HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-26-19 PC MinutesDraft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 1 of 15
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Edina City Hall Council Chambers
June 26, 2019
I. Call To Order
Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
II. Roll Call
Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Berube, Mangalick, Nemerov, Bennett, Lee,
Douglas, and Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director; Kris Aaker,
Assistant Planner; Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner; Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator.
Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Thorsen, Strauss, Melton.
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Commissioner Berube moved to approve the June 26, 2019, agenda. Commissioner Bennett
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A. Minutes: Planning Commission, June 12, 2019
Commissioner Berube moved to approve the June 12, 2019, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Douglas seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Director Teague introduced Commissioner Douglas as the new Planning Commissioner. Commissioner
Douglas reviewed his background with the Commissioners.
V. Public Hearings
A. Variance Request B-19-10 – 4213-4215 West 50th Street
Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of the applicant for a variance to permit a 10.3-foot
setback for a garage and carport from right-of-way and variance from the minimum two-car garage
requirement at 4213-4215 West 50th Street. The subject property is zoned R-2, double dwelling unit
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 2 of 15
district, and is approximately 10,074 square feet in area, located south of West 50th Street consisting of a
side-by-side double dwelling with a detached two-car garage accessing from West 50th Street.
Staff recommends approval of the variance requests as requested subject to the findings and conditions
listed in the staff report.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A question was asked if the City had any requirements or guidelines for garage access. Aaker was
not aware of any requirements. The garage would either need to access a street or alleyway.
A commissioner wondered if the City would see any issue in the future with use of the right-of-
way for the driveway access to the alleyway. Aaker stated it has not been a concern of the City
Engineer and one of the first questions that was asked when this proposal came in.
A commissioner noted there was mention of eventually subdividing this parcel and wondered
what that meant. Aaker explained there would be a party wall division with two legal descriptions
and at some point, in time the two units could be sold and owned separately.
A question was asked for confirmation that there was no subdivision before the Commission at
this time. Aaker indicated that was correct.
A commissioner asked how a car will access the easement area on the property and which stalls
would need to be removed from the existing parking lot. Aaker showed an aerial of the area and
indicated two parking spots behind the garage that would need to be removed. She noted there
was no objection when discussing this with the City Engineer and also indicated the same would
be done for the property owner to the east.
Appearing for the Applicant
Steve Springrose, owner, introduced himself and explained he and his wife have owned the property for two
years. The building was built as a duplex in the 40’s and did not have a lot of improvements through the years.
He explained there is no where to park unless parking on Arden Place, so he is attempting to put in four
resident parking and four guest parking spaces on the existing property. Nothing would change on the
southside of the property. He wanted to maintain a good relationship between the duplex and the church
behind them. He mentioned that in addition to the church he has spoken to the four adjacent landowners on
Arden Place and to the property owner to the east and all are in support of what is being proposed.
Springrose noted the garage as drawn on the south side has a fifteen-foot setback and in discussion with City
staff it was indicated that twenty feet might be what is required there. He did not know if there was an
administrative way to add a fifteen-foot setback capability to the variance, as the garage would be built to the
south, even though it is not what was put into the information before the Planning Commission.
Assistant Planner Aaker stated because it is an alley to the south, it is different than a City street and actually a
three-foot setback and Mr. Springrose is fine with what the drawing shows.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A concern was raised with who would be maintaining the alleyway behind the garage. Springrose
indicated there have not been any past concerns with the maintenance of the alleyway but it there were
future concerns it would be brought forward to the City to see what could be done.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 3 of 15
A commissioner wondered how long Springrose has lived in the home. Springrose indicated his family
does not currently live at the residence, it is being rented out to single individuals but are planning on
moving the family into the house in a few years.
A commissioner asked Springrose to expand on his points regarding affordability. Springrose indicated
this is naturally occurring low income property in the City of Edina. The rent charged is at the
twentieth percentile of Edina incomes.
A commissioner wondered if the renovations go through would the rents have to increase. Chair Olsen
stated that is not a part of the variance and the Planning Commission needs to only focus on the
variance. Springrose stated the answer was not substantially, the rent is being market driven and
affordable.
A commissioner wondered if there was a way to consider a different paving choice other than
hardscape. Springrose stated he has been working with City Engineering related to that and are trying
to stay under six hundred square feet of pavement addition. The front area paving can be removed
because it will not be accessed by a vehicle which will reduce the amount of hardscape. He noted he
has looked at various types of paving that would limit the footprint.
Public Hearing
None.
Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nemerov
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners discussed the concerns with single car garage and carport, the maintenance of the
alleyway and the affordable housing aspect.
Commissioners were in support of the variance.
Motion
Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council of the variance request B-19-10 for 4213-4215 West 50th Street as outlined in the staff
memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
B. Variance Request B-19-11 – 4439 Garrison Lane
Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of the applicant for a 3.36-inch foot first floor height
variance for a new home at 4439 Garrison Lane. The proposed first floor elevation of the house is
proposed to be at 878.36, which will be 3.36 inches higher than the 1-foot increase allowed by ordinance.
Teague explained the proposed survey indicates a first-floor elevation for a new homme at 878.36 with
the existing first floor at 877.37, which is less than the allowable 1-foot increase (complies). The survey,
therefore, specifies compliance with the 1-foot maximum increase rule. The survey also specifies that the
basement will be a 9-foot poured walk-out. Teague stated the property will be re-graded to accomplish a
walk out. Given the survey, it appears the project can be accomplished without the need for a survey.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 4 of 15
Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the
staff report. It was noted there has been some correspondence regarding this item and all have been
supportive.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A question was asked why there is a variance on an elevation if the aggregate house is still lower
than the maximum. Ms. Aaker indicated the City has a rule that requires you do not go higher
than one foot above the existing entry elevation of the home that is currently there.
A commissioner asked if the previous house had been compliant with the today’s floodplain
regulations in terms of basement elevation then would there still be this issue. Ms. Aaker stated
the issue they are proposing; they could comply and also comply with the floodplain elevation.
The current home, if it was non-conforming could be kept that way as long as there is no tear
down and rebuilding. If that would be done, then it would need to be elevated. That is the
problem the City has run into in these situations is that the basements have to be elevated to be 2
feet above the flood ordinance and most of the homes were built prior to that and are lower.
A commissioner asked if there are any aesthetic differences when the property is built between
the trusses the builder is using and the trusses the City thinks they could use. Ms. Aaker stated
she has been told it could affect ceiling height and where duct work can be placed. It can be done
but is not generally the standard solution.
Appearing for the Applicant
Alex Swiggen, 4439 Garrison Lane, applicant and Dale Perrault, Perrault Construction, explained they are asking
for 3.36 inches for the variance with the basement height due to the one-hundred-year flood plain being at 866.2
and having to have a basement floor at 8.68.2. He noted there are some other things with the property he
would like to do down the road with his job and having to stay within a certain fitness level, he does a lot of
things overhead and needs a certain height of ceiling for that. If the trusses were to be changed that would be
slightly problem some to him. He did not think from the street there would be any way to tell that it is three
inches higher than others.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A commissioner indicated it was not about the inches and clarified this would be going up a foot
and is not staying the same. The applicant is already taking twelve inches and wants three inches
more. Swiggen stated without the hundred-year flood plain they would be able to get that with
the twelve inches and would not have to come for a variance.
A commissioner thought the roof height had been at a consistent maximum height throughout the
City but if the applicant is open to taking suggestions, potentially look at using some hip roof
forms as a way of bringing down the overall height in appearance which would make the house
look less massive. Swiggen was under the impression that roof height had nothing to do with this
because they are four feet lower than what is allowed.
Public Hearing
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 5 of 15
None.
Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A commissioner did not think this variance was hurting anyone and have less space because
regulations have changed.
A commissioner agreed the applicant is stuck at a bottom limit based on the floodplain and all of
the support of the neighborhood and felt It will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioners discussed staff recommendation, and some were in support of this and some
thought it was pretty clear that this is about process and could not vote in support of this.
A commissioner would like the Planning Commission to come up with some number that could
be accepted on items like this, so it is consistent throughout.
A commissioner thought there should be consistency. The houses are not out of sync with the
character of the neighborhood and the aggregate height is a more important number within those
floors. Three and a half inches in a basement is huge and can make a person either feel they are in
a cave or in a room and can make the whole house more livable. It made sense to approve this.
Thought it was the Planning Commissions duty to look at the spirit of the law, how the neighbors
feel and what it does for the community. It will also be a more valuable homes because there will
be a livable basement.
A commissioner thought precedent was something very important to consider but in the past the
Commission has approved a variance for someone in order to get a hot tub because of the
physical demands of their employment and in the past variances in subdivisions were approved in
order to enhance the resale value of the land. This was not out of character of past actions by the
City of Edina.
Majority of the Planning Commission was to support the variance.
Motion
Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council of Variance B-19-11 for 4439 Garrison Lane as outlined in the staff memo subject to the
conditions and findings therein including The hardship is caused by the high water elevation and
an 8 foot 9 inch basement is considered reasonable in this instance and would not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5 ayes, 1 nay (Lee).
C. Subdivision with Variances – 5841 Oaklawn Avenue
Director Teague presented the request of Steve Sandberg to subdivide his property at 5841 Oaklawn
Avenue into two lots. The existing home on the lot would be torn down and two new homes built on
the new parcels. Both lots would gain access off Oaklawn Avenue. Teague noted the home to the
south is shaped the same as the proposed south lot, due to the vacation of a portion of 59th Street.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 6 of 15
There is an existing pedestrian and utility easement located over the vacated right-of-way. Teague
noted the overhead power line and stairway/sidewalk access to the park located in the easement,
which would remain in place.
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision with variances, as requested subject to the findings and
conditions listed in the staff report.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A question was asked if Engineering looked at these as building pads because it looks like the
topography is pretty steep. It works right now for the single house that is there right now and
seems to stay pretty clear of that but once it is subdivided into two lots it might have to start
cutting into the steep slope, especially on lot one. Teague indicated Engineering did not have an
issue with that.
A commissioner thought there will need to be a retaining wall on lot one on the southside in the
future because it currently naturally slopes down. By subdividing there could potentially be some
topography and water drainage related issues once two separate houses are built.
A question was asked in regard to a technicality that was brought up in some correspondence the
Commission received, six of the ten lots are larger than fifty percent, which is the majority unless
the lots on the other side of the street are included then it would be thirty percent. She was not
sure what the guideline actually states but did it specify only on the one street or did it specify in
the neighborhood. Teague indicated there is no specific wording for this and is a judgement call
for the Planning Commission and Council to look at.
Clarity on the drawing was requested where the property lines and easement area would be.
Teague showed the drawing and indicated within the two dotted red lines it is a utility easement
and no building could be constructed there, which is thirty feet from line to line. He noted the
blue outside lines were the property lines.
A commissioner asked if Engineering was ok with a building pad being so close to the utility
easement. Teague indicated Engineering was fine with that. The original proposal did extend into
the easement but given the easements that is there and the potential to put additional utility lines,
protection of that pedestrian path it is very important to the neighborhood to preserve the
easement area.
A commissioner stated one of the residents expressed water run off on one of the stairs during
winter and did Engineering have any concerns about that or is there enough distance from the
new proposed pad to avoid that. Teague noted Engineering did not mention any concern they had
on that. That is something, should this go through to draw to Engineering’s attention.
A commissioner thought it was significant for the Engineering report to state that the proposed
plan does show with redevelopment of the property that the impervious surface is now increasing
from 25.4 percent to 43.7 percent. It does mention that there may be retaining walls required on
the southern side of lot one, in which case, if over four feet will need to be designed and by the
conduits those walls will be over four feet.
A question was asked if there was a concern for flooding because at 5845 Kellogg there was issues
with the drainage and neighbors were experiencing flooding because this is increasing the
impervious coverage by a lot. Teague did not recall that. He noted a drainage area on this plat
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 7 of 15
and thought there might need to have something like this done to the north when a specific
building is proposed for that site.
A commissioner stated one of the proposals the Commission recently denied was that lot had a
lot of old trees and that factored into the consideration a little bit and was not aware of any trees
on this lot. Are there any trees relevant. Teague did not hear about any tree issues but there
were a number of large oaks on the north parcel and is not a consideration on this lot.
Appearing for the Applicant
Steve Sandberg, 5841 Oaklawn Avenue, introduced himself and his siblings and explained that they grew up
at 5841 Oaklawn Avenue. The combined two lots were purchased by his father in 1949 and contractors were
hired to finish off what had been started as a foundation. Sandberg noted his father lived on and took care of
that property and loved Edina. It was his father’s wishes to split this back into two lots.
David Kenably, Civil Site Group, Civil Engineer working on the subdivision with the Sandberg’s. In regard to the
topography and grading on the property, these are preliminary plans and once approved the engineering work
will need to be done. Currently retaining walls are not being shown and the current house is being used as a
retaining wall with landscaping along the house. The slopes are standard 3 to 1 slope through there. The
drainage all flows to the City right-of-way, nothing flows to any adjacent properties. Both block one and two
drains to the east but there is a low spot and swail on this property that ultimately drains to 59th and will be no
increase or impact to drainage on adjacent properties.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A question was asked if the connection of the driveway to 59th is going to be eliminated, providing
some more permeable cover. Kenably stated that is the current intent. Having the two driveways
come off Oaklawn and the driveway in the back would be eliminated.
A question was asked if the drainage to 59th above ground drainage or is any of it below ground.
Kenably indicated it is currently above ground drainage with swails but apparently the engineer at
the City indicated a drain at 59th that it could potentially be connected into. Commissioners
thought that was a nice idea.
Public Hearing
Robert Braun commented that he respected the wishes of the family and wants to carry them on. He
indicated he has been a resident since 1993 and his grandparents owned his home since the beginning, in
1952. He has taken on the home since then and is very near and dear to his house. He noted he is the
property just behind lot two and down the hill. Some of the main issues he believes has to do with
aesthetics. The change to the neighborhood has been wonderful but now it is personal because he is
going to sit in his backyard, as he did eight years ago and allowed his neighbor to build, and this project
will do the same. He noted there is no drainage, there is the potential for that to be very, with the old
growth trees that are directly in a shade path from his house and his patio, which is something he would
like to conserve. The idea is that the runoff currently, due to the house next to him, a small drain tile was
installed along the house into his backyard, but if this ends up being the same way as that, he will still end
up having flooding problems in his backyard and he has a walk out basement. He indicated this will affect
his backyard and maybe even his neighbor to the south. He stated he does not have a problem with the
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 8 of 15
progress and improvement to the neighborhood but with this case, it will unfortunately change everything
about his property and might squeeze him out. The flooding is real, every spring he has a stream in his
backyard. There is not a lot of drainage. Retaining walls and drainage tiles are great but he still thought
there was going to be problems.
Scott Armstrong, 5844 Burkview, commented he purchased his mother’s property and his concern was
with the fifty-foot lots. Originally when this was established the fifty-foot lots were built for ramblers and
now there are six-thousand-foot monstrosity homes on these lots. His concern is with the kids walking
up the railing to the bus stop and if a new house with a six thousand square foot monstrosity were to be
built on lot one that would create a wind tunnel between that area. He noted he is directly below that.
His other concern was with the drainage. The only other concern he had is that there are beautiful oak
trees on that property and also one on the City’s property that has a right of way and because 5901
wanting to bury the power lines Xcel had to come in and trim that tree. He thought that was something
the City needed to look at.
Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berude seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A commissioner stated the Planning Commission has seen a bunch of subdivision requests and the
Commission has a certain set of principles that are stuck to as to how a property might alter the
essential character of a neighborhood. This request is the only one that is really not similar to the
other requests that were denied and for that reason it was not believed the subdivision would
really alter the essential character of the neighborhood and would be in favor of it for that, as the
three elements staff highlighted in the report. The aesthetics not being seen by the Planning
Commission which could result in this are another story which the Commission has yet to find
out. The neighbors’ comments are duly noted. The drainage is a big deal to the neighbors and
might not hurt to put another drainage element on lot one to help further support the project.
Clarification was requested that this is being approved with the variances and the Commission will
not see this again. Teague indicated that was correct.
Commissioners thought about the character of the neighborhood and this is the only lot that is
larger than the others. The subdivision makes sense. There is concern about the trees and
drainage.
A commissioner thought if the property were sold without subdivision the concern of a
monstrosity of a home could become a reality because that could be built and have room to be
built on the larger lot and there is not any guarantee of the drainage being better or preservation
of trees or eliminating the potential for a wind tunnel. There is an uncertainty either way. This
subdivision of the lot is rational because it started out as two lots and fits in with the rest of the
neighborhood.
A commissioner wondered if there was any consideration of having a six-foot setback between
each home to honor that cumulative twelve feet or was that not discussed. Teague stated it was
looked at and if it was ten feet on the south side it seemed reasonable to allow a little closer on
the north side but because of the variances, if the Commission does not think the five foot
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 9 of 15
separation is appropriate, there could then be a ten foot separation between the two and the
variance could be modified or not grant the variance to the north lot line then there would need
to be a ten foot setback.
Concern was raised that the more these are squeezed together the higher up the structure could
go which is an aesthetic concern of the neighborhood.
A commissioner indicated it was hard to understand the variances without knowing what was
going to be built. A subdivision is a different standard of approval than a variance and those two
could be separated. Teague stated the Commission could and if no variances were granted, lot
two is essentially unbuildable, which would make it a little more challenging. The Commission
would be approving a subdivision with a lot that is unbuildable.
A commissioner thought there were issues that by subdividing situations could be created that
impact the surrounding areas. Not every lot is necessarily buildable and here the City is helping
the applicant create a buildable lot as part of the subdivision.
Commissioners were not sure about approving the variances and leaving that for a later date in
the process.
Commissioners were supportive of the overall character of the neighborhood and the lot widths
to the north and south, this seems to be a reasonable fit. Variances at this time are an unknown
for approval at this time.
A commissioner noted that the neighbors brought up a lot of good points about drainage and
trees. From what the Commission has been told, it sounds like drainage will be addressed and
there will be no drainage onto neighbors’ properties. Assuming that is true then the drainage
issue has been addressed. The City needs a stronger tree ordinance, which it currently does not
have, and this cannot be voted against because of the trees at this point. In terms of altering the
character of the neighborhood, splitting the lot would perfectly fit the neighborhood and nothing
unusual about it.
Commissioners asked for clarification on the variances. There are three variances to be
considered, lot area variances and setback variances for lot one. Teague indicated that was
correct. There is no setback variance for lot two, it is the two setback variances on the south lot.
A question was asked why there were not any setback variances needed for lot two. Teague
indicated the square that is drawn meets all of the City’s setback requirements.
A commissioner asked why a variance is needed for lot one, why are different setbacks applied for
the two lots. Teague stated it is because of the lot width. The south lot is eighty feet wide and
requires greater setbacks compared to the fifty-foot lot. That is part of what staff is showing as a
hardship. The City is applying eighty-foot-wide setback standards to essentially a fifty-foot-wide
lot because of the drainage and utility easement.
A commissioner was surprised how close the 5901 building is to the stairs. The City should look
at that but was not sure what could be done. It does not look like, as designed this property will
cause the same kind of encroachment upon the stairs. Teague agreed and in hindsight the City
should have probably taken a little bigger easement on the south lot when the right of way was
vacated.
A commissioner wondered if there was any value, or possible or reasonable to have a lower
height requirement on lot one as a condition of getting the variance to avoid any kind of wind
tunnel effect. Teague thought increasing the spacing between the two homes may have a bigger
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 10 of 15
impact. However, noted that that requiring the height standards for lot one should be consistent
with a fifty-foot-wide lot and thought that would be a reasonable condition.
A commissioner thought there was already an existing drainage issue and not being created
through the potential of this, however, a solution could be created, and it is being proposed in
this. It looks like on the east side of lot one there is a way to try to move the water rate toward
the road and maybe more could be done on lot one as well, even on lot two as well. Did
Engineering feel comfortable that there will not be any runoff onto other properties. Teague
indicated Engineering did not have any issues in conversations with him. Another condition could
be added to tie into the existing drain tile. Commissioners would support that as a modification
of approval and would not exasperate any possible problems.
Commissioners wondered how many trees would be impacted and removed. Teague stated there
would be trees removed, per the City Tree Ordinance, any tree that is removed within the
building footprint or driveways do not have to be replaced but any tree that is removed outside of
those areas would have to be replaced.
Commissioners thought it made sense to grant the variance for the five feet because there is no
existing house to worry about the distance.
Commissioners were comfortable with the variance request for lot one after understanding that
the requirement it is being held to is for an eighty-foot lot and in agreement if there is something
that can be done regarding potential height and might be a fair trade off. Teague thought that was
a good catch and would reduce the height by five feet.
Motion
Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council of the subdivision with variances for 5841 Oaklawn Avenue as outlined in the staff memo
subject to the conditions and findings therein in addition adding the stipulation that the height on
lot one would be as though it were a fifty foot lot versus an eighty foot lot and analysis and studies
be done to reduce damage due to draining and connect to the drain tile and eliminating the
driveway to 59th Street. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
VI. Community Comment
None.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. Sketch Plan Review – 7001 & 7025 France Avenue
Director Teague presented the sketch plan to redevelop the southeast corner of 70th and France (7001
and 7025 France Avenue). The applicant would tear down the existing 66,200 square foot office and bank
and build a 5,500 square foot US Bank building with drive-through; 4,000 square foot retail building with
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 11 of 15
drive-through; 7,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building; 120-unit market rate apartment (181,000
square feet); and, 80-unit affordable housing apartment (75,000 square feet).
Discussion/Comments/Questions
Commissioners asked Teague if there were any challenges presented by the sub-soil with
developing underground parking on this site. Teagues indicated he was not aware but is often an
issue. There is a relatively high-water table issue so guessed that could not go down too far with
underground parking.
Appearing for the Applicant
Kevin Meyer, Corporate Real Estate at US Bank, was in support of the sketch plan submission for 70th and
France Avenue. He introduced Rich Mariano, leading the Redevelopment Group. He stated together
with Ryan Companies and RSP Architects they are excited to discuss the redevelopment proposed
forward thinking redevelopment for the site, inspired by the Greater Southdale District Plan. He stated
US Bank has a long-valued history at this location and feel proud to be a part of the Edina community.
This is a big decision for the bank to make. The proposal is being made because they recognize it is the
right thing to do and no longer need this size of a facility to support their customers and as a member of
the Edina community, recognize that the property is a key parcel for the Greater Southdale District Plan.
Knowing this, they have been seeking the right partner for this redevelopment for several years and really
believe it has been found with Ryan Companies and the proposal before the Commission. However, the
development does need to meet some key criteria for US Bank to make this worthwhile. US Bank
Criteria is based around their purpose and core values at the bank. The development needs to really
strike a balance between the four key constituents that US Bank serves. One is the customer, two is the
colleagues, three is the community and four is the shareholders. For US Bank to support the development
it must balance all four of these.
Meyer stated starting with the customer, the bank proposes to build a new branch on the southwest
corner of the site to reinvest in the experience for the branch customers and also by sacrificing the corner
location the development proposal allows US Bank to provide uninterrupted service to support the
customers throughout the redevelopment. The colleagues will benefit through the new branch that
provides the right employee experience for them to better support the community in their customer
base. The community of Edina will benefit from a redevelopment of the US Bank parcel to a newer high-
density mixed-use development neighborhood. The Branch will also contain a community room that will
be able to be used for local events for charities, financial seminars that will be open for public use. The
new branch, as proposed needs to maintain high visibility and easy access with the newest technology and
key customer amenities to support the business. Drive thru and parking access is needed along with
signage in order to stay competitive in the Edina market. US Bank believes this proposal strikes that
balance well. US Bank feels that the sketch plan as presented is a win, win, win for the City of Edina, US
Bank and Ryan Companies and looks forward to partnering with the City further to bring this vision to
reality.
Student Commissioner Mangalick left the meeting.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 12 of 15
Carl Ruggs, Ryan Companies reviewed some of the key themes of the proposed plan.
Director Teague reviewed with the Commission the requirements for a sketch plan review and to focus
on the design experience guidelines, the big picture items and not getting down to the details of the
project.
Discussion/Comments/Questions
A commissioner indicated the overall general thought was this is moving in the right direction but
would like more of everything, except parking. Would like more connectivity, landscaping and
that this spot could be such a great area in the Southdale area but not quite living up to its
potential. Would like more engagement in the big quadrant and the meandering path throughout
the project. The affordable housing is great, the crosswalk to the Galleria and community room
and public space is general is wonderful but would like to see more of it.
A commissioner wondered why in an area like this, where the City is inviting the developer to
have more than one story on France, that there are not more stories. That would allow US Bank
to really be showcased and make that more of a presence.
A commissioner stated there is a lot of asphalt. Maybe make the meandering path go both ways
and trying to hide the parking underground for less asphalt. This is going in the right direction but
needs more of what was mentioned.
A commissioner thought the project is exciting. There are a lot of great concepts in this but
some of them could be taken further. The lack of a fifty-foot setback on France is somewhat of a
concern. For retail, if more stories could be added would that offset the cost of adding
underground parking and using the surface parking for more greenspace. The east/west
pedestrian walkway seemed to be lacking in greenery compared to some of the conceptual
drawings shared. Adding more greenspace along the walkways and making them seem a little
more like adhering to the concepts that were shared would make it more interesting.
A commissioner thought this was unique. In some ways this works and matches what is in the
Greater Southdale District Plan. Seeing the elevation, could it be possible to still carryout the
vision and have something like this on the corner because it is a very busy corner. A lower scale
could potentially work but lacking something that ties this whole thing together. The City is
looking for that greenspace. There are pieces of everything here but does not tie together well.
A commissioner felt the housing was in the right spot. In essence a street wall is being created
which is what is in the Greater Southdale District Plan. It is not all about the height, it is nice to
see the progression and the housing in the back and not feeling that the housing is looming over
the intersection. The apartment buildings themselves looks like the Byerly’s buildings and in order
to stand out there needs to be something that is really high quality.
A commissioner noted this is a great addition and great compliment to what is already there and a
vast improvement. It is bringing forth the change Edina wants to see.
A commissioner wondered what type of height was being considered and was more height ever
considered, if not, why. Ruggs stated they are not really looking at doing condominiums and for
an apartment building they find this is the right solution here. The project work seen behind this
was approved one year to two years ago and is still not launched. It is tough to make those work
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 13 of 15
in Edina. They felt this is the highest and best use for something that works for empty nesters at
this location and is walkable.
A commissioners wondered what other kind of guardrails are up on this project. There is a lot of
retail on France that is lower and want that type of retail experience matching to the other side as
well as what US Bank is doing. Is there potential for different use at this time or is this what Ryan
Companies is focused on. Ruggs felt with urban type sites they have previously developed that
when there is a small block that is where retail is usually put underneath the building and here
they felt residents much preferred to live to the east side of the site and not on top of France and
they felt the retail can survive and thrive better with its own pads. They thought a more
successful project that also allows more outdoor seating is this concept. After looking at a lot of
options the highest and best use is this.
A commissioner thought this is a catalyst type of site and is on a very prominent corner and
whatever is done more wow would be great to see. Would like to see the street be moved
closer to the 200 block. This is moving in the right direction with retail, residential and public
realm. The more intensity to fill in the gaps would be nice.
A commissioner indicated this is older style, suburban, especially from France Avenue which is not
something the City is looking for and does not follow the guidelines. It would be a mistake having
low density on this side of the street to match the low density on the other side of the street.
That leave France Avenue feeling very much like a highway which is what the City is trying to get
away from with the Southdale Guidelines. Anything that can be done would be great. There
needs to be something much more substantial on France to make it feel like it is a comfortable
place to be.
A commissioner thought the potential for more pedestrian traffic due to the addition of the E-line
in the future so the limitation of parking will not be a big deal because there are other ways of
getting people in and around the Southdale District. The future needs to be looked at, not today.
The future for the whole area is going to be much denser with more transit. The France facing
side feels completely wrong.
A commissioner thought parking could be in a ramp with retail facing on each side rather than
underground if the water table is too high. The project needs to be set back further from France
Avenue. The sidewalks need to be wide. Drive thru’s are a huge mistake. It is important for any
kind of connectivity to build a regular pattern of where the external and internal roads are.
Regular spacing is really important.
A commissioner felt the project needs to be better than what is currently there.
A commissioner stated it is exciting to see Ryan, US Bank and RSP come forward with this
project. The project was not that impressive and looks like one big development with some
sidewalks and drive-thru’s going through it, not four separate quadrants. Would like to see
something that is much more of a 4-unit grid. This is an improvement over the current state.
Five years ago, this would have been a great project but five years from now the City would feel
bad that it did not ask for something closer to the design guidelines.
Commissioners thought there was a difference with the development across the street because
those properties are closer to residential and the proximity to residential created unique issues
for developments on the other side of the street. The size of the lots were bigger challenges
unique to that site.
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 14 of 15
Commissioners wondered if parking could be done underground. Meyer indicated parking is
underground for the residential apartment building. For retail it is harder and thought this was a
good move because it is screened, and convenience parking is essential because retail will not
want to sign a lease if there is not available parking.
Commissioners would like to have this plan come forward with better designs adding in the
feedback from the Commission and staff.
Commissioners indicated wanting to see a fifty-foot setback and don’t match what is currently
there or across the street from this. Liked seeing the opening onto France Avenue from inside.
Would like to see more density with height and more public open space. Make it cohesive from
within and ability to connect to other areas. Would like to see better parking with less open
parking areas. Would like to see this developed as one whole site.
VIII. Correspondence and Petitions
None.
IX. Chair and Member Comments
Commissioner Bennett stated he sent an email to everyone about checking out the Master Plan. He thought it
was a reminder to be open and accepting of bold, creative things because it is doable and could be done in
Edina. He noted the Master Plan is really inspiring.
Commissioner Barube agreed and brought to mind the potential for the Hennepin County Library site because
that is the equivalent of four large square blocks and will be empty. That might be a really good space to do
something innovative that is really planned that can be really stellar if done right.
Commissioner Miranda stated he was a huge fan of technology but was not a fan of the Toronto project at all.
The main reason is privacy is a huge thing. All of the platforms and business models have huge implications on
politics, society and privacy. Going gung-ho on this is a mistake. He thought they needed to be really careful on
how they do this even though he loved technology and what it can do.
Commissioner Bennett thought what was cool was a lot of the thinking was done outside of the box. He
stated there is technology that does not harm and was a good way to see how you can present something
pretty complicated and he thought Edina had a lot of great opportunity with great partners. He thought if
they owned a part of the project development could be great.
X. Staff Comments
None.
XI. Adjournment
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes
Approved Date: ___, 2019
Page 15 of 15
Commissioner Douglas moved to adjourn the June 26, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning
Commission at 10:33 PM. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.