Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1999, 5:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, David Byron, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Charles Ingwalson, Geof Workinger STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: June 30, 1999, held over S-99-4 Waterman Addition. Waterman Partners 6525 Waterman Avenue Request: Five lot subdivision Mr. Larsen informed the Commission on June 30, 1999, the Commission heard and denied a six lot subdivision plat presented by Waterman Partners. Mr. Larsen explained the proponent is present this evening with a revised five lot plat. Mr. Larsen noted staff recommended approval of a five lot plat at the June 30th meeting. The proponent, Mr. Bob Schmidt was present, Ms. Kathy O'Connell representing the proponent was present, interested neighbors were present. Commissioner McClelland stated she objects to the proponent's last minute submission. Commissioner McClelland noted the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the revised plat. Ms. Kathy O'Connell introduced herself and apologized for the last minute submission. Continuing, Ms. O'Connell told the Commission the proposal now meets all ordinance requirements. The retaining wall has been reduced, and in her opinion it is an improved plat. Ms. O'Connell said it is the goal of the developer to provide "empty nester" housing on this site. She added Edina is an excellent market for this type of development. Ms. O'Connell told the Commission the developer listened very carefully to comments and concerns expressed at neighborhood meetings and the Planning Commission meeting, which is the reason we are presenting a revised plat this evening. Mr. Ed Finn, 4925 Green Farms Circle, told the board his property abuts the subject site. He explained to the Commission he has reviewed a number of plans, but has not been able to review this plan. Mr. Finn said of particular concern to him is the proposed retaining wall, and the existing trees and vegetation on the site. Mr. Finn added he would like to have been able to review the revised plan, and study it, paying special attention to the proposed retaining wall and tree loss. Concluding Mr. Finn asked the proponents if they know how far the proposed retaining wall will be from his property. Ms. O'Connell said she believes the retaining wall will be at least 30 to 40 feet away, which will leave an area where vegetation is not disturbed. Ms. Betty Ann Weens, 4929 Green Farms Circle, said she hopes that whatever is decided the Commission realizes whatever happens on the subject site directly affects the adjoining property owners on Green Farms Circle. Continuing, Ms. Weens pointed out any development on this property affects property values in the neighborhood. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen hqw the neighbors heard about this hearing. Mr. Larsen said they learned of the meeting through direct communication with the Planning department. Commissioner Swenson said she finds it uncomfortable to be put in the position of being asked to act on a plan they have not been able to review. Mr. Larsen responded in his opinion the five lot plat is better, and was recommended by staff at the first hearing. Commissioner Swenson noted the cul-de-sac has changed, and questioned if it can accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr. Larsen said the revised cul-de-sac can accommodate emergency vehicles. Commissioner Swenson asked if drainage was reviewed for the revised plat. Mr. Larsen responded it was not reviewed. Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Larsen the status of the earlier application. Mr. Larsen explained it remains active. Chairman Johnson asked the proponents if they plan on presenting the six lot plan to the Council. Ms. O'Connell said when the six lot plat was before you two weeks ago it was understood by the proponent that the direction of staff and the Commission was for a five lot subdivision. Ms. O'Connell stated the plat the proponent is now submitting to the Commission is a five lot subdivision development. Commissioner McClelland interjected that the Commission heard this proposal one month ago, not two weeks. Commissioner Lonsbury said he understands what will happen if this item is voted up or down, but does not understand what would happen if it is tabled. Commissioner Ingwalson interjected questioning if there is a time frame a plat is under, and is notification a requirement. Mr. Larsen responded at the Planning Commission level notification by the City is not required. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained under Ordinance 810 the City requires that the proponent notify property owners of the Planning Commission meeting 2 which was accomplished for the last meeting. Concluding Mr. Larsen said the City must act up or down within 120 days of application, and we are 45-60 days into the process. Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion the Commission has the right to review revised complete plans before a meeting, not during a meeting, and with missing information. Commissioner McClelland said while she may not have an objection to the proposal, it is difficult to make an educated decision with incomplete information. Commissioner McClelland moved to table this issue until complete plans are submitted. Commissioner Ingwalson seconded the motion. Commissioner Byron said he was not present at the last meeting, and is also concerned with the lack of completeness of the application. He added he wishes it were complete because he has concern about storm water run off, drainage plans, and the proposed retaining wall. Continuing, Commissioner Byron said he is not sure what to do when both plans(six lot and five lot) are parallel. Commissioner Byron said he does not remember a time as a Commission Member when two plans were active. Chairman Johnson asked Ms. O'Connell if they are withdrawing the six lot subdivision. Ms. O'Connell said they will not go to the Council with a six lot subdivision. Ms. O'Connell apologized again for the lateness of this submittal. Mr. Schmidt said it was very difficult to take a plan he believed in (6 lots) and revise it. He added he knew that he could go before the Council with a six lot plat, but felt the input from Staff and the Commission directed us to a five lot plat. Mr. Schmidt said it is difficult to make this work financially. Mr. Schmidt concluded that he has removed the six lot proposal, and is submitting a five lot proposal, noting this plan meets all the criteria of the ordinance. Commissioner Lonsbury said he is satisfied the proponent listened to City Staff and the Commission, but believes the neighbors, staff, and Commission have not had enough time to review the revised plan. Continuing, Commissioner Lonsbury said he believes this should be voted on up or down. The process would then allow the proponent to go before the Council. Tabling the issue is not a good idea. Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Larsen when staff notified the proponent that staff was not 'in favor of the six lot subdivision, and recommended a five lot plat. Mr. Larsen said the proponent knew prior to the last Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Ingwalson said the proponent chose to go forward with six lots in spite of what staff recommended, and in his opinion any time crunch is the fault of the proponent. They could have gone with five lots right away. Commissioner McClelland agreed, she said staff made it very clear in the staff report that the six lot proposal required too many variances.. Chairman Johnson asked when the Commission is going to find out about the drainage, retaining wall, etc, noting the Commission has no information now. Mr. Larsen said if the Commission needs to review all revised plans S-99-4 will have to be forwarded to the next Planning Commission meeting. 3 Commissioner Lonsbury called for the vote on continuing the item until completed plans are submitted: Commissioner Lonsbury, Nay, Commissioner Byron, Nay, Commissioner Swenson, Nay, Commissioner McClelland, Aye, Commissioner Runyan, Nay, Commissioner Workinger, Nay, Commissioner Ingwalson Aye, Chairman Johnson Aye. Motion to continue failed. Commissioner Workinger moved to recommend not accepting (deny) the revised plat. Commissioner Workinger added he made the motion with the intent to move this forward to the Council. Commissioner Workinger asked that the Planning Department in the future protect the Commission from incomplete submittals. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. Commissioner Swenson said she is happy with the five lot plat, and is happy the plat contains no variances, but is not happy with the lack of information. Commissioner Workinger stated he agrees with Commissioner Swenson's comments. Commissioner McClelland said she believes it is the duty of the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council, with suggestions. Commissioner McClelland said the developer has made it very clear the revised five lot proposal is the plan they will submit to the Council. Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion there are enough days to have the Commission rehear this proposal with all plans completed, vote and send it on to the Council with an educated recommendation. Commissioner Lonsbury pointed out if this item is moved on to the Council the minutes will reflect our displeasure in receiving last minute, incomplete plans. Commissioner Workinger said the Commission has already voted on a six lot plat and asked Mr. Schmidt if he prefers tabling this issue until the Planning Commission next meets or voting it up or down. Mr. Schmidt said as he understands the process he would prefer it if the Commission voted it up or down. Commissioner Workinger asked if timing for this project is important. Mr. Schmidt said timing is important because the present owners are closing on their new house August 13, 1999. Chairman Johnson said there is the possibility if this is passed on to the Council that they may send it back to the Commission for further review, especially of the grading plan, and retaining wall. Chairman Johnson stated this is a process, but the process has been made difficult for us by presenting us with last minute incomplete plans. Commissioner Byron said he is not sure the message the Commission wants to send to the Council is clear with a denial of this proposal. He suggested another way to send the message from the Commission is with favorable action by us, subject to conditions. Mr. Larsen said in regard to a motion to deny it becomes difficult to relay to the Council positive comments through the minutes and the staff report. Mr. Larsen said his 12 `preference is to table this issue until the plans are complete, or move to approve it subject to conditions. Upon roll call vote for denial: Commissioner Lonsbury, Nay, Commissioner Byron, Nay, Commissioner Swenson, Aye, Commissioner McClelland, Nay, Commissioner Runyan, Nay, Commissioner Workinger, Aye, Commissioner Ingwalson, Aye and Chairman Johnson, Nay. Motion to deny failed. Motion failed 5-3. Commissioner Byron moved to recommend approval of the modified plat which does not require any variances, that approval is subject to the presentation of full and complete plans in compliance with our ordinances for adequate review by City Council given that the Commission did not have such opportunity with reference to grading, storm water run off, retaining walls, preservation of trees, and landscaping. Commissioner Ingwalson asked Commissioner Byron if he would accept an amendment that the modified plans be shared with the neighbors for their review prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Byron accepted that amendment. Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion this is a very complicated motion, and if moved forward with this motion the Commission is abdicating their responsibilities. Commissioner McClelland added the Commission should vote for the process. Concluding, one developer should not get special privilege, everyone follows the rules by submitting plans in a timely fashion, not the day of the hearing. Upon roll call vote for approval: Commissioner Lonsbury, Aye, Commissioner Byron, Aye, Commissioner Swenson, Nay, Commissioner McClelland, Nay, Commissioner Runyan, Aye, Commissioner Workinger, Nay, Commissioner Ingwalson, Nay, Chairman Johnson, Nay. Motion to approve failed 5-3. Commissioner McClelland said she does not enjoy being asked to act on this revised plat, and asked that the Commission follow the process, do their job, and hear this request at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Byron interjected that he believes everyone is trying to follow the process, and Commissioner McClelland has her views of the process, and he respects them, but objects to being criticized for his effort. Commissioner Ingwalson asked if this item can be forwarded on to the Council without a recommendation due to the lack of information. Mr. Larsen responded he is unsure. Chairman Johnson said he believes if the six lot plat is withdrawn, and nothing is accomplished this evening the six lot plat would go to Council. Mr. Larsen said if the Commission fails to act positively or negatively tonight the proponent could carry last month's recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to forward S-99-4 to the City Council with no recommendation due to lack of information. Mr. Larsen said in his opinion it may be best to "hold it over' to the next Commission meeting otherwise the Council could refer it to the Commission. Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend denial of S-99-4. Commissioner Ingwalson withdrew his motion, and seconded Commissioner Swenson's motion to deny. Upon roll call vote: Commissioner Lonsbury, Aye, Commissioner Byron, Aye, Commissioner Swenson, Aye, Commissioner McClelland, Nay, Commissioner Runyan, Nay, Commissioner Workinger, Aye, Commissioner Ingwalson, Aye, Chairman Johnson, Aye. Motion to deny carried 6-2. P-99-3 United Properties & Centennial Lakes Limited Partnership S-99-7 South Edina Development 4th Addition Mr. Larsen informed the Board the subject property represents the final phase of the office portion of the Centennial Lakes mixed use development. The proposed building also represents the fifth and final building in the office portion of Centennial Lakes. In 1995 the City Council approved a revised Master site plan calling for five buildings containing a floor area of 1,080,000 square feet supported by 3,739 parking spaces. In 1998 when the city approved buildings three and four, the final building was illustrated at nine stories and 415,000 square feet. Mr. Larsen said the final site plan now presented for Commission review is 9 stories with a total floor area of 215,000 square feet. This reduction in size for building 5 reduces total development floor area to 880,385 square feet, and reduces total on-site parking to 3,523 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires 3,522 spaces for a development of this size. Mr. Larsen explained parking for this building, as with other buildings in the development, is largely located in parking structures. The proposed ramp contains four levels, and parks 858 vehicles. There are approximately 14 spaces in the lowest level of the building. Because the site elevation is approximately 20 feet higher on the east end of the structure, much of the structure will be below grade from most vantage points. Viewed from the east the ramp it would appear to be only one level above grade. From the west side and at the southwest corner of the ramp all levels are at or above grade. Mr. Larsen pointed out the development of the final building will trigger completion of the pond and park areas. The City's HRA will undertake construction of the final portion of the pond wall and related sidewalk and landscaping. Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed building is consistent with the approved Master Plan for this development. No variances are required by the plan. Landscaping conforms to ordinance requirements and is consistent with the balance of the development. Bering along buildings three and four was not a requirement. Staff believes that the existing lighting does not violate the code. Excess soil on the site will be removed when building 5 9 commences construction. Staff recommends approval of the Site plan and the Plat. Recommended conditions: 1. All necessary sidewalk and drainage easements 2. Adequate provision to maintain pond outlet Mr. Brian Carey was present representing United Properties. Commissioner Swenson questioned the "skyway" and if there will be public access to the park. Mr. Larsen said there will be public access to the park through the "skyway". Commissioner Swenson commented that she has a concern regarding safety, and emergency access if the door is locked. Commissioner Runyan questioned if the "skyway" is at grade. Mr. Larsen said it is his understanding from discussions with Mr. Carey that the "skyway" or "walk through" is at grade. Commissioner Swenson said she would like to see the "skyway" go up one floor. Mr. Carey, United Properties, stated this building will finish the entire project that United and the City began around 10 years ago. He added building #5 will look like building #4. Mr. Carey said it is their goal to begin construction in the fall of 1999, and have the project completed by fall of the year 2000. Mr. Carey stated this building will be a Class A building, and will match the existing office buildings. Mr. Carey in response to a question from Commissioner Swenson explained one would always be able to "walk through" the gazebo type access to the park. Mr. Carey added pedestrians would not have access to the office buildings from the "walk through" Mr. Carey noted the gazebo would need to be designed to accommodate a pass through for a vehicle. Mr. Carey told the Commission United has worked very hard with the neighbors to maintain a good relationship. He said three issues still need to be resolved. Lighting, Landscaping, and dirt removal. Mr. Carey explained they tried a number of ways to reduce light wash onto neighboring residential areas, and are still looking for solutions. He reported they ordered screens for the lights, and that did not work, and at present they have installed lower watt bulbs. Mr. Carey said the bulbs wattage may have to be lowered again. Mr. Carey pointed out the plan as presented meets the landscaping standards, and United Properties is willing to work with the neighbors to add more trees to the property. Mr. Carey told the Commission the dirt problem will disappear when construction begins on building 5. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Carey the wattage of the bulbs at present. Mr. Carey said the bulbs at present are 170 watts. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Carey if more dirt will be needed for this site. Mr. Carey said the existing dirt will be removed from the site, and no more dirt will be added. F F Commissioner Runyan commented that in his opinion the east side of the site requires more landscaping. Mr. Carey said he agrees, more trees will be added. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend approval of the Final Development Plan and plat subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion carried. C-99-4 Conditional Use Permit Calvin Christian School of Minneapolis 4015 Ingelwood Avenue Mr. Larsen informed the Commission Calvin Christian School has recently acquired the church next door, and is planning to use the facility for an expansion of the school. No exterior changes, and only minor building code changes would occur inside the building. The change in use requires a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larsen explained the church and school have by agreement shared parking. The combined parking provides 142 spaces. In 1988 the City granted a Conditional Use Permit for an expansion of the school. The City granted a parking variance for the expansion conditioned on a Proof of Parking Agreement. Mr. Larsen pointed out the school has proposed a curb cut connecting their parking to the lot in Weber Park to facilitate a better flow for buses. The City's Park Director has approved the curb cut. Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed change in use is not inconsistent with the existing use of the property, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Dale Kredosky, 5704 West 70`' Street, was present representing Calvin Christian School. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Kredosky the grades of Calvin Christian School. Mr. Kredosky responded Calvin Christian is Kindergarten through eight grade After a brief discussion Commissioner Workinger moved to recommend Conditional Use Permit Approval. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. LD -99-2 Paul McCormick 6204 Fox Meadow Lane 5204 Blake Road E:3 Mr. Larsen told the Commission the proponent owns and resides in the home at 6204 Fox Meadow Lane. He recently acquired the home at 5204 Blake Road. The request is to transfer the rear 25 feet of the Blake Road lot to the lot on Fox Meadow Lane. Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed land exchange greatly improves the rear yard of the Fox Meadow Lane lot without compromising the lot on Blake Road. The improvements on each lot will continue to comply with setback requirements. Staff recommends approval as submitted. Mr. Roy Jensen, 5124 Blake Road was present. Mr. Jensen said he is present to state he has a concern regarding lot size, and wants assurance that the lots in the area remain large. Commissioner Runyan moved lot division approval. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. p,- ... - - 9