Loading...
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