Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 05-09 Planning Commission Minutes/ Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers May 9, 2018 Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Mittal, Jones, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, City Planner, Kris Aaker and Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planners, Kaylin Eidsness, Communications Coord, Jackie Hoogenakker, Support Staff Absent from the roll: Todd Thorsen Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Miranda moved to approve the May 9, 2018, Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the April 25, 2018, meeting minutes. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Commissioners Lee and Berube offered a change to the April 25th meeting minutes. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Public Hearings A. Variance. 6612 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN. New home construction. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the applicant is requesting to rebuild a home in the same location as the existing home and not construct a basement given the Flood Plain elevation of 863.6 at 6612 Cornelia Drive. This property is located in the Cornelia Neighborhood backs up to Lake Cornelia with a portion of the property located within the floodplain. The existing home is nonconforming and is within the minimum 75-foot setback from Lake Cornelia. The property is also bisected by the 100 year/1% chance per year Flood. The City of Edina’s Engineering standards require the basement elevation of the new home to be 2 feet higher than the FEMA base flood elevation. The requirement for increased height in basement elevation impacts the ability for the project to conform to the basement requirement or the maximum first floor height requirement of 1 foot. Instead of elevating the basement and asking for a 1st floor height variance, the homeowner is proposing to ask for a variance from the basement requirement for single dwelling units. Aaker explained that the property is located south Cornelia Drive and backs up to Lake Cornelia. The existing rambler on the property was built in 1955 prior to the FEMA floodplain study conducted in 1979 to determine flood risk areas. The lowest level of the home is at 862.2, which is approximately 3.4 feet lower than the minimum flood protection elevation of 865.6. The existing basement is lower than the minimum required by ordinance so the homeowner is proposing a crawl space and no basement. It is a City and Watershed District goal to elevate and remove homes out of the flood hazard areas when the opportunity presents itself. The new first floor will be at the same elevation as the existing first floor. This can be accomplished given that there will be no basement; only crawl space below the first floor. The home backs up to Lake Cornelia and is nonconforming regarding existing setback from the lake. The current ordinance requires a minimum 75-foot setback from Lake Cornelia. The existing home provides a setback to the lake of approximately 53 feet. The proposed new home will match the nonconforming setback of the existing home. Conforming to the required 75-foot setback from Lake Cornelia and the minimum front yard setback of 34.15 feet allows for an impractical building depth of 21 feet, rendering the lot unbuildable. The property owner is hoping to maintain the existing nonconforming Lake setback of the current home. Aaker noted that the variance is requested to allow no basement and maintain the existing nonconforming Lake setback. The current home located at 6612 Cornelia Drive has a basement elevation of 862.2 feet above sea level. The established floodplain elevation is 863.6. The minimum basement elevation must be no less than 2 feet above the flood elevation so the minimum basement elevation for the property is at 865.5 feet. The proposal is to forgo a basement. Generally, property owners contending with nonconforming basement elevations request a 1st floor height variance. The City Code has specific language in place to allow, (in appropriate circumstances), variances from the 1st floor height requirement when dealing with the flood zone and nonconforming basements. In this instance the owner would like to comply with the 1st floor height requirement, however, cannot do that without eliminating the basement. Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: Survey date stamped April 19, 2018. Building plans and elevations date stamped April 19, 2018. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo dated May 2, 2018. Appearing for the Applicant Ron Rasley, property owner. Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Aaker was asked if she knows why the City requires basements. Aaker explained the City has always had this requirement, adding she is unsure of the exact reason. Continuing, Aaker noted basements are typical in Minnesota; reasons could be the weather, safety, addition space, etc. It was noted that the requirement of limiting monies spend on a non-conforming property in the flood plain was an interesting requirement. Aaker explained that FEMA encourages minimal disruption and enhancement for properties located in the flood plain. She pointed out if properties continue to build and expand in the flood plain and if flooding continues to be an issue insurance payout and rates continue to increase. Whenever possible FEMA would like properties brought out of the flood plain; however, it was understood that many properties are already located in a flood areas. A brief discussion ensued on the topic of the City requiring basements. It was noted that in certain instances that is unrealistic. It was suggested that requiring basements be added as a discussion topic on the Planning Commission’s Work Plan. Applicant Presentation Mr. Rasley addressed the Commission and explained he has lived in Edina for a number of years and when a house came available on Lake Cornelia, he decided to move. He stated it was very important for him to stay in and invest in Edina. Rasley told the Commission they removed scrub trees from the lot and have a landscaping plan. He said there would be no change in drainage. Concluding, Rasley said he was happy to be able to stay in Edina and be a good neighbor. Mr. Rasley was asked if he had heard from any of the immediate neighbors. Rasley responded that they hosted a neighborhood open house and shared their house plans. He said his wife also had phone conversations with neighbors. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. Mark Peterson, MA Peterson told the Commission he was the lead designer for the project. He said they did draft plans with a basement area; however, because of the requirements the house looked very awkward. Peterson said he believes what was agreed on best fits the site and neighborhood. Peterson thanked the Commission. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners were in agreement that the house and plans presented were beautiful and fit the scale of the neighborhood very well. The site was not overbuilt. Motion Commissioner Nemerov moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Variance. 6540 Navaho Trail, Edina, MN. Addition to home. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the applicant is proposing to remodel the existing first floor, add a second floor addition on top of the existing 1st floor of the home, and add a porch to the rear of the home. The existing structure does not meet the required front yard setback of 36.2 feet. The existing 26.4-foot front yard setback is non-conforming. The proposed second floor will match the existing setback but requires a variance given the nonconforming 1st floor. Planner Aaker explained that the existing 27,759 square foot lot is located on the east side of Navaho Trail within the Indian Hills neighborhood. The existing first floor of the house will remain and be remodeled. The new proposed second floor will match the exterior walls of the existing first floor. The existing side yard setback on the south side of the property is 10.2 feet with over 100 feet towards the north side yard. The existing setback on the west side of the house along Navaho Trail is 26.4 feet. The required front yard setback is determined by the front yard setback of the adjacent neighbor. The neighbor to the south provides a front yard setback of 36.2 feet, which is the required front yard setback of the subject home. The subject home has always been forward of the home to the south. The setback of the subject house to the front lot line is currently non-conforming. The proposed project is adding above the existing 1st floor, which is considered adding to the non-conforming setback, so therefore needs a variance. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of a 9.8-foot front yard setback variance for the north property line at 6540 Navaho Trail. as requested subject to the findings, and subject to the following conditions: Survey date stamped, April 10, 2018 Elevations and building plans date stamped April 10, 2018 Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo. Appearing for the Applicant Matthew and Kate Woelffer, Property Owners Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners expressed the following: Planner Aaker was asked if the setback for this house was established by one house. Aaker responded in the affirmative. She said the code was written for grid lots and in large lot areas because of the topography and lot size houses front setback varies. Planner Aaker was asked the maximum roof height. Aaker responded that the subject lot is large allowing roof height up to 40-feet. The new house is proposed at 35-feet. Applicant Presentation Kate Woelffer addressed the Commission and explained they are excited to live in Indian Hills and waited until they found the right house. Woelffer stated their intent was to upgrade the existing house to be more in keeping with the rest of the houses in this neighborhood. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions A discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that remodeling the house vs. a tear down rebuilt was a good option. Motion Commissioner Berube moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. All voted aye. The motion carried. C. Variance. 6005 Porter Lane, Edina, MN. Addition. Staff Presentation Planner Bodeker informed the Commission that Dan Wallace, the applicant on behalf of the property owner, has submitted a variance request to exceed the 25% building coverage requirement for residential lots over 9,000 square feet. An existing rear yard accessory structure was removed in November of 2016. The applicant is requesting to reinstall an accessory structure in the rear yard and reduce the size of an existing patio. The proposed project, even with the reduction of the patio, is still over the maximum building coverage allowed by code. The proposed building coverage is 29.4% of the lot area. The building coverage calculations include the house, patio (after the first 150 square feet), and the proposed sauna/shed. It does not include the driveway, sidewalk, special pool, and required pool decking. Planner Bodeker concluded that staff recommends denial of the variance to exceed the 25% building coverage requirement at 6005 Porter Lane. She explained that It is difficult for staff to support or recommend approval of a variance from the code to exceed the building coverage requirement. Staff does not believe there are unique circumstances to the subject property. Staff’s recommendation for denial of the requested variance is based on the following findings: Historically staff has not recommended approval of lot coverage variances based on all lot coverage requirements being calculated the same on all single-family residential lots. Variances must be based on the unique characteristics of a lot and not on an owner’s use of the property. Approving the variance sets a precedent that could negatively affect surrounding properties and neighborhoods with stormwater concerns. Appearing for the Applicant Don Wallace, architect. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners expressed the following: Commissioners observed that the lot was already over on lot coverage pointing out that there is no way to add to the house without requiring a variance. Bodeker agreed. Continuing, Commissioners also stated if the hard cover concern is storm water run-off a rain garden could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission recommends approval of the variance request. Staff was asked if the City had ever considered a similar variance. Planner Teague responded that a lot coverage variance was requested and approved for a property on Stewart. Conditions of approval included reducing existing decking area and construction of a rain garden. A discussion ensued on Edina’s lot coverage requirement and what is and what is not included in lot coverage. It was noted by Commissioners that the City does not differentiate between pervious and impervious surfaces, adding that is something the City should discuss and add it to the Commission Work Plan. Applicant Presentation Mr. Wallace addressed the Commission and explained the property was already over on lot coverage, adding any additions to the property would require a variance. Wallace said modifications would be made to the property to minimize lot coverage. Wallace noted that with the introduction of the special purpose therapy pool and sauna/storage structure lot coverage would be less than what exists today. Continuing, Wallace stated the property owner requires the heated therapy pool and sauna to continue his ongoing physical therapy. Wallace noted a storm water management plan was developed, adding the entire house would be remodeled including the façade with gutters and downspouts added to ensure proper drainage. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. A discussion ensued on the options available to the property owner to achieve the pool and sauna needed for the property owners’ physical therapy. It was noted that what they are trying to achieve does not increase lot coverage and adding a special purpose pool seems reasonable, reiterating that the lot coverage is actually reduced with this proposal. There was a discussion on if granting this variance would create a precedent. A pool and sauna could be considered unnecessary; and there is nothing unique about the subject lot. The discussion further continued on lot coverage, what is and what is not counted and if there should be a consideration for pervious materials. Commissioners asked staff to add a discussion on lot coverage to the Commission Work Plan. Continuing, it was pointed out that every variance should be considered on its own merits; there may be no other similar properties over on lot coverage with the property owner requiring therapy pool. Planning Staff agreed and added Edina does not require a permit for a patio or a “shed” under 200-square feet, adding the City is unsure on “what is out there”. When a plan is presented indicating all surfaces lot coverage can be calculated. There is a 150-squre foot one-time credit for a deck or patio, reiterating a permit is not required for patio. Motion Commissioner Hamilton moved variance approval noting the nonconformity is created by the existing structure and the plan as presented actually reduces lot coverage. Approval is also conditioned on implementing the storm water management plan as presented. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Ayes; Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Olsen. Nay, Miranda, Lee, Strauss. Motion carried 5-3. D. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for Pentagon Park North. (4820, 4510-4660 77th Street West and 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Teague reported that Pentagon Revival LLC is requesting an all-housing redevelopment of the Pentagon Park parcels located north of 77th Street. All parcels combined the site is 28.91 acres in size. A Preliminary Rezoning to PUD with a draft Overall Development Plan was approved for these parcels for an office development in 2014, however, no Final Rezoning was sought and no Final Development Plan was approved. Teague noted that the use and overall development plan proposed for the north parcel (residential) is very different than the uses and development plan proposed in 2014 (office). At that time, however, the Planning Commission and City Council both expressed a desire to develop this site with some residential uses to create a mixed-use development. Residential uses are permitted under the current MDD-6 zoning designation. The approved preliminary plan contemplated four stories adjacent to Fred Richards Park, and five stories on 77th Street. The Comprehensive Plan allows up to 12 stories; while the current Zoning Ordinance maximum is four stories. At full development build out, the project would include 1,500 new housing units. The overall density would be 52 units per acre. The first phase of the project is proposed by Chase Real Estate Group to develop a 10.86-acre portion of the site (4600-4660 77th Street west), with a 360-unit market rate apartment and a 225-unit senior apartment (585 total units). As proposed, the development would require the following: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the density from 30 to 80 units per acre. (This amendment is currently under consideration by the City Council as part of the 7250 France Avenue project and will be acted on May 15th); and Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD-16, Planned Unit Development. Teague explained that the applicant for the first phase does not intend to provide any affordable housing within the project. Pentagon Revival is proposing to dedicate the 4820 site for a 100-unit affordable housing project. However, there is not a development partner that has been signed to construct that housing at this time. The Southdale Area Development Principles were shared with the applicant. The applicant has responded. The City’s consultant for the Greater Southdale Area Plan, Mic Johnson has also reviewed the plans and provided feedback. . The applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council and based on feedback from the Planning Commission, the City Council, the applicant has: Removed two surface lots, including one on 77th Street; Decreased private parking from 310 to 207 surface stalls; Increased the shared Park Parking from 40 to 93 stalls; Increased the underground parking from 442 to 558 stalls; Increase courtyard size, opened up more landscape view, broke up the mass of the buildings; Market-rate plaza entry and corner off West 77th and lobby + common spaces to spill out on for more glass store-front architecture and active corner; Increased green space along 77th and brought the buildings closer to 77th; Added a 3rd public connection to the Park and Nine Mile Creek Trail along the west lot line Added a community dog park; Added a community garden, park benches and public artwork; Improved the architecture with 5th floor setbacks and terraces. Variations in balcony setback and styles. Added a 5th floor clubroom and outdoor terrace over-looking the park. More contemporary design with glass corners; Dedicated land for the Park, including a new driveway connection to the Park including landscaped boulevards, area monument sign, in/out drive lines, parallel parking, 10 foot bike pedestrian trail and perimeter boulevards; and Chase will be building the Park Access road and dedicate the right-of-way to the City in the Phase 1 improvements. Planner Teague noted to accommodate the request; the following Comprehensive Plan amendment is requested: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the density in the OR, Office Residential District from 30 units per acre to 80 units per acre. The Office Residential area is located west of France Avenue and into the Pentagon Park Area. Teague explained that the OR, Office Residential Area guides up to 30 units per acre. This density is low given the density that has been considered as part of the Greater Southdale Area Study. Densities that have been contemplated to date have been 80 units per acre over the whole of the district. The thinking behind that density has been to allow greater densities in between France and York (100-125 units per acre; the CAC, Community Activity Center allows up to 105 units per acre in the existing Comprehensive Plan); and lesser densities 50-80 units per acre west of France and East of York. The City has allowed greater densities on the east side of York (Envi Edina is 105 units per acre; and the Onyx is 52 units per acre. On the west side of France, the Aurora on France project (senior housing) is 80 units per acre. Teague stated he would provide findings to support both approval and denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the density in the OR, Office Residential District in the Greater Southdale Area from 30 units per acre to 80 units per acre; and If the Commissioner recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment , approval is based upon the following findings: Higher Densities are generally located on arterial roadways. The OR district is generally located on France Avenue, which connects to both Crosstown 62 and I-494, and 77th street which connects over to Highway 100. Both 77th and France are arterial roadways. The density is consistent with the AUAR densities contemplated for this area. The densities that have been contemplated as part of the Greater Southdale Area Study have been 80-90 units per acre over the whole of the district. Higher Density is contemplated in between France Avenue and York Avenue (100-150 units per acre…the existing CAC area allows up to 105 units per acre); and lesser densities 50-80 units per acre west of France and East of York. The City has allowed greater densities on the east side of York (Envi Edina is 105 units per acre; and the Onyx is 52 units per acre. On the west side of France, the Aurora on France project (senior housing) is 80 units per acre. Density proposed is similar or less than density for mixed-use areas for surrounding communities including Minnetonka, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, and St. Louis Park. Allowing higher densities allows the City greater opportunity to provide affordable housing units. If the Commission recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, denial would be based on the following: 1. The area west of France and south of the Fred Richard Park is considered a transition area between the high-density commercial development on the east side of France and South of 77th Street and the single-family homes to the west and north. 2. The density proposed is too high for this area. Continuing, Teague further informed the Commission he drafted language to support or to deny the rezoning request. If the Commission recommends Rezoning approval the approval should be subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone and glass. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. Addresses the Development Principles established in the Greater Southdale Area Planning Framework Vision. The following principles are included: Improved pedestrian connections to move people through and around the site and connect to the Regional Trail and Fred Richards Park to the north. Provides the potential for additional public space along the north lot line in conjunction with Fred Richards Park; Opportunity to provide increased stormwater and ponding features in connection to Fred Richards Park; High quality building design; and The potential for significant affordable housing in a future phase of development. 5. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Movement Patterns. Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. Improving the auto-oriented design pattern discussed above under “Issues” will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. b. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. c. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the City, and the larger region. d. Increase mixed-use development overall in Pentagon Park where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. e. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. f. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets creating pedestrian scale. g. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto-oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. h. Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. 6. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. WSB conducted a traffic and parking impact study, and concluded that the existing roads could support the proposed development and proposed parking, subject to conditions. 7. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. The PUD zoning would: a. Create a more pedestrian-friendly development with the construction of improved sidewalks and connections to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail and Fred Richard Park. The project would bring more vibrancy to the area. b. The building would be of high quality brick architectural metal, stone, and glass. c. Ensure that the buildings proposed would be the only buildings built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. d. Project could significantly add to the City’s affordable housing stock in the future. e. Provide for a more creative site design, consistent with goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. f. Enhance green space and landscaping and utilize sustainable concepts. 8. The proposed uses would be a significant upgrade to the current buildings on the site. Rezoning approval would also be subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated April 10, 2018, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of any building permit. 3. Work with the City to expand the public space north of the parking area into the Fred Richards Park including expansion of the dog park area, pedestrian connection and stormwater retention. 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 5. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 6. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 7. A Developer’s Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 8. A letter of credit, cash escrow or bond in the amount of $5.85 million be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure that affordable housing occurs within the development prior to issuance of a building permit. These monies would be given back to the property owner upon delivering the affordable housing units within the development that would meet the City’s affordable housing policy. If the property owner does not deliver the affordable units within 3 years, the City would cash in the money to be used elsewhere in the City to deliver affordable housing. 9. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the sustainability coordinator’s memo dated May 2, 2018. 10. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated May 3, 2018. 11. Per the Master Development Agreement, dated May 20, 2014, reconstruction of 77th Street is required with the construction of 100,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant/landowner is responsible for roadway improvements to 77th Street. Final plans would be subject to the recommendations in the WSB traffic study and approval of the city engineer. 12. Compliance with the WSB Traffic & Parking Study recommendations. 13. All crosswalks shall be marked with ground-in premark preformed thermoplastic in a standard or “continental” pattern per Edina Standard Plate No. 716 to clearly identify the pedestrian crossings. 14. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD-16, Planned Unit Development for this site. 15. Dedication of public access easements along the entrance to Fred Richards Park and the drive aisle and parking stalls along the north lot line subject to review and approval of the city attorney. The easement shall provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the Park. 16. Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding density. If the Commission recommends Rezoning denial, denial is based on the following: Teague stated staff recommends that the City Council deny the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD-16, Planned Unit Development District, including an Overall Development Plan and Preliminary Development Plan for Phase 1, subject to the following findings: The proposal does not adequately address the guiding principles regarding Green Streets, Integrated Stormwater, Pedestrian Friendly 77th Street, Connections from West to East, Multimodal Connections and Shared Parking. 2. The proposal does not adequately integrate stormwater into the development. 3. The overall development plan does not meet the Greater Southdale Area development principle of redeveloping property into smaller blocks. The size of these blocks is more like 400 x 600 feet as opposed to 200 x 200 feet suggest in the Framework Vision. The previously approved Overall Development for this site in 2014 better addressed the Development Principles and divided the site into 18 blocks; the proposal divides the site into 7 blocks.4. The proposal does not meet the City’s criteria for PUD zoning, including a lack of mixed uses; no affordable housing in Phase 1; no creative or efficient development of the site; lack of creative stormwater management; no podium height. 5. Lack of affordable housing within the project. 6. The current zoning, MDD-6 provides a reasonable use of the property and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, Teague stated staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase density to up to 80 units an acre in the OR, Office Residential District. Teague further stated that staff recommends denial of the proposed Rezoning to PUD. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Takenoff and Kristina Smitten Hillcrest Development, Joe McElwain and Andy Chase, Chase Real Estate Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners expressed disappointment that affordable housing was not included in this phase and the difficulty in approving housing without assurances that affordable housing would be built in future phases. It was noted that the MDD-6 zoning designation would continue to work for this project questioning the reasoning behind the request for PUD zoning. Teague agreed that the MDD would work for this project; however, PUD is a tool the City can use to provide affordable housing. Concern was expressed on the parking and that access to the park needs to be more visible. Applicant Presentation Scott Takenoff addressed the Commission and noted that much has changed since their 2014 proposal. Takenoff stated that the site continues to have its challenges, one being the floodplain and the projects interaction with the Fred Richards Golf Course the “Fred” and the 9-mile trail. Takenoff stated this is a big project that would be redeveloped in phases. Kristina Smitten gave a brief history of the property, adding in her opinion this area is very different from France Avenue. She noted that 77th Street is an east/west truck route. Smitten shared the following: The properties are divided by West 77th Street The subject properties are near France and the Greater Southdale Area; however there are differences Tenants have been consolidated in 6 of the office buildings. Occupancy is at 90% in those buildings. 4 blighted buildings remain; however they can be repositioned to office space if needed. The south tower was demolished in 2015. The project follows the principles established for the Pentagon Park area and for the Greater Southdale area. The project in its entirety provides for flexibility of uses The north properties are proposed as housing in keeping with the suggestions from the City Council in 2014. Through numerous neighborhood meetings, the residents of the area expressed the opinion that they are comfortable with the housing option on the north properties. Although 4820 is not part of this redevelopment proposal that site is earmarked for the affordable housing units (workforce or senior) There will be connectivity between north south/east west. The redevelopment would be pedestrian and bike friendly. Access to trail and park would be provided for not only the residents of the new apartment complex but by the public. The addition of sidewalks linking properties. Living street elements would be incorporated into the project. Access to the “Fred” would follow the living streets guide for both pedestrian and bikes. Storm water management would be addressed and efficiently measured in the transition zone. Celebrating water as previously thought would be very difficult. Not much can be done to mitigate the flooding issues; however, will work closely with the Watershed District and the City. Visitors can use the pentagon parking to park for the “Fred”. Master Plan for the Fred approved in 2017. Access to the Fred comes from this project. Enhanced bus stops is important. Public art would be incorporated. Andy Chase addressed the Commission and explained his company has built over 2000 single-family homes and apartments. Chase clarified that his Company is not “dodging” the affordable housing requirement, adding their task within the overall development plan was to construct market rate apartment homes and senior continuum care suites. Chase said they build to own and introduced Joe McElwain to present the project. Mr. McElwain told the Commission he is very happy to introduce Sienna on the Park. McElwain said their goal is to “kick-start” a new residential community in this location. McElwain noted that the site as it exists is a difficult site to redevelop because of the high water table, the 100-year flood plain and unsuitable soils. Mr. McElwain presented the following on the development proposal: Buildings would be constructed closer to the street. No parking lots along West 77th Street Increased shared parking. Increased underground parking from 442 to 558 stalls Increased courtyard sizes to open up the site to more landscaped views and to better expose the transition between the project and park. Sidewalk connections to West 77th, Nine-Mile Creek and the “Fred”. Enhanced right-of-way connections and enhanced center boulevard All water would be kept on the property. Exterior building materials composed of brick, metal panel and concrete masonry. Buildings would have inset balconies. Meandering north drive. Addition of artwork. The site would allow residents to experience outdoor living Building height at 5-stories is the correct height. Residents would be able to experience living in a beautiful park like location with access to amenities. McElwain concluded that they look forward to working with the City. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked the development team to identify where public parking would occur for the park. McElwain pointed out that the shared stall. abut their north property line with the park Commissioners questioned if smaller building footprints would work to help accommodate a water feature. Mr. Chase responded that developing a water feature would be difficult because of the lowlands. Commissioners expressed disappointment that a water feature was not included in the property reiterating that a different design could be considered to add that feature and provide more transparency to the park. An opinion was expressed that the buildings and connections would provide a good pedestrian experience; however, there is nowhere to go. It was noted that no retail component was added to this proposal. Mr. McElwain agreed there is no mixed use with this proposed; however, the senior building would provide dining experiences for the residents and residents would also have full amenities to include a library. The market rate apartments would have amenities and they envision rooftop space and work from home areas. McElwain said he is sure that, as the Pentagon Park site is redeveloped that more mixed use would be introduced; noting the mixed use proposed on the south parcel. The applicant was asked if there would be townhouse units incorporated into one of these buildings. McElwain said there would be no townhouses; however, there would be first floor walkouts. All units would be rental. It was mentioned that different housing types are needed in the City, noting many apartments have recently been built in Edina. Affordable housing was also a goal of the City. Mr. Chase commented with regard to affordable housing that he is confident that affordable housing would be developed in Pentagon Park. He explained that the affordable housing process takes time and as previously mentioned by Ms. Smitten that affordable housing is planned for 4820. A discussion ensued on the proposals connection to the “Fred” with Commissioners expressing the opinion that the connections could be better and more transparent. Commissioners said if it would be difficult for visitors to find a way to access the park from 77th Street. The lack of affordable housing was also of concern to Commissioners. Commissioners also noted there are some concerns that were expressed by Mic Johnson, City Consultant for the Greater Southdale Area. Mr. Takenoff explained that there is no issue in providing affordable housing; however, prior to the affordable housing units being built these buildings need to be built to help facilitate construction of the affordable units. Takenoff said they can provide a purchase agreement with Dominion, reiterating affordable units cannot be built first and that Chase was only responsible for the senior and market rate housing on this site. Commissioners asked Planner Teague if Pentagon Park was considered part of the Greater Southdale Area. Teague responded that had been discussed; however, it was not official. McElwain told the Commission it was difficult to respond to a third party adding their discussions have been with City of Edina staff; however, they have responded to the principles established for the greater Southdale area. An opinion was expressed that the Commission thought they would see something different, something for the future. This development could be missing the point especially without a mix of uses and no assurances that the affordable housing would be built. Mr. McElwain said he could understand their point; however, stressed their charge was to develop market rate and senior housing. It was felt that this development project would “jump start” the redevelopment of the housing for the rest of Pentagon Park to include the affordable component. Smitten pointed out to the Commission the site to be redeveloped by Chase is only one part of the whole. When considering redevelopment of the area Chase considered the principles established for the Pentagon Park area and also considered the Greater Southdale Area Guiding Principles. Chase told the Commission that he was sorry that he was not aware that their proposal would need to include mixed use. A discussion ensued on mixed use, where it was appropriate and if mixed use was still viable. Tankenoff pointed out the Pentagon Park area has been blighted for 30 plus years, his company has been renovating the offices adding the redevelopment vision for the entire site would include mixed use to include office, housing, hotel, restaurant and other amenities. Takenoff stressed that they want this project to work, adding they are very excited about the vision and would rather under promise and over deliver. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. The following resident spoke regarding the proposal. Jim Nelson, 7790 Lochmere Terrace, Edina, MN Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners shared the following: There was a concern expressed that long term promises could fall away. A goal for this project was to develop a community with less focus on the car. Focus on a more modern redevelopment approach with public transit, pedestrian trails and bikes. Also safe and easy access north/south. Less reliance on the vehicle. Trust is very important with this large redevelopment. Concern was expressed that what was envisioned would not be achieved. Acknowledge that the vision for this important area was to develop a community; something similar to the north loop, build a future community with amenities, parks, connectivity, everything. Not a bad project; however, it was not what was envisioned. Affordable housing was a major goal and again the City must rely on trust to ensure affordable units are built. This just appears too piecemeal. Commissioners stated they continue to struggle; while the proposal for housing was good, this plan just misses the vision for housing. Where is the bigger picture; how will it work, will it be built. The discussion continued with Commissioners suggesting that the requested approvals for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Rezoning be voted on separately. Support was expressed for amending the Comprehensive Plan; however, a discussion ensued on if the amendment could be site specific. A majority of the Commissioners indicated they could not support the preliminary rezoning as presented, without a mix of uses and without assurances on the affordable housing noting too much was left in the “air”. Motion Commissioner Hamilton moved to recommend the City Council approve of the request for an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Ayes; Miranda, Strauss Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Olsen. Nays; Lee. Motion carried. Commissioner Lee explained she voted no because she believes there are better ways to approve an increase in density instead of amending the entire OR District. Lee stated she believes any approval should be site specific. Lee noted she felt similar with the last months Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 7250 France Avenue. Commissioner Nemerov moved to recommend that the City Council deny the request for Preliminary Rezoning and Development Plan based on staff findings (page 20 of the staff report). Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Ayes; Miranda, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Olsen. Nays; Lee, Strauss Berube. Motion denied 5-3. E. Preliminary Rezoning, Subdivision & Preliminary Plat for Pentagon Park South (4815 & 4901 77th Street West and 7710 Computer Avenue Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Solomon Real Estate Group is requesting a Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD-17 to develop the vacant 12.5 acre Pentagon South Parcel (4900 77th Street). The first phase would include 11,800 square feet of retail space, a 193-room hotel, a 153-room hotel, and a parking ramp. The second phase would be two 5-story office buildings, a parking ramp and 19,000 square feet of office/retail. A Preliminary Rezoning to PUD with a draft Overall Development Plan was approved for these parcels for an office development in 2014, however, no Final Rezoning was sought and no Final Development Plan was approved. The uses proposed here are generally consistent with the south portion of the draft overall development plan for Pentagon South. Pentagon Park North will be reviewed as a separate future development, as that plan is very different from the uses and development plan proposed in 2014 (office). Therefore, the applicant is proposing a revised PUD and Overall Development Plan to just include the south parcel. At full development build out, the project would include 225,000 square feet of office space, 2 hotels (346 rooms), 30,800 square feet of retail and two parking structures with a total of 1,545 spaces. As proposed, the development would require the following: Rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD-17, Planned Unit Development, Overall Development Plan; Preliminary Development Plan for Phase 1; and Subdivision. Teague explained that the Southdale Area Development Principles were shared with the applicant. The applicant has responded.) The City’s consultant for the Greater Southdale Area Plan, Mic Johnson, AFO, has also reviewed the plans and provided feedback. The following highlights some of the comments: The plan has retained the central park feature from the draft PUD but at a much reduced scale. In place of larger buildings fronting W. 77th Street, the proposal suggests 2 retail pads with parking and a mixed-use retail/office on the corner of W. 77th and Computer Avenue. This would suggest a more typical suburban development approach, not consistent with primary buildings facing W. 77th as delineated in the approved PUD. Incorporating retail into office buildings could enliven these buildings during more times of day, supporting the goal of a 24/7 community. Having retail, hotel and office surrounding all sides of the central park as outlined in the PUD, along with a direct connection to Pentagon Park North, begins to create a relationship between both sides of 77th. We would suggest moving all components of the proposal closer together with greater density of activity closer to 77th. On grade, parking should be considered as a placeholder for future development and not as part of the overall plan in phase one. The west office-building terrace at the 2nd level should face the park, which would create a stronger semi-urban identity. All building should create program space for street fronting buildings on secondary streets around the whole development. Teague asked the Commission to note that the applicant has gone through the Sketch Plan process before the Planning Commission and City Council. Based on feedback from the Planning Commission, the City Council, the applicant has: Eliminated the drive-through; Reduced the amount of surface parking; Increased setback on Viking Drive from 5 to 10 feet; Increased the setback on Computer Drive from 10 feet to 18 & 20 feet; and Combined the parking structures with buildings. Planner Teague told the Commission that Staff would recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD-17, Planned Unit Development District, including an Overall Development Plan, Subdivision, and Preliminary Development Plan for Phase 1based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Conformance with the Development Principles established in the Greater Southdale Area Planning Framework Vision. The following principles are included: Improved pedestrian connections to move people through and around the site. Provide a “come to” and “stay at” development with mixed uses, retail, restaurant, public space including seating areas, and a center plaza; High quality buildings and design; Provision of added shared public parking. Public art; and Economic vitality brought to Pentagon Park. 3. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Movement Patterns. ▪ Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. ▪ Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) ▪ A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. b. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. c. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the City, and the larger region . d. Increase mixed-use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. e. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. f. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets creating pedestrian scale. Buildings “step down” at boundaries with lower-density districts and upper stories “step back” from street. g. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto-oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. i. Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. ii. Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. iii. Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front façade. iv. Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. 4. The proposal meets the City’s criteria for PUD zoning. In summary, the PUD zoning would: a. Provides a mixed-use development by including retail, office, hotel and restaurants. b. Creates a very pedestrian-friendly development with the construction of sidewalks through and around the site. c. Ensure that the buildings proposed would be the only buildings built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. d. Provide for a more creative site design, consistent with the draft Preliminary Plan, the 2007 Plan, and goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. WSB Consulting conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads and proposed parking, subject to road improvements. Approval is also subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated April 10, 2018, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of any building permit. 3. The exterior treatment on the parking garage facing the internal street must be matched on the exterior of the parking garage that faces Bloomington. 4. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 5. Roof-top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 6. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district’s requirements. 7. A Developer’s Agreement is required at the time of Final Approval. 8. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering’s memo dated May 3, 2018. 9. Compliance with the WSB Traffic & Parking Study recommendations including: Addition of a northbound left turn lane, southbound striped left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Commercial Access driveway. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 10. Per the Master Development Agreement, dated May 20, 2014, reconstruction of 77th Street is required with the construction of 100,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant/landowner is responsible for roadway improvements to 77th Street. Final plans would be subject to the recommendations in the WSB traffic study and approval of the city engineer. 11. All crosswalks shall be marked with “duraprint” type stamping, or whatever is the city standard at the time of installation, to clearly identify the pedestrian crossings. 12. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. 13. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD-17, Planned Unit Development for this site. Teague concluded that based on the findings outlined above, staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD-17, Planned Unit Development District, including an Overall Development Plan, Subdivision, and Preliminary Development Plan for Phase 1, subject to the findings and conditions. Appearing for the Applicant Jay Scott, Solomon Real Estate Group Applicant Presentation Scott addressed the Commission and reported he was very happy to be moving forward on this great project. Scott explained that the south development plan would be built in phases with the first phase consisting of two hotels, including the parking garage beneath the south hotel and the two small retail buildings that would frame the front entry to the project. Continuing, Scott said Phase I would include mass grading of the entire property and the installation of all utilities and storm water management systems. Scott noted that the remainder of the property would be graded and seeded and maintained until redevelopment. Scott stated the site would be developed as a mixed-use site intended to increase density and to promote internal connectivity to buildings within the site as well as to connect uses and amenities of the surrounding community. Concluding, Scott said the master plan anticipates a variety of uses including multi-story offices, hotels, retail, restaurants and parking structures to support all uses. Commissioners asked Mr. Scott if their project was market tested and if clients want to locate in this area. Scott responded in the affirmative. Bill Wittrock, RSP addressed the Commission and with graphics highlighted aspects of the project. He pointed out the following: The proposal maintains a development pattern consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the plan approved in 2014. An efficient approach to land use was made to promote the health, safety, comfort, and aesthetics of the City. The project provides sustainable design, new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management and pedestrian oriented design. Pentagon Park South further provides for high quality of design that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding land uses; Improves the efficiency of public streets and utilities; Delivers a mix of land uses within the proposed development; and Established appropriate transitions between land uses. Safe connection to the “Fred”. The park is considered a large amenity. Bus line connections and intregated bus stops into the plan. 4-sided buildings. Mr. Wittrock was asked if he received comments from the City Sustainable Coordinator. Wittrock said comments were received and they would develop the site responsibility. Planner Teague added if the Commission were to approve the project as presented, they could include the comments from the Sustainable Coordinator as a condition of approval. The applicant was asked what types of hotels would be built. Steve Olson with Waterwalk told the Commission his company proposes to build an extended stay hotel. The extended stay units would be from one to three bedrooms. The average length of stay averages 77 nights. The hotel would be full service to include dog walkers. Olson said they operate a similar facility in Plymouth. The other hotel is proposed as a dual brand hospitality hotel. The applicant was asked if there would be public art throughout the site. Mr. Wittrock responded in the affirmative. He explained a water feature is planned within the green area to include pathways. Public art would be introduced throughout the campus. Continuing, Wittrock said the entrance into the site was designed to pull people inside. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners expressed their support for the project indicating this is a step in the right direction and is an excellent use of the PUD process. The applicants were further thanked for the attention they paid to the comments from the Commission and Council at Sketch Plan. Opinions were expressed that the project still feels too suburban; surface parking could be reduced and buildings could be oriented closer to the street; however, it was pointed out not every development needs to be downtown Minneapolis. A discussion ensued on the project, its location and positive impact on the area situated off a highway. Motion Commissioner Hamilton moved to recommend Preliminary Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Plan approval for Pentagon South based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions to include sustainability requirements. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. Ayes; Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube. Nay Olsen. Motion carried 8-1. VII. Community Comment None. Commissioner Hamilton moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Reports/Recommendations None Correspondence And Petitions Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials. Chair And Member Comments Commissioner Nemerov reported that he and Commissioner Hamilton were happy with the response they received from residents and business owners who want to serve on the 50th and France Small Area Plan Work Group. Commissioner Miranda briefed the Commission on the Edina Senior Bus Service, Met Transit ABRT Commissioner Lee noted that last week the Commission attended a Comprehensive Plan Boards and Commission Workshop. Lee said at this time the Commission should consider their role in the Land Use Chapter and how that chapter would evolve. Commissioner Lee further noted that the Commission should add to their work plan for further study basements yes or no, and pervious and impervious surfaces. Staff Comments Commissioner Bennett asked Planner Teague if there would be a Comp Plan Work Session in two weeks. Teague responded possibly, however, the topic has not been chosen. Adjournment Commissioner Hamilton moved to adjourn the May 9, 2018, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 12:05. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Jackie Hoogenakker Respectfully submitted