HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-12-19 Planning Commission MinutesDraft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date:
Page 1 of 5
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
June 12, 2019
I. Call To Order
Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM.
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Thorsen, Melton, Nemerov, Bennett, Berube, and
Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior
Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist.
Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Lee, Strauss, and Mangalick.
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the June 12, 2019, agenda. Commissioner
Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the May 22, 2019, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
V. Community Comment
None.
VI. Reports/Recommendations
A. Sketch Plan Review- 4404 Valley View Road
Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to
revise the approved site plan for 4404 Valley View Road, which is part of the Edina Flats project. Teague
explained that the proposed change would be from the approved four-unit, two-story condo, to a two-
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date:
Page 2 of 5
story 6,400 square foot retail/office building and the applicant states that the construction cost of a four-
unit condominium with underground parking is not financially feasible to construct on the site. Teague
explained that the small area plan for this site calls for a maximum height to be 2 stories and 30 feet
maximum and the proposal is for 2 stories and 38 feet. Teague stated that the applicant proposes to build
a 6,400 square foot office/retail building and the 1,400 square foot commercial building on the site was
recently removed. Teague added that parking for the building would be on the first level with 21 parking
stalls and based on a 1,900 square foot retail space and a 4,500 square foot office space 36 stalls would be
required.
Appearing for the Applicant
Dave Remick, Site Owner and Ken Piper, Principal at Tanek introduced themselves to the Planning Commission.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Director Teague was asked if he can recall if the City ever approved a project that located a
structure in the Right-of-Way vs. a patio or landscaping. Teague responded to the best of his
knowledge no structures have been permitted in the Right-of Way. He further clarified that
landscaping features and patios have been allowed in certain instances.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Remick presented the revised Sketch Plan to the Commissioners. He informed them the proposed
changes have been well received by neighborhood residents. He explained that he envisions the first floor
retail use to “house” an ice cream store or coffee shop. Remick said the upper level{s} would be office
space. With graphics Remick highlighted the revised proposal.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
The applicant was asked the reasoning for multiple decks for this project. Mr. Remick said the
plans as presented indicate the full build out potential of the project. He noted he is not sure if all
decks would be built, much would depend on tenant mix. Multiple tenants could create the need
for full build out.
Commissioners asked what will happen to all the utility boxes, etc. Mr. Remick said he would
work with City Staff on this element of the project, adding the boxes would be relocated.
The applicants were asked if the City would be compensated for the proposed building
encroachment into the Right-of-Way. Director Teague interjected that he spoke with the
Engineering Department and they indicated they were not receptive to structures in the Right-of-
Way. Teague said their preference would be for the applicant to revise the plans. Teague stated
that further discussions would need to occur on this aspect of the proposal.
The applicant was questioned on their reason for not building the structure within the approved
plans and approved variances. The applicants responded that the change in use dictated the
square footage to ensure a successful retail component.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date:
Page 3 of 5
Commissioners expressed concern that the plans continue to change. The developer noted that
the underground parking for the proposed condominium project was not feasible, which created
the need for revision.
Good job at engaging the street. If a building is designed well it creates a welcoming “gateway”
into the neighborhood.
With regard to the parking variances; consider having the applicant pay into the sidewalk and
bikeway fund.
The key to this project will be the tenant of the retail space. Consider a concept that adds
vibrancy throughout the day. If the mix of tenants is right parking may not present an issue.
Strong consideration not to have the upper most deck.
Further review the landscaping to the right of the sidewalk. Enhance landscaping.
Three stories is high in this area.
Ensure doors in front of the building. Create an inviting space for the public.
It was suggested that a Proof of Parking Agreement be discussed/considered that would allow use
of the strip mall space to the west for parking overflow.
Commissioners thanked the applicant for their presentation.
B. Sketch Plan Review- Corner of Hankerson Avenue and 52nd Street West (5132 and
5136-48 Hankerson Avenue)
Director Teague explained that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan request to
redevelop the property at the corner of Hankerson Avenue and 52nd Street West (5132 and 5136-48
Hankerson Avenue. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two-story four-unit apartment at
5136-48 Hankerson and the single-story single-family home at 5132 Hankerson, and build a new 12-unit,
three-story row townhome.
Appearing for the Applicant
Steven Behnke, Donnay Homes, Peter , Elizabeth MacDonagh
Applicant Presentation
Behnke addressed the Commission and gave them a brief history of Donnay Homes. Behnke presented the
Sketch Plan. The issue with this development is that it could set the stage for future redevelopments within this
immediate area.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Planner Teague was asked if the proposed development would include an affordable housing
component. Planner Teague responded that the number of units proposed are below the
affordable housing requirement threshold of 20 units. Continuing, Teague acknowledged this is a
rezoning and the Commission can place conditions for approval.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date:
Page 4 of 5
It was suggested that the front yard setback be reviewed noting that the homes on this block
appear to have a setback deeper than 30 feet.
Rethink the “possible” park potential, especially in relationship to the busy street.
It was noted that there was no encouragement for fewer vehicles with this project. The location
does have access to transit.
Interesting project. Row homes can be an attractive way to add density. Reconsider the tandem
garage. Although this project provides two tandem parking slots, those slots may not be attractive
to a number of buyers.
This project provides diversity of housing styles.
This neighborhood is an eclectic mix of housing. It was acknowledged that the subject block is
unique. The proposed housing style may be a good fit for this neighborhood; however, the
building materials and details will be important. Very “visible” site.
Great idea, materials and aesthetics will be very important for this property.
Consider creating one unit of affordable housing; work with staff. Mr. Behnke said it is very
difficult to construct a “house” less than 375-400 thousand dollars, adding he is willing to discuss
affordable housing with staff.
With the final project do your best to increase the north setback.
A discussion ensued on setbacks and the reason this block of Hankerson was so unique. It was pointed
out by the developer that in his opinion when you urbanize a site that site needs to have access to
amenities and a big walkability factor; which this site has. The question became what is the best way to
“feed” the different elements of the Grandview area and find the correct residential mix to encourage
continued support for the existing amenities provided by the Grandview commercial element.
The developer was asked if other options were on the table before this proposal was finalized.
Behnke said other ideas were considered; however, the townhouse aspect of the project in his
opinion provided the best outcome to the property owners and the City. The existing grade was
challenging.
Concern was expressed that the proposal maxes out the site. It was noted that this project is
directly adjacent to a single family home. Reconsider height and increase the setback to the single
family property. 3 stories 6-feet away is too close.
Consider using the alley; better connect the environment (driveways on the alley). Behnke said
one goal was to be able to provide a “rear yard” for the future residents of the building. He
noted if the buildings were shifted the front yard would be the outdoor space for the future
families.
Appreciate the ownership aspect of the project.
Be more creative in sharing space, too much hardscape in the front. Concern with reducing light
for the adjoining neighborhood.
Better articulate the building.
The proposal as presented maybe too dense. Re-look at the north detail of the site.
Use the greenspace on the other side of the street for residents of the proposed project.
Grade restrictions were acknowledged; however take advantage of the alley, the aesthetics of
multiple garage doors in the front are an issue.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date:
Page 5 of 5
Reduce number of units.
If parking is in the front consider single curb cuts to “wide out” to two garages.
The applicants were thanked for their presentation.
VII. Correspondence and Petitions
None.
VIII. Chair and Member Comments
Commissioner Bennet suggested that Edina’s residential neighborhoods receive a “heads up” prior to an
application for Sketch Plan review. Bennet said in his opinion notifying neighborhoods prior to Sketch Plan
Review would be beneficial for not only the residents impacted by the proposed project but for the Commission
and City as well.
A discussion ensued on the merits of the Sketch Plan Review Process and if changes should be made to the
policy. Planner Teague pointed out that not all of Edina’s neighborhoods are recognized, adding sharing
information may be difficult in the “unrecognized” neighborhoods. Continuing, Teague noted that the Sketch
Plan Review process needs to be mindful of the 60 and 120 day rule, questioning if notifying neighbors would
start the clock.
The discussion ensued with Commissioners expressing their opinions. It was decided that further discussion is
needed and this topic should be added to the list of items to be discussed at the Commission and Councils joint
meetings.
IX. Staff Comments
Planner Teague reported that when Commissioner Miranda was appointed to the Commission alternates were
also chosen. Teague said next week he would be meeting with Chris Douglas, who was the alternate. Teague
said if Douglas is agreeable to serve on the Commission he could begin as early as the June 26th meeting.
X. Adjournment
Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the June 12, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:16
PM. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.