Loading...
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