Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 12-13 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 -- ;', Minutes ii( ,, City Of Edina, Minnesota , Planning Commission �,, Edina City Hall Council Chambers December 13, 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 Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Mittal and Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Bodeker Sr. Communications Coord. Eidsness, Staff, Hoogenakker III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the December 13, 2017, meeting agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the minutes of the November 29, 2017 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Rezoning Request. 6453 and 6451 McCauley Terrace, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Bodeker informed the Commission Ian and Lindsay Melander, are requesting a rezoning from R-2, Double-Dwelling Unit District to R-I, Single-Dwelling Unit District for 6453 and 6451 McCauley Terrace. The purpose of the rezoning is to build two new single-family homes. The applicants are the anticipated owners of the proposed single-family house at 6453 McCauley Terrace. Bodeker explained that the plans submitted include plans for the proposed single-family house at 6453 McCauley Terrace and preliminary general plans for future single-family house at 6451 McCauley Terrace. Page 1 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 Bodeker concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary and Final Rezoning from R-2, Two-Dwelling Unit District to R-I, Single-Dwelling Unit District. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Single-family homes would be consistent with other single-family homes on the McCauley Terrace cul-de-sac. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb-cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. c. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. The proposed plans shall meet all conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated December 7, 2017 d. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb-to-curb and from saw-cut to saw- cut. f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Appearing for the Applicant Ian and Lindsay Melander Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners had the following comments and questions: • Staff was asked why "down zoning" requires a rezoning process. Planner Teague explained that City Code requires it. Teague acknowledged that the majority of cities allow single-family homes as a permitted use in an R-2 District; Edina does not. • Staff was asked the reason these lots were zoned R-2 and not R-I. Teague responded he did not know why these lots were platted with the R-2 designation. Teague said it could have something to do with the lots proximity to the frontage road. • It was noted that the application only includes house plans for one of the lots not both. Bodeker explained at this time the applicant only wants to build their home on the north lot. Bodeker was asked if there were any concerns with setbacks. It was pointed out the lots are large and there Page 2 of 9 Draft Minutes0 Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 should be no reason new homes could not conform to setbacks. It was further noted that if a setback becomes an issue a variance could be requested. • It was observed that Code provides a mix of residential zoning classifications pointing out there may be a reason (worth considering) on why these lots were zoned R-2. Teague responded that there were multiple reasons for the R-2 zoning districts. He explained that in some areas R-2 was used as a buffer into R-I neighborhoods or in other areas in Edina double dwellings provided affordable housing; however, in this neighborhood the reason may be the frontage road. Teague reiterated he does not know the exact reason some of the lots on this cul-de-sac were zoned R-2. An opinion was shared that this request should have been handled administratively; language in a specific portion of the Code does allow R-I in R-2 districts. It was also suggested that the application fee should be returned to the applicant. Teague responded that his interpretation of the Code is clear;going through the rezoning process is required going from and r-2 to an R-1. Applicant Comments Lindsay and Ian Melander addressed the Commission and reported they would like to build their single family home on one of the lots. They said at this time they have no plans for the second lot; however, in the future a single family home could be built on it. The Melanders explained they have a purchase agreement with the property owners that if the rezoning were approved they would purchase the lots and build a new single family home on one lot. Dennis McCauley, Andover, MN informed the Commission his family owns the lots in question, adding the lots are part of their family estate. Continuing, McCauley reported all family members support this rezoning request. He pointed out that the curb and gutters are new and were designed by the City Engineering Department. McCauley was asked if the family had any offers to sell the lots as R-2. McCauley responded that he could not speak if his mother received offers (she maintained the estate); however, at this time the family has received this offer and have entered into a purchase agreement with the Melanders. McCauley said if he remembers correctly, when his family property was subdivided (years ago) Warren Hyde suggested that a number of their lots be zoned R-2, adding he was unsure of the reason. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Continued Discussion Commissioners expressed support for the rezoning as presented; however, there was a discussion on the merits of retaining the R-2 zoning classification. It was noted that this "down-zoning" reduces density; only two new homes can be built, not four. Page 3 of 9 Draft Minutes El Approved Minutes® Approved Date: I/1 0/20 18 The majority of Commissioners expressed the opinion that this rezoning makes sense. They further indicated they understood the concern expressed about the potential erosion of R-2 lots; however, they felt that the requested rezoning makes sense in this neighborhood, adding the property owners have buyers that want to build their home on one of these lots, adding that is positive for both the future and existing property owners. Motion Commissioner Nemerov moved to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning requested based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions with the additional condition that the rezoning application fee be refunded to the applicant. There was no second to the motion. Commissioners further discussed the current rezoning process and if the Code supports downzoning from R-2 to R-I without requiring an owner to go through the rezoning process with fee. Commissioners again expressed the opinion that any discussion on clarification of Code, application fee and the City policy on the retention of R-2 lots would need to be revisited at another time. Chair Olsen commented that while the Code may have some conflicts, it is clear that a single family home is not permitted in the R-2 zoning district without a rezoning. She asked Planner Teague to speak with City Attorney, Roger Knutson and have Knutson clarify for the Commission the Code language as it relates to rezoning from R-2 to R-I and the application fee. Teague agreed to do so. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved to recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning request based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VI. Community Comment There was no community comment. Commissioner Berube moved to close Community Comment. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review. Pentagon Park North Page 4 of 9 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes® Approved Date: I/10/2018 Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported the Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to develop 10.86 of the 27 acres in the Pentagon North Parcel located on 77th Street, south of Fred Richards Park. Teague said this phase would consist of the following: ➢ Two - five-story residential buildings, with underground parking. ➢ A 325-unit market rate all-age apartment building & a 225-unit continuum of care senior building. ➢ A Comprehensive Plan amendment to increase residential density from 30 to 60 units per acre. ➢ A Rezoning from MDD-6, to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ A new Overall Development Plan. Continuing, Teague explained that 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, density, and the appropriateness of the proposed development on this site, and should PUD zoning be utilized. The current zoning on the site requires a mixed-use development. The current Zoning is MDD-6; Mixed Development District requires 50% residential and 50% commercial uses. The proposal is for a traditional suburban residential housing development with enhanced pedestrian connections. There is no mixed use proposed on this site, however, if the south Pentagon Park parcel is considered, the overall development would be a mixture of uses consistent with the existing zoning for Pentagon Park. Concluding Teague offered the following comments: ➢ Add a trail connection from 77th to the Regional Trail on the far west lot line. ➢ Consider mixed use on the site. ➢ Water/Storm water could be used as a site amenity. ➢ Eliminate the surface parking in front of the senior living building and add green space similar to the front of the western building. ➢ Provide front door pedestrian access in front of the building toward 77th street for the apartment building. ➢ Options for access to the city park are good. The City may wish to require that the western entrance to the park be installed as part of this project. ➢ Affordable Housing. A definitive proposal for affordable housing must be included with a formal rezoning application. Without a firm committal that the affordable housing will be located at 4820 West 77`h Street (The Walsh Title property). Ten-twenty percent (I 0- 20%) of the units proposed in this development shall be for affordable housing. Appearing for the Applicant Joe McElwain, Chase Real Estate Page 5 of 9 Draft Minutes El Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 Comments/Questions/Discussion Commissioners raised the following: • Teague was asked why the redevelopment focus in this area (north of West 77th Street) was overwhelming in favor of housing. Teague explained that in the beginning that was not the case, adding the first Pentagon redevelopment thoughts did not contain housing; however, both the Planning Commission and City Council indicated that future redevelopment should include housing. Teague said at that time and still today, the City believes housing was a good fit north of West 776 Street, especially as it relates to the Fred Richards Park. • It was noted that affordable housing was not included in this redevelopment scenario. Teague agreed that was correct; this I 0-acre redevelopment proposal does not include an affordable housing component; however, the total build-out of the 28 + acre site must include an affordable component. Teague pointed out at this time they believe the Walsh Title building site would be earmarked for affordable housing. Teague clarified this proposal is limited to just parcels one and two. A master plan would need to be finalized that includes the entire 28 + acres before a formal application is made. • Teague was asked about parking. Teague said parking continues to be an issue; however, parking would be shared throughout the site to include binding agreements. Teague added he believes parking as proposed would be under parked, adding a Proof of Parking Agreement may need to be agreed upon and recorded. Teague said the long and short of it was that the site is short parked according to Code. Applicant Presentation Mr. McElwain addressed the Commission and explained that they are very happy to be before the Commission this evening with a redevelopment proposal for housing. McElwain said Chase Real Estate is very familiar with residential redevelopment, adding at this time they have completed a number of housing units within the metropolitan area. Continuing, McElwain noted their intent was to redevelop the 10 '/2-acre parcel through implementing the Six Guiding Principles. He added their goal is to create an upscale residential development that includes market rate and senior housing that takes full advantage of the Fred Richards Park. With graphics, McElwain highlighted the following: • 10.86 acre site • 5-story multi-family wood framed construction with subgrade precast parking garage • Exterior materials comprised of brick, metal panel, concrete and metal balconies. • Sidewalk connections. • 450 garage stalls with 350 surface parking stalls for residents, guests, staff and Fred Richards shared parking. • 325 market-rate apartment homes. • 225 senior continuum care suites. Page 6 of 9 Draft Minutes0 Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 • Varied amenities. • Green streets with courtyards and vibrant outdoor area. • Connection to the Fred Richards Park. • Integrated storm water management. • Pedestrian friendly 77th Street • Connecting west to east through contiguous connections to the properties and overall connections between the west and east parcels on the entire redevelopment. • Connect to the north. • Shared parking. • Extensive landscaping ties the project to the Fred Richards Park. • Traditional Design. • Two story entryways. • Green streets, integrated storm water management, pedestrian friendly throughout. Concluding, Mr. McElwain invited Commission comments. Comments/Questions/Discussion • Commissioners expressed some concern that this proposal was only one piece out of the entire 28-acre site. They said they had concerns with the redevelopment flow of 3, 4, 5 and 6. McElwain said they are very serious with the redevelopment of parcels I and 2, stressing that is their focus. It was pointed out that the market is unknown and to comment on the other parcels would be premature. • Commissioners asked McElwain if retail was considered. McElwain responded their intent is housing. He further stated that he believes that excellent retail is happening at Southdale and at the south site, which includes retail. • Commissioners suggested that the development "beef up" their access to the Fred Richards Park to include clearly marked park access both pedestrian and vehicle. McElwain said at this time they are working closely with the Parks and Rec Director, adding at this time no one knows where the main connection will be, adding the City is looking into the best place for these connections to happen. Continuing, McElwain said he believes there are two likely park connections with the goal to provide park access and shared parking. Concluding, McElwain stated everyone could use our property; however, at this point, no main connection was determined. • It was noted that I000-feet of street frontage could be considered extreme. McElwain was asked if they would consider 220 to 500 foot blocks between roads. • It was suggested that pulling the proposed buildings closer to the street would preserve land creating a more porous site. A good goal would be to bleed the site into the park. The Park is the great asset and connections to the park should be reconsidered. • Enhance and amplify space because it appears the mixed-use piece was missing. Commissioners noted that what needs to be accomplished is the concept of inviting others to the site; not only residents of the new apartments and senior buildings but the general public as well. • Consider adding a feature or design element that gestures to the street "to come this way". Mixed use may be the way to go, understand the constraints and keep in mind Page 7 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 the "come to and stay at concept". McElwain said he agrees the sites need to be inviting to the public; however, public amenities would be focused on the senior component; not the residential housing. • It was suggested that creating a grand space was needed in this location; it is a very important location. Create walkability, connectivity. • Consider the park first even from West 77th Street. Let visitors feel and see the park first. • Was office ever considered? • When formal application is made firm up the overall development plan. Pay special attention to affordable housing. That element needs to be included. • Consider adding another connection to the south; create a more pedestrian friendly feel. • Consider orienting courtyards to the park; work more with the park as an amenity. • Don't' have the park an afterthought. • Look at redesign. The concept presented feels too suburban consider creating more of a block nature by creating more of a city block feel, not so suburban. • Pay attention to not creating a soviet look and feel to the project. • Encourage flexibility in viewing what is an affordable unit. Not everyone needs or wants to live in apartment complexes. One of the original plans included townhouses. Think out of the housing box. • Add diversity of use, mixed use would work well. • Pentagon Park is an asset that is underdeveloped. Create something remarkable, something substantial. • Too much mass, again open up to the park. Do not bury the park. • Reconsider parking. • Commissioners expressed unease that this project will be done piece-meal. • Add more meandering pathways, mix it up, break it up, and highlight connections to park and to the south. Do not forget the amenity to the south. Chair Olsen thanked the applicant for his presentation. VIII.Correspondence And Petitions Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. Chair And Member Comments Commissioner Strauss reported that the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan Working Group held a community meeting on December 9th. Strauss said the meeting was well attended by interested residents. Strauss said this meeting was the first of three. Commissioner Berube updated the Commission on the progress of the 44th and France Small Area Plan Working Group. Berube said they are working on the final draft and will be doing edits to the draft. Page 8 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 1/10/2018 X. Staff Comments Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague if the City Council was receptive to the last Pentagon Park Sketch Plan review. Teague responded that in general the Council was positive. Teague reported that no amendments to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan would be accepted after June 30, 2018. The Commission asked Planner Teague to set up a session with Bill Neuendorf to discuss the status of future projects. Teague said he would speak with Neuendorf and set up a time for him to brief the Commission. Xl. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the December 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting at 9:40 pm. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. J a ckie oogewa kker Respectfully submitted Page 9 of 9