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