HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 05-23 Planning Commission Minutes/
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
May 23, 2018
Call To Order
Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
Roll Call
Answering the roll were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner,
Aaker, Communications Coor, Eidsness
Absent from Roll: Strauss, Mittal
Approval Of Meeting Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the May 23, 2018, meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miranda. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2018 meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miranda. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Public Hearings
A. Variance request for a 10.2-foot side street setback to add a second story addition to home. 6101 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN.
Planner Aaker informed the Commission Refined Remodeling, LLC/D. Kozitka, the applicant, has submitted a 10.2-foot side yard setback variance at 6101 Oaklawn Avenue on behalf of the
homeowners. The proposed project includes a whole house remodel which involves constructing a second story above the existing first floor and building an attached two stall garage with
a master bedroom above. To accommodate the proposed changes, the applicant is requesting a variance due to the existing non-conforming setback on the north property line.
The existing non-conforming setback on the north side property line is 4.8 feet. The zoning code requires a 15 foot side street setback. The applicant is asking for a variance to maintain
the current 4.8 foot setback on the north side of the property while adding a second floor above the existing one story home. Engineering has reviewed the storm water management plan
and finds it acceptable.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of a 10.2 foot side yard setback variance for the north property line at 6101 Oaklawn Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the
variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions:
Survey date stamped May 11, 2018
Elevations and building plans date stamped May 11, 2018
Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer’s memo.
Appearing for the Applicant
Duane Kozitka, REFINED Remodeling
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Kozitka addressed the Commission and explained the proposal noting the water runoff was directed to drain to the west and north to the appropriate City services, adding they would
comply with the Engineering Memo. Kozitka said there also is the opportunity to construct a French drain if needed. Kozitka asked the Commission for their support.
Public Hearing
Trudy Landgren, 6104 Brookview Avenue, addressed the Commission and expressed water runoff concern.
Steve Botts, 6045 Oaklawn Avenue, addressed the Commission and expressed that he had to go through the aggravation process for a side setback 2 years ago and wanted to know if there
were other options for the applicant.
Chair Olsen asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All vote
aye. Motion carried.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A lengthy discussion ensued on drainage and if the applicant should be held to a higher standard than what was required in the Engineering Memo. Planner Teague reminded the Commission
that the Engineering Division has another opportunity to review the storm water management plan during the building permit review process. Engineering has the authority at that time
to require that the applicant implement other measures to ensure proper drainage if so needed.
It was noted that this proposal increases the impervious surface; however, it was also pointed out that removal of the detached garage actually “frees” up rear yard space, reiterating
this variance was not for lot coverage.
It was suggested that the Commission continue discussions on drainage and on how to fairly apply requirements across the board for all variances and not on a case by case basis.
Motion
Commissioner Thorsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Lee offered an amendment to the motion to consider adding a rain garden
or other measures to ensure that water is retained on the site. Commissioner Thorsen did not accept the amendment to the motion, adding he felt that it was out of step with the process.
Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. Ayes; Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Nemerov, Hamilton, Berube, Olsen. Nay; Bennett. Motion carried. 7-1.
VI. Community Comment
None.
Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. Appointments to the 50th and France Small Area Plan Work Group
Commissioner Nemerov asked the Commission to refer to their packet and the 50th and France Small Area Plan Working Group Memo. Nemerov explained the Memo contains a list of volunteers
who applied to participate as a Member of the newly formed working group. There were many qualified applicants and there are available backups if something were to happen to the existing
members. The names of the working group are as follows:
Jeanette Auguston
John Breitinger
Jacqueline Crowley
Patrick Huss
Thomas Koon
Christine Pecard
Ede Rice
Nemerov said the group is scheduled to meet for the first time on May 31st, at City Hall from 6:30 to 9 p.m. The group is a variety of members from the development community, neighborhood,
business community, property owners, and a retired member who worked on government housing programs.
Commissioners wished Nemerov and Hamilton well.
Motion
Commissioner Lee moved to recommend the above mentioned volunteers to the 50th and France Small Area Plan Working Group. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The
motion carried.
B. Sketch Plan Review – 4532 France Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to redevelop the site at 4500 France Avenue. The applicant would tear down the former
movie theater and dry cleaners building and build a new 52 unit rental apartment with 6,400 square feet of restaurant and retail space. There would be 77 underground parking stalls
for the apartments and 40 covered parking stalls for the retail uses at grade. Amenities for the apartments include: a fitness center, rooftop patio, club room and an outdoor courtyard
with grilling stations, seating and landscaping.
Teague pointed out the property is 1.05 acres (45,738 square feet) in size. The density proposed in the project would be 50 units per acre. This site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan
as NN, Neighborhood Node, which allows over 12 units per acre up to a maximum height of 4-stories. The plans are generally consistent with the 44th & France Small Area Plan. Teague
The applicant has responded to the guiding principles within their narrative.
Teague stated the request would require a Rezoning from R-1 and PCD-1 to PUD, Planned Commercial District. In conclusion Teague offered the following:
Staff raises some concern that the building does not interact with the public realm open space on the west side of the project. There are no direct connections from the building to the
green space.
Pedestrian Connections/boulevard sidewalks. Curb cuts would be reduced and the sidewalk experience along Sunnyside and France would be enhanced.
Store and building fronts. Should follow the guidelines in the Small Area Plan. Staff is concerned that the proposal along Sunnyside does not activate the street. There are no store
fronts on that side, only parking for the retail.
Project does minimize the impact of automobiles by providing all the parking within and under the development.
The applicant would bury utility lines.
Traffic and parking impact study required, but would likely generate less traffic than fully occupied retail uses.
Hennepin County will need to review the elimination of the turn lane off Sunnyside. Plans were sent to the County for their review and input.
Turning radius in the enclosed and underground parking area appears to be tight.
Sustainability. The applicant has responded to the city’s Sustainability Questionnaire.
Appearing for the Applicant
Matt Byers, PLAAD
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Planner Teague was asked what the required 50 parking spaces would look like and how it would be done. Planner Teague responded that the 50 parking spaces could take up the entire site
or they would have to go several levels underground. Commissioners asked if the requirement is based on square footage and Teague replied yes.
Commissioners wondered what the likelihood is of having the parking extended down on the West side of France Ave. Planner Teague responded that it is something the city could explore
with Engineering, but it still wouldn’t add more than approximately 8 spaces. It was also asked if Teague considered pulling the building up to the street and adding the parking behind.
Teague responded that it was staff’s initial recommendation, but the narrow width of the site would make it difficult to still get a reasonably wide building and that it would be a
good question for the applicant.
Commissioners asked if there were additional sketch plans to include what the proposed building would look like from a design standpoint. Planner Teague responded that what is included
with this sketch plan review is more typical because we don’t want developers to get into great detail without comments from the city first. Commissioners also asked if the main item
to consider with this review is the parking issue. Teague responded that the items to consider might include the building placement in the front or back and the 3 stories in back with
the elevation change. Commissioners questioned the community parking and if there is a rough cost estimate how much each space costs the city to build. Teague responded that he has
been collecting estimates from other projects and they stall range between $20,000 to $45,000 per stall, not including land cost. Commissions asked how much parking is needed for the
existing parking for the tenants. Planner Teague replied that they have been parking in front of the building.
Commissioners asked about 44th & France and when we might see centralized parking there. Planner Teague noted it was hard to determine. In idea would be to go to the businesses to see
if there was interest in district parking. It’s hard to speculate at this point and it could be years and come up with a type of cost sharing for the surrounding businesses. Commissioner’s
commented the small area plan at 44th and France and that it could be used a as a tool to refer to when addressing the district parking situation. Teague commented that was a good point.
Commissioners mentioned that we have an affordable housing policy where they can provide housing or pay the city in lieu. The question was asked if anything like that has been considered
for parking. Planner Teague responded that nothing formally has been discussed and the construction costs variety. Commissions asked if the parking needs would be different if this
site was a multifamily 6 plex? Teague responded that they would be. Housing is allowed in the planned commercial district for multifamily. If you had 8 units, you would need 16 stalls.
Commissions followed up asking if a residential parking permit is feasible to discourage parking on the side street for certain time portions and if that has ever been done
before in the city. Teague responded that has not been done before with permit stickers and the Traffic Safety committee considers special parking on certain streets.
Commissioners commented that the staff report seemed basic and asked if the staff comments will include how it meets the small area plan principals. Planner Teague replied that this
is a typical formant and there aren’t a great deal of staff details, beyond what the request needs.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Byers introduced himself and thanked Planner Teague and the Planning Commission staff. Byers stated that he is aware the sketch is short parking, but is looking more for input and
guidance from the Commission.
According to the small area plan, the parcel is desired to be developed
This is shown as two lots, but it is really 1 lot because the likelihood of the lot to the south being redeveloped is quite low because they just did some work
The existing home is around 3,000 square feet and requires 16 parking spots
With the required setbacks from the front, back, and side, you’re left with a pretty diminished buildable area
The lot is 60 feet wide 150 feet deep
The required parking setbacks of 5 feet from either side, 20 feet from the front, and 5 from the rear
Byers noted that if parking were to go down with the 60 foot wide side and 24 foot drive aisle for vehicular access, it would need to be about 5 layers down which seems almost infeasible
Byers mentioned that an option would be to double load park with only a 14 foot drive aisle, but isn’t any more feasible
If you did nothing that than park the entire lot it would only hold 32 spots
Other options of parking in the back, or below was considered, but are now looking for guidance and feedback regarding street parking
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners made comments that the other proposed sketches were more attractive and more aligned with the small area plans regarding the connectivity, public space in the front, and
being closer to the street
Commissions discussed the centralized parking could cost approximately $50,000 per parking spot and asked what the Byers thought of the developer paying $2 million for more building
square footage. He responded that for the probable 12 to 16 employees inhabiting the building, the required 50 parking spots may not align with the intended building use and the developer
could answer the $2 million parking question
Commissioners questioned if the retail customers would be willing to park farther away and walk to the store location and Byers responded that he thinks they would understand shopping
in an urban environment and it would not be an issue
Commissioners asked about the parking option with the building up front and asked about the store front being pulled up close in the front next to R1. Byers responded that the property
to the north, ideally would have been brought up closer to the street front. He also stated that the idea of having a bookend to the district coming in from the south and having a presence
with pedestrian traffic helps bring people to the area and having employees coming and going
Commissioners stated that they like the choice of materials and it is a good fit for the area. It was also discussed that having 8 parking spots isn’t enough for potential consumers
to count on parking. With that, it was recommended that the building be brought up closer to the street
Commissioners asked how many people do you see occupying the building during business hours and Byers responded that their calculations showed anywhere from 12 to 16 depending upon the
day of the week with the potential of 4 separate tenants. Byers commented that he would like the developer to speak more to the type of tenant that would be occupying the first floor
Commissioners questioned the building being brought up to the front of the building with a single drive aisle down the side and Byers responded that the issue with that is the dead parking
space. He noted that it is possible, but believes the access issues does not make it the better option
Commissioners asked if a second story of parking in the back was an option and Byers replied that it would have an drive aisle access issue with the narrow lot size
Commissions asked Don Schaefer of Landmark Builders to speak. He said the benefits of what they’re trying to accomplish is in line with the small area plan. Schaefer explained that the
two other partners are the building occupants and introduced Casey Carl as one of the partners. Carl was involved with the small area plan and shared his retail experience in Edina
and pointed out that 50 percent of the building occupants are neighborhood residents not using the building’s parking. Carl expressed the need for visible available parking for impulsive
retail shoppers
Commissioners asked Planner Teague if France Ave was a county road and he answered affirmatively. Commissioners followed up by addressing the previous discussions around trying to get
more parking off of the main roads for other types of transportation. Teague was asked if we would need to go to the county to get approval to add more parking to the main artery.
Teague explained that after talking with Engineering, his understanding was that we have say in whether you can or cannot park on France Ave. Engineering noted that even if that was
done, it is still short parked but it is something we can explore with parking on the west side
Commissioners commented that since the 2008 Bike and Pedestrian Plan, France Ave has always been marked as a bicycle throughway, but nothing has been done about it
Schaefer was asked by Commissioners if there were any discussions with the neighbors to the north about using their driveway and driving through the building into parking underneath
your building and he responded that they had not contacted them yet, but it’s worth approaching
Commissioners asked why this particular site is the right one, given all of the problems with the site and Schaefer responded that Landmark does a lot of work in Edina and loves the
area and the exposure. Commissioners asked if the property was purchased and if they had looked at any other sites and Schaefer replied that they are under contract and looked at other
properties in the Linden Hills area. Carl added that the retail location is potential important due to the established 50th and France business district
Commissioners asked if they are open to contributing towards the district parking costs and the response from Schaefer was that he presumed that they would have some contribution when
they modeled the financials
Commissioners expressed the concern from neighborhood residents that are worried about the overflow parking into their neighborhoods. The parking of 8 stalls could be increased and other
creative parking options could be added to their plans
Commissioners discussed the Gateway Bank Building and how trying to fit in with how that building looks may be a mistake, due to that project passing as an exception
Commissioners asked about contributing to parking and if they are comfortable now to confirm a contribution to get the project approved and Schaefer responded that the amount if unknown
between the Give to Get and district parking. Schaefer discussed how they would be willing to contribute because of how it will add to the building in the long term, but don’t have
an exact number
Commissioners stated that they were uncomfortable with moving forward this unless the developer and the city on a contribution amount and that would jump start the community parking
discussion
Commissioners commented that the scale in this area needs to be addressed and corrected because we need small scaled buildings. It was also mentioned that leasing additional dedicated
parking may get you closer an approval and the building must be pulled up closer to the street.
Commissioners agreed that the City Council needs to prioritize and look at the development parking project because this is the type of development we want. It was suggested to bring
the building up to the front in the updated sketch plans and maximize the parking to get more than 8 spots. It was expressed that the Commission was pleased to hear that the applicant
has offered to contribute to the district parking and this project may spark that initiative. If the parking spots are truly for the retail customers they will understand the parking
situation due to the urban environment. It was discussed that the Commission needs to include language in the small area plan that frees up the city to look at exempting from certain
things in order to bring that type of development and we can’t be so restrictive in some cases
Commissions suggested that before going to City Council to look into how many parking spaces are really required through the Institute Transit Engineers, not through the city’s ordinance
and Planner Teague stated that the parking studies we rely on for parking variances looks at the specific use and what it’s going to generate while being mindful of future uses
Commissioners suggested to maybe use a certain portion of street parking for resident only until district parking comes along to protect residents from parking spilling over into their
neighborhood. It was requested to see the future sketch plans from the neighboring structures to see what the building would look like pulled up to the street to look at the flow of
structures. It was also requested to see elevation changes between the properties.
Commissioners asked Planner Teague if this plan were to go through if a Comprehensive Plan would be involved and Teague responded negative because the uses are allowed with the current
plan
Commissioners commented that the dedicated parking issue is an Edina problem because we want walkable and approachable retail and it hasn’t been resolved how we’re going to get it
Schaefer asked the Planner Teague about shared or borrowed parking and if there was a method in place to rent a certain amount of stalls and get approval and Teague answered that they
would consider it and would need to look at the parking needs for both sites
Commissioners discussed the differences in 44th and France versus Lake and Lyndale with the mix of residents and commercial development and the direction of the neighborhood trends.
It was followed with a comment that near Red Cow they have restricted parking for resident parking that could be considered
VIII. Correspondence And Petitions
None.
IX. Chair And Member Comments
Commissioners discussed the lid negotiations and asked Planner Teague for any comments. Teague responded that MN Dot is on board and all of the agencies are in agreement to keep studying
it. Teague stated that it is a feasible concept and the study continues
Commissioners asked Planner Teague about the bridge construction with the Grandview development approval and if the informal walking path will be included. Planner Teague responded that
MN Dot is still in the design phase and the Engineering Department has some ideas on the width
Commissioners discussed a new home being built on Morningside Road with a prominent garage and the front door is set back. The city doesn’t have form based development but it is something
we need to look at if it becomes a trend
Commissions discussed the WSB training for how to become a good Planning Commissioner and suggested a meeting with staff to discuss what was presented with those who weren’t able to
attend. It was also recommended to make the annual training suggested, especially to new Commissioners
Commissioners discussed the recycling problem and that the Planning Commission agree to avoid disposable plastic
Commissioners asked Planner Teague about the status of Grandview since it’s been in front of the HRA and Teague responded that the HRA is still considering development on the property
and looking at alternatives to the tall tower. The HRA is also considering the potential of flipping the residential down to the south and be more of a 4 to 6 story structure with public
space up on the north. They are still exploring the possibility of partnering with Frauenshuh and have a deadline of May 31st to continue the relationship with Frauenshuh or consider
something else.
X. Staff Comments
Planner Teague informed the Planning Commission that this will be Jackie Hoogenakker’s last meeting after 33 years of service to the city due to retirement. Hoogenakker responded that
the Planning Commission is a great group of people and she loves working with the Planning Staff
XI. Adjournment
Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the May 23, 2018, meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:50 PM. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried.
Liz Olson
Respectfully submitted