HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 06-14 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
A\.."'"---**, ,,� Minutes
- GI ill( / r, City Of Edina, Minnesota
V Planning Commission
MEV Edina City Hall Council Chambers
June 14, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
I. Call To Order
Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll were: Commissioners Hobbs, Lee, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Vice-chair
Nemerov Student Members,Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker, Sr.
Communications Coord., Eidsness, Support Staff, Hoogenakker
Absent from vote: Olsen, Thorsen, Kivimaki
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Strauss to approve the June 14, 2017, meeting
agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berube. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to approve the minutes of the May 26, 2017,
meeting; The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
V. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing: Variance request at 6312 Post Lane, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker reported that MJL Homes has re-submitted a variance application on behalf of the property
owners to increase first floor elevation of new home 6-feet higher than the current first floor elevation.
. This new home build was approved for variance by the Planning Commission in April to increase the 1st
floor height to allow the basement to be elevated 2-feet above the flood elevation
Page 1 of 14
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:6/28/20 17
The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has since reviewed the project for District permitting
requirements and concluded in May that the new home must have an elevated basement 3-feet higher
than the City approved basement elevation.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of a 5-foot 1st floor height variance to allow the
construction of a new home that will be more than one foot (6-feet total) above the existing first floor
elevation of the previous home located at 6312 Post Lane due to Flood Plain Regulations.
The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:
• Survey date stamped, May 2017
• Building plans and elevations date stamped June, 2017.
• Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo.
• Nine Mile Creek Watershed district permit.
Planner Aaker introduced to the Commission Charles Gerk PE with the Engineering Department to speak
to the issue.
Appearing for the Applicant
Mike Lindor, MJL Homes
Comments and Discussion
Mr. Gerk addressed the Commission and reported that Arrowhead Lake is a landlocked basin. Gerk
explained what that means for homes that are being redeveloped on Arrowhead Lake is that the low floor
elevation for the lake is established at 883.8 M.S.L. based on rule 4.3.2(b)(2) and will be applied to all
future redevelopment proposals along Arrowhead Lake. Edina City Code and engineering standards
dictate that residential redevelopment parcels at or below the I% annual chance flood elevation have a
low floor elevation no lower than 2-feet above the I% annual chance flood elevation. Gerk noted that
Watershed rules supersede City ordinance when they are more stringent and that is the case in this
situation, which is the reason the previously approved variance needs to be amended.
Gerk explained that in this case because Arrowhead Lake is a landlocked basin that its lowest floor
elevation is either I-foot above the surface overflow of the basin, or 2-feet above the elevation resulting
from two concurrent 100-year single rainfall events in a 24-hour period or a 100-year, 10-day snowmelt,
whichever is higher. Continuing, Gerk said the City has identified approximately 10-parcels adjoining
Arrowhead Lake currently at or below 883.8' M.S. L. if redeveloped would require a variance from City
code.
Acting-Chair Nemerov questioned if there is an engineering process for this landlocked lake. Gerk
responded in the affirmative, adding the City has established the "Arrowhead Lake Redevelopment Lot
Floor Elevation Standard".
Applicant Presentation
Page 2 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
Mr. Lindor explained that it was a surprise to him that he needed to go through the variance process
again. He said he applied for a building permit and watershed district at the same time; however, it was
found additional first floor height variance was required. Continuing, Lindor said he does not anticipate
unnecessary fill except for back fill. Lindor asked the Commission for their support.
Comments & Discussion
Commissioner Lee commented that she appreciated that although first floor height was increased the roof
height remained the same. Lindor agreed, adding he went from a 10/12 pitch to a 7/12 pitch roof. Lindor
stated he made the change to keep the roofline as low as possible.
Public Hearing
Acting Chair Nemerov opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue.
Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Additional Comments and Motion
Commissioners thanked Mr. Lindor for working with staff and for keeping the roof height as previously
approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton to approve the first floor building height
variance for 63 12 Post Lane based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Bennett. All voted aye. The motion carried.
B. Public Hearing: Setback Variance at 5261 Lochloy Drive, Edina, MN. House
Addition.
Staff Presentation
Planner Aaker reported that the subject property is approximately is 32,045 square feet in area. The
home is a one-story rambler built in 1962. The applicant is requesting to remodel and add onto a
portion of the existing garage and back of the home. The proposal is to add an addition on the east
side, (back of home), that conforms to zoning requirements and to add a garage stall to the existing
two car garage requiring a setback variance from the south lot line.
Aaker explained that Mark Larson, (the applicant), Ellen Jones and Robert McKlveen, (homeowners),
are requesting a 4.5 foot side yard setback variance to remodel the home and construct an addition to
the attached two car garage. The addition will add a third garage stall that is proposed to be 10.5 feet
Page 3 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
wide. The minimum side yard setback required is 10 feet. The homeowners propose to provide a 5.5-
foot setback.
There are existing single-family homes abutting the north and south lot line, both facing Lochloy. The
home located directly to the south and adjacent to the proposed improvement has living space next to
the garage addition. The proposed spacing between the applicant's addition and home to the south will
be approximately 54.5 feet. Spacing between the new addition and the home to the south will be
greater than the minimum 20-foot distance required for spacing between homes.
Section 36 of the zoning code, requires a minimum setback of 10 feet total for sidewall additions to
the home. The proposal is to reduce the setback on the south side to 5.5 feet
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance
based on the following findings:
1. The property with an addition of the garage width and the request to deviate from the
side yard is a reasonable use of the property.
2. The home is appropriate in size and scale with the addition of garage width allowing
reasonable use of the garage.
3. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements due to the existing
floor plan and desire to maintain the character of the home while adding an additional
garage stall.
Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below:
• Architectural site plans date stamped: May 8, 2015
• Building plans/ elevations date stamped: May 8, 2015
Appearing for the Applicant
Ellen Jones and Robert McKlveen, property owners.
Discussion/Comments
Commissioners thanked the applicants for their complete submission and that they have chosen to add
additional trees.
Public Hearing
Acting Chair Nemerov opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue.
A motionw as made by Commissioner Strauss to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bennett. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Motion
Page 4 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
A motion was made by Commissioner Lee to approve the side yard setback variance for 5261
Lochloy Drive based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried.
C. Rezoning/Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 5109-5I 25 West 49th Street, Edina, MN for
Great Oaks Development and TE Miller Development
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague reported that Great Oaks Development and TE Miller Development are requesting a
redevelopment of three parcels located at 5109-25 West 49th Street. The applicants are proposing to
tear down the existing two apartments and single-family home (I 0-units total) and build a new I 7-unit
housing development. The subject properties total 1.43 acres in size. The proposed density of the
project would be 12 units per acre, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Teague explained that in 2013, the City Council approved rezoning of the property to PUD, and
approved a site plan that would have built out a I 6-unit attached housing development. The
applicant/property owner at that time needed to sell 12 units before one was built. None of the units
sold, and development was never constructed. The site plan approvals have expired; however, the
PUD zoning is still in place.
Planner Teague reminded the Commission that the current 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 reducing the number of units by two to fit within
the existing "Medium Density Residential" classification in the Comprehensive Plan, and turning the
eastern building so it is a little further away from the single-family home to the east. The western
building was eliminated in favor of detached units.
To accommodate the request the following is required:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the existing PUD-5, Planned Unit Development— 5109-
5125 West 49th Street (Vernon Townhomes); and
Preliminary Site Plan Review.
In conclusion, Planner Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to revise the PUD-5 District with a new development plan to build 17 new townhomes
on the subject I.43-acre parcel, along with the Preliminary Plat.
Approval is subject to the following findings:
1. The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Creates a more efficient and creative use of the property and would create a better
connection to Vernon and the Grandview area with the inclusion of a sidewalk north/south
through the site.
3. Parking areas and garages are internal to the site, and not visible from 49th street.
Page 5 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:6/28/20 17
4. Landscaping would be enhanced. Extensive landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of
the site and adjacent to the proposed townhomes. The number of over story trees is over
double the number required by City Code.
5. The PUD ensures that the buildings proposed would be the only building built on the site,
unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council.
Teague said approval is also subject to the following Conditions:
1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development
Plans dated May 26, 2017, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council.
2. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated June 2,
2017.
3. Final Rezoning is subject to approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment revising the PUD-
5, Planned Unit Development-5 Zoning for this site.
4. 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 the time of the first building permit.
5. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City
Code.
6. A park dedication fee of$5,000 per dwelling unit is required. The park dedication fees are
due prior to release of the final plat.
7. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code.
8. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit prior to issuance of a
building permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's
requirements.
9. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval.
10. Compliance with the Wenck Traffic Study recommendations.
Appearing for the Applicant
Rob Miller, TE Miller Development, Dan Ionescu, Architects & Planners
Comments/Questions
Planner Teague was asked how this site fits into the vision for the Grandview Area. Planner Teague
responded that the subject site is not included in the Grandview District. Teague acknowledged its
proximity to Grandview, reiterating it was not part of the study or the Grandview TIF District.
It was also pointed out that the setbacks from West 49th Street were reduced noting the reduction in
setback influences the boulevard character of the neighborhood.
Page 6 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
Commissioners also questioned the sidewalk requirement, noting the grade change and the number of
steps it would take to connect the site to Vernon; pointing out things have changed (Large MN DOT wall
constructed) since this site received approval.
The discussion focused on traffic with the Commission acknowledging that the new development would
not greatly add to an increase in traffic; however, the intersection of Brookside at Interlachen is not good
at present and should be reviewed. Commissioners asked if anything could be done to mitigate the wait
from Brookside to Interlachen.
Ed Terhaar, Wenck Associates, agreed with Commissioners that presently there is an issue at Brookside/
Interlachen/Interlachen/Vernon. Terhaar said during the summer months with street reconstruction
throughout the Metro area in full swing vehicle impact is greater. Interlachen Boulevard and other streets
are heavily used by cut-through traffic. Terhaar pointed out at this time vehicles wait until they can "get in
or out" and take turns. He also noted Interlachen Blvd. has a designated bike lane that adds to the issue.
Continuing, Terhaar said improvements could be implemented; however, those improvements may be
needed regardless of this redevelopment.
Terhaar said although the noted congested traffic scenarios between Brookside/Interlachen/Vernon exist
today, the intersections at present have adequate capacity with the existing geometrics, reiterating no
improvements are needed at these intersections to accommodate the proposed project. Terhaar further
added that signal phasing and timing improvements could help reduce the southbound vehicle queues and
the installation of flashing yellow arrow left turn heads on the southbound, northbound, and eastbound
approaches would help these intersections operate more efficiently, resulting in shorter queues during
peak periods. Concluding, Terhaar said he would recommend continued study at these intersections.
Commissioners said they agree that at present these intersections are difficult and that the project as
proposed would have minimal impact on the existing conditions.
Applicant Presentation
Rob Miller told the Commission he was very excited to appear before the Commission with the new
project. Miller also reported a number of neighborhood meetings were held with neighbors expressing
their support for the new project. Miller introduced members of the development team to include, Ed
Briesmeister, Great Oaks, and Dan lonescu with Architects & Planners.
Mr. lonescu addressed the Commission adding Planner Teague did an excellent job of describing the
development proposal. lonescu told Commissioners he would be willing to stand for questions and offer
the development team's vision on the sidewalk connections and the sound wall.
With graphics, lonescu presented to the Commission alternatives for the sound wall and staff's condition
of approval to include inclusion of a sidewalk north/south through the site to access Vernon Avenue.
Ionescu stated they would object to the condition of approval requiring sidewalk access to Vernon
Avenue from the sites.
Page 7 of 14
Draft Minutes:]
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
Continuing, with graphics lonescu noted the hard neighborhood border/major pedestrian barrier to
include an unattractive interior and exterior pedestrian pathway. He further stressed there currently is
no viable sound wall "gateway" options, except for sound wall penetration or to relocate the sound wall.
He added in his opinion none of this is aesthetically pleasing. Continuing, lonescu also noted with graphics
the "natural" pathway from the neighborhood to Vernon Avenue (abutting the RR property) suggesting
that the City approach the RR to see if that path could be enhanced; the development team would also
work with the City, RR on this if appropriate.
Commissioners stated they share the frustration created by the sound wall; however, if the project was
approved the inclusion of the sidewalk should be a condition of approval.
Comments/Questions
Commissioners expressed the following:
• It was pointed out that house#5 may be wedged into the site too tightly, almost as an
afterthought, with limited vegetation and the potential for minimal natural light because of the
sound wall shadow. lonescu responded that house#5 is proposed at two stories to achieve more
natural light. He also added house #5 would be landscaped similar to house#4. Miller also
pointed out the impact of MNDOT property abutting the site and its impact to the project needs
to be considered. It was further suggested that#5 needs some massaging if it remains.
• Commissioners asked the price points of the proposed units. Miller responded that he believes
the units would be marketed between the 650— 850 thousand dollar range.
• The Commission complemented the development team on orienting the garages to the rear and
the introduction of peak roofs.
• It was suggested that the location of the individual "houses" be switched with the condominium
building. The houses better relate to the residential quality of the neighborhood, suggesting that
having the condominium building abut the RR tracks may make more sense. lonescu said that was
a possibility; however, he felt the housing layout as proposed was less disruptive to the site.
• It was expressed that the setbacks from West 49th Street are inadequate.
• It was expressed that the mix of housing types was intriguing; it was further suggested that the
exterior finishes be lightened.
• Commissioners expressed the opinion that while they understand the frustration created by the
sound wall that requiring site access to Vernon Avenue needs to be part of the approval package.
It was pointed out that this is a new development and should be considered as proposed. If
sometime in the future the City could work with the RR Company on an improved path that is
worth pursuing; however, for this project holding it up because of the sidewalk does not make
sense. The discussion continued on requiring the site to have access to Vernon Avenue if
approved; however, lines of communication should be kept open with the RR.
Page 8 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
Public Hearing
Vice-chair Nemerov opened the public hearing.
Claudette Verboski, 4821 Rutledge Avenue, addressed the Commission and explained the path along the
RR tracks is the neighborhoods secret path. She suggested that they have both, the secret path and access
from the new neighborhood. Verboski also noted that she really likes the development; however,
suggested that the units be more affordable.
Vice-chair Nemerov asked if anyone else would like to speak; being none Commissioner Strauss moved to
close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berube. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
Further commends
Planner Teague was asked if any units are proposed as affordable. Teague responded that the affordable
housing unit requirement is triggered by developments over 20-units. This proposal is less.
Commissioner Strauss commented that overall he likes the project; however, the connection to Vernon
Avenue needs to be made with this proposal.
Commissioner Lee said she wants the City do be sure they are comfortable with condition that site access
to Vernon Avenue was provided and how that would look. She agreed Vernon Avenue is a very busy
street; and a "door" in the sound wall would work; however, as mentioned in the report a break in the
panels would look better aesthetically and should be the way to go if so decided.
Vice-chair Nemerov said that in his opinion the project is attractive, adding he appreciates the reduction
in unit could from 27 to 17 however, expressed concern with the modest setback from 49th Street.
Commissioner Bennett said in his opinion the City needs to take this opportunity to provide the
connection to Vernon Avenue. He noted the neighborhood and the City could continue to work
together with the RR Company about the existing "secret path". He said he envisions that this
connection would need to be addressed with creativity. He pointed out if ADA standards or bike access
are to be met this would be a challenge for the developer.
Motion
Commissioner Hamilton moved to recommend that the City Council approve the request
for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Rezoning for 5109-5I 24 49th Street West based on
staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Strauss. Ayes; Lee, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennet, Berube. Nays; Hobbs and Nemerov Motion
carried 5-2.
Page 9 of 14
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:6/28/20 17
D. Conditional Use Permit. 6879 Washington Avenue, Edina, MN. Jesus Celebration
Center.
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Jesus Celebration Center is proposing to remodel a small
portion of the interior of the existing office/light industrial building at 6879 Washington Avenue South
into a church. The church would hold services Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. They have
80 members in their congregation including children. There would be classrooms for children
education within the building that would also take place primarily Sunday and Wednesday's. The
proposed sanctuary would seat 144 people maximum, which would provide an opportunity for the
congregation to grow in size. The required number of parking stalls for churches is one space per
three seats in the largest place of assembly. Additional spaces may be required for other uses that take
place at the same time. There are 102 parking stalls on the site today. There are no exterior
alterations proposed to the building or the site.
To accommodate the request, the following is requested:
Conditional Use Permit for the church. Churches are conditionally permitted uses in all
zoning districts.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Conditional Use
Permit for Jesus Celebration Center at 6879 Washington Avenue based on the following findings:
a. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing
or proposed improvements;
b. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property;
c. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare;
d. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in
the vicinity;
e. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is
located, as imposed by this chapter; and
f. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Final approval is also subject to the following Conditions:
1. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below:
• Site & building plans date stamped June 17, 2016.
• Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council
meeting.
Page 10 of 14
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
2. The property owner is responsible for replacing any existing landscaping that dies.
Appearing for Applicant
Laura Githinji, Jesus Celebration Center
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Githinji thanked the Commission for this opportunity and stood for questions.
Comments/Discussion
Commissioner Lee questioned access requirements to ensure codes and safety were met. Planner
Teague responded that at the building permit stage any changes to access would be reviewed to ensure
safety and that all revisions/improvements met building code.
Commissioner Hamilton asked the applicant to be aware that this is an area in transition, adding it is
possible they would be part of that change. Ms. Githinji said she was aware of that possibility adding the
church has entered into a 4-year lease.
Public Hearing
Vice-Chair Nemerov opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue.
A motion was made by Commissioner Strauss to close the public hearing. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Berube. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Commissioners expressed welcome to the new church and its members.
Motion
A motion was made to recommend that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit
for the Jesus Celebration Center based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Bennett. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Planner Teague reported that the Conditional Use Permit would be heard by the City Council on June 20,
2017.
Page 11 of 14
Draft Minutes0
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
VI. Community Comment
None.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. _Transfer of Property: 4416 Valley View Road & 5146 Eden Avenue, Edina, MN
Staff Presentation
Economic Development Manager Neuendorf addressed and explained that the City of Edina owns two
properties that are currently vacant and tax-exempt. In the future, it is desirable that these properties be
redeveloped and re-used in a manner that makes a positive contribution to their neighborhoods and City.
Neuendorf said at this time it is advantageous for the ownership of these properties to be transferred
from the City to the HRA. Minnesota Statute 462.356 requires that the Planning Commission render an
opinion regarding the compliance with the Comprehensive Plan if the ownership of the properties is
transferred from the City to the HRA.
In conclusion, Neuendorf stated staff finds no conflict with the transfer of ownership and recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 2017-02.
Discussion/Comments
A discussion ensued with Commissioners expressing confusion with the request to transfer ownership
from the City of Edina to the HRA for 4416 Valley View Road and 5146 Eden Avenue and that the
transfer of ownership does not conflict with any of the provisions of Edina's Comprehensive Plan when
the sites are vacant and no redevelopment proposals exist.
It was explained that although the parcels are vacant any future redevelopment would be required to go
before the Planning Commission and City Council to ensure its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and City Code. The request this evening is only for the transfer of ownership (City Council to HRA) and
that this transfer of ownership is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion
Commissioner Hobbs moved to recommend approval of Resolution 2017-02 finding no
conflict with the transfer of ownership of 5146 Eden Avenue and 4416 Valley View Road
from the City of Edina to the Edina HRA. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All
voted aye. The motion carried.
B. TIF Plan Market Street Project: Are the Plans in the TIF Agreement consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan
Page 12 of 14
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 6/28/2017
Staff Presentation
Economic Development Manager Neuendorf told the Commission the Edina Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) has recommended that the City of Edina consider a new Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
District for the 50th and France commercial area. Specifically, the Planning Commission is asked to
confirm that the proposed project anticipated in the TIF Plan is generally in compliance with Edina's
Comprehensive Plan.
Neuendorf concluded that staff recommends approval of Resolution 2017-01 finding that the plan for the
50th and France 2 Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District conform to the general plans for the
development and redevelopment of the City.
A brief discussion ensued.
Motion
Commissioner Berube moved to recommend approval of Resolution 2017-01 finding that
the modification to the redevelopment plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project
Area and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 50th and France 2 Redevelopment Tax
Increment Financing District conform to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the City. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Ayes; Hobbs,
Strauss Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Nemerov. Nay, Lee. Motion carried 6-I.
VIII.Correspondence And Petitions
Vice-Chair Nemerov acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. Chair And Member Comments
Commissioner Lee said she would like to establish a policy on how Small Area Plans are run and
documented. Lee said she wants to ensure that the process is transparent, that agendas are generated,
and meeting notes are taken. Continuing, Lee said she would also like to ensure that the small area
development plan team is comprised of residents, business owners, developers and if recognized a
member from the Neighborhood Association. Commissioners agreed that a Small Area Plan Process
Policy was a good idea.
Commissioner Bennett said as a Commission liaison to the 44th and France Small Area Plan team that it is
a challenge to understand the role of the Team vs. consultants. Bennett suggested the possibility of having
a Commission retreat.
Commissioner Hobbs reported that the Greater Southdale Area Plan would be folded in the updating of
the Comprehensive Plan as a "small area plan". He said the work group would be entering Phase 3.
Page 13 of 14
Draft Minutes0
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:6/28/2017
X. Staff Comments
Planner Teague reported that the "Estelle" (West 69th Street/France Ave) was heard by the City Council
at their last meeting. Council Members indicated that in their opinion the project was beautiful; however,
expressed discomfort with building height. Teague said the "ball" in now in the developer's court.
Xl. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Lee to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 11:00
p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion to adjourn carried.
Ja.ck4 e'1 c.ke4
Respectfully submitted
Page 14 of 14