Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular MINUTE SUMMARY Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street  ____________________________________ ___________________ MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Fischer, Risser, Scherer, Staunton, Schroeder, Brown Grabiel, Forrest and Schnettler STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The minutes of the December 30, 3009, meeting were filed with a correction from Commissioner Schroeder. II. OLD BUSINESS: 2008.0009.09A Conditional Use Permit Edina School District 5701 Normandale Road, Edina Construct New Maintenance Building Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission the Edina Public Schools are proposing to build a 1,984 square foot maintenance and storage building on the west side of the high school football field, near the entrance gate. Continuing, Based on the comments of the Planning Commission, the shed has been relocated from the originally requested location, which was adjacent to the exisitng tennis courts on Concord Avenue. The School District had considered locating the building off site, at Creek Valley Park, however, decided that it would not be an efficient location. Equipment would have to be hauled greater distances, at greater expense to the School District, than from the proposed site. Planner Teague further explained that this request requires a conditional use permit. Concluding, Planner Teague stated staff recommends that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to build a metal accessory building at 5701 Normandale Road for Edina Public Schools based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions per Section 850.04 Subd. 4.E, of the Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans and the conditions below: Site plan date stamped December 23, 2008. Grading plan date stamped December 23, 2008. Landscaping plan date stamped December 23, 2008. Building elevations date stamped December 23, 2008. 2. Record the approving resolution with the county. 3. The building must meet all applicable building permit requirements. Appearing for the Applicant Jay Willemssen and Peyton Robb, Edina Public Schools and Karen Sutherland. Applicant Presentation Mr. Willemssen addressed the Commission and explained the school district did consider locating the maintenance building at the Creek Valley school site; however, the primary utilization of the maintenance building would be to serve the South View campus. Mr. Willemssen added with budget restraints this location made the most sense. Continuing, Mr. Willemssen said the proposed building would house small and large mowers, snow removal equipment, sand, salt and vehicles. Mr. Willemssen said the building will be heated to facilitate repair of machines, etc. Comments and Questions from the Commission Commissioners raised the following questions/concerns: Will the color of the new maintenance building match the other field buildings – Is there a reason for the boxy shape of the building – Can the building be positioned to be more in line with the other buildings– Can the maintenance building be pushed back to eliminate the gap between the building wall and the fence – the rear of the proposed building could create an attractive nuisance – In response to their questions Commissioners were informed: The color of the new maintenance building will be green to match the existing field buildings. The boxy shape of the new building best suits the square footage of the building to accommodate the storage of equipment and vehicles. The location of the new building provides safer vehicle access off the parking lot. It was pointed out if the proposed building was positioned to line up with the other buildings it wouldn’t easily fit. With regard to creating an attractive nuisance for kids to congregate behind the building between the building and fence the district indicated their willingness to add a light-pack in that area. Commission Action Commissioner Grabiel asked the school district to take another look at the landscaping proposed to screen the maintenance building and suggested larger plantings. Commissioner Grabiel also noted that previously the school district appeared before the Commission requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct the maintenance building on the east side of district property (Concord Avenue). At that meeting Commissioners suggested that the district “re-locate” the maintenance building near the football field. Commissioner Grabiel thanked the district for complying with that suggestion. Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. _______________________________________________________ 2008.0013.09a Conditional Use Permit Interlachen Country Club 6200 Interlachen Boulevard, Edina Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission the Interlachen Country Club is proposing to build two new maintenance buildings on property adjacent to and owned by the Country Club, and in the current Belmore Lane right-of-way. The site exists today with two single-family homes and the cul-de-sac for Belmore Lane. The two homes would be removed, and Belmore Lane would be shortened, and reconstructed. The main building would be 20,000 square feet in size, and the second building would be 2,600 square feet in size. Planner Teague explained that access to the maintenance building would be from an existing interior road off Interlachen Boulevard and Waterman Avenue. An emergency vehicle access and gate is proposed at the end of Belmore Lane. The applicant originally proposed a public access to the new facilities off of Belmore Lane. However, revised the plans after concern was raised by the neighbors who did not want additional traffic brought through their neighborhood. Planner Teague clarified that the request requires the following: 1. Cond itional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is required to expand the golf course and parking area. 2. Lot Division. A Lot Division is requested to shift the lot line that separates 6200 and 6204 Belmore Lane. The Lot Division does not create a new lot. Land would be given to the adjacent lot, north of the proposed maintenance builidng, in exchange for land west of the maintenance building. 3. Roadway Vacation. As mentioned Belmore Lane is requested to be shortened, which requires a Vacation. This would be considered by the City Council when it considers the Conditional Use Permit and Lot Division. Continuing, Planner Teague told the Commission this application is essentially the same as the previous request reviewed by the Planning Commission in October of 2008, with the exception of a Lot Division. Planner Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to build new maintenance facilities at 6200 Interlachen Boulevard for the Interlachen Country Club based on the following findings. 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions per Section 850.04 Subd. 4.E, of the Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in substantial compliance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Site plan date stamped December 30, 2008. Building elevations date stamped December 30, 2008. Grading plan date stamped December 30, 2008. Landscape plan date stamped December 30, 2008. Cul-de-sac reconstruction plan date stamped December 30, 2008. Lighting plan date stamped December 30, 2008. 2. The City Council must approve the Vacation of the end of Belmore Lane. 3. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Permit. The City will require revisions to the approved plans to meet the District’s requirements. 4. The Belmore Lane cul-de-sac must be re-designed and reconstructed by the applicant per city standards. Final re-construction plans shall be subject to review and approval of the city engineer. 5. Access from Belmore Lane shall be used by emergency vehicles only. The gate located at the entrance to the site shall remain locked, and not be used by members or employees of the club. 6. Belmore Lane may not be used by construction vehicles accessing the site, or for parking. 7. The buildings must meet all applicable building permit requirements. 8. All conditions required by the city engineer in his memo dated January 20, 2009. 9. Record the approving resolution with the county. Concluding Planner Teague stated staff also recommends that the City Council approve the Lot Division to shift lot lines with the adjacent property. Appearing for the Applicant Lyle Ward, Craig Christianson, Gary Zumberg, Donald Ross Applicant Presentation Mr. Ward addressed the Commission informing them interlachen Country Club (ICC) was founded in 1909 and is having its 100 year anniversary. Mr. Ward explained that presently Interlachen Country Club serves 750 families and of those 750 families 450 live in Edina. Mr. Ward said Interlachen is an old city course and is considered one of the top 100 courses in the country. Mr. Ward reported in 1930 ICC hosted the US Open and in 2008 hosted the US Women’s Open. Continuing, Mr. Ward said ICC and the City of Edina have a great history of working well together. Mr. Ward explained that the current project is necessary. He pointed out the maintenance facility is 50 years old and in very poor condition. The building also presents safety issues for employees. Concluding, Mr. Ward stated the goal of ICC is to construct a safe, modern and efficient maintenance facility. Mr. Christianson with the aid of graphics began his presentation by pointing out ICC is surrounded by a number of residential neighborhoods that “grew up” around the golf course. Mr. Christianson explained that the current maintenance building sits at the edge of the parking lot and was constructed in 1964. Mr. Christian said the present building is inadequate for the clubs maintenance needs and housing ICC’s ground employees. Mr. Christianson said during the summer months ICC has roughly 30 employees that have to share a 300 square foot locker room with one toilet. Mr. Christianson said this is difficult when the employees are both male and female. Continuing, Mr. Christianson pointed out the changes that were made to the larger maintenance building. The garage doors now face the golf course, not the residential neighborhood and the wash area has also been shifted away from the residential area. Landscaping has also been increased to screen the buildings and parking area from the residential neighborhood. Mr. Christianson noted questions have been raised on where the “best place” is to construct the maintenance facilities. With the aid of graphics (developed by Mr. Farber) Mr. Christianson pointed out that the majority of the alternative sites wouldn’t work. Two of the five sites (Option “C” and “D”) are located in an area of steep slopes, have limited access, with no parking or emergency vehicle access. One site (Option “B”) is immediately adjacent to Interlachen Boulevard and a residential home with no parking or emergency vehicle access. Mr. Christianson said two other sites (Proposed and Option “A”) would work. One is in the location presented this evening and the other site is between two ponds. Mr. Christianson stated he believes the proposed location is best. Concluding, Mr. Christianson informed the Commission ICC held a number of neighborhood meetings and after receiving input developed the plan before the Commission this evening. Mr. Zumberg said his primary concern was to assess the proposed lot division and how it would impact the Hogan property and ICC. Mr. Zumberg noted ICC has worked closely with the Hogan family, developing a plan acceptable to the Hogan’s. Mr. Zumberg stated he believes the division as proposed enhances the Hogan property by providing better views of the golf course. Concluding, Mr. Zumberg said he has found in his assessments that properties in close proximity to golf courses have higher values as a result of their proximity to the course. Comments and Questions from the Commission Commissioners raised the following questions: Who is responsible for the gate and its maintenance Does this proposal require a Environmental Impact Study How will the removal of the residential homes and reconfiguration of the cul de sac occur. Will a variance be required for the fence and what will the landscaping and fence materials be. In response to issues raised Commissioners were informed: A gate would be provided at the entrance off the reconstructed cul-de-sac and it will remain locked. Only emergency vehicles access is permitted. The gate will be controlled by the City. Employees and Country Club members would not be allowed to gain access to the course off Belmore Lane. (This is a condition of approval) An Environment Impact Study is not required for this project; however, a Minnehaha Watershed District Permit would be required. Two single family homes will be removed (owned by ICC) and Belmore Lane would be shortened and reconfigured. Planner Teague indicated he would review the proposed fence and City Code to determine if a variance is needed. Arborvitae, Honeysuckle and Dogwood would also be planted along the lot line to screen the parking lot and maintenance buildings. Overstory trees (Lindens) would also be planted. Oaks and Spruce are proposed at the edge of the wetland. Chair Fischer opened the public hearing. Public Comment Stuart Elger, attorney representing Ms. McDonald and neighbors stated his clients are opposed to the City granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct maintenance buildings at the end of Belmore Lane. Mr. Elger said the placement of the proposed maintenance buildings only benefit ICC. Mr. Elger said there is no evidence that the construction of these maintenance buildings will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents. Continuing, Mr. Elger noted that the views presently enjoyed by residents will now be obstructed by a parking lot and industrial buildings. Concluding, Mr. Elger stated the proposed maintenance buildings will reduce the property values of the homes along Belmore Lane, and asked the Commission to deny the requested CUP. Damon Farber gave a presentation on alternative locations to construct the maintenance buildings. Mr. Faber said in his opinion the best location is Option A. Concluding, Mr. Farber pointed out Option A is located between the two water bodies off of Kresse Drive where a maintenance building already exists. Mr. Farber stated at least to him Option A makes the most sense. Bill Weides, appraiser told the Commission he has appraised many properties near golf courses and believes if constructed as proposed the 28 foot high, metal, low class maintenance building will significantly impact the properties on Belmore Lane. JoAnne Smaby, realtor, explained as a realtor she determines home value, adding she believes the property values in this neighborhood would be harmed if this proposal is approved and the maintenance buildings are constructed as submitted. Mr. Windham, 6233 Belmore Lane, told the Commission he’s still concerned that traffic will increase on Belmore Lane as a result of this proposal. Mr. Windham acknowledged that ICC has indicated that the proposed gate is only for emergency vehicle access; however, he is still concerned that others will choose to use this as an access point. Paul Hedblom, 6205 Spruce Road, told the Commission his concern is with property values. Mr. Hedblom questioned why the new maintenance buildings couldn’t be built in the area known as the “chicken farm”, adding this location was also recommended by Mr. Farber (Option A) as the location that makes the most sense. Mr. Hedblom reiterated he believes if constructed as presented his property value would be negatively impacted. Ms. Donovan, 317 John Street, told the Commission she lives in a sleepy neighborhood, adding that she agrees with Mr. Hedbloms suggestion that the new maintenance buildings should be constructed in the “chicken shack/farm” area. Concluding, Ms. Donovan stated her concern is with property values and the potential for noise, asking the Commission to vote “No” on ICC’s request for a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Marshall, 305 John Street, explained she moved into this neighborhood for the quiet. Ms. Marshall stated now she is very concerned that “quiet” will be broken by the noise emitted from industrial use buildings. Ms. Marshall added another concern she has is the potential for caddy’s (walking or dropped off) to use the “gate” to gain access to the course. Concluding, Ms. Marshall said she also believes Belmore Lane shouldn’t be the only street burdened by emergency vehicles. Mr. Bennett, 6229 Belmore Lane asked the Commission to consider the opinions of the individual property owners and deny the request as submitted. Mr. Thomas Meehan, 315 Grove Place informed Commissioners he is very opposed to this project. Mr. Meehan stated he is entitled to a quiet peaceful existence, pointing out the general public doesn’t belong to ICC. Mr. Meehan asked the Commission to preserve his enjoyment of the neighborhood by denying the CUP. Robert Schweitzer, 305 Grove Place, asked the Commission to deny the request, adding if constructed the buildings would lower his property value. Stuart Lind, 301 Grove Place, stated he believes this proposal will generate noise in a very quiet neighborhood. Concluding, Mr. Lind said the noise from the buildings would be a nuisance and the proposed landscaping will not stop the noise. Jill Rivard, 6224 Belmore Lane, stated her monetary worth is in her property value and this proposal will lower that value. Ms. Rivard said she is also very concerned with the storage of chemicals proposed for the second maintenance building. Barb Swanson, 308 Grove Place, stated her concern is with the storage of industrial chemicals in the smaller of the two proposed buildings. Ted Volk, 6301 Belmore Lane suggested that the Commission deny the CUP. Mr. Volk stated that the majority of residents in the immediate area object to the proposal. Monica McDonald, 6216 Belmore Lane referred to research she did on golf courses in the metropolitan area, suggesting that construction of industrial buildings so close to residential properties is not the norm. Ms. McDonald stated in her opinion the proposed buildings will be an eyesore. Cheryl Bristol, 6208 Belmore Lane, pointed out if ICC constructs the maintenance building as proposed her view will be of tin buildings (one overly large), adding in her opinion nothing would adequately screen them. Mary McDonald, 6216 Belmore Lane, respectfully requested that the Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. McDonald pointed out if approved nearby residents would be subjected to light standards and noise from the lawn mowers, and other maintenance machinery. Concluding, Ms. McDonald said in her opinion the scale of the largest building is overpowering. Greg Wilson, 6320 Belmore Lane, said the Belmore neighborhood is a tight knit community and if this CUP is approved the neighborhood won’t be the same. Mr. Wilson suggested that if approved no pedestrian, car or truck traffic should be allowed on Belmore Lane to access the golf course. Mr. Wilson also asked that if approved special attention is paid to the type of lighting installed. Concluding, Mr. Wilson pointed out ICC doesn’t keep the current maintenance areas free of clutter, adding what would make this maintenance area any different. Mr. Tim Schields, attorney representing Dr. and Mrs. Hogan said originally the Hogan’s objected to the proposal, but since that time the Hogan’s and ICC have come to a mutual agreement. Mr. Schields acknowledged that ICC has been a good neighbor allowing the neighborhood access to the course during different times. Mr. Schields concluded that he doesn’t know why the cul de sac is even needed, pointing out Belmore Lane will end and the gate will be setback even farther. Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Comments and questions from the Commission Chair Fischer said one issue that was raised was about the proposed gate. Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague if this type of gate has ever been used before. Planner Teague responded that to the best of his knowledge this type of gate hasn’t been used in Edina; however, both the police and fire departments are familiar with this type of gate and believe this is the best approach to gain access to the course. Commissioner Forrest said she is concerned that if an emergency were to occur in the proposed maintenance area that the City’s emergency responders are the only ones able to open the gate. Chair Fischer interjected noting a resident questioned why emergency vehicles are even allowed to access the course via Belmore Lane. Planner Teague explained it is very important to be able to provide an adequate timed response to emergencies that could arise at this end of the course. Planner Teague explained the fire department in particular doesn’t want to weave through the Clubs parking lot if an emergency would occur in this area. Commissioner Risser asked Planner Teague if any research was given to the alternative locations referred to this evening. Planner Teague responded that City Staff recently received the alternative locations and to date hasn’t assessed their merit. Chair Fischer noted the Planning Commission heard a similar request from the Club in October. Fewer residents attended that meeting, and the focus was on ICC working with the Hogan’s to develop a plan that would be acceptable to them. Continuing, Chair Fischer reported after three votes the Commission did approve the requested CUP. Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague if that approval still stands. Planner Teague responded that ICC withdrew that application, adding this proposal is a completely new application. Commissioner Brown commented that clarification needs to be made on the term being used “whole/entire neighborhood”, pointing out the Belmore neighborhood is only one of the neighborhoods situated around the golf course. Commissioner Brown said he is uncomfortable with the dialogue thus far, noting the presence of attorneys, appraisers, etc. creates adversarial positions. Chair Fischer told the Commission when he walked the area he observed that the area known as the “chicken farm” appears to be naturally screened by a berm. Chair Fischer commented if the CUP is approved as recommended could the height of the larger building be lowered or the entire building lowered to reduce the impact from Belmore Lane. Commissioner Grabiel said he doesn’t question the need for a new maintenance building, one is needed; however, there seems to be other sites available that are less intrusive. Continuing, Commissioner Grabiel said he walked the site and believes property values are tied to the views and the views for the residents on Belmore Lane would change if this CUP is approved as presented. Concluding, Commissioner Grabiel said in his opinion this proposal has no public benefit, adding he believes the suggested location would create a nuisance for the neighborhood. Commissioner Grabiel stated he cannot support the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Brown commented that if the proposed location can’t be supported how could an alternative location be supported. Commissioner Schroeder pointed out this Conditional Use Permit request is different from others because what actually is happening is that R-1 residential lots are being changed from a residential use to a non-residential use. Commissioner Schroeder acknowledged that the Club is also zoned R-1; however, it can be argued that by approving this CUP the Commission would be changing the character of the neighborhood by allowing the removal of single family homes and replacing them with industrial buildings. Commissioner Forrest commented that in her opinion this location would have had more merit if access to the golf course would come from Belmore Lane, but when that access was eliminated other locations should have been pursued. Commissioner Forrest stated she agrees with Commissioner Grabiel, new maintenance buildings are needed; however, the one proposed is overly large and impacts the Belmore neighborhood. Commissioner Staunton said what he understood from the presentations by both Mr. Christianson and Mr. Faber was that three of the suggested locations for the maintenance buildings wouldn’t work and two would. One is in the location before the Commission this evening and the other is Option A near/in the “chicken farm” area. Continuing, Commissioner Staunton said he was also struck by the size of the larger maintenance building, reiterating it’s big. Commissioner Staunton commented if ICC would entertain the suggestion of locating the maintenance buildings in the “chicken farm” area (Option A) how would that impact the neighbors on Kresse Circle, pointing out the Commission may hear the same type of opposition from that neighborhood. Concluding, Commissioner Staunton suggested that the size of the larger building be reduced, noting there is merit in locating the maintenance buildings in an area where one already exists. Commissioner Scherer commented that regardless of the need for new maintenance facilities in her opinion the size of the larger building is just too much. Commissioner Scherer said she is also disappointed with the façade and exterior building materials used on the proposed maintenance buildings, adding they need to be “dressed up”. The discussion continued with Commissioners acknowledging that ICC did respond to their suggestions from the October meeting; however, in the opinion of the majority of Commissioners the proposed maintenance buildings could be situated in a different location, pointing out the area between the ponds already house a maintenance building and that may be the logical location for these buildings. It was noted by representatives of ICC that the size of the larger building is the result of consolidating all other maintenance buildings. The discussion continued with representatives requesting that the Commission table their request to allow them time to review their options. Commission Action Commissioner Schroeder (at the request of the applicant Interlachen Country Club) moved to table 2008.0018.09a to an unspecified date with the requirement that the applicant provide the City with a letter waiving the 120 day requirement. Commissioner Staunton seconded the motion. Commissioner Brown suggested that the neighbors and applicant work together to find some common ground. All voted aye; motion to table 2008.0018.09a approved. INTERGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Election of Vice Chair: Commissioner Brown moved to nominate Kevin Staunton as Vice-Chair. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. Chair Fischer asked Commissioners if there are any other nominations. Being none Chair Fischer called for the vote. All voted aye to approve the nomination and elect Commissioner Staunton as Vice-Chair. Chair Fischer told Commissioners he would like to set as a goal for 2009 that the Commission re-evaluate the Zoning Ordinance and amend the Ordinance where appropriate. Commissioner Scherer told Commissioners that in looking back over the past three years she found she is very proud of some projects and not so proud of others. Commissioner Scherer opined that as the Commission moves forward it may be appropriate to also look backward, focusing on past projects, good and bad. Commissioner Scherer suggested scheduling a work session on “re-visiting” past actions. Chair Fischer stated he thinks that’s a good idea which could include a bus tour. Advisory Board Updates: Commissioner Risser liaison to the Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) informed the Commission the EEC has submitted two Senior May-Term projects to the Edina High School. Commissioner Brown liaison to the Transportation Commission reported that SAC has completed their report on the West 70th Street project(s), adding the City Council will hear the SAC report at their February 3, meeting. Planner Teague reminded Commissioners of their upcoming work session with the Council on February 3rd. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comment ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Risser moved adjournment at 10:30 PM. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. ____________________________ Submit ted by .