correspondence regarding this request it appears there might
be some confusion on where the affordable housing units would be located; would they be on-site
units or would they be located off-site. Teague responded that the affordable housing units would
be on site. Each building would provide affordable units.
• Regarding the Greater Southdale Area Guiding Principles would the Southdale consultant provide
input. Planner Teague noted that at sketch plan review the consultant provided a memo. Teague
said if formal application to rezone proceeds, he would request an additional memo regarding the
principles.
3
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/I I/20 17
• It was suggested that the shadow study include the number of homes that would be impacted by
the towers heights. Also, provide details of shadow timeframe. Teague explained that he believes
at a future meeting more details would be provided not only on the shadow study, but also on
traffic, storm water management plans, sustainability, etc.
• Teague was asked where this proposal fits with the updating of the Comprehensive Plan and the
continuing Greater Southdale Area Small Area Study Plan. Teague stated at this time the City is in
the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and drafting a Greater Southdale Area Small
Area Plan plus other small area plans. The Metropolitan Council requires an update to the
Comprehensive Plan every 10-years.
• Commissioners asked if this decision could be deferred until the Comprehensive Plan or Small
Area Plan(s) were completed. Teague responded that that was an option; however, the updating
will not be completed and formally adopted for some time, likely toward the end of 2018.
• Teague responded to a question about the applicants' strategy of separating the comp plan
amendment from the rezoning and site plan process. Teague said that in his 12 years with Edina
he could not remember seeing it separated like this; however, it is done regularly in other cities.
Continuing, Teague said that the applicants desire to separate the Amendment from the Rezoning
could be due to the large expense of bringing plans forward, adding approving the Amendment to
Comprehensive Plan is required to proceed with the Rezoning and site Plan process. Teague
stated there is no right or wrong way.
• It was noted that included in the packet clarification of the 2/3's vote requirement was stated.
Commissioners questioned why the vote count changes. Teague explained that State Law provides
affordable housing incentives, adding this is one way to get developers on board with affordable
housing. With the addition of affordable housing, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires a
majority vote not the super majority for a project without affordable housing.
• Is the 20% affordable housing a vote strategy, pointing out affordable housing was not presented in
the Sketch Plan. Teague responded it is possible. The applicant responded with a strategy on how
to make the project better and one of the ways was to introduce affordable housing in the
project.
• Height is a function of zoning and in the Comprehensive Plan it is usually not a hard and fast
number-that is what zoning is for. In the comp plan, perimeters are usually established providing
guidance.
• Why support this. Reserve my recommendation; however, much public benefit. A lot of good
here.
Chair Olsen invited the traffic consultants to speak to the issue.
Mike Spack, Spack Consulting, addressed the Commission and informed them the intersections in the
area function at capacity; not over capacity. Spack noted that France Avenue was a County road and
the County has the discretion to adjust traffic flow through light timing. Spack said at this time the
County has the intersections timed to expedite traffic on France Avenue from 494 to the Crosstown.
The County also has the ability to adjust light timing at intersections if spill back becomes an issue.
Continuing, Spack reported that their findings for this development indicate it would generate roughly
800 + vehicles per day over what is presently generated. Spack further noted that they worked
4
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/1 I/20 17
through an intense commercial use scenario, adding through that analysis they found as many as 8,000
vehicle trips could be generated is zoned strictly commercial. Spack noted that City staff could work
with the County on cross traffic and light timing and find out as the area develops what is the best
practice.
Spack was asked to speak to the am and pm peak trips. Spack reported that in the AM 80 more trips
would be generated and in the PM 90 new trips would be generated.
Chuck Rickart presented his traffic overview and identified the intersections and their categories and
how they would be impacted by this development.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Bernardi addressed the Commission and stated in his opinion this project would be a_bold turning
point in Edina's future. He noted that this site sits on one of Edina's important avenues. Continuing,
Bernardi added that the development team incorporated many suggestions from the Planning Commission,
City Council and neighborhood offered during the Sketch Plan Review Process. Bernardi said in his
opinion that the Estelle is needed to enhance the Southdale area and the greater good of the City of Edina.
Bernardi concluded that the future is something one creates, adding he looks forward to working with the
City on this proposal. Thank you.
Mr. Runck addressed the Commission reporting that the development team is very excited to present this
first step in the process. With graphics, Runck highlighted the following:
• During the past decade, Edina has seen 668 single-family teardowns and rebuilds.
• Zero new condominiums.
• Loss of residents to downtown and Wayzata projects.
• 98% of the city's 23,000 housing units are considered unaffordable to families earning under 60%
of AMI; just 40 homes currently available in Edina are priced under $350K
• Baby boomers, empty nesters are seeking different housing choices.
• It is projected +80,000 persons ages 55-74 in the Twin Cities metro area.
• New rental apartments are not providing the quality and unit sizes that match current housing
demand.
• Edina has 3,700+ households over age 65 earning less than $50,000 per year. Compelling
affordable housing solution for people who qualify.
• Community Support (Runck read to the Commission letters of support).
Mr. Runck clarified for the Commission that the buildings are 24 and 20 stories respectfully. Continuing,
Runck said they only have control over the sites in question, adding the reason they are requesting a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment separate from the rezoning was because this project at $250 Million is
the largest development project in the Twin Cities. Runck explained they want direction from the
Commission and Council before they proceed with comprehensive building plans, storm water
management plans etc.
5
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
With graphics, Ryan highlighted the following:
• The project development was inspired by the guiding principles of the Greater Southdale Area
Work Group.
• The development project realizes Victor Gruen's original vision for density on this block and
others surrounding Southdale.
• Enables the creation of the "Promenade West".
• Landscaping will all be high end and above ordinance requirements. Landscaping would be
enhanced on the "Gateway" arch and throughout the site. A tree buffer is also proposed along
Valley View Road (development team would work with the City on tree placement).
• The project will offer a pedestrian-oriented experience.
• The project will be in manageable "blocks", splitting the mega block in 4 quarters.
• Humanly scaled street level buildings. Stooped set condominiums. The proposed townhomes
would abut Valley View Road.
• Incorporate a plaza at 69th Street and Valley View Road.
• The proposed tall buildings would be located on the site closer to France Avenue with narrow
footprints. The footprints of these proposed buildings would be among some of the smallest
footprints in the in twin cities area. Ryan noted the shadow studies.
• The project is a phased project. First phase would include retail, 6-townhome units and 92-owner
occupied vertical residences (to include 20 affordable housing).
• Sidewalks adhere to the 50-foot setback on France Avenue and 30-feet on Valley View Road.
• Significant net new City tax base.
• Opportunities for public art. Ryan noted that they are considering relocating public art from the
Nicollet Avenue site to this location, adding he believes it would fit in very well in this location.
• The affordable housing component is 20% or I/5 of the total unit count d will be a mix of one and
two bedroom units. Affordable units would be located in each building.
Ryan thanked Commissioners for their attention.
Discussion/Comments
Mr. Ryan was asked to clarify light pollution and shadows cast from the towners. Ryan explained that the
way the site was laid-out the townhouse units abut Valley View Road, adding that should reduce light
spillage from the retail and towers into the residential neighborhood. Ryan explained the towers would
not be heavily "up-lit" and no signage is proposed on top of the towers. Ryan said he believes because of
the slenderness of the towers that lights "washing" from the project would only be from the residential
units. With regard to the shadow study Ryan reiterated they believe the slender tower(s) would shed
minimal shadows.
Public Hearing
Chair Olsen opened the public hearing.
6
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/1 I/20 17
The following spoke in support of amending the Comprehensive Plan from OR-Office Residential
District:
• Mark Swenson, 5501 Dever Drive, Edina, MN
• Don Hutchinson, lives and work in the Southdale Area
• Lori Severson, Edina resident and member of the Chamber of Commerce
• Steve Hedberg, 100-year history with Edina, MN
• Arlene Clapp, 6925 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN
• Cole Devries, 6900 Southdale Road, Edina, MN
• Les Wanninger, resident of the Westin, Edina, MN
• Shelby Kellogg, 6721 Hillside Road, Edina, MN
• Paul Nelson, 5220 Duggan Plaza, Edina, MN
• Ann Crooksen, 4516 Valley View Road, Edina, MN
• Steve Barrett, 6829 Southdale Road, Edina, MN
• Chris Cooper, 4512 Creston Drive, Edina, MN
The following spoke in opposition of amending the Comprehensive Plan from OR-Office Residential
District:
• Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN
• Bruce McCarthy, 6708 Point Drive, Edina, MN
• Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Rd., Edina, MN
• John Carlson, 4433 Ellsworth, Edina, MN
• Kaari Geadelmann, 6917 Southdale Road, Edina, MN
• Mike Kerfield, 6916 Hillcrest, Edina, MN
• Scott Anderson, 4700 Phlox, Edina, MN
• Blair Christie, 7316 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN
• Dan Petrosky, 7204 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN
• Mark Chamberlin, 7004 Bristol, Edina, MN
• Matt Brock, 7009 Heatherton, Edina, MN
• Lisa Roberts, 6801 Southdale Road, Edina, MN
• Matt McCovney, 6901 Hillcrest Drive, Edina, MN
• John Jurkovich, 6821 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN.
• Jim Jensen, 6924 Dawson, Edina, MN
• Paul Rosenthal.
• Ralph Zockart, 4311 Cornelia circle, Edina, MN
• Marie Johnson, 7137 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN
• Lori Grotz, 5513 Park Place, Edina, MN
• Gary Thatcher, 6901 Southdale Road, Edina, MN
• Art Lowell, 7505 Kellogg Avenue, Edina, MN
• Barry Hans, 6913 Southdale Road, Edina, MN
7
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
• Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview, Edina, MN
Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
Discussion/Comments
Chair Olsen asked Commissioners to share their comments. Commissioners expressed the following:
• The affordable housing element of the Estelle project is a great opportunity for Edina to change
the "narrative". Affordable housing proposed at 20% enforces Edina's commitment to provide
affordable housing opportunities.
• Professionals have provided both a traffic and shadow study analysis. We should defer to the
professionals.
• Sustainability. Building vertically reduces a buildings footprint thereby providing more greenspace.
• Competiveness. The proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan provides the City with
flexibility to ensure that where appropriate changes can be made.
• Would this building height be "allowed" anywhere else in the Greater Southdale area; and if so;
what is the difference between locations.
• View the City with a holistic approach, nothing the redevelopment of this area would bring more
consumers into the greater Southdale area and into Edina.
• Recognize that this commercial area is ground zero that abuts residential neighborhoods that are
within walking distance of an iconic vision. This area can be linked to many amenities, all within
walking distance.
• This could be the catalyst to keep "Southdale" healthy.
• Note that people will always have differing opinions on building height; some will enjoy viewing tall
buildings; others will not.
• The Metropolitan Council has identified Edina as urban. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It can
be embraced and successful with proper development practices.
• As in the past (Southdale as the first enclosed shopping center, Edinborough and Centennial
Lakes) it may be time for Edina to be bold. Density can provide vibrancy and movement.
• Our role as Commissioners is to follow the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendment
changes the direction established by the City.
• The City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and establishing Small Area Plans as
part of that Plan. Is this really the right time to be considering redevelopment projects.
• This request feels like "spot zoning".
• Proposed buildings are just too tall.
• The proposed amendment allows the possibility of this project; it does not approve the project.
• Difficult decision; what is the impact to the neighborhood; vs. the benefit to the City.
• Fantastic development. Difficult decision. The impact on the near neighborhood would be hard
to assess. It would be great to have more time; however, we do not.
• The main issue is the height; traffic exists and will continue to exist. It is a visual impact.
• Edina is great because of our commercial nodes.
8
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/1 1/2017
• Tall narrow buildings are sustainable. Less land is given over to concrete.
• In a perfect world, the Comprehensive Plan and Small Area Plans would be completed before
development occurs; however, that is not usually the case. Timing can be everything and the
location of the project is important. It is possible that moving this exact plan elsewhere in the
area would not be as successful.
• An opinion was shared that if this proposal were not allowed to proceed another proposal would
be developed for this site.
• Acknowledge the passion in the Community. It is an amazing community with diverse opinions.
The end result should be to do what is best for the entire City of Edina.
Motion
Commissioner Lee moved to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
based on the following findings:
I. The building height as proposed is too high given its proximity to the neighborhood to the
west.
2. If current zoning setback standards were applied the setback of the proposed towers
would be 2000+ feet. As submitted, the setback is between 400-500-feet.
3. The west side of France Avenue is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as transitional.
The proposed buildings are too tall.
4. The density as proposed is too high.
Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion.
Planner Teague clarified that any motion to approve or deny the requested Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan is separate from this project. The request is only to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Ayes; Lee and Olsen. Nays; Hobbs, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett Berube.
Motion failed 2-7.
Commissioner Berube moved to recommend approval of the Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan based on the staff findings, subject to staff conditions and limited to the
legal descriptions as submitted.
Commissioner Lee offered amendments to the motion recommending that the City Council
not use TIF funding for this project and that public space be defined as being exterior to the
project.
A discussion ensured on the recommended amendment(s) with Commissioners noting that at this time
the Commission is voting on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment not specifics of the site.
Commissioners Berube and Thorsen did not accept the amendments to the motion.
9
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutest
Approved Date: 10/1 1/2017
More discussion occurred. Chair Olsen clarified that the vote is on the original motion; not amendments.
Ayes; Berube, Bennett, Hamilton, Nemerov, Strauss, Thorsen, Hobbs. Nays; Lee, Olsen.
Motion to approve carried 7-2.
Planner Teague reported this issue would be heard by the City Council on October 17th.
B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Variances.
4004 & 4416 Valley View Road and 6108, 6112, 6116, and 6120 Kellogg Avenue, Edina,
MN.
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Edina Flats LLC is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, & Rezoning to build 18 units of owner occupied housing at 4404 & 4416 Valley View Road,
and 6108, 6112, 6116 and 6120 Kellogg Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to
expand the Neighborhood Commercial District to include 6108, 6112, 6116 and 6120 Kellogg Avenue.
The Rezoning is from R-I, PCD-4 and APD to PCD-I, Planned Commercial Development.
The purpose of the request is to re-develop the city owned property at 4416 Valley View Road, the row
of parking for the commercial development to the west, the vacant parcel at 6120 Kellogg and the three
single-family home parcels at 6116, 6112 and 6108 Kellogg. This portion of the development would
include a 3-story condominium building with six units on the corner, and three 2-story
condo/townhome buildings to the north.
Additionally, the property at 4404 Valley View Road would be re-developed with a four-unit, two story
condo building. The existing structure would be removed.
The property is 1.27 acres in size. The density proposed in the project would be 14 units per acre. (18
units total.) This site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which allows up
to 30 units per acre in this area.
Teague noted that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan/Small Area Plan in
terms of height and density proposed; however, the proposal does require an amendment to re-guide
and re-zone the single-family homes to NN, Neighborhood Node and PCD-I, Planned Commercial
District. The multi-family residential units 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, and the height of the 2-story buildings.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the requests for
Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows and subject to the following findings:
1. The density of the project is half of what would be allowed in the NN, Neighborhood Node district.
The four single-family home lots are being replaced with three, three unit buildings.
10
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
2. The units would be two-stories and 30 feet tall in height to match the maximum height allowed in the R-
I, Single-family neighborhood to the north and east.
3. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Valley
View Wooddale Small Area Plan:
a. Movement Patterns.
• Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along
secondary streets or walkways.
• Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and
street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.)
• 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.
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 creating pedestrian scale. Buildings "step
down" at boundaries with lower-density districts and upper stories "step back" from street.
g. 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.
i. Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots.
ii. Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries
oriented towards parking areas.
iii. Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and
doors along at least 50% of the front facade.
iv. Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than
between buildings and the street.
h. Height limits near the center of the Neighborhood Node. North of Valley View Road, building heights
may be up to three stories, not to exceed 36 feet. South of Valley View Road building heights may be
up to four stories, not to exceed 48 feet.
Graceful Transitions to Surrounding Neighborhood. At certain specified locations at the perimeter of
the Neighborhood Node where graceful transitions to single-family areas are important (as specified
on the Building Height Limits Plan), the height of new buildings may be up to two stories, not to
exceed 24 feet.
j. Establish universally accessible sidewalks along all edges of all spaces.
k. Plant trees along the edges of all streets and spaces to provide shade and protection for pedestrians
moving next to and in and out of buildings.
11
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
I. Gentle Transition from Node to Neighborhood. Whether the site is used for commercial or
residential development, landscaping, screening and building height should be designed to help the
building serve as an end cap for the residential block next to Valley View Road. The building height
limit in this location is two stories.
m. Encourage Underground Parking. Residents' parking should be located under the buildings to the
extent allowed by market conditions.
n. Commercial parking should be behind or alongside the buildings and be visually buffered by plantings
so as to encourage an active streetscape.
Continuing, Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from R-I, PCD-4
and APD to PCD-I, Planned Commercial Development, Preliminary Development Plan and a Conditional Use
Permit with Variances at 4404 & 4416 Valley View Road, and 6108, 6112, 6116 and 6120 Kellogg Avenue. The
Variances are as follows:
I. Building height from 2 stories and 24 feet to 2 stories and 30 feet, and 3 stories and 36 feet on the
corner of Valley View and Wooddale.
2. Front setback on Kellogg from 35 feet to 9 feet.
3. Front setback on Valley View Road from 35 feet to 23 & 5 feet.
4. Front Setback on Oaklawn from 35 feet to 16 feet.
5. Side setback on Oaklawn from 25 feet to 6 and 5 feet.
Approval is subject to the following findings:
I. Zoning would be consistent with the predominant Zoning District (PCD-I) in this area. The PCD-I
Zoning would be consistent over the majority of the NN, Neighborhood Node District.
2. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck conducted a traffic impact study based on the
proposed development, and concluded that the existing traffic generated from the project would be
supported by the existing roads.
3. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit Standards of Chapter 36.
5. The findings for the height and setback variances are met. The practical difficulty is the unique shape of
the lot and lack of lot depth. Meeting the setback requirements would result in the parking and garages
to be located in the front of the buildings.
6. With the exception of the NN area expansion, the project is consistent with the Valley View and
Wooddale Small Area Plan.
Approval is subject to the following Conditions:
I. The Final Development Plans must be consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated August
25, 2017, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission.
2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning
Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half
times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at
12
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
the time of any building permit. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping
that dies after the project is built.
3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated September 20, 2017;
including a Developer's Agreement or Site Improvement Performance Agreement, vacation of existing
easements if needed, construction of a boulevard style sidewalk on Oaklawn to connect to the Valley
View Road sidewalk.
4. Variances and Conditional Use Permit are subject to Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan approval
by City Council.
5. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the
approved plans to meet the district's requirements.
6. Final Rezoning is contingent on the Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Appearing for the Applicant
Patrick McGlynn, McGlynn Properties, David Carlson, and Mark Woodrift, Larsen Engineering
Discussion/Comments
Teague was asked in reference to the driveway between properties if that driveway would be a shared driveway.
Teague responded sharing that driveway was suggested by staff, Commission and Council; however the property
owners did not come to a mutual agreement. At this time, it is not shared.
Teague was asked to clarify if residential is included in the neighborhood node. Teague responded in the
affirmative.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. McGlynn reported that the development team believes the proposal as submitted included changes that
were suggested by the Commission and Council at Sketch Plan Review. Mr. McGlynn said their goal with this
redevelopment was to provide an opportunity for people to leave their single-family homes and find a home
with lower maintenance requirements while retaining that neighborhood feel.
With graphics presented the proposal to the Commission.
Discussion/comments
Commissioners indicated that this proposal was a vast improvement from what was presented at Sketch Plan.
Noting building mass was broken up and anchor points were added to the corner; all were all positive changes.
All in all Commissioners stated that this project was a great addition to the neighborhood.
It was suggested that at the Kellogg corner public art, additional landscaping, or a bench should be added if
possible. McGlynn said he would work with the City on that corner.
13
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/1 1/2017
Continuing, Commissioners stated the as project as proposed is a very good infill project, tastefully done, adding
they would like to see more of these projects in the City. It was also acknowledged to accomplish this infill
development at such high standards is difficult; however, is a benefit to the community.
Public Hearing
Chair Olsen opened the public hearing.
The following spoke to the issue:
Janey Westin, 6136 Btrookview Avenue, Edina, MN
Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the
motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Discussion/Comments
Commissioners expressed support for the project as submitted, adding in their opinion the proposal as designed
fits in well with the residential neighborhood and will be an asset to that neighborhood and Edina. It was further
noted that a Small Area Plan was already implemented for Kellogg and Valley View Road, adding that was a huge
plus when redeveloping this node.
Motion
Commissioner Thorsen moved to recommend Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning, Conditional Use
Permit and Variance approval for Edina Flats based on staff findings and subject to staff
conditions. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Mr. McGlynn thanked the Commission for their support.
VI. Community Comment
None
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. 70th and Cahill Working Group applicant approval.
Commissioner Strauss explained that he and Commissioner Lee met with roughly 21 applicants and
business owners to field a working group for the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. Strauss said they tried to
balance the group and believe they have a very well rounded group of residents, business owners, etc.
Continuing, Strauss said he and Commissioner Lee also visited the target site and "knocked on all doors".
14
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/11/2017
Strauss noted that Jeff Melin is a key property owner, adding he represents 75 % of the project.
Concluding, Strauss said they feel confident they have a good team. The first meeting is October 5t
Commissioner Lee recommended that the following be appointed to the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan
Work Group:
• Alice Hulbert, Resident Owner
• Connie Carrino, Resident Owner
• Phillip Peterson, Resident Owner
• Kyle Udseth, Resident Owner
• Kristi Neal, Resident Owner
• Jeff Melin, Commercial Owner
• Tim Murphy, Commercial owner
Commissioner Thorsen moved to appoint the above listed members to the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan
Working Group. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VIII.Correspondence And Petitions
Chair Olsen noted back of packet materials.
IX. Chair And Member Comments
Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague if more thought was given to the Planning Commission re-reviewing
applications when a change in plans occurs between final approval and the issuing of a building permit.
Chair Olsen said this was in reference to the Envi that requested changes to their approved plan. Teague
reported that in all instances of minor changes he has the discretion to make those changes
administratively. Teague noted that for the Envi he did request that those changes be brought back to the
Council for review and approval; however, building height and unit count remained as approved.
Continuing, Teague suggested if the Commission feels strongly that they want to review any changes in
materials, etc. the Commission should talk to the Council during one of the joint work session and get
their "take".
X. Staff Comments
Commissioners thanked Student Commissioners Jones and Mittal for their input.
Xl. Adjournment
Commissioner Mittal moved to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at I 2:25.
Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Jackie Hoogenakker
15
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 10/1 1/2017
Respectfully submitted
16