HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-02 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1997
7:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, David
Byron, David Runyan, Geof Workinger, Lorelei
Bergman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Swenson, Chuck Ingwalson
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner McClelland moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner
Byron requested a change to the minutes; page 8, vote to read 7-2. Commissioner
Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Mr. Larsen asked the Chair to consider the Four S. Properties, Inc. proposal
out of order because of staff's recommendation, and consideration for the proponents.
P-97-3 Four S. Properties, Inc. & Gordon Lewis
5229 Eden Avenue
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission staff is requesting this item be held over
to allow staff more time to review the proposal and its appropriateness in the area.
Mr. Tim Keane, attorney representing Four S. Properties, Inc. asked the
Commission to note his appearance, and the appearance of the principals for the
project.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen the reason for the continuance.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall past proposals for this area, noting the
proposal presented by Four S. Properties, Inc. is not in keeping with what Council
feels is appropriate for this site. Mr. Larsen concluded, reiterating staff requires more
time to study this proposal.
Commissioner McClelland moved to continue P-97-3 until April 30, 1997.
Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
H. OLD BUSINESS:
Z-96-3 Final Rezoning, R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District
to PRD -1, Planned Residence District. The Philip
Stephen Company
S-96-5 Final Plat Approval. Olde Vernon. The Philip
Stephen Company
General
Location: South of Vernon Avenue and East of Olinger Road
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City Council granted Preliminary
Rezoning approval for a 26 unit townhouse development of this property on October 7,
1996. The Commission will recall the developer had proposed a development of 32
units. The Council, in granting preliminary approval did not specify how the unit
reduction should be handled. The developer presented a revised plan illustrating 26
units to the Council on January 21, 1997.
Mr. Larsen explained the developer has now prepared final plans and is
requesting Final Rezoning and Final Plat approval. The primary change in the
development plan is that all 26 units are detached, whereas, the preliminary plan
illustrated all two unit buildings. The development plan continues the townhouse
concept with individual ownership of house pads and common ownership of all other
areas, including the road.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed Final Plans conform to all requirements of
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, including the required 100 foot setback from
Hawkes Lake. In response to concerns raised by the Council additional guest parking
has been added to the development. The proposed landscaping plan exceeds ordinance
requirements both in terms of sizes and amount of plantings.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Final Rezoning and Final Plat
approval. The proposed plans are consistent with preliminary approval and satisfy all
requirements for final approval. Final approval should be conditioned on:
1. Developers Agreement
2. Landscaping Bond
OA
3. Subdivision Dedication
Mr. Philip Dommer, was present to respond to questions.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen what the parkland dedication is for this
proposal. Mr. Larsen explained the City agreed to accept 100 feet upland from
Hawkes Lake, and the most easterly portion of the site as parkland dedication.
Mr. Dommer addressed the Commission informing them of changes to the plan
since he last appeared before them. Continuing, Mr. Dommer asked the Commission
to note off-street guest parking is now provided, and landscaping for the site will retain
a large number of existing trees, and also incorporate new landscaping throughout the
site. Mr. Dommer pointed out the development team has also worked closely with
neighbors to the south to provide them with an adequate buffer in the form of a berm
and landscaping. Mr. Dommer concluded it was the goal of the development team to
keep the project centralized and cohesive.
Chairman Johnson noted in reality these are individual lots with common
grounds. Continuing, he asked how control is maintained in a situation like this. Mr.
Larsen said this proposal is requesting a PRD zoning which affords the City more
control than if it were a single family development. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained
the structure and building pad will be owned by the homeowner with the rest of the site
as common area. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the association will also have control of
the common area, yard maintenance, snow removal, trash collection, etc.
Commissioner Byron questioned Mr. Larsen on the density for a PRD -1
zoning. Mr. Larsen said the density for a PRD -1 district is 4 units per acre, and this
proposal complies with the Ordinance.
Mr. Dommer interjected a majority of the homes will be walkout with total
square footage for each unit around 3,600 square feet, with an 1800 square foot
building pad. Continuing, Mr. Dommer said the proposed retaining walls will be used
to provide variation between units and ensure character and balance. Mr. Dommer said
owners will be able to design their own home within certain guidelines. With graphics
Mr. Dommer pointed out the different home styles offered to future buyers.
Concluding, Mr. Dommer said if in the future the adjoining Wegner property becomes
available to Mr. Evans he may be interested in developing it by adding it to the
westerly portion of the subject site creating a more cohesive development and presence
from Olinger.
Commissioner McClelland told Mr. Dommer the Commission appreciates the
response to concerns raised at previous hearings, and his continued work with the
residents of the area. She stated in her opinion this proposal is superior to the previous
proposal.
t
Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Dommer if exterior building materials will be
required to match, or somehow blend together. Mr. Dommer said the development
team will come up with color pallets that prospective owners can choose from, adding
exterior materials will usually be stucco with brick, brick, or like variations. The roof
choices will be slate or shake. Mr. Dommer said it is the goal of the development team
to have unity in this project, with owners choosing from possibly five different building
styles. Mr. Dommer said the real flexibility in this project will be that the owners will
be able to choose from five different housing styles and create their own interior layout
and interior materials.
Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Dommer to expand on surface parking. Mr.
Dommer said each unit will have a two stall garage with driveway surface parking of
between 2-4 cars depending on if they choose a front loading garage versus a side
loading garage. Mr. Dommer said it is the preference of the development team to have
a majority of the garages side loading, which would give each unit two spaces in the
garage and four spaces on the driveway. Continuing, Mr. Dommer said on the
internal south side of the street pads have been pushed back to allow for parallel
parking. Mr. Dommer said there are 18 parking stalls provided on site for visitors.
Mr. T. Siefert, 5901 Merold Drive told members of the Commission that he
does not have a problem with the proposal as presented, but does not want to see
anymore building on the site, or on adjacent properties.
Mr. Jim Matson, 5812 Merold Drive, told members of the Commission his
property abuts the proposed development and informed the Commission he has worked
closely with the developer on landscaping, etc. Continuing, Mr. Matson questioned if
fill would be brought in.
Mr. Dommer said fill will be brought in especially for lots 7-14. Mr. Dommer
added fill will also be brought in to accomplish a berm behind some of the adjoining
properties (including Mr. Matsons). Concluding, Mr. Dommer explained the majority
of the fill will be used in the frontyard area so the front of the house is at grade with
the rear remaining at grade.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Dommer the height of the proposed berm along
the property boundary abutting the residential homes. Mr. Dommer said the berm is
four to five feet in height. Mr. Dommer asked the Commission to note the proposed
retaining walls are located only in the front yard area.
Chairman Johnson said he seems to recall the Commission preferred that the
road into the development be one-way. Mr. Dommer said during review of the project
the County, City Engineering Department and Fire Safety felt a two-way road was
safer and more efficient. They believed a two-way street system would divide traffic
flow into and out of the site.
2
Commissioner Runyan commented when viewing the proposal it appears to be a
single family development. Mr. Dommer agreed, adding this layout affords its owners
the privacy one usually associates with single dwelling living, with the added benefit of
routine maintenance (i.e. snow removal, lawn service, etc.) one enjoys with townhouse
development living.
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend final rezoning and final plat
approval subject to staff conditions, subject to the plans presented, maintaining the 100
foot setback from Hawkes Lake, and no development can occur on the northeast corner
of the property. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion.
Commissioner Byron noted he wants to ensure the westerly portion of the site
remains as is, and what the Commission is voting on this evening is the plans
presented. Commissioner Byron said if in the future the adjoining Wegner property
becomes available for development with the westerly portion of this site the property
owner has the right to apply for redevelopment, but that is an issue the Commission
and Council will consider at that time.
All voted aye; motion carried.
Z-96-2 Amended Final Rezoning, PRD -3, Planned Residence District
to PRD -4, Planned Residence District. 5120 and 5124 France
Avenue. Hans Kuhlman
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the City Council approved Final
Rezoning plans for a seven (7) unit condominium building on December 16, 1996.
The approved plans illustrated four units on the first floor and three units on the upper
floor. The developer has returned to the City asking for approval of a revised Final
Development Plan.
Mr. Larsen explained the revised plan would increase the number of units in the
building from seven to eight. This would be accomplished by redesigning the second
floor to accommodate four units in a layout similar to the four unit first floor plan.
The building exterior and the site plan would not change. All modifications would
occur internally. Plans for the approved three unit second floor and the proposed four
unit layout are attached.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the Planned Residence (PRD -3) District requires a total
site area of 29,200 square feet to support an eight unit development. The subject site
has an area of 27,646 square feet. In order to allow an eight unit development it would
be necessary to change the zoning from PRD -3 to PRD -4. A PRD- 4 zoning would
67
require a site of 17,200 square feet. The proposed building complies with all other
zoning ordinance requirements.
Mr. Larsen concluded the question before the Commission is "what level of
density is appropriate for this site and future redevelopments along France Avenue?".
The proponent has submitted information showing his proposal is less dense than other
multi -family projects in the area. Mr. Larsen said staff agrees with the proponent that
four units per floor, rather than three, makes more sense within the proposed footprint.
It is also true that the passer-by could not detect the difference if the extra unit is added
to the building. Mr.. Larsen noted staff did not initially support the eight unit
townhouse proposal, based on density and building setback issues. However, the
redesign has solved the parking and building set back problems that caused the original
development to crowd the site. In light of these changes staff can support the revised
plan subject to:
1. Landscape Bond
2. Watershed District, Permit
3. Developers Agreement
The proponent, Mr. Hans Kuhlman was present to respond to questions.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Kuhlman the square footage of the
proposed units. Mr. Kuhlman responded the square footage of the units are between
1860 - 1900 square feet.
Commissioner Runyan said in his opinion this layout works better internally
than the seven unit development that was previously approved. Mr. Kuhlman
acknowledged that is true, and the reason he is before the Commission this evening.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen how Mr. Kuhlman came up with the
number seven in the first place. Mr. Larsen explained the previous proposal had more
of a townhouse feel, and staff and the Commission decided that no more than seven
townhouse units would comfortably fit on this site while maintaining adequate sideyard
setbacks (Mr. Kuhlman originally requested 8 units). Continuing, Mr. Larsen pointed
out the building now is condominium style which solved the previous setback issues.
Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Kuhlman if this building is a true
condominium building (homestead) or will it be rental property. Mr. Kuhlman said the
building is a condominium, and the units will be sold. Continuing, Mr. Kuhlman
reiterated the previous proposal had three units on upper level, and the layout just did
not work efficiently.
Commissioner Workinger asked if the density between PRD -3 and PRD -4 is
that much different. Mr. Kuhlman said the PRD -3 zoning allows 7.6 units, and this
proposal is eight units. Mr. Larsen interjected a PRD -3 zoning would place the
proposal be at the high end (.6 units over) and traditionally the City has rounded
down, which is the reason for the request for a PRD -4 zoning. Continuing, Mr.
Larsen said there is a difference between PRD -3 and 4, zoning districts. PRD -4 allows
a denser development and if setbacks permit a taller building.
Mr. Kuhlman told Members of the Commission with the change in the number
of units the site continues to retain the 16 underground parking stalls with five surface
parking stalls on site. Mr. Kuhlman also noted on -street parking is also available.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion the site should retain the PRD -3
zoning. She added she has a concern if this property is zoned to PRD -4 and is not
developed by this developer another developer could come in and propose a building
with more than eight units, and in her opinion that is too dense for the amount of land
present.
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend final rezoning and final plat
approval subject to the plans presented, subject to staff conditions, noting the change in
unit number from seven to eight, with the further recommendation that the site retains
the PRD -3 zoning. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion.
Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Larsen if it is acceptable to retain the PRD -3
zoning to ensure that this site is not developed with more units. He pointed out the
PRD -4 zoning allows a higher density, and building height. Mr. Larsen said he
believes it is perfectly acceptable, but will consult with the City Attorney. He said the
Council can act on the recommendation of the Commission, and may be able to grant a
variance.
Chairman Johnson called the vote. All voted aye; motion carried.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Kuhlman when he plans on breaking
ground. Mr. Kuhlman said if all goes well we plan to break ground in mid summer or
early fall.
M. NEW BUSINESS:
LD -97-1 Brad and Caroline Carlin
5451 Grove Street
Scott Forsberg & Cyndi della Santina
5501 Grove Street
Mr. Larsen informed members of the Commission the proposed lot division
would split an existing, vacant Outlot and combine the resulting parcels with two
7
developed parcels with frontage on Grove Street. From a Zoning Ordinance viewpoint,
the status of the Outlot would remain unchanged. It would not be a developable parcel
until replatted and until the property gains frontage on an improved public street.
Commissioner Workinger said it appears we are allowing the proponents to
subdivide an Outlot.
Mr. Larsen explained the approach staff is taking on this issue is that we are
allowing each property owner the ability to enlarge their present lot by dividing the
adjoining Outlot in half. Continuing, Mr. Larsen pointed out the subject site is still
considered an Outlot, and the City does not allow building on an Outlot without going
through a process.
Commissioner Byron said he is comfortable with recommending approval of this
proposal if the lot is left an Outlot as indicated by staff. Continuing, Commissioner
Byron said as he understands the issue, the Outlot designation protects the City from
future development, and is not subdividable, or buildable, unless re -heard by the
Commission and Council.
Mr. Larsen said that is correct. The divided Outlot can not be build on, or
considered two legally platted lots. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said it is his understanding
the proponents are buying the Outlot to acquire more land, protect their property, and
preserve some control over future redevelopment of the area if it occurs.
Commissioner Byron moved to recommend lot division approval.
Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Ayes; Bergman, Byron, Workinger,
Lonsbury, Runyan, Johnson. Nay; McClelland.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS:
Ordinance No. 815/Antenna Ordinance
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their last meeting they heard comments
from staff and the industry on changes to the City Code, Ordinance 815, the Antenna
Ordinance. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained the City understands the Federal
regulations and want to work within the federal guidelines, but we also want to protect
the City's residential properties. Mr. Larsen said another goal of the proposed changes
to the Antenna Ordinance is to encourage co -location between providers.
Chairman Johnson asked if the reduced tower height creates the need for more
towers. Mr. Larsen said it is his understanding that may be true, but with co -location
it is hoped that will not be the case.
Commissioner McClelland said at the last meeting it was mentioned the City
should consider looking into the possibility of co -locating on City water towers, and
other structures, and questioned if that is being studied. Mr. Larsen said that issue is
currently under study.
Mr. Peter Beck introduced himself as a representative of AT&T. Continuing
Mr. Beck explained the reason this is becoming an issue is because the FCC has
granted six new PCS licenses. Continuing, Mr. Beck said he agrees the City needs to
protect its residential properties, and acknowledged there is the perception that towers
are not aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Beck said presently there are towers standing that
blend in very well with the environment, and a person with an untrained eye may not
even notice a tower is in the vicinity. Mr. Beck explained the industry has changed
because of the demand for personal communication devices. He pointed out in the past
the metropolitan area had 9 cells, and at present the range is 75 to 150 cells. Mr. Beck
in response to Chairman Johnsons question on height reduction, said more towers may
be needed because trees and buildings do have impact on the signals received. Mr.
Beck informed the Commission the PCS technology uses a low power frequency, so the
task to locate towers becomes more complex as more users come on line. Mr. Beck
said the goal of the industry is to make service available to everyone, and the industry
tries to co -locate on existing structures, but if that is not possible a mono -pole needs to
be erected. In response to the height limit, 75 feet is as low as the industry can go. 75
feet is difficult for co -location because most co -location sites require at least 100 feet,
because spacing needs to be available between the antennas of the different providers.
Mr. Beck addressed the proposed setback restrictions, and mentioned a majority of
cities have setbacks that are the height of the pole X 2. Reiterating, Mr. Beck said if
co -location is the goal of the City of Edina, a 75 foot pole is too short, the shortest pole
we usually see for co -location is 100 feet. Concluding Mr. Beck stated in his opinion
the points of conflict between the City and the providers can be resolved.
Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Beck to re -explain the reason the mono -pole
needs to be higher than 75 feet if it is used for co -location. Mr. Beck explained the
mono -pole will have a number of antenna attached to it, and each PCS user requires a
certain number of antenna, and there needs to be distance between the antennas. Mr.
Beck pointed out if there are trees or other structures in the vicinity that could
potentially block signals, height also increases. Mr. Beck said this is a difficult issue to
pinpoint, but in my experience there may an instance where co -location can occur on a
pole 75 feet in height, but only if there are no obstructions in the vicinity, reiterating
that is very rare.
Commissioner McClelland commented that the Ordinance is still in the draft
stages, and questioned if staff feels more time is needed to create an ordinance that is
enforceable. Mr. Larsen acknowledged the ordinance is still in the draft stages, but the
issues remain relatively the same. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said staff would like to see
the Commission move the draft ordinance forward to the Council allowing them time to
9
study the proposed changes, and solve the concerns and questions brought up by the
Commission regarding setbacks, tower height and co -location on water towers, etc.
John Barnsdale, PCS provider, told the Commission there may be instances
where we can not locate where cities want us to locate. Mr. Barnsdale said in many
cities this issue is viewed as a conditional use, and questioned if Edina would view the
location of towers as conditional uses.
Mr. Larsen explained the City of Edina recognizes conditional uses as uses
allowed in the residential districts. Conditional uses are schools, churches, golf
courses.
Mrs. Barnsdale asked if in the PRD and PSR zoning districts towers could be
viewed as conditional uses. Mr. Larsen said that is not an option.
Mr. Barnsdale stressed to the Commission 75 feet is the minimum height we can
go, and realistically towers have been as high as 160 feet. Mr. Barnsdale reiterated
statements from Mr. Beck that the communication business does want to co -locate
when possible, and understands the position of the City to control the location of
towers, adding if the Commission encourages the Council to consider co -location on
water towers, and other public structures it reduces the need for individual mono -poles.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen if the Ordinance can require co -
location. Mr. Larsen said that may not be a practical approach. He added staff is
trying to draft an ordinance that encourages co -location, added he is unsure if legally
the City can mandate co -location.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission can request that
the Council consider co -location on water towers. Mr. Larsen said that is appropriate.
He reiterated at present a committee is studying the issue. He said if the Commission
wants to encourage co -location on City water towers, and public structures they should
do so, as long as co -location does not interfere with public safety.
Commissioner Lonsbury questioned if the Park Board has input on this issue.
Mr. Larsen responded Mr. John Keprios is on the committee and is aware of the issues
facing the City regarding towers.
Chairman Johnson said in his opinion the ordinance still has a way to go, adding
it is difficult to act on an ordinance that is not in the final form. Mr. Larsen agreed,
but pointed out the policy of the City is sound regarding this issue and with the
variance process intact staff believes the Council needs to review it with noted
comments from the Commission.
Commissioner McClelland said in reading the proposed ordinance, in her
opinion there are areas where we may not be able to enforce the ordinance. She noted
10
we do not allow the placement of a tower in a residential area, but in reality can we say
no to that. She pointed out the variance process, and in sitting on variance boards
hearing variance requests for the placement of antenna dishes, the Board had little
authority in preventing placement of these dishes, because of the FCC rules, and
obstacles that obstruct the reception of signals (like trees). Concluding, she added there
may be little we can't allow.
Commissioner Byron said in his opinion what we have been reviewing and
listening to has been very educational. He stated in his opinion the process is working,
and we are drafting an ordinance that protects to the best of our ability our City.
Continuing, while the variance process may not be perfect we are doing everything that
can be done to ensure that the goals and requirements of the City are met.
Chairman Johnson reiterated he is uncomfortable that the ordinance is not yet in
its final form and we are being requested to send it on to the Council.
Commissioner Byron said in his opinion staff is moving in the right direction
and we have heard this item two times with changes made and more changes indicated.
Commissioner Byron said the Council should now decide what is appropriate and add
their comments and concerns.
Commissioner Bergman questioned the length of the moratorium. Mr. Larsen
said the Council granted a 90 day moratorium, March 4th to June 4th. Mr. Larsen
added staff would like to move this on, noting there are technical changes to the draft
that need to be implemented.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion there are many unanswered
questions, and this is a difficult technical issue with few of us with any expertise.
Mr. Larsen responded with any ordinance we establish it may appear general,
but the variance process is an option that can be implemented when needed.
Commissioner Byron said in his opinion the Commission should give the
Council the benefit of the moratorium so they can study the proposed changes, and
adopt the revised ordinance.
Commissioner Bergman asked if anyone can give her an estimate on how many
towers may be constructed in Edina in the future.
Mr. Beck said that is a hard question to answer, especially with the technical
changes the keep occurring in the industry , but with a disclaimer, maybe 8-12 towers
could be constructed within the City. Continuing, Mr. Beck said he has an excellent
rapport with city staff, and has worked with planning staff for many years, reiterating
he has worked well with staff in the past on different issues, and believes the
relationship will last and any conflicts with ordinance language can be resolved.
11
Commissioner McClelland moved to recommend that the proposed Ordinance
be moved to the Council for their consideration. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Bergman suggested that the Council review the 75 foot height
limitation, as it relates to co -location, and the 6X the height proposed rule.
Commissioner Lonsbury wants the Council to note the Commission wants to
encourage co -location. Continuing, Commissioner Lonsbury said he likes what he has
reviewed so far, pointing out there is always the option for a provider to apply for a
variance if our rules prevent tower placement, or impose height restrictions.
Commissioner Workinger stated he wants co -location encouraged, and
suggested staff revisit the ordinance to ensure that co -location is not difficult to
achieve.
Commissioner Byron said he agrees with Commissioner Workingers comment
regarding co -location, noting the industry has indicated 75 feet is too low for co -
location. Continuing, Commission Byron recommended that staff contact other cities
to see how they have resolved this issue in their communities. Commissioner Byron
suggested a change in the ordinance that may work is if a mono -pole is only going to
have a single provider 75 feet is the maximum height, but if it will be a tower with two
providers (co -locate) ordinance could allow a higher tower (Council set limit) that
would not require the providers going through the variance process.
All voted aye to pass the revised ordinance to the Council for their consideration
and action.
V. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
12