HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 08-30 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:9/6/2017
Minutes
� :,, City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
' August 30 2017, 7:00 P.M.
I. Call To Order
Vice-Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll were: Commissioners Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube,
Acting Chair Nemerov Student Members,Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker, Sr.
Communications Coord., Eidsness, Support Staff, Hoogenakker
Absent from the roll: Olsen and Kivimaki
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the August 30 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 August 16,
2017, Planning Commission meeting, The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss.
Commissioner Lee requested changes to the minutes. All voted aye. The motion carried.
V. Public Hearings
A. Variance. 4505 Nancy Lane, Edina, MN. Setback Variance from Pond
Staff Presentation
Planner Aaker reported that the subject property is located on the south side of Nancy Lane cul-de-sac consisting
of a two story home with an attached two car garage. The property backs up to a ponding area. The property was
converted in 2015 from a rambler to a two story home. The property is nonconforming regarding setback and
required variances to convert the existing rambler into a two story home, The footprint of the home is larger than
the buildable area given the required setbacks for the property. The most impinging setback on the property is the
50-foot setback required form the water body. The water body setback is within the footprint area,
Page 1 of 9
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:9/6/2017
so no improvements into the rear yard can be accomplished without a variance.
The homeowner would like to construct a deck from of the main floor of the home with stairs down to access
the rear yard. The deck will be 281 square feet and will be located behind the garage, which is the farthest part
of the home from the pond area. Given the maximum allowable lot coverage requirements, some of the existing
patio area will be remove in order to accomplish the proposed deck. The homeowner had originally submitted
plans for a larger deck however; it was scaled back given the maximum coverage limits. The property will be
at the maximum allowable lot coverage with the proposed deck. No additional improvements may be accomplishes
On-site given coverage requirements.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance based on the following findings:
I. The proposed location of the deck is reasonable given the limitations of the site. It would be located
farther from the pond than the existing home.
2. The property received variances in 2015 to convert a rambler into a two-story home given the
setbacks required and existing nonconforming conditions. Conditions and setbacks remain the same
with no opportunity to add anything into the rear yard, (where typically a home owner would expect
to be able to add onto a property).
3. The practical difficulty for the property is restrictive setbacks and nonconforming nature of the
structure.
4. The proposed deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed deck
expansion will be above grade and will maintain a greater setback from the pond than the back corner
of the house.
Approval shall also be subject to the following conditions: Plans and survey dated stamped: August I, 2017.
Appearing for the Applicant
Mark Seaberg, applicant and property owner.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Seaberg addressed the Commission and explained their intent was to construct a deck with stairs to
access the rear yard from the house.
Comments/Questions
Planner Aaker was asked when staff reviews plans does staff differentiate between a deck and addition.
Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. She noted a deck is not a solid structure and is usually
constructed on posts, allowing flow. She added building solid living space off the rear of the home would
raise different concerns.
Page 2 of 9
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 9/6/2017
It was noted that the property received a variance to construct the new house and at that time plans
indicated a window not a door on the rear elevation. Changing the window to a door created the need
for a variance allowing access to the rear yard. Planner Aaker agreed that the original plans did indicate a
window not door.
Chair Aaker was asked if a deck requires a storm water management plan. It was pointed out that
erosion could be an issue. Planner Aaker responded that the deck did not necessitate a storm water
management plan; however, that is something that could be discussed in the future. Commissioners
agreed that protecting waterbodies and structures located close to waterbodies is important.
A discussion ensued with the majority of Commissioners agreeing that the variance request was
reasonable and that they could support it. It was acknowledged that the applicant was aware of the
restraints for this lot due to the water; however, it was pointed out the majority of homes on this pond
have decks and are non-conforming.
Public Hearing
David Melander 4443 Garrison Lane, addressed the Commission stating his support for the variance and
the fact that many homes along this waterbody are non-conforming and have decks. He said in his opinion
there should be no problem with approving this deck.
Vice-chair Nemerov asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue. Being none; 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.
Motion
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the variance as submitted based
on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Strauss. Ayes, Hobbs, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Nemerov. Nays, Lee, Thorsen.
The motion carried.
B. Variance. 7710 March Court, Edina, MN - Withdrew
VI. Community Comment
Vice-Chair Nemerov asked if anyone would like to speak during public comment. No one spoke.
Commissioner Thorsen moved to close Community Comment. Commissioner Strauss
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Community Comment closed.
Page 3 of 9
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 9/6/2017
VII. Reports/Recommendations
Acting-chair Nemerov explained that the Sketch Plan process provides an applicant a venue to receive
nonbinding comments from the Commission and City Council. Nemerov stated this is not a public
hearing; however, if an applicant proceeds with a formal application public comments will be taken.
A. Sketch Plan Review— Shake Shack (NW Corner Southdale Center)
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan
proposal to develop the southeast corner of France Avenue & 66th Street, at Southdale. This is
the last of the four corners of the Southdale site to be developed. The site is currently a paved
overflow parking for the mall and Macy's.
Simon Properties is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot Shake Shack stand-alone
restaurant. No drive-through is proposed. The store would have a pedestrian entrance off
France Avenue, and from the parking lot facing east.
Teague added that the site is zoned PCD-3, Planned Commercial District. The proposed use is
permitted on the site. The applicant would only be requesting a site plan review with a parking
stall variance. These variances have been standard practice for development on the Southdale
site over the past 15 years. The City does not have a lot of discretion when reviewing this
project as it is a permitted use. The applicant is still however, requesting Sketch Plan feedback
on their plans prior to submittal of a formal application.
Teague concluded that a traffic study would be required to determine the impacts on adjacent
roadways. The study should include an analysis of intersections, the ring road and access to the
site.
Appearing for the Applicant
Clif Poynter with Simon Properties
Discussion/Comments
Commissioners provided the following comments on the Shake Shack Sketch Plan.
• Planner Teague was asked if the signage for the proposed restaurant meets code. Planner Teague
responded that signage has not been reviewed; however, all signage would be required to meet
ordinance requirements.
• Teague was asked who was responsible for the sidewalks and access. Teague responded he
believes the developer is responsible for the sidewalks.
Page 4 of 9
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:9/6/2017
• Commissioners asked Planner Teague to explain parking for the Shake Shack and the reason a
variance is needed. Teague explained that parking is based on the entire Southdale campus, not
the individual site. Teague noted that at present Southdale is considered "under parked" thereby
any new construction would require a parking variance. Teague further noted that building the
restaurant also removes parking spaces.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Poynter addressed the Commission and reported that Simon is happy and excited about Shake Shack
joining our campus. Poynter said Southdale Center is pleased with the continued redevelopment of its
corners. Continuing, Poynter explained the current development plan includes the new 5,000 + square
foot Shake Shack restaurant, reconstruction of the surface parking lot, new sidewalk connections from the
public right of way to the mall and reconfiguration of nearby intersections along with the mall ring road.
Poynter said they believe the architecture of the proposed restaurant and the outdoor space is vibrant
and interesting, including large windows in the restaurant to engage the public. Poynter told the
Commission they are very open to increasing the landscaping and with regard to parking they are very
comfortable with the parking provided on the site. Concluding, Poynter said Simon also believes this
redevelopment addresses the objectives and vision of the Southdale Area District and benefits the
residents and visitors to the City of Edina.
Graphics of the project were shared with the Commission.
Discussion/Comments
Commissioners raised the following:
• A question was raised on the redevelopment of this corner pointing out the redevelopment is less
dense than previous corner redevelopments. Poynter responded Southdale Center has a vision
for their campus, adding they believe this is the highest and best use for this site. Poynter further
explained that this corner is subject to visual restraints, reiterating they believe the use as
proposed is good.
• It was suggested that more green space should be added to the site. Poynter reiterated they are
agreeable to adding more landscaping; however, they are also trying to engage the corner and
create a gathering space. He also noted that the elevation also presents some challenges.
A discussion ensued with some Commissioners questioning if the proposed use was the highest and best
use for this site. Commissioners expressed surprise at the "view permission" stipulation in some of the
anchor tenant leases. Commissioners indicated their belief that this corner is very valuable and high profile
and while they understand Simon supports this plan it may not be the best use of the site. An opinion was
also expressed that the corners do not relate well and the color pallet was not pleasing. Concluding,
Commissioners said if this proceeds to formal application careful study needs to occur to ensure
pedestrian safety and that the redevelopment does not negatively affect ring road circulation.
Commissioners also expressed the opinion that parking probably would not be a problem.
Page 5 of 9
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 9/6/2017
Vice-chair Nemerov thanked the applicants for their time.
B. Sketch Plan Review. Crossroads (7200 & 7250 France Avenue)
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan
proposal to re-develop 5.2 acres of land west of France between 72nd Street West and
Gallagher Drive. As proposed, at full build out, the site would include:
266-334 new housing units (51-64 units per acre); 3-6 stories at 7200 France and 14
stories at 7250 France. Phase I = 121-164 units (rental apartments); Phase 2= 145-170
units (owner occupied condominiums or rental apartments.)
A bike and pedestrian trail is proposed through the site including a launch/landing pad
for a bike/pedestrian connection over France Avenue. The applicant does NOT propose
to build the bridge over France. This could be a part of the Three Rivers Park Regional
Trail. The plans have been sent to Three Rivers Park for comment. The District has
found that the plans would not meet their specifications for the Regional Trail.
The applicant is proposing to comply with the City's Affordable Housing Policy including
providing 20% of the total units within the project. (Up to 67 units.)
Teague explained that to accommodate the request the following is required:
➢ Comprehensive Plan Amendments to increase the height maximum from four stories
and 48 feet to 14 stories and 180 feet; and increase the density in the OR, Office
Residential District from 30 units per acre to 64 units per acre; and increase in FAR
from 1.5 to 1.6; and
A Rezoning from POD-I, to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
Teague concluded as with all sketch plan reviews; the Planning Commission is asked to provide
non-binding comments and direction on a potential future development request. Areas of
focus should be on the proposed land use, the appropriateness of the proposed development
on this site, with a focus on the proposed density and building height.
Appearing for the Applicant
Dean Dovolis, DJR Architects and Jamie Stolpestad
Discussion/Comments
Commissioners raised the following:
Page 6 of 9
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutest
Approved Date:9/6/2017
• Planner Teague was asked the perimeters of the POD-I Zoning District. Teague responded that
POD-1 is primarily office use with limited retail.
• Teague was asked if the "crossover" was part of the project. Teague told the Commission the
"crossover" was not part of the project.
• Teague was asked if all parking was accommodated underground. Teague responded that for the
most part parking would be underground.
• Teague was asked how this proposal ties in with the timing of the Greater Southdale Small Area
Plan. Teague said he believes a contract for a consultant for the plan is being negotiated and
should be completed in September. Teague was asked if the west side of France Avenue was
included in the Southdale Small Area Plan. Teague responded in the affirmative.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Stolpestad addressed the Commission and explained the subject site is a complicated site; however,
the timing is right to present to the community a different option in living that provides a different quality
of life. He added this development would tie into the regional bike trails and is perfect for commuters,
pedestrians and bike enthusiasts. Stolpestad introduced Dean Dovolis to speak to elements of the
project.
Dean Dovolis explained this project was designed keeping in mind the France Avenue Working Principles
and Supporting Questions. With graphics, Dovolis highlighted aspects of the project as follows:
• The Subject Site(s) is a two-site parcel on the west side of France Avenue at Gallagher Drive that
will be broken up into smaller areas.
• 7200 France is 3.51 acres and is proposed to be redevelopment into a 3 to 6 story, 121 to 161
housing units. A two level wellness center is also proposed.
• 7250 France Avenue is 1.68 acres and the proposed redevelopment include a 14-story building
with residential over retail. The residential component is approximately 140-170 units plus retail.
• A key feature of the project is a bike/pedestrian bridge over France Avenue connecting the subject
site to the East of France. This feature provides the missing link to complete the
Nine Mile Creek Bike trail.
Mt. Dovolis introduced Mr. Aaron Johnson, project manager to speak to the Commission.
Johnson addressed the Commission and explained the importance of this project provides the
homeowners with the opportunity to participate in active forms of transportation. Johnson delivered a
power point presentation.
Discussion/comments
• Staff and/or developer was asked the cost of the proposed bridge over France Avenue and who
would pay for it. Dovolis responded that the cost would depend on the style and architecture of
the bridge. He said he believes a "plain" bridge could cost roughly 2-million dollars; a "designed"
Page 7 of 9
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:9/6/2017
bridge would cost around 3-million. Dovolis added they envision the bridge as both pedestrian
and bike, adding who pays for the bridge is under discussion.
• It was suggested that for the 7200 building that attention should be paid to access to grade and to
better articulate the building mass to lessen the scale.
• Commissioners expressed their approval that the project reflects a commitment to sustainability.
It was suggested that the applicant be dramatic in their approach to sustainability. Dovolis told
Commissioners sustainability is important and they will make a conscious effort to bring it to the
forefront. Dovolis added they are also doing soil studies and believe if it is sand, that they can
purify their own water.
• It was suggested more green space needs to be added throughout the site. Consider green roofs.
Activate the sidewalks and work on making the internal site more attractive.
• Make sure that the scale of the project is right and enhances the quality of the site.
• With regard to building height placing the height on France Avenue is best; however look at
building mass and finding ways to provide open glimpses throughout the site. Tree placement will
be critical to ensure visibility throughout the side.
• Commissioners stressed that the hardest piece of this project is building height. Look at unique
architecture to offset height.
• Commissioners also pointed out how important neighborhood outreach is and every effort should
be made to keep the neighborhood informed. Dovolis responded that they would continue
holding neighborhood meetings.
• Look at the site from the residents view (Bristol neighborhood) and get that right, again it is
important that the site appears open, less dense, reduce massing.
• Provide shadow studies.
• It was suggested that if a formal application is made they provide a "walk through" or "fly-over"
element in the presentation.
• The development team was asked to explain what the "wellness center" is comprised of. In
response, the team explained that they envision the "wellness center" to be an area that focuses
on individual health and well-being. It would not be a fitness center. It is envisioned that a spa
would be included in this area and physician offices (eye, etc.).
• Commissioners stated they were encouraged by the affordability component.
The discussion continued with Commissioners agreeing that the proposal is interesting; however, without
more defined plans it is difficult to form a complete opinion. Commissioners agreed that the location
chosen for the tallest building was best. A traffic study also needs to be completed before a decision is
made. Commissioners reiterated the importance of green space on the site, walkability of the site and
massing. The Commission also said at the time of formal application the development team should know
more about the bridge and the sites connection to bike and walking trails. Concluding, Commissioners
stressed the issue of building height.
Vice-chair Nemerov thanked the applicants for their presentation.
VIII. Correspondence and Petitions
Page 8 of 9
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 9/6/2017
Vice-Chair Nemerov acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. Chair and Member Comments
None.
X. Staff Comments
Planner Teague reported that study for the "Lid" continues, adding there will be meetings in early
September on the "Lid".
Xl. Adjournment
Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:50
p.m. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Jaclzt,e H-oogevolzlzzer
Respectfully submitted
•
Page 9 of 9