HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-8-19 Planning Commission Minutes- ApprovedDraft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 1 of 11
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
May 8, 2019
I. Call To Order
Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Melton, Bennett, Berube,
and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant
Planner, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support
Specialist.
Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Olsen, Hamilton and Mangalick.
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the May 8, 2019, agenda. Commissioner Miranda
seconded the motion. Chair Nemerov offered up the amendment to move Community
Comment before Public Hearings, according to the new bylaws. The motion carried
unanimously.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the April 24, 2019, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. Chair Nemerov offered up the amendment to
add wording to the Restoration Hardware Conditional Use Permit minutes to add a brief
statement that included the Planning Commission appreciated the comment and agreed
that the odors from restaurants would be worth looking into. Motion carried as amended.
V. Community Comment
John Hamilton, 6125 Beard Avenue S., addressed the Planning Commission.
VI. Public Hearings
A. Variance Request- B-19-05, 6509 Indian Hills Road
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 2 of 11
Planner Aaker explained that the application is for a front yard setback variance and .9 foot 1st floor
height variance for a new home to be built at 6509 Indian Hills Road. Aaker explained that the subject
property is approximately 42,562 square feet in area, sloping approximately 40 feet up from the northwest
corner of the site and the previous one-story rambler with an attached two car garage on the property
was demolished in 2017. Aaker described that the applicant is proposing to rebuild on the lot with a new
two story home with an attached three car garage in approximately the same location as the original
home and the former home did not meet the required front yard setback along the Indian Hills Road side
of the property with a setback of 40.57 feet provided from the west/front property. Aaker explained that
the required front yard setback is based on the average front yard setback of the homes located on either
side of the property which is 87.535 feet and bisects 3/4ths of the proposed home and nearly the entire
former home and the property owner tabled a previous request from the April 24th Planning Commission
meeting for a front yard setback variance and 1st floor height variance in order to work with the adjacent
neighbors on home placement. Staff recommended approval of the variance, as requested subject to the
findings and conditions listed in the staff report.
Appearing for the Applicant
Steve Schwieters of Wooddale Builders and Jeff Lindgren of Jalin Design, introduced themselves and explained
that the lot is unique. Schwieters explained that their original application had the home placed between the city’s
requirements and the existing nonconforming setback of the home. Schwieters explained that the neighbors felt
strongly that they wanted the home to be pushed back towards the street again due to the home encroaching
too much into the hillside and there would be too much tree loss.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners asked if the applicant had an original proposal that neighbors thought there wasn’t
enough of a setback so it was tabled to what the proposal is now. Aaker explained that the
application that was originally submitted had the home at a deeper setback than the older home
and the neighbors didn’t like how close the home would be to the side lot lines. Aaker explained
that the builder worked with the neighbors to match the existing nonconforming setback of the
original house and Aaker has spoken with the neighbors on either side of the home.
Commissioners asked if the original driveway is going to be removed and if there is a change in
non-impervious surface with the remodel. Aaker explained that the non-impervious surface will
increase because the new home is larger and the driveway is larger. Aaker stated that building
coverage of the lot is at 10 percent, and it could be at 25 percent.
Commissioners stated how important it was in this case that the neighbors had input and that
those most affected by the home’s placement are not opposed to the variance request.
Commissioners said that by allowing the variance, they would be making the situation better by
affecting less tree removal instead of enforcing the zoning as written.
Public Hearing
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 3 of 11
None.
Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion
Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the
conditions and findings outlined in the staff memo. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
B. Preliminary Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit
Development at 7075-7079 Amundson Avenue for MWF Properties
Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a redevelopment proposal
of 7075-9 Amundson Avenue to tear down the existing vacant dry cleaners building and build a 4-story, 62
unit affordable housing project. Teague explained that the project would contain underground and surface
parking stalls and that the property is 1.2 acres in size. Teague explained that the site is guided in the
Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which has a height limit of 5 stories and 63 feet, and a
density of 50 units per acre and the applicant has revised their original plans to meet these requirements,
after the approval of the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. Teague pointed out that the site is currently zoned
PID, Planned Industrial District and the request would require a rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial
District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, preliminary plat, and preliminary development plan. Teague
explained that if the Planning Commission doesn’t believe the project is consistent with the Small Area
Plan, there isn’t adequate public realm, doesn’t’ believe the PUD criteria is met, the parking doesn’t satisfy
the needs, and that they haven’t addressed the recommendations at the sketch plan, those would be some
of the findings for denial. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary rezoning, as requested subject to
the findings and conditions listed in the staff report.
Appearing for the Applicant
Ed Terhaar, P.E., Wenck Associates Traffic Engineering, introduced himself and explained that the parking
numbers were based on the data from the Institute of Transportation and the data was just updated in 2019.
Terhaar discussed the report, explained that the site is adequately parked for its use by about 20 stalls, and
responded to questions from Commissioners.
Peter Worthington, MWF Properties, introduced himself and thanked the Commission. Worthington explained
that they’re long time owners, have in-house management, and have never sold a property. Worthington
discussed that that the site features including the building being shifted to the east a couple of feet to create
more articulation and more green space, and explained all of the property features. Worthington explained that
they’ve added patio entrances and elevated stepped planters to the ground floor units to activate the street level
on the Amundson side of the building. Worthington explained their proposal to re-grade and landscape part of
the trail area in order to make a connection to the trail for the Amundson Flats residents and discussed the
potential easement for a connection on the south side of the property. Worthington explained that at the 60
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 4 of 11
percent level, the maximum rent under the affordable housing program for a 1 bedroom would be $1,125, 2
bedroom would be $1,350 and a 3 bedroom would be $1,560. Worthington explained that MWF is charging less
than the guidelines presented and that their rent for “workforce/affordable/mid-market” housing rent would be
$678 for a 1 bedroom, $1,000 for a 2 bedroom, and $1,350 to $1,400 for a 3 bedroom.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners asked if there would be street parking along the east side of Amundson and
Teague replied that he was not positive, but thinks that it is allowed and added that we don’t
typically count on street parking for the parking calculations that are required for the
development. Commissioners also asked what was across the street from the property. Teague
replied that Murphy Automotive is on the corner, directly across is a mixture of retail uses and
restaurant type uses, and to the east are the overhead power lines, railroad, property owned by
the City of Edina, and the Regional Bike Trail.
Commissioners asked Teague to explain and clarify the definition of affordable housing. Director
Teague replied that what the applicant is proposing is for someone living in the facility that is
earning 60 percent of the average median income for the Twin Cities and includes occupations
such as firefighters, teachers, city workers, medical workers, retail employees, and seniors.
Commissioners asked that Teague review the process that would follow if the preliminary
rezoning was approved. Teague replied that the Planning Commission is making a
recommendation to the City Council and they will make the final decision on the preliminary
rezoning. Teague explained that should City Council approve it, the applicant would come back
for final approval and that is when the development agreement would be put together and acting
on the final zoning ordinance that would create the zoning district.
Commissioners asked Teague what other zoning categories could fit the project, other than PUD.
Teague explained that you could potentially rezone it to one of the Planned Residential Districts,
but the PUD would be what requires the commitment to affordable housing for 40 years. Teague
explained that without the PUD, the owner could sell the building to someone and the new
owner could potentially open it up for market rate. Commissioners also asked Teague if the Small
Area Plan has a FAR ratio in it and Teague responded that it does not.
Director Teague was asked how many categories of PUD the city has and Teague replied that this
project would be the 18th and each one is unique. Commissioners also asked if every parcel in the
70th and Cahill area will become PUD and Teague replied not necessarily, and added that retail use
on the first floor could go into the site in the future. Teague also explained that the PUD allows
for flexibility with setbacks.
Commissioners asked about when the trail would be completed and Teague replied that there are
a few different ways. Teague explained that if the property to the south should not develop, and
the City want to make that connection, the 17 foot easement could be used. Teague also added
that if the property to the south develops, the City could require the easement there and it would
likely be constructed at that time. Teague commented that he sees that as being part of the
responsibility of the development of that parcel in conjunction with the City of Edina.
Commissioners followed up with asking about the woonerf gathering space and when that would
happen. Teague replied that the area is south of the trail and it would be a CIP item. Teague added
that if the property to the south doesn’t develop, he was unsure of how the City of Edina would
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 5 of 11
acquire that property. Teague also explained that the easement that the applicant is dedicating
doesn’t get us all the way to the trail so the City of Edina needs to work with the property to the
south.
Commissioners asked if Teague had the numbers of residents that would be affected by this
development within a half mile radius and Teague replied that there are 225 apartment units, 99
townhomes, 617 single family homes, and 2 duplexes.
Commissioners asked Worthington why underground parking is included in the rent and
Worthington explained that they want residents to use the underground parking so they don’t
spill out onto neighboring street and not use the lack of affordability as a reason to not use it and
they estimate 1.5 stalls per unit works well for most locations. Commissioners suggested the idea
of offering an incentive program for residents who don’t need or want a parking space because we
are trying to encourage people not to use cars. Worthington explained that there will be a
hanging bike rack in every parking stall. Commissioners also commented on the number of
bathrooms in the 3 bedroom apartments and suggested that MWF look into those plans further
and Worthington explained that the plans are far from construction drawings. Commissioners
expressed some concern regarding parking on the west side of the property by the commercial
businesses because this district is going to undergo increased development and would suggest
adding a recommendation to not to have on street parking on the west side. Other
Commissioners explained that the Small Area Plan allows for street parking and would suggest not
make a recommendation to not have on street parking because of possible future development.
Commissioners commented on the front elevation on the Amundson side with the planters and
asked Worthington to consider the pedestrian experience and that the Commission would like to
see some treatment addressing the pedestrian aspect. Commissioners also asked Worthington to
re-assess the height of the brick wall on the bottom portion of the building on the Southeast side.
Commissioners and Worthington had a lengthy discussion regarding the potential trail connection
and why an easement was included instead of being included in the project. Director Teague
stated that it would have to be a complete redesign in order to make the connection, solely on
this property, a connection from this site to the regional trail and it would have to go right
through the parking lot or cross over the drive entrance in order to make a direct connection.
Teague was asked what the Small Area Plan specifically said regarding development of a
connection like this and Teague replied that the plan was for the City to put in the public
improvements and this is an opportunity to get an easement to help provide at least half of the
trail connection.
Commissioners commented that the materials board could be tweaked to add a buffer and screen
or green wall the parking, per the Small Area Plan and a condition of the development.
Commissioners pointed out that under Site Guidelines on page 49 under Parking it reads, “Visually
buffer surface parking lots and install edge treatments.”
Worthington explained that because the site is contaminated with PCE, the rain water can’t be
percolated through the soil because it will pick up the PCE so they are using filters for the
treatment regarding some the storm water management plan.
Commissioners asked about the process for the financing and Worthington replied that they
develop under the Section 42 tax credit program. Worthington explained that developers
compete for access to tax credits so Minnesota Housing has a competitive process and scored
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 6 of 11
criteria that is competed on. Worthington stated that one of the key criteria for points is staying
within a reasonable range of development costs and you want to be in the bottom half of the
range.
Commissioners asked if the applicant reviewed the plan with Xcel Energy, because one of the
conditions in the Small Area Plan said that any development proposal should be reviewed with
Xcel prior to coming before submitting plans to the City. Director Teague replied that the plans
were sent to Xcel and we haven’t heard back from them and added that this property is not
adjacent to the rail lines.
Commissioners questioned the “village-like character” for the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan.
Commissioners that were on the Small Area Plan Work Group stated that the look of this
building is consistent with the village and it brings the vibrancy to the street, brings the population,
and brings the connection. Commissioners added that this is 1 of 8 parcels and the idea of a village
is the larger buildout, and this building is an important beginning.
Commissioners stated the Eastern side is very important because it has more users taking in the
views and stated that the connection on that side is very crucial because it interfaces with the
public.
Director Teague explained that the property to the south is zoned Industrial. Teague stated that
the Small Area Plan is suggesting that it is going to be re-guided to Neighborhood Node and they
have to do a rezoning on that property within 9 months of the MET Council taking action on it.
Teague explained that the City will have to meet with the property owner and informing them
them that their property is going to be rezoned and it is a good time to start that discussion of
making that trail connection and it could even be part of that rezoning to get that easement at that
time.
Public Hearing
Steve Wright, 5422 Creek View Lane, stated that you can see the property from his home and
participated in the neighborhood meeting. He commented that he was impressed with MWF’s
commitment affordability range, the size of units, and parking availability. He stated that he was excited to
have them as neighbors.
Floyd Grabiel, 7510 Cahill Road, stated that he thinks it is a wonderful site and a good project. Grabiel
stated that he uses the bike trail quite a bit and it would be nice to have a trail connection, but doesn’t
have to happen right away and he is in full support of approving this project.
Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion
Commissioner Lee moved approval of the rezoning as proposed with two additions to get the
connection accomplished as part of the rezoning to occur after the approval of the
Comprehensive Plan and to encourage the applicant to take a further look at the color palette
and the exterior materials. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 7 of 11
Aye: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Berube, Chair Nemerov
Nay: Thorsen and Bennett.
The motion carried 5-2.
C. Subdivision with Front Yard Setback at 6625 Mohawk Trail
Director Teague explained that Jim Seabold, on behalf of Michelle and William McQuarie, is proposing to
subdivide the 5 acre property at 6625 Mohawk Trail into three lots. Teague explained that the existing
home on the lot would remain, and continue to gain access off Mohawk Trail and the two new lots would
be created on the east half of the property and gain access off of Dakota Trail. Teague stated that to
accommodate the request a subdivision and front yard setback variance from 73.5 feet to 30 feet for each
lot is required. Teague also stated that within this neighborhood, the minimum lot size is established by
the median width, depth and area of all lots within 500 feet of the property and the minimum lot sizes are
met for this proposed subdivision. Teague explained that the front yard setback requirement is established
by taking the average setback of the 12 homes located on the west side of Dakota Trail in between Indian
Hills Road and Shawnee Circle and the setback of the homes range from 21.7 feet to 180 feet and the
average is 73.5 feet. Teague explained that variances are requested for the setback to Dakota Trail for two
lots. Teague presented reasoning for the Planning Commission to approve or deny the request. Staff
recommended approval of the proposed subdivision and front yard setback for the plat, subject to the
findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners asked Teague asked for the square footage of the proposed new homes and he
replied that it is about a 6,000 square foot building pad for each site and you could build a very
well sized home.
Commissioners asked Teague about Engineering’s thoughts on the storm water drainage. Teague
replied that the runoff would come down the hill into Dakota Trail so the applicant is proposing
rain gardens along the street to hold back the drainage as it goes to the street so it helps prevent
some of the runoff. Teague stated that, in general, Engineering is okay with the proposal and they
would get more in depth and detailed with the building permits.
Commissioners asked how the proposed lot sizes compare to neighboring lot sizes and Teague
replied that they are actually larger, but it does vary. Commissioners also asked for clarification on
no more than 25 percent slope disturbance on either new lot. Teague replied in the affirmative
and that the code for the 25 percent number was before his time. Teague also explained that this
proposal is different than the proposal 17 years ago because the older proposal had a greater than
25 percent impact on the slopes.
Commissioners asked Teague about the 2002 proposal and asked if he agreed with the
distinctions between the application in 2002 and the differences with this one. Teague replied in
the affirmative. Commissioners also asked Teague to comment on the 25 percent plat wide
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 8 of 11
request versus lot wide. Teague replied that the only concern he would have is with the south lot
having a large area outside of the 18 percent and he would caution that he wouldn’t want to see
40 percent disturbance on the North lot and 10 percent on the South lot. Teague stated that he
wouldn’t want to see more than a 30 and 20 percent split. Seabold commented that 30 and 20
percent split would work.
Appearing for the Applicant
Michelle McQuarie, 6625 Mohawk Trail, introduced herself and stated that she has lived in Edina for 45 years.
McQuarie explained that the home was put on the market for 1 year, but due to the large lot size of 5 acres it
didn’t sell.
Jim Seabold, Coldwell Banker Burnet at 821 Grand Avenue in St. Paul, explained that their Engineering study
suggested that they could have 5 lots on the parcel and be compliant, but he stated that they thought that wasn’t
the best use in the community. Seabold stated that the proposed 1 acre parcels are larger than 60 percent of the
lots in the 500 foot radius. Seabold stated that they are okay with most of the Staff suggestions regarding the
preservation easement and the setback requirement and to not disturb more than 25 percent.
Carol Lansing, Faegre Baker Daniels at 90 South 7th Street in Minneapolis, introduced herself and thanked
Director Teague for working with the team. Lansing discussed not requiring that the 25 percent disturbance on
steep slopes limit be met on separate lots, but a 25 percent calculation based on the area of the plat. Lansing
discussed why the 2002 subdivision proposal is different than this proposal. Lansing also stated that this
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and discussed
Public Hearing
Greg Soule, Malkerson Gunn Martin LLP at 220 South 6th Street in Minneapolis, stated that he is the
attorney representing Betsy and Jay Cutcliffe who have lived at 6617 Mohawk Trail for 19 years. Soule
discussed subdivisions and all of the criteria the Planning Commission is asked to consider. Soule wanted
to challenge how the disturbance calculations were made. Soule stated that Staff’s proposal included vague
conditions.
Paul Molitor, 6725 Iroquois Circle, introduced himself and stated that he is a concerned neighbor. Molitor
explained that 11 years ago he purchased his home in the neighborhood next door to the 5 acre property.
Molitor stated that he is against disturbing the beautiful area because it is a special part of Edina and
commented that the slope that is being discussed would affect his property and property value.
Mike Carey, 6625 Dakota Trail, stated that he was speaking on behalf of himself and his neighbors, Kathy
Nelson at 6621 Dakota Trail and the Goldsteins at 6629 Dakota Trail and stated that they are the 3
homes most affected by the subdivision in terms of the views out of their windows and Carey is
representing his neighbors as their attorney. Carey stated that he had read the code and Comprehensive
Plan carefully and it doesn’t state that it supports speculative and saleable determinations about splitting up
properties. Carey commented that there is plenty of inventory of homes for sale in Indian Hills. Carey
stated there are leaves, buckthorn, and a fence that are on the Dakota Trail side of the property that need
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 9 of 11
to be addressed. Carey suggested to follow the Cutcliffe’s recommendation of only subdividing into 1 lot
instead of 3.
Betsy Cutcliffe, 6617 Mohawk Trail, introduced herself and stated that a 1 lot subdivision would minimize
the loss of trees, the steep slope disturbance, minimizes the retaining wall, drainage issues, and minimizes
the setback variances. Cutcliffe expressed concern about an existing 5 foot retaining wall on her property
that goes into the McQuarie’s. Cutcliffe explained that she has had two tree reports done and they
explained what would happen if this property was subdivided into 2 additional lots and stated that she has
a petition with neighbors against the subdivision.
Tony Zeuli, 6805 Iroquois Circle, stated that he is asking the Planning Commission to deny the request.
Zeuli explained that the lots in Indian Hills are larger and that is what’s appealing about the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners asked Staff and the applicant about the reasonable expectations of neighbors when
they purchased their property. Dave Kendall, City Attorney’s Office, advised the Planning
Commission about their ruling on a subdivision application. Kendall stated that they are acting in a
quasi-judicial function so they are trying to determine if the application complies with the
subdivision ordinance, and if they think that it does, there is not a lot of discretion to deny it if you
don’t’ like it. Kendall commented that if the Planning Commission think the application complies, it
is fairly clear you are supposed to grant it. Kendall also commented that in terms of the economic
viability of the proposed development, it is not a factor under the subdivision ordinance. Kendall
stated that there is a lot of neighborhood opposition to the subdivision and that it should be taken
into account, but neighborhood opposition by itself is not a reason to deny the subdivision
application. Kendall stated that if the neighbors in the neighborhood had the expectation that the
property in the neighborhood would never be subdivided, the Planning Commission needs to
decide if that is a reasonable expectation sufficient to deny the subdivision application.
Commissioners discussed the comment regarding susceptibility to erosion and flooding and asked
for a response from the applicant or Staff. Director Teague replied that they rely on the City
Engineer to review the plans and he was generally okay and comfortable with what was presented
with the oversize lots and he didn’t think there would be a negative impact or increased runoff on
the adjacent properties.
Commissioners asked how the determinations for disturbance of the slope are calculated. Teague
replied that he asked Engineering to look specifically at the 18 percent and 25 percent rule.
Teague stated that they reviewed the plans and didn’t believe there was a disturbance of over 25
percent. Teague stated that the review of the detail of the retaining wall would be reviewed as
part of an individual building permit and there is not an extensive review in regard to proposed
retaining walls. Teague also commented that the applicant cannot affect any retaining wall on the
Cutcliffe property or do any damage to adjacent properties.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 10 of 11
Commissioners discussed the comment of the easement having vague conditions and asked for
Teague’s response to that comment. Director Teague responded that at the point in preliminary
plat with the variances, the parameters have been outlined that the applicant needs to meet, and
the detail would be seen as final plat. Teague added that if the Planning Commission wanted to add
conditions, they can do that.
Director Teague was asked about disturbing slopes on adjacent properties and explained that the
disturbance would come in off of Dakota Trail with creating the building pads. Teague was also
asked about the buckthorn and fence on the 6625 Mohawk Trail property and responded that the
Heath Department can inspect the site to see if there are any nuisance violations and follow up
with that right away.
Commissioners asked about if character of the neighborhood is part of the variance criteria and
Teague replied that it is, and Staff believes that the application is in character of the neighborhood,
and stated that the proposed lots are oversized in comparison to the neighborhood.
Commissioners discussed that the character of the large lots in the neighborhood and stated that
that granting the application could be harmful. Commissioners continued to have a lengthy
discussion regarding the size of the proposed lots and if they fit expectations for the surrounding
area. Commissioners also commented that the issue isn’t about character, but is about the
environment, sustainability, and global warming. Commissioners commented that that includes
evaluating the amount of trees that would be removed and meeting the Comprehensive Plan
requirements.
Commissioners asked about a time limit on the development agreement. Teague replied that for
the preliminary plat, the applicant goes to City Council for the preliminary plat, and then would
have 1 year to apply for a final plat and goes back to the City Council.
Motion
Commissioner Lee moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City
Council of the proposed preliminary plat with front yard setback variances and denial based
on the findings in the staff report. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion.
Aye: Lee, Bennett
Nay: Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Berube, Chair Nemerov
The motion failed 5-2.
Commissioner Thorsen moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the
City Council of the subdivision and variance subject to the conditions and findings outlined in
the staff memo and adding one additional condition that neither lot shall exceed 30 percent
disturbance of the 18 percent slope and an average of 25 percent. Commissioner Berube
seconded the motion.
Aye: Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Berube, Chair Nemerov
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: May 22, 2019
Page 11 of 11
Nay: Lee, Bennett
The motion passed 5-2.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
None.
VIII. Correspondence and Petitions
None.
IX. Chair and Member Comments
None.
X. Staff Comments
Director Teague gave a brief summary of the City Council meeting on May 7, 2019 which included the
City Council recommending approval of the draft Comprehensive Plan and the 6 month review period has
begun. Teague also commented that at the City Council meeting, Staff was authorized to move forward
with the creation of a Housing Task Force.
XI. Adjournment
Commissioner Miranda moved to adjourn the May 8, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning
Commission at 11:50 PM. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.