HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-13-19 Planning Commission Minutes-ApprovedDraft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 1 of 9
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
February 13, 2019
I. Call To Order
Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Mangalick, Melton, Nemerov,
Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director,
Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist, MJ
Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator
Absent from the roll call: Thorsen
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the February 13, 2019, agenda. Commissioner
Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Miranda moved to approve the December 12, 2018, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
V. Special Recognitions And Presentations
A. Better Together- MJ Lamon
MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator, and Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications
Coordinator, presented the new Better Together website and explained how it is going to work during
the 30 day public review period for the Comprehensive Plan.
VI. Public Hearings
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Revise PUD- 17 for Pentagon Park South, 4815 &
4901 77th Street and 7710 Computer Avenue
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 2 of 9
Director Teague presented a PowerPoint explaining the request of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Revise
PUD- 17 for Pentagon Park South, 4815 & 4901 77th Street and 7710 Computer Avenue. Teague explained that
the City approved an overall development plan and the zoning ordinance PUD-17 in May of 2018. Director
Teague explained that the Solomon Real Estate Group is proposing changes to the approved master plan and
stated that Staff would characterize the changes as “improvements” to the plans originally approved.
Director Teague explained that Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to revise PUD-17, including Site Plan approval for Phase 1 and Overall Development Plan subject to
the findings that are outlined in the staff report.
Jay Scott, with Solomon Real Estate Group, introduced himself and explained that Engineering staff explained
that the streets on West 77th Street and Computer Avenue have minor improvements being made causing the
streets to be expanded.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioner Miranda discussed significant changes to the pedestrian realm, including the
sidewalks being pushed out to the edge of the property and less trees in the proposed plan on the
corner of West 77th Street and Computer Avenue. Teague commented that Staff would want to
see a “Boulevard” style sidewalk. Commissioner Miranda also commented on the street to the
west as being closed off in this version of the plan. Teague explained that there is a potential of a
future development expansion in that area in Phase 2. Director Teague suggested that a condition
of approval could include adding a boulevard sidewalk on 77th and Computer Avenue.
A discussion regarding the building’s design and materials from the architect took place.
Commissioners discussed which plans were the most accurate and Scott replied that the civil
plans would be the most accurate representation because they’re scaled. Commissioners
commented that on the west side there is no continuous sidewalk from the park to the 9 Mile
Creek Trail. Commissioners asked Scott if there was a way to add a bike lane or a connector
going north and south in the greenspace to the right/east of the parking ramp. Scott replied that
there is a sidewalk going north and south and all of the connection points are there. Scott
explained that a sidewalk next to the garage may not be feasible because there will be exterior
stairwells, elevator stairwells, and the architecture is designed to be on the exterior of the garage.
Commissioners commented on the road being closed from the west side and asked Scott if the
sidewalk could be expanded for a bike to fit and Scott replied that it is a standard 6 foot sidewalk
but it could potentially be widened.
Public Hearing
None.
Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 3 of 9
Commissioners stated that there is good sidewalk circulation but it seems to end at the face of
the garage. Commissioners suggested to continue to provide a shared pedestrian bike path to the
southernmost portion of the site along the east side of the parking ramp and stairwell. Scott
replied that the area referenced isn’t appropriate to have a bike path because it is a service area
including snow dump and hotel service activities.
Motion
Commissioner Miranda moved approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as recommended
in the staff memo subject to the findings therein with the conditions to add an 8 foot wide north,
south, east, and west path and restore the sidewalks to have boulevards. Commissioner Hamilton
seconded the motion.
Aye: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Olsen, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube
Nay: Nemerov
The motion carried 6-1.
Commissioner Nemerov is on record that he would approve it as proposed.
B. 4501 Garrison Lane, 1st Floor Height Variance
Planner Bodeker presented the staff report for 4501 Garrison Lane, Edina, MN. Bodeker explained that the
applicant is requesting to increase the first floor elevation 3.33 feet higher than the current home's first floor
elevation in order to construct a new home at 4501 Garrison Lane. 4501 Garrison Lane is approximately 13,
444 square feet in area and is located on the south side of Garrison Lane, on the west side of Wooddale Ave.,
north of Garrison Lake and is located in the floodplain. 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 elevations impacts the ability for the project to conform to the maximum first
floor height requirement of I foot. The existing home is was built in 1961 prior to the FEMA floodplain study
conducted in 1979 to determine flood risk areas. It is a City and Watershed District goal to elevate and remove
homes out of the flood hazard areas when the opportunity presents itself. A variance is requested to allow the
first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one
foot. The current home at 4501 Garrison Lane has a basement elevation of 866.8 and a first floor elevation of
875.7 feet above sea level. The established floodplain elevation is at 866.3 with a required protection elevation
of 868.3'. The minimum basement elevation must be no less than 2 feet above the flood elevation so the
minimum basement elevation required is 868.3'. The proposed basement will be no lower than 868.3'. The
proposed first floor elevation of the house is proposed to be at 879.03, which will be 3.33 feet higher than
existing. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in
the staff report.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
• Commissioners asked Planner Bodeker what is the basis for the average 8 foot 8 inch basement ceiling height
and where does it come from. Bodeker replied that it comes from construction patterns or what is seen in new
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 4 of 9
construction homes. Commissioners asked how Staff determines how much more above the 1 foot Staff is
willing to give to applicants. Bodeker replied that Staff worked with the applicant on aspects of this proposed
project to meet the zoning requirements. A short discussion between Staff and Commissioners regarding
character of the home followed.
• Commissioners discussed concerns about the 24 inch trusses verses 16 inch floor trusses. The
applicant Weston explained that the trusses were due to the desire for openness in the basement.
• Commissioners commented on the retaining wall and the fact they’re typically used for holding
or piling up dirt. Weston explained the retaining wall is more for landscaping purposes.
Commissioners also discussed the amount of large steps leading up to the front door and the
height from the grade.
Appearing for the Applicant
Ellen Weston, 4501 Garrison Lane, introduced herself and explained that her husband has been in the
home for 16 years and the reason for their variance application is to stay in the neighborhood and keep
the home traditional like the neighborhood is.
Public Hearing
• Alex Swiggum, 4439 Garrison Lane stated that he likes the look of the proposed property and
would approve the plan.
Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded
the motion. The motion carried.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
•Commissioners asked if there were other neighbors that were in favor of the project and Staff
replied that it was about 3 neighbors in favor of the approval they received correspondence from.
• Commissioners discussed setting a floor to floor height from the basement floor to the top of
the first floor. Commissioners discussed the massing task force and that the 1 foot rule can be a
problem in the flood zone areas. Commissioners discussed bringing down the truss height down
by 8 inches, from 24 to 16 inches, and they would support a 2 foot and 8 inch variance.
Commissioners discussed that a 10 foot allowance floor to floor should give the applicant enough
room, but that decision of a new policy shouldn’t be made in the middle of this application.
• Commissioners noted although applicant comments should be heard, it should not be the only
basis for deciding. A variance approval often sets a precedent and having some analysis provides a
factual basis for how we decide.
Motion
Commissioner Nemorov moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to
the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion.
Aye: Strauss, Nemerov, Berube, Olsen
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 5 of 9
Nay: Miranda, Lee, Hamilton, Bennett
The motion fails 4-4.
Commissioner Lee made a motion to approve of the variance as outlined in the staff memo
subject to the conditions and findings therein and with the condition to change the variance to a
height maximum of 2 feet and 8 inches. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Nemerov commented that the Commissioners were struggling to come up with
the correct number for the height and that the applicant doesn’t appear to want the lower height,
but that they feel like they have to.
Aye: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube
Nay: Nemerov, Olsen
The motion passed 6-2.
C. 4536 France Avenue, Sign Variance
Planner Bodeker presented the staff report for 4536 France Ave. South, Edina, MN. Bodeker explained that the
applicant is requesting a setback variance for a freestanding sign. The property is located on the west side of
France Avenue, south of Sunnyside Avenue. The subject property was rezoned from residential to office district
in 1976.
The proposed sign is located within an existing planting bed approximately 3 feet 7 inches from the property line
and approximately 13 feet 8 inches from the curb along France Avenue. The City’s sign code requires
freestanding signs to be setback 20 feet from the traveled portion of the street. The size and height of the
proposed sign is compliant with the City’s Sign Ordinance.
There was a sign in this same location for the previous use on the site and had that original sign not been
removed, a variance would not be required. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to
the findings and conditions listed in the staff report.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
• Commissioners asked if the flower bed was part of the construction for the sign and Bodeker
replied that the planter bed is existing.
• Commissioners asked if the purpose of moving signs back from the street is to improve the
character of the neighborhood. Director Teague replied that it is to keep away from blocking the
line of sight for cars coming out of the driveway. Teague mentioned that moving the sign back 20
feet could mean moving it into the middle of the applicant’s parking lot.
Appearing for the Applicant
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 6 of 9
Rick Ballantyne, Schad Tracy Signs, introduced himself and explained that he designed it and would be
involved with the installation.
Public Hearing
None.
Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded
the motion. The motion carried.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
•Commissioners discussed the diagram with the sign and a man standing next to it.
Commissioners discussed that the height of the sign is 7 feet and the height of the man doesn’t
appear to be scaled correctly. Commissioners discussed using an average height of Americans for
future scaled drawings.
•Commissioners asked about the plantings and how much room they needed to grow. Ballantyne
replied that the property owner has natural plantings and they grow quite tall.
•Commissioners commented that the sign is tastefully done with good materials and seems to
match the sign to the North well.
•Commissioners noted that the sign variance is creating a precedence to allow more visual clutter.
Motion
Commissioner Bennett moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to
the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
VII. Community Comment
None.
VIII. Reports/Recommendations
A. 7079 Amundson Avenue, Sketch Plan Review
Director Teague presented a PowerPoint and explained that the property is the old drycleaners site and is
located in the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan area. Teague explained that the Edina Housing Foundation recently
purchased the property and went out for an RFP for affordable housing on the site and explained that MWF
Properties was the consultant chosen. The site is currently zoned PID until the Small Area Plan is approved and
the density allowed is 50 units per acre. Teague explained that the property to the east is owned by the City of
Edina and contains the Regional Trail. Teague noted the pedestrian connection through the south side of the
site, possibly adding more additional green space, the parking stall side of the building, a parking study would be
conducted before a formal application would take place. Teague explained that the plan is generally consistent
with density and height.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 7 of 9
Peter Worthington, with MWF Properties, introduced himself and gave a brief explanation of the project to the
Planning Commission. Worthington explained that the Housing Foundation initially had 72 units per acre and it
has been reduced to 62 units to meet the density and height guidelines in the Small Area Plan. Worthington
discussed some challenges of the site that included only being a 120 foot wide site, IBC regulations with allowed
windows, and the grade change from north to south.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners asked how the project compares to the Small Area Plan and Teague responded
that in terms of setbacks it wouldn’t be compliant with zoning, but it is compliant with density and
height. Teague explained that the applicant would need flexibility for the setback requirements and
the project is short-parked as proposed, but the parking study would address that concern.
Commissioners discussed potentially flipping the parking to the opposite side so the building to be
closer to the park. Commissioners also discussed the idea of having the City owned property re-
zoned as a vacated street so that the code issues were less of an issue. Worthington replied that
having the building to the west was to activate the streetscape.
Commissioners suggested adding balconies on the building to help with “eyes on the trail,” making
the trail a safer place. Worthington explained that typically balconies are not included because of a
cost factor, possible uncontrolled penetration to the exterior wall, and the esthetic might not be
ideal with how some residents choose to use them.
Commissioners complimented the applicant on the proposal and stated that it’s clear that the
intentions are to make this a good project. Commissioners followed up with asking the applicant
why the story wasn’t being proposed as 5 stories and Worthington replied that 5 stories puts the
project at a different construction type and raises costs. In addition, Worthington explained that
the building wouldn’t necessarily have a smaller footprint if it was 5 stories because of the covered
parking and wouldn’t reduce the need for parking. Worthington explained that the current
covered parking layout is quite efficient.
Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the parking and the spillover off site. Worthington
replied with explaining that underground parking is not an additional cost to the tenants so there
is no incentive to spill out of the site where uncovered parking is. Worthington also explained that
he is fully prepared to provide data from their affordable communities during the parking study.
Commissioners expressed concern that some trail users or non-tenants may want to use the
parking lot as a starting point start their bicycle rides on the trail and they may take up additional
parking spots. Commissioners also expressed support to move the building more to the east in
order to be closer to the trail.
Commissioners commented that they believe a connection needs to be made to Amundson and
the trail and it was a large part of the Small Area Plan. Commissioners noted that might be
possible by changing the grading around a bit, and Worthington replied that accessing the garage
at the north end might be problematic to do 2 levels of parking. Director Teague commented that
a way to address the connection from Amundson to the trail along the south side could be to
dedicate a 20 foot easement in green space and when the site to the south develops we could get
an additional 20 foot easement to create a 40 foot path for a nice connection.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 8 of 9
Commissioners commented that they liked the current parking situation because having the front
of the building up against the street helps create the village feel that the 70th & Cahill Small Area
Plan was looking for.
Commissioners asked if any thought went into having retail on the first floor and Worthington
replied that mixed use is difficult to have in a completely affordable project because you can’t have
retail tenants able sign up for something when you can’t have a contract for something you don’t
know if you will get the funding for and it creates an additional cost.
Commissioners stated that they believe this is the most important project for the City of Edina
because it 100 percent affordable on Foundation owned land so it is important that it is successful.
Commissioners also stated that it is the first project for the 70th & Cahill area so it must be a
showpiece. Commissioners expressed concerns about the revitalization of the area and suggested
that the applicant focus on the village like feel, concerned about the elevation causing there to be a
lack of exterior articulation, and concerned about the lack of activation on the ground level.
Commissioners stated that they would like to see more outdoor continuity and spaces for the
potential tenants of the building and asked the applicant to read the building type guidelines for the
70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. Commissioners continued to explain that architectural elements
such as cornices, lintels, bays, and sills are vocabularies that don’t appear to be expressed on the
general renderings. Worthington explained that he understands and explained that they are
dealing with contaminated soils and mitigation systems as well as competing with second and third
tier suburbs were land and developments costs are much less.
Commissioners commented on how they would like to see the number of surface parking stalls
reduced and they are interested in seeing how the traffic study looks to potentially free up more
green space.
B. Comprehensive Plan Update
Commissioners discussed the Comprehensive Plan Open House on March 11, 2019 at Public
Works from 6:30 PM until 8:30 PM. Commissioners discussed possibly making the Open House an
interactive broadcast over the internet and Eidsness replied that she would look into the idea.
Commissioners explained that City Council members would be at the National League of Cities
Conference during that meeting, and it might potentially be a conflict for attendance. Teague
explained that the Open House date was chosen so it wouldn’t fall over Edina’s spring break.
Commissioners discussed posting the Comprehensive Draft now for people to access online and
Director Teague said it is up to the Planning Commission to decide and that was done with the
Southdale Plan. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding when to post to draft and decided that the
Planning Commission would stand by their original schedule.
IX. Correspondence and Petitions
None.
X. Chair and Member Comments
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: March 13, 2019
Page 9 of 9
Chair Olsen discussed developing the TDM, Traffic Demand Management, and wanting two members
from the Planning Commission and Commissioner Miranda volunteered.
Commissioner Miranda discussed that www.websitewire.com linked to an article about what happens by
the year 2080 and what the climate of the Twin Cities will be. Commissioner Miranda also discussed the
Community Advisory Committee for the E Line ABRT and that they had their first meeting.
XI. Staff Comments
None.
XII. Adjournment
Commissioner Hamilton moved to adjourn the February 13, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning
Commission at 10:05 PM. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.