Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-21 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 7:00 PM Edina City Hall Council Chambers   MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Mike Fischer, Jeff Carpenter, Julie Risser, Nancy Scherer, Kevin Staunton, Michael Schroeder, Steve Brown, Floyd Grabiel, Arlene Forrest and Karwehn Kata STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague, Kris Aaker and Jackie Hoogenakker APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Brown moved approval of the February 24, 2010, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Brown moved approval of the March 10, 2010, Zoning Ordinance Update Committee meeting minutes with an addition to Others Present. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS: ________________________________________________________________ Zoning Ordinance Update – Ordinance Amendment – Building Height Planner Presentation Planner Teague referred to the attached Ordinance amendment that would bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the recently approved Comprehensive Plan. Planner Teague explained that the Ordinance would establish a Building Height Overlay District over the City’s entire commercial, industrial and high density residential zoning districts, and would establish height regulations as prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Teague pointed out that the map on page A10 highlights the areas where a height change is required by the Comprehensive Plan. The overlay district is proposed because cities cannot require different height standards within the same zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan requires different heights within the same zoning districts. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the ordinance subject to any additions or amendments recommended by the Commission. Discussion Commissioner Scherer said she remembers height was an important issue during the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan adding that the Commission needs to ensure during this re-write process that building height is restricted as adopted. Commissioners acknowledged those discussions ; however they pointed out that in a number of Edina’s neighborhood character districts zoning can be different parcel by parcel (specifically PCD-4) and building height in a character district should be uniform or the option of uniforminity should be permitted. This is particularly important for redevelopment. It was also noted during the Comp Plan re-write and discussions on “character districts” that it was never suggested that because a property had a specific zoning designation (PCD-4) the height of a building on that parcel would be limited to 1-story when properties around it were allowed to be 2-stories, not to exceed 4-stories. Commissioners also noted that during the discussion phase of the Comprehensive Plan podium height was mentioned to allow building height at the street to be 2-stories with the option of going taller if the building were to be stepped back; however, how to achieve podium height was left out of the Plan. This step back or podium height would encourage development of a more pedestrian friendly environment. Commissioner Forrest noted difficulty may lie in the definition of story. She pointed out in the Comprehensive Plan one “story” is considered 12-feet, adding that definition would limit “store front” scenarios similar to 50th and France, and it could also impact service stations with bays. The proposed overlay district map would at least allow 2-stories, which for a service station with bays makes more sense. Chair Fischer agreed. He pointed out garage bays are usually over 12-feet which would create a non-conforming situation for some of the City’s service stations if left as is. Commissioner Risser agreed and said even if the use of a PCD-4 zoned parcel remains the same, there may be unique design options where flexibility on building height makes sense, pointing out in reality the functionality of buildings change. Chair Fischer acknowledged everyone has their own perception; however, the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and guidance is needed for vision. Chair Fischer pointed out the Comprehensive Plan and proposed building height overlay district map refers to areas. Continuing, Chair Fischer said people should also remember when heights are “called-out” it doesn’t mean a building has to be built at that height, it means a building can be built up to that height, and in all instances required setbacks are also a factor. Planner Teague agreed, adding if anyone is worried about the potential for a building being too tall in reality that can’t happen. As mentioned by Chair Fischer building height is determined by setbacks and floor area ratios. The discussion ensued on the potential for redevelopment in specific areas, (Cahill & W 70th St, Valley View/Wooddale) and how the building height overlay district map and ordinance mesh as required by Met Council. Commissioner Staunton said in his opinion this amendment needs to move forward to the Council and adopted to accomplish compliance as required by Met Council. Commissioner Grabiel agreed. Continuing, Commissioner Staunton said his caution is ensuring that if certain areas in Edina are redeveloped (Southdale) more thought should be given to these areas. Commissioner Staunton said it is very important to achieve a good pedestrian flow in the City’s commercial areas, reiterating further study may be needed. Chair Fischer agreed and asked Planner Teague how the text changes read. Planner Teague said the ordinance as proposed takes out all height regulations within each individual district and refers to the building height overlay district map as ordinance 850.22. The ordinance text would also match the key found on the building height overlay district map. A brief discussion ensued with regard to ordinance language that refers to 25% of frontage with some Commissioners feeling there was ambiguity in the 25% reference. It was also pointed out that the term “between intersections” in actuality may be different in some residential areas of the City and in differing zoning districts. It was suggested that some ordinance language may need to be “cleaned up” during the re-write process. Chair Fischer said he understands the comments on street frontage, etc; however, at this time the focus should remain on building height. Chair Fischer said he would add the reference to the 25% rule and “between intersections” to the “bucket list”. Commissioner Risser questioned if the ordinance and overlay map should be so specific on building height instead of allowing a range of building heights. She pointed out with if a building is constructed with shorter ceilings a 144 foot building could be 14-stories, not 12 as dictated. Chair Fischer pointed out building heights were determined by the City Council and probably can’t be changed. Planner Teague agreed, adding if a building exceeds 12-stories in an area designated as 12-stories the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended. Chair Fischer said in his opinion it would be worthwhile to suggest to the City Council that they take another look at building height; especially in the areas that could see future redevelopment. Public Comment John Bohan, 800 Coventry, told the Commission he believes the podium height (2-story at the street level) concept resulted from conversations with merchants and residents in the Cahill and West 70th Street neighborhood. Mr. Bohan also referred to the draft building height overlay district as it relates to Centennial Lakes, HOD-4, pointing out the map indicates 4-stories; however, the Coventry at Centennial Lakes is only 2-stories. Chair Fischer said he recalled the discussion on Centennial Lakes and asked Planner Teague if the reasoning behind the 4-stories is that sites with a similar zoning designation must be treated equally. Planner Teague responded that is correct. Continuing, Planner Teague pointed out that currently there is no height limit in the Centennial Lakes area. The proposed ordinance would reduce height in this area possibly more than any other in the City. Action Commissioner Staunton moved to recommend adoption of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to add a Building Height Overlay District, pages A1-A6, including the most recent appendix A, and the March 24, 2010 memo with the understanding that this amendment imports height wherever it was dictated in the Comprehensive Plan by importing it into the height overlay district, and where the Comprehensive Plan was silent the current zoning restrictions regarding height would be retained. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Ayes; Carpenter, Risser, Scherer, Staunton, Brown Grabiel, Forrest, Fischer. Nay; Schroeder. Motion carried 8-1 Discussion -Planned Unit Development Planner Presentation Planner Teague reminded the Commission the PUD topic has been separated into four separate elements: 1) Purpose and Intent (goals) 2) Applicability/Criteria; 3) Process/Procedures; and 4) Rules/Standards. Planner Teague said the topic this evening is Rules/Standards. Planner Teague said what has been discussed up to this point and potential language that could be used as the Rules/Standards section. Planner Teague reminded the Commission at the past meetings discussion the two acre minimum requirement was removed, and a sketch plan is required for a PUD or rezoning. A public meeting is required and residents within 1,000 feet would be notified; and the 60/120 day rule language has been added. The City Attorney has advised that the 60/120 rule does apply to a sketch plan. Discussion Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague to clarify the 60 day rule. Planner Teague explained that State Statute requires Cities to take action on an application within 60 days; however, the City can extend the time for another 60 days. Chair Fischer asked Planner Teague how the 60/120 day rule is defined. Planner Teague responded final action must occur within that time frame. A discussion ensued on sketch plan review with Commissioner Forrest expressing the opinion that it would not make sense if the sketch plan review process was held to the same time frame as a formal application; it would defeat the purpose of the sketch plan review. Commissioner Staunton said if there are separate applications for each leg of the process maybe the rule would apply to each application. Planner Teague said his understanding from the City Attorney, Roger Knutson, was that the “clock starts ticking” at the sketch plan review. Commissioners acknowledged that in reality there is no way a development application could get through the process from sketch plan review to final approval within 120 days, adding it’s hard enough to do that without the addition of sketch plan review. Planner Teague said he would speak with the City Attorney to clarify his position, adding it may be a good idea to invite Mr. Knutson to a meeting. Commissioner Staunton agreed, adding he believes there is a way to write criteria for each application. A sketch plan review is seeking feedback, not action, which is a big difference. Commissioner Grabiel questioned if the intent of the Commission was to have the sketch plan review such a formal process, adding his take was that the sketch plan review was informal. Continuing, Commissioner Grabiel said his take on a sketch plan review was a developer running an idea “up the flag pole” to gather feedback from the Commission, take the input from the Commission and proceed or start over. Commissioner Grabiel reiterated he didn’t think the process was as formal as outlined, notices, mailing, etc. Commissioner Carpenter suggested that staff formalize or require a pre-application meeting with developers. Commissioner Carpenter acknowledged that a meeting between staff and developers regularly occurs; however, if required and formalized the applicant would be provided with guidance on their development as it proceeds through the formal process. Commissioner Forrester said her initial though on sketch plan review was that it would benefit the applicant by providing feedback from the Commission on their take on the proposal. Commissioner Forrest said she also agrees with comments from Commissioner Grabiel (depending on what Mr. Knutson says) that the formalities could be minimized. She said posting the sketch plan review meeting instead of mailings, etc. should suffice and staff/commission encouraging an applicant to meet with neighboring property owners (prior to the public hearing) so no one is blind sighted would be good advice. Commissioner Brown said his understanding of a sketch plan review was to provide the Commission with the opportunity to offer feedback to an applicant on how nine Commissioners felt about a certain proposal. Commissioner Brown said his understanding was that this meeting would be less formal; only providing the applicant with feedback and was not part of an official public hearing process. Public meeting, not hearing. Commissioner Schroeder asked Planner Teague if a sketch plan application is made what right(s) does the Commission grant the developer. Planner Teague responded that the sketch plan review meeting does not afford the applicant any rights. A sketch plan review meeting provides only feedback, no Aye, Nay action. Commissioner Staunton pointed out #3 on procedures which indicates approved or denied, adding that language needs to be addressed, noting that further along in the ordinance it states any opinions or comments are advisory. Planner Teague agreed that the language needs to be re-addressed and clarified by the City Attorney. Chair Fischer noted that at the last meeting the Commission talked to a developer about the benefit of a sketch plan review, adding in his opinion a sketch plan review benefits everyone, applicant, staff, Commission and the neighbors. Commissioner Grabiel questioned what would stop a developer from using the Community Comment section on the Agenda to solicit ideas from the Commission as long as no formal application has been made. Commissioner Grabiel said the goal is not to exclude the public in the process but to provide feedback. If everything is formalized the sketch plan review would just add another step to the process. Commissioner Brown suggested that to “get around” the time frame constraints that the applicant could withdraw an application and reapply. Planner Teague agreed. Each new application restarts the clock. Chair Fischer suggested that further discussion on the sketch plan review process be put on hold. Chair Fischer referred to the Rules/Standards portion of the ordinance and asked Planner Teague to briefly go through them. Planner Teague said that points 1-4 are general; plan modifications, who maintains the records, codification of developers agreement, expiration language, etc. Number 5 needs to be filled in as the PUD is developed. Chair Fischer said as he reviews the proposed ordinance it appears that what is before the Commission is the framework for an actual PUD Ordinance. Planner Teague responded agreed that it was at least a framework for an Ordinance. Public Comment John Bohan, 800 Coventry, told the Commission he understands the spirit of the PUD; however, he believes in practicality this issue is very complex . COMMUNITY COMMENT: None. INTERGOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS: Chair Fischer acknowledged back of packet materials. Chair Fischer reported that next month, April 8th; the Public Works Small Area Guide Process will kick off. Chair Fischer there will be no meeting of the Zoning Ordinance Update Committee in April. Commissioner Risser reported that the Green Steps event was very successful, adding Heather Worthington did an excellent job with the summary. Commissioner Risser said the event also included a report on Copenhagen and an update from the school district on their green program. Commissioner Staunton also thanked Commissioner Risser for her report on her travels. Commissioner Grabiel said he would like to make sure that the City Attorney is present at a Zoning Ordinance Update Committee meeting when the Commission tackles PUD and sketch plan review, etc. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 28, 2010 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Carpenter moved adjournment at 8:25 pm. Commissioner Risser seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. Submitted by Jackie Hoogenakker