HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4801 WEST 50T" STREET
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
September 1, 1999
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Introduction of the Historic Context Study
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
Discussion on policy concerns, application and changes
IV. NEXT MEETING DATE:
October 27, 1999
V. ADJOURNMENT:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
7:30 P.M., EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Gordon Johnson, John Lonsbury, Ann Swenson, David Byron,
Helen, McClelland, David Runyan, Charles Ingwalson, Geof Workinger, Lorelei
Bergman
STAFF PRESENT:
Craig Larsen, Joyce Repya, Jackie Hoogenakker
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Vogel
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Ingwalson moved approval of the September 1, 1999, meeting
minutes. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
11. NEW BUSINESS:
Introduction of Historic Context Study
Ms. Repya explained the Heritage Preservation Board retained Mr. Robert Vogel to
develop a Historic Context Study with funds from the National Park Service and the Edina
Foundation. Ms. Repya then introduced Mr. Robert Vogel, author of the Historic Context
Study to the Commission.
Mr. Vogel addressed the Commission and explained during his research he found
that Edina is rich in .history, and the Context Study will be a tool that can be used to
preserve Edina's cultural heritage. He explained "things" to be preserved are things that
are significant to the community and would be missed if they were gone. The Historic
Context Study guides the City down a pathway in deciding what is worthy of preservation.
Mr. Vogel noted many of the significant properties are private, and the City must enter into
a partnership with the property owners to preserve a structure. Mr. Vogel stated the
Historic Context Study should be visited as more policies come into place.
Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Vogel if there are many historic sites in the City.
Mr. Vogel responded to the best of his knowledge there are seven historic sites in the City.
Commissioner Ingwalson mentioned Southdale Shopping Center as a possible
historic site and questioned how that facility could be preserved especially since it has had
multiple renovations. Mr. Vogel said there is no particular way a City can choose to
preserve a structure. Mr. Vogel added the City could look at Southdale and deem some of
its original features as historic and recommend their preservation. Another option would
be to designate the land as historic.
Commissioner Swenson said she was surprised to find that the Edina Theatre
marquee has not been designated as historic.
Commissioner McClelland agreed with Commissioners Swensons observation. She
acknowledged the marquee has been replaced due to tornado damage, but the marquee
is significant to Edina residents. Mr. Vogel suggested that the marquee could be
registered as historic.
Commissioner Lonsbury asked the timing of the Context Study. Mr. Vogel said he
anticipates the Heritage Preservation Board will take advantage of the available federal
funding and make some key decisions in the near future on how to proceed with historic
preservation. Continuing, Mr. Vogel said the Heritage Preservation Board will informally
keep a running list of properties they are interested in and make a recommendation for
preservation of a structure on a case by case basis.
Mr. Vogel thanked the Commission for their time.
Ill. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Discussion on policy concerns, application and changes.
Mr. Larsen addressed the Commission and told them he has two items to discuss.
One of the items originated from the Commission at their most recent meeting. The
Waterman subdivision. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that at that meeting
there were a number of motions, motions to continue, motions to deny, motions to approve,
etc. Mr. Larsen said the confusion was understandable, but it sent a chaotic message to
the Council when they read the minutes from that meeting.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the Council wants to see a clear recommendation
from them. Mr. Larsen acknowledged he was part of the confusion. Mr. Larsen asked the
Commission to recall the confusion during that meeting was caused by the proponent
submitting a "revised" plat at the last minute, with staff making the decision to hear the
revised plat that same evening.
Mr. Larsen acknowledged the way the Waterman subdivision was presented did not
allow staff, the Commission, or impacted neighbors adequate time to study the revised
plan. Mr. Larsen said it was a difficult situation, and asked the Commission to share their
feelings about that meeting, and if they believe a policy is need. Mr. Larsen cautioned that
creating a rigid policy may not be the answer because there will be times the Commission
may want flexibility.
2
I
Mr. Larsen explained at present the Ordinance spells out what is needed for
submission of a subdivision proposal. There is also a deadline for submission which
allows staff time to review the proposal. Mr. Larsen pointed out the problem isn't with an
initial proposal, but a proposal that changes. A solution to having to make a decision on a
revised plan without adequate review time would be for the Commission to continue the
hearing if they felt uncomfortable making a decision.
Chairman Johnson interjected as he recalls at the Waterman hearing the
proponents submitted a revised plan at the last minute with incomplete information. The
Commission at some point during the discussion offered to continue the hearing to a
future date allowing the proponents time to submit complete information. The proponents
indicated they did not want a continuance, but a decision from the Commission either up or
down. The proponents expressed their desire to go before the Council.
Mr. Larsen acknowledged that was the case at that meeting.
Commissioner Ingwalson interjected that during his years as a Commission Member
he does not recall a time when a proponent submitted a revised plan at the meeting.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion part of the confusion during that
meeting occurred because the proponent at that time had two proposals on the floor, a 6
lot subdivision and a revised 5 lot subdivision, and the Commission couldn't be sure which
plan would be brought before the Council. Commissioner McClelland also pointed out
staff reminded the Commission of the time limit on an active proposal. Commissioner
McClelland added she would like a time frame for a revised submittal. She said if a plan is
revised by the proponent the revision must be in the hands of the planner at minimum the
Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland
pointed out the Waterman proposal had significant issues to be addressed, (retaining
walls, drainage) noting the Commission has at times approved plans with minor changes,
sending the item on to Council
Mr. Larsen agreed. He told the Commission in his opinion it is good the Council
reviews the minutes, it indicates they appreciate input and the recommendation from the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission has to ask the
proponent their preference, continuance or a vote up or down, or can they continue the
hearing to the next Commission meeting without input from the proponent.
Mr. Larsen said the Commission can continue the hearing, vote it up or down, but
the proponent has the right to go forward to the Council.
Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Larsen if the Council made their decision on the
Waterman proposal at one hearing. Mr. Larsen responded the Council heard the
Waterman request for subdivision once. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained there are three
weeks between the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council meeting and
during that time staff from Planning and Engineering reviewed the revised plan, and the
Council had complete information.
3
Commissioner Ingwalson said in his opinion the problem was that the Commission
was in favor of the five lot proposal, but there were so many unanswered questions it was
difficult to make an educated decision.
Commissioner McClelland said she agreed, but with a denial the Council had no
way to tell what we actually felt.
Commissioner Ingwalson stated he was not willing to send on to the Council an
incomplete plan, and that is what the Commission had before them.
Commissioner Workinger pointed out that evening the Commission was not "dealt a
full hand", and did the best it could under the circumstances by giving the Council the
opportunity to hear it. Commissioner Workinger said he was very uncomfortable with the
process that evening, and did not enjoy being put in that position.
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the Waterman project will proceed. He
stated he heard that soil problems were found on the site. Mr. Larsen said he believes it
will move forward, but agreed that because of the soil conditions found on the site it will be
very expensive to remove all the debris and refill the site with clean fill. This finding was
the main reason the proponents went forward to the Commission with the same 6 lot plat,
but revised it to 5 at the last minute.
Commissioner Lonsbury asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission should have a
"Waterman" policy. The policy would be if all information is not received in a timely
fashion, the Commission will table it and move on.
Commissioner Byron asked Mr. Larsen what policy he was following that evening.
Mr. Larsen responded he was following City policy. He explained when a complete
application is received it is put on the agenda, and first heard by the Commission, but once
the hearing process begins it is the choice of the Commission on how to act on the
submitted proposal. Mr. Larsen said what he needs from the Commission is a policy to
avoid another Waterman. The policy could be a time limit for submittal of a revised plan
as mentioned by Commissioner McClelland.
Commissioner Byron said if he understands correctly there is already a policy for
submission of an application. Mr. Larsen said that is correct. He added it wasn't until the
Monday before the Commission meeting that staff learned the proponent would submit a 5
lot plat. Mr. Larsen said the reason he felt the Commission could hear the 5 lot plat was
because 5 lots were recommended by staff at the first hearing.
Commissioner Byron told Mr. Larsen he is still not sure if City policy was followed.
Mr. Larsen said policy was followed, reiterating that the Monday before the Commission
meeting the proponents indicated they would be submitting a 5 lot plat to the Commission,
not the 6 lot plat previously heard and sent again to the Commission. Mr. Larsen said
what occurred that evening could not be helped, but the Commission has to decide on how
they want to handle a situation like the one presented to them that evening.
Commissioner McClelland stated the Commission has been very responsive in the
past to minor changes to a plat, but the Waterman plat had some major issues to address,
the retaining wall, grading, and drainage.
Commissioner Ingwalson said in his opinion the Commission did the best they could
under the circumstances. Continuing, Commissioner Ingwalson said in reality no one can
predict what will occur at meetings, and the Commission should be allowed the flexibility to
review the plans as presented.
Commissioner Lonsbury said he believes to avoid confusion in the future any
motion by a Commission Member must be clearly stated explaining the reason the
Commission is either approving, denying, or continuing an item. The Council needs clear
direction from us and reasons for our actions. Commission Members agreed with
Commissioner Lonsbury's statement.
Commissioner Byron said in the public hearing process he notes things that are
occurring. In the Waterman instance the hearing was the second hearing, and staff had
made a recommendation for a 5 lot plat. In reviewing a proposal he listens to signals from
staff, and that is an important part of the process. Commissioner Byron added staff input
is part of what makes the process work, adding he doesn't want to see a rigid policy
drafted that does not allow the Commission or staff some flexibility.
Mr. Larsen said in the Waterman instance he worked with the proponent for one
year, and listened to different proposals. The proponent indicated to him they needed the
6 lot plat because so much debris was found on the site that a 5 lot plat may not be
financially feasible. Members of the neighborhood were also aware of the previous
proposals and indicated to him the week of the hearing they could support 5 or 6 lots.
Staff did recommend approval of 5 lots. Mr. Larsen said this information was difficult to
pass on to the Commission in a timely fashion.
Commission Members were in agreement that each proposal should be viewed on
it's individual merits, and any decision made by them should be based on those merits.
Continuing, the Commission indicated they will rely on staff to ensure that all applications
are complete, and if not complete staff will recommend a continuance. Commission
Members also noted if changes occur during the hearing process the Commission will act
on those changes according to their merits, by either continuing the hearing, or approving
the proposal or denying it. The Commission indicated they do not feel a change in policy
is needed.
Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen what he wants sent to Council
Mr. Larsen said the Commission should send this discussion forth to the Council
and if the Council believes the Commission should be more rigid in their review process
they will indicate that to us.
B. Zoning Ordinance Lapse of Approval for Final Development Plan
Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen what the other issue is he wants discussed.
5
Mr. Larsen informed Commission Members around eight years ago the Commission
and Council heard and approved a plan by Kenneth Durr to rezone and redevelop two
residential lots to commercial. Mr. Larsen added some of you probably remember that
rezoning. Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained at this time Mr. Durr is just beginning to
develop those lots, and there have been ownership changes in the neighborhood during
the past eight years. Mr. Larsen explained newer members of the neighborhood have now
expressed their feelings that the rezoning should be reheard because of the lapse of time,
and changes in the area. This process is allowed under City Ordinance, and the only
thing that would trigger another hearing would be if the final development plan was not
acted on within two years, and the use conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan. The use
of the Durr site does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and development of the site
has started.
The question the Council has raised is if this approach is correct. Mr. Larsen said
he has spoken with Mr. Gilligan, City Attorney, and Mr. Gilligan indicated he believes once
the property is rezoned the zoning remains. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said a rezoning is a
two part process, the second part being the final development plan. Mr. Larsen said at this
time there are no time limits on the final development plan so once a plan is approved the
plan can be constructed any time even if the neighborhood changes.
Mr. Larsen said staff is now recommending that a time limit be placed on the final
development plan. Mr. Larsen said he feels this is reasonable.
Chairman Johnson said what staff is requesting is an amendment to the Ordinance.
Mr. Larsen said that is correct.
Chairman Johnson told the Commission he has received telephone calls from new
neighbors that did not know about the rezoning when they purchased their homes, and
indicated to him they wanted another hearing.
Mr. Larsen said he has also received calls, and met with impacted neighbors.
Continuing, Mr. Larsen said what staff wants from the Commission is for them to
recommend to the Council that we insert a time limit on final development plan approvals
similar to what we do on conditional use permits. Staff would like to see once a rezoning
and final development plan is approved, and if a building permit is not issued within two
years the ability to development the site needs to be revisited. Mr. Larsen said he
believes after two years the proponent should be required to ask for a time extension and
go through the process again. This gives the City more control over the process and
allows input from neighbors not familiar with what has happened in the past.
Commissioner Swenson questioned if the City Attorney has a problem with the
amendment. Mr. Larsen responded Mr. Gilligan does not have a problem with putting a
time line on the final development plan, the zoning still stands.
Commissioner Swenson said if she understands correctly only a change from the
Comprehensive Plan would prevent the previous approval from being developed. Mr.
Larsen said that is correct. Amending the Ordinance would allow new neighbors to be part
of the process.
A
Commissioner Swenson moved to recommend that after a Final Development Plan
is approved, and if no building permits have been issued within two years the Final
Development Approval lapses and needs to be reheard. Commissioner Ingwalson
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Lonsbury moved adjournment at 9:00 P.M. Commissioner Byron
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
7