Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-19 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesDraft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: ___, 2019 Page 1 of 6 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers July 10, 2019 I. Call To Order Acting Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Lee, Berube, and Acting Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director; Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator and Administrative Assistant Jackie Hoogenakker. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Douglas, Bennett, and Chair Olsen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Acting Chair Nemerov noted Item VI. Community Comment should be moved to Item V ahead of Public Hearings. Public Hearings would become Item VI. Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the July 10, 2019, agenda with the suggested amendment. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, June 26, 2019 Acting Chair Nemerov indicated Commissioner Berube sent a revised version of the minutes and asked if those amendments were acceptable to the other Commissioners. Commissioner Berube asked staff if there was a new version of the minutes that were sent out after her revisions. Administrative Assistant Hoogenakker indicated the revised minutes were sent out. She read the requested changes. She indicated on the beginning of page three comments were revised. In the staff report for the Variance on Garrison Lane, minutes incorrectly stated that staff supported the variance and she did not, Planner Aaker recommended denial. Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the June 26, 2019, meeting minutes with said corrections. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried as amended. Draft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: ___, 2019 Page 2 of 6 V. Community Comment Ms. Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Road, Edina MN (Lake Cornelia neighborhood) stated she was at the Planning Commission meeting a few weeks ago expressing her concerns about the cooking odors from various area restaurants that were permeating the neighborhood, adding those odors could include garlic, onions and greasy food. Davis stated this is not a pleasant experience as residents try to enjoy the outdoors. Davis reported that she has studied this issue and has found that there are simple remedies to the situation, filtering systems that are known as scrubbers. She asked the Commission to consider the residents that will live in the mixed-use development areas when they contemplate new proposals and find a way to eliminate/reduce the odors created by eating establishments. Davis concluded in her opinion this was definitely a quality of life issue to further “look into” and/or pass along. Commissioner Berube moved to close Community Comment. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Public Hearings A. Site Plan Review & Setback Variance – 6950 France Avenue Director Teague presented the request of the applicant for a Site Plan Review and Setback Variance at 6950 France Avenue. The applicant, Luigi Bernardi, is proposing to tear down the existing 28,000 square foot office building at 6950 France Avenue, and build a new 10,000 square-foot retail building with surface parking in the rear. The request requires a Site Plan Review with a side street setback Variance from 35 feet to 16 feet from an unimproved right-of-way. Director Teague concluded Staff recommends approval of the site plan with variance as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Discussion/Comments/Questions A Commissioner asked if it was ever envisioned that 69 ½ street would continue westerly. Director Teague responded the Southdale Plan and design guidelines talk about an east/west vehicular and pedestrian movement through the site. A Commissioner asked if the zoning designation PCD-3 will remain. Teague indicated it would remain. A Commissioner asked why staff suggests that the building remain as is on the plan rather than shifting it to the south as suggested by Mr. Mick Johnson (Greater Southdale Area Plan consultant). Teague stated by shifting the building south another variance would be required to the south lot line. The applicant also preferred that the building be left in the location indicated on the plans. A Commissioner asked why Johnson thought moving the building south would be a good idea. Teague thought Johnson’s thinking was to try to get that east/west connection more in the middle of the block. Draft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: ___, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Ed Farr, Edward Farr Architects, 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie, made a short presentation to the Planning Commission. He noted the reason the building should remain where proposed is because West 69 ½ Street right of way is the public right of way and the targeted point before for the east/west connection. Future endeavors to provide the east/west connection could be obtained within that right of way at the City’s discretion in the future as opposed to solely on their property. The second reason is the building is being spaced more evenly on the block. With graphics Farr explained the proposal. Discussion/Comments/Questions It was noted that the Ameritrade and Vitamin Shoppe were not asked by the City to be closer to the street. The applicants wanted/needed to be closer to the street because of the unusual shape of the lots. A Commissioner asked Mr. Farr if he was comfortable with parking below standard and how he became comfortable with that. Mr. Farr stated this has to do with the mix of tenant, adding retail is such a broad category. Parking convenience satisfaction goes down with high parking turnover parking lots in general. Fast food, transactional businesses where cars come and go frequently as opposed to a longer transactional type of retail business and also the type of product sold. The two tenants his client is talking to now are fine with this parking density because of the use and what is being sold and the number of cars that come to see the businesses are substantially lower than a high turnover type of a retail space. A Commissioner asked if parking underneath the building was part of the bigger plan for this. Farr indicated that was not a part of the bigger plan. He agreed that those are noble dreams but structurally speaking not feasible. A Commissioner asked if the applicant was open to massaging this plan a bit. Farr stated on the France side specifically one of Johnson’s comments was to replace the visible rain gardens and plaza areas with a double row of trees. He stated for them that is a non-starter. This one-story building setback from France Avenue depends on the visibility from the cars to the signage on the wall. The value of land along France Avenue commands this. A Commissioner asked if there was any way to change the landscaping, so it is not so rectangular. Farr stated in May there were three different front yard concepts and one was a little more curve linear then the rest and was pulled out. He indicated at this point in time he would rather change the corners to make the bike path curvier, so the bike wheels do not go into the sod. He thought the applicant wanted to stay with the landscaping plan as is. Public Hearing Ms. Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Road, stated it was mentioned that Mr. Mick Johnson wanted to remove the greenery next to France Avenue. Director Teague indicated it was not the greenery it was to remove the sidewalk that was there. Ms. Davis asked if the new sidewalk would be next to the curb. Teague indicated the new sidewalk will be further in and closer to the building. Draft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: ___, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion/Comments/Questions A Commissioner thought instead of all of the right angles to the sidewalk a meandering route would be preferred. Some Commissioners expressed preference for the sidewalk to not be next to the street even if there is an interior route. Mr. Max Moreland, Spate Consulting reviewed the traffic study with the Commission. A Commissioner discussed concerns with the traffic study. A Commissioner thought this was a test case to find out what is possible with the Southdale plan. It was interesting to learn that a smaller building can be economically viable. There should not always be assumptions that the building has to have height or has to have housing in order for developers to make money. The current zoning still seems to work and, in some ways, compliments the low height galleria across the way. If it is sensitively clad and designed, it could be a little gem that compliments that, and this area could start setting itself up nicely to have that retail feel about it. A Commissioner thought if the goal is to really enforce or hope to encourage that Southdale vision this is really starting to say the City needs to think hard about how to get that vision into the City Code. It was suggested that the City should start to look at form-based code for some areas and translate it into language that developers can easily understand. Commissioner thought it may be beneficial to include graphics that “show” what the City is after. A Commissioner acknowledged this is not a very large site and with the area available felt this was an improvement from what was previously presented. It made a lot of sense having the separation on the south side. The issue on the north should not be a hindrance. The longer face on France Avenue is nice and gives and provides a better face on France. A commissioner indicated they would rather approve one variance than two. It was expressed and pointed out by some Commissioners that sidewalks, bike paths, roads, etc. should be straight because their purpose is to safely navigate people from point A to point B. It was noted that Johnson suggested removing one of the sidewalks; however, there should be two separate sidewalks because cyclists could use the other sidewalk along with pedestrians (not going to this building) because they may not want to walk or meander through site. There should be some sort of multi-use path. A Commissioner thought the project, the way it is, in terms of the layout is fine. The rectilinear part should not be changed. A Commissioner thought there should be some sort of minimum height in the Southdale area, adding that may be something to further study. Draft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: ___, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Commissioners appreciated the changes made to the proposal, adding much of the Commission feedback and guidance was taken, and significant changes were made to the project to bring it closer to how the City envisions the Southdale area to look. Commissioners suggested making the sidewalks a little wider. Motion Commissioner Lee moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the site plan review and with a side street setback Variance from 35 feet to 16 feet from an unimproved right-of-way according to the staff report and staff findings with the exception of not requiring the removal of the existing sidewalk on France Avenue. Commissioner Thorsen asked for clarification if that included removing the sidewalk along France Avenue or not. Commissioner Lee indicated it did not. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. Teague noted if the Commission wanted that sidewalk to remain another condition should be added because in Engineer Millner’s memo, he is recommending it be removed as one of the conditions listed. Commissioner Lee indicated she would like to leave it as recommended because it was recommended by staff and needs further vetting. She asked if this was a requirement. Director Teague indicated staff is recommending the sidewalk be removed. Commissioner Lee stated she would like that condition removed from the motion, pending further study or proposal by the applicant to show what he intends. Commissioner Lee noted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Thorsen was agreeable with the amendment. Motion carried 5 ayes, 1 nay (Berube). VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Lee asked if the Commission wanted to look into what resident Davis talked about earlier in Community Comment and put on the agenda at a future meeting to see if the City Codes address her concerns. Director Teague stated staff was thinking about working on the 2020 work plan and bringing a draft to the next Planning Commission meeting so might be a topic for the Planning Commission to consider. Draft Minutes Approved Minutes Approved Date: ___, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Berube thought when this was brought up before it was some other department that was going to do research and bring it to the Planning Commission. Director Teague stated it is enforced through the Health Department and staff did some research prior to the City Council meeting and provided them with limited information. He stated it is a worthy topic for discussion for consideration of a Code change. Commissioner Strauss thought it was a reasonable way to get the process started. X. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported he is considering a work session in the near future to talk about ongoing education. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the July 10, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:13 PM. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. __________________________________________ Jackie Hoogenakker/TimeSaver