Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-01 Planning Commission Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIHG OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2002, 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4801 WEST 50TH STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman David Runyan, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, David Byron, Helen McClelland, Geof Workinger, Stephen Brown, Lorelei Bergman STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel ________________________________________________________________ APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the March 27, 2002, meeting were filed as submitted. With the addition of Lorelei Bergman in attendance. NEW BUSINESS: S-02-4 Parkwood Knolls Construction Company South of Kelsey Court and east of Malibu Drive Revised master plan for all remaining vacant Unplatted land in Parkwood Knolls Mr. Larsen informed the Commission in December 1994, the City Council approved a master development plan for all remaining vacant land in Parkwood Knolls. Due to proposed impact on certain protected wetlands the proposal was denied by the Watershed District. Mr. Larsen said the proponents have now revised the plat to eliminate impact on protected wetland areas. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the revised master plan. The new plan is less dense than the earlier plan. The change in alignment of Kelsey Terrace will likely reduce speed on the street because it will not be a straight shot as in earlier plans. Approval is conditioned on; Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Permit and Permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. The proponents Mr. Harvey Hansen and Carl Hansen Jr. were present to respond to questions. Mr. Roger Anderson their engineer was also present. Mr. Roger Anderson addressed the Commission and explained that wetland laws change overtime and the new plat reflects the changes imposed since 1994. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Anderson to explain to the Commission how water now flows throughout the site. With graphics Mr. Anderson explained water flow aspects of the site. He pointed out water flow in the northern area remains unchanged with no drainage issues. Mr. Anderson pointed out the most significant feature of the new plan is in the south where a pipe flow system will be introduced to accommodate water run off, water treatment and water storage. Mr. Anderson explained the changes now require a “treatment pond” that “cleans up” the water as it continues its natural flow. Concluding Mr. Anderson said in his opinion the new plan for the area is very well thought out. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Anderson if he believes adequate water storage is provided with the new plan. Mr. Anderson reiterated he believes the new plan is well thought out and an improvement from the original plan. He pointed out the site is less dense which reduces hard cover impact. Acting Chairman Runyan asked Mr. Anderson to explain the changes to the roadway system. Mr. Anderson responded explaining the new plan angles Kelsey Terrace toward the center of the site running southeast to connect to the existing street. Another change is the connection between Ridge Trail (old Cougar Trail) and Malibu Drive is removed. Mr. Anderson said in his opinion the changes, especially to Kelsey Terrace will reduce speed and eliminate cut through traffic. Commissioner McClelland asked why Kelsey Terrace changes names. Mr. Harvey Hansen interjected and explained the change in street name will help to prevent “out of area” traffic from passing through the neighborhood looking for a “short cut”. He pointed out they changed Interlachen Boulevard to Park Terrace to reduce cut through traffic. Mr. Hansen stated a change in street name could “confuse” out of area traffic and reduce the amount of cut through traffic. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend approval of the revised master plan subject to staff conditions. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. LD-04-02 Karol and Dick Emmerich 7302 Claredon Drive ________________________________________________________________ Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the property at 7300 Claredon Drive is a vacant lot, except for a small cabin located in the southwest corner of the property. The lot is owned by the Emmerichs (the proponents) who live at 7302 Claredon Drive. The property proposed for transfer is a very steep, wooded portion of the lot at 7301 Schey Drive. The proposed division line follows a contour at the point where the hill begins to drop dramatically. Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval of the proposed lot division. Both lots will continue to comply with Ordinance requirements following the split. The proponent, Mr. Dick Emmerich was present to respond to questions. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if a 500-foot neighborhood was calculated for this division. Mr. Larsen stated a rearrangement of a lot line (lot division) does not trigger the requirement to calculate lot sizes of lots within 500 feet. Mr. Larsen explained the lots remain at 2; no new lot(s) is created. Mr. Emmerich addressed the Commission and explained the lot division occurs at a natural break between the two lots, and the land in question better fits with the lot off Claredon Drive not Schey Drive as originally platted. Continuing, Mr. Emmerich explained his wife has a passion for gardening, and they have been considering this division for a number of years. Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion on Heritage Preservation Board Code Amendments Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at the last Commission meeting Mr. Robert Vogel was present to help facilitate a discussion about proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, specifically an Amendment to the Heritage Preservation Board. Mr. Larsen pointed out Mr. Vogel is present to continue the discussion. Commissioner Swenson said if she remembers correctly at the last meeting there was some discussion on voting status of the ex-officio Commission Member, and if the ex-officio member could vote. Mr. Vogel responded that from the last meeting he understood the Commission wanted the ex-officio member to be able to vote, adding that decision has to be made by the City Council. Mr. Vogel pointed out in most instances ex-officio members are non-voting members, thus the ex-officio status. Ms. Reypa interjected and explained one reason for non-voting member status is to ensure that a quorum is met and business can be conducted. She explained if the Commission recommends a member to represent them at the Heritage Preservation Board level and they want that member to have a vote that member would be required to attend each meeting. Non-voting status members receive meeting packets, etc. and can attend each meeting, but if a conflict arises and a meeting cannot be attended the quorum is not compromised. This also affords the ex-officio member flexibility. Mr. Vogel also added if the voting status of the ex-officio changes to a voting member the board would have an even number of members, which is difficult because a tie vote could occur. Acting Chair Runyan told the Commission, as he understands it the duty of the Commission this evening is to move the proposed amendment forward to the Council and if he reads Commission Members correctly recommend that the ex-officio Planning Commission Member have voting status, thereby no being ex-officio. Mr. Vogel responded that is his understanding also. Commissioner Byron asked if the new HPB member needs to be one member from the Commission or could Commissioners serve on a rotating basis. Continuing, Commissioner Byron added he has some reservations on the role of the Commission Member who attends the HPB meetings, and the other 8 Commission Members that do not attend. Mr. Vogel responded State Statute defines a member adding he understands Commissioner Byron’s reservations. Continuing, Mr. Vogel reiterated the City Council would make the decision on the criteria for the ex-officio member. Whatever the Council decides communication between the HPB and the Commission will be improved. Commissioner McClelland interjected and informed the Commission she attended the joint HPB/Planning Commission meeting and it is her understanding the HPB is becoming more active. She said at that meeting she learned the HPB is considering conducting a survey of different portions of the City and also considering including the Morningside neighborhood for designation, similar to the designation of the Country Club District. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said in regard to comments on the voting status of the Planning Commission Member and who that members is in her opinion that member should have voting status, be only one member chosen from the Commission, and serve for one year. She said in her opinion a rotating member would not provide continuity. A discussion ensued in reference to Creating An Edina Heritage Landmark - Step Three, point 4. At this time point 4 reads “The Planning Commission reviews and comments on all Heritage Landmark nominations before they are transmitted to the Council.” Commission Members indicated they want point 4 to read “The Planning Commission reviews and makes recommendations on all Heritage Landmark nominations before they are transmitted to the Council.” Commissioner Workinger asked Ms. Repya if there is a current inventory on houses in the areas the HPB is interested in considering for Landmark status. Ms. Repya said in the future the HPB would conduct surveys of different areas of the City, she added at the present time the HPB does have some inventory on Morningside bungalows. Ms. Repya noted Ms. McClelland has already mentioned HPB interest in the Morningside neighborhood and Ms. Repya reported another area of interest for the HPB is Edina’s South Harriet Park. Continuing, Ms. Repya agreed with Commissioner McClelland’s point that the HPB will become more active. Commissioner Workinger asked if anyone knows how long these surveys will take. Ms. Repya responded it is the HPB’s intent to survey the City in “chunks”. Mr. Vogel interjected and said as he views it be believes the proposed surveys will be completed within 3 to 5 years. Continuing, Mr. Vogel said there are other sites the HPB is interested in preserving, one of course being the Edina Theatre Marquee. A discussion ensued with Commission Members in agreement with the proposed Amendment to the Ordinance with recommended changes with regard to voting status and language. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend adoption of the amendment to the Heritage Preservation Board Ordinance subject to the recommendation that the ex-officio member be a voting member and Step Three: Designate the Heritage Landmark be changed to read “The Planning Commission review and makes recommendations on all Heritage Landmark nominations before they are transmitted to the Council.” Commissioner Byron seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion on front entryway additions ________________________________________________________________ Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission the City Council directed the Commission to review our ordinance as it relates to front entry improvements. Mr. Larsen told the Commission after the last Commission meeting it appeared to staff the Commission was comfortable with our Ordinance, and acknowledged the proposed changes made by staff would not serve the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Larsen asked Commission Members if they have further input with regard to this issue. Mr. Larsen concluded the Council in no way expressed the opinion that the City is too restrictive; they just desired input from the body that hears the variance requests. Commissioner Lonsbury pointed out the requests to “spruce” up front entryways with a roof and columns is very common and in reviewing the changes proposed by staff he feels they won’t work. He pointed out all homes are different styles, and different sizes, and to find the right number i.e. 80 square feet is difficult. An 80 square foot front entryway addition may be the proper scale on one house, but on another house it may look completely out of scale. Mr. Larsen agreed with Commissioner Lonsbury that it is difficult to come up with a maximum size adding maybe the size of the proposed entryway could be tied to the width of the house. Commissioner McClelland added she agrees with Commissioner Lonsbury’s observation. She pointed out another thing to consider is how far the entryway would project into the setback. She pointed out 80 square feet on one façade could look like a tunnel and could project closer to the street than we want. A 20-foot setback to a front lot line could also be too close in some instances and it could look great in others. Mr. Larsen agreed, he said it could be difficult to come up with the right scenario, but staff would be willing to look at it again. Commissioner McClelland said one of her concerns is 20 feet from a front line as she mentioned earlier. Commissioner Brown said another thing to consider is the difference between a front entryway and a porch. He said they are very different issues and need to be addressed separately. Commissioner Bergman interjected and pointed out another point to consider when addressing front entryways is to consider the encroachment as it relates to the scope of the whole street (average setback). Commissioner Byron commented that he agrees that a change to the Ordinance would be hard to craft. He pointed out traditionally when the Zoning Board has considered front encroachments the Board ties the encroachment into the average front lot line established along the block. Commissioner Byron said in his opinion averaging appears to work. Commissioner Byron added there is also a minimum front setback of 30 feet to consider and he is not sure he wants that reduced by as much as 10 feet. Concluding, Commissioner Byron said in his opinion the ordinance as it reads today works well and sometimes “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” is a good position to take. A discussion ensued with Commission Members in agreement that the ordinance as it reads today appears to work well and it also affords the Zoning Board control. Mr. Larsen said he would recommend to the Council that the Commission believes the ordinance as it reads today works well and no changes are recommended. ADJOUNRMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ____________________ Jackie Hoogenakker