HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
APRIL 10, 2013
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Staunton called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Kilberg, Cherkassky Carr, Carpenter, Platteter, Forrest, and
Staunton
Absent from the Roll: Grabiel
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Potts moved approval of the April 10, 2013 meeting agenda. Commissioner
Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scherer moved approval of the March 28, 2013 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues
or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't
slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair
may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally
speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during
Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond
to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration
at a future meeting.
No public comment.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Subdivision. Frank Holdings LLC /Spalon Montage — 3909 West 49 Y Street and 4936 France
Avenue
Page 1 of 13
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Spalon Montage is requesting to divide their property at 4936
France Avenue back into two lots for the purpose of potentially selling the new lot in the future. No new
building is proposed at this time. Teague explained that the existing property and buildings would
remain the same. This property was originally platted as two lots. The applicant combined them a few
years ago, but is now requesting to divide them back per the original plat. The specific request is for a
Preliminary and Final Plat to divide the property.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Subdivision for
Spalon Montage to divide their property at 4936 France Avenue back into two lots subject to the
following findings: 1. The lots were original platted as proposed. 2. There are no immediate requests
for changes in use of the property or existing buildings.
Discustinn
Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak to this issue; being none; Commissioner Carpenter
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Commissioner Carpenter stated this seems like a reasonable request, adding the request if approved
restores the original plat.
Motion
Commissioner Forrest moved preliminary plat approval based on staff findings and subject to the
conditions. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 8 -0
B. Variance. City of Edina. 7335 York Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague told the Commission the City of Edina is requesting a setback variance to construct a
parking lot extension from the Southdale YMCA property onto the city owned Yorktown Park property
for the purposes of providing parking for a proposed Pilot Community Garden Project to be located
within the park. The ordinance requires a 10 -foot setback from an interior lot line for parking stalls and
drive aisles. The purpose of the variance is to allow a shared use parking lot extension for both the
YMCA and Yorktown Park to accommodate users of the new community garden and to benefit the
YMCA for their over -flow parking needs.
Page 2 of 13
Teague explained that the proposed extension would provide a net gain of 29 additional parking stalls
with reserved spots for gardeners. Currently there is no parking provided on site for the park. A parking
lot extension would benefit both the YMCA and the City by providing parking for the YMCA during their
peak winter season and for the City during the rest of the year. During the summer months the back
(west) parking lot at the YMCA is used for bus staging for kid's programing, day trips and camps which
would make it difficult for Yorktown Park users to share their lot. A new shared use lot would allow
increased use of the park and the ability for more park and community garden programing. The Nine
Mile Creek Trail is also proposed to run just north of the park, so nearby parking could service the trail.
The cost of the parking lot expansion is estimated at $66,000, with the City proposing to construct the
lot and to be reimbursed by the YMCA for all associated costs. The YMCA has committed to
maintenance of the parking lot as well.
Teague reported that the possibility of Community Gardens was discussed by the City Council starting in
2009, with a more recent drive of the Council by encouraging the Community Health Committee to add
it to their work plan. Moving forward with the Health Committee's work plan and as part of the City's
participation in do.town initiatives, do.town met with Southdale YMCA to partner on the Garden
Project. The Park Board supported the recommendations of the Yorktown Community Garden Work
Group at their March 12, 2013, meeting and requested that the City Council approve the Yorktown Park
Pilot Community Garden Project and parking lot. The Edina City Council approved the Pilot Project at
their April 2, 2013, City Council meeting, on a vote of 3 -1. The last step in the city process is for the
Planning Commission to review the setback variance for the parking lot expansion.
Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following
findings:
a) The practical difficult is caused by the two properties having different zoning designations,
and therefore, a setback is required from the lot line. If the properties shared a common
zoning designation, then a setback would not be required.
b) The parking extension is a relatively minor improvement, however, will provide the
needed parking for new programing within the park and will provide over -flow parking
for the YMCA property. The request is reasonable given the location of the existing
YMCA parking lot and the benefits gained by both properties with the extension of the
lot.
Approval is also subject to the following condition:
1. Final parking lot connection and layout subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
2. The filing of an access and maintenance agreement between the City and the Southdale YMCA.
Appearing for the Applicant
Ann Kattreh, Director of Parks & Rec
Page 3 of 13
Discussion
Commissioner Schroeder commented that if approved the YMCA would lose some parking stalls
observing that could render them non - conforming. Continuing Schroeder questioned if a storm water
management plan was required. Planner Teague responded that the proposed parking spaces are
shared parking spaces, adding staff viewed this as a benefit for both the City and the YMCA. With regard
to storm water management the plan was reviewed by the Engineering Department and a Watershed
District permit is required.
Ann Kattreh addressed the Commission and explained that parking for the community garden would be
signed; adding the additional parking is definitely a shared use between the City and the YMCA.
Continuing, Kattreh explained that the seasonal aspect of the community garden should not create a
parking issue for the YMCA. Kattreh pointed out that the use of indoor recreational /exercise facilities is
at its peak during the winter months, adding the garden would not be active during the winter months.
Commissioner Forrest asked Kattreh if adding the community garden would compromise parking for the
skate park. Kattreh responded there should be no immediate parking impact to the skate park from
the community garden. Kattreh said observed methods of travel to the skate park include parental drop
off, walking and biking. Kattreh noted bike racks are available at the site.
Commissioner Potts questioned if a bike path is proposed to the garden. Kattreh responded that at
this time the plans for entrances, etc. haven't been finalized. Continuing, Potts asked if the City would
provide water for the garden. Kattreh responded in the affirmative, adding initially water would be
stored in a container on wheels. If the "garden" is successful a permanent water line would be
installed. Kattreh said from group studies it is believed the community garden would be very successful.
Kattreh said this should be a "win -win" for everyone. Kattreh noted the Park Board voted 9 -1 in support
of the garden and the City Council voted 4 -1 in support. Concluding, Kattreh said all garden "plots" have
been sold.
Public Comment
Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue spoke in support of the community garden.
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Potts
closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
Further discussion ensued on parking and storm water management.
Mntinn
Commissioner Carpenter said there appears to be positive indicators that this community garden would
be successful, adding he supports the request as submitted.
Commissioner Carpenter moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff
conditions. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion.
Commissioner Schroeder offered an amendment that approval is contingent on approval by the
Page 4 of 13
Watershed District of a storm water management plan. Commissioners Carpenter and Scherer
accepted the amendment. All voted aye; motion carried. 8 -0
C. Conditional Use Permit. Kirk and Amy Aadalen — 4924 East Sunnyslope Road, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Kirk and Amy Aadalen, are requesting a variance from
Conditional Use Permit requirements to tear down an existing house and construct a new home at 4924
East Sunnyslope. A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the first floor elevation of the new
home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one foot. The applicant is
proposing to raise the first floor elevation 11.5 feet above the existing first floor elevation. The first
floor of the existing home is at 928.5 feet with an allowed increase in height by code to 829.5 feet. The
height of first floor for the new home will be at a 940 feet.
The property is a through lot with frontage along Sunnyslope East and Hill Top Lane. The new home will
front Hill Top Lane with the back walk -out facing Sunnyslope. The orientation of the home will be
completely switched from existing front yard along Sunnyslope to the new front yard along Hill Top
Lane. The reorientation of the home requires that the first floor be elevated to a height relating to the
street level of Hill Top Lane. The topography slopes from a high point near Hill Top down to a lower rear
yard near Sunnyslope.
Planner Teague stated staff believes approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following
findings:
1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit findings of Section 850.04, Subd. E. as
demonstrated on pages 3 of this report, however, the request would not meet required findings
for additional conditions of Section 850.11. Subd. 2. for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
new first floor to exceed one foot. The Conditional Use Permit criteria to raise the first floor
higher than 1 foot does not take into consideration a complete re- orientation of a new home on
a lot with significant grade differences. There are homes facing both East Sunnyslope and Hill
Top with the subject property a through lot allowing opportunity to front the home towards
either street.
2. As demonstrated on the Compliance Table on page 4 of this report, the proposal meets all
minimum Zoning Ordinance standards with the reorientation of the house.
3. The finished grade along the new front building wall of the home facing Hill Top Lane will be
between 938 — 940. The adjacent neighbor facing Hill Top Lane to the west has similar grade
elevations within the front yard, (939.1— 941.8). The front yard elevation of the new home will
be consistent with the adjacent neighbor's front yard elevations.
Page 5 of 13
4. The proposed home is in character within this neighborhood. There are a variety of housing
styles throughout the Sunnyslope neighborhood. There have been a number of properties that
have had homes re -built on them that are of similar size, mass and scale.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the variance from the
Conditional Use Permit criteria for property located at East Sunnyslope Road. The Conditional Use
Permit allows the new home to have a first floor elevation 10.5 feet above the one foot first floor
increase of the existing home.
Approval is based on the following findings:
1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions of the Zoning Ordinance Section
850.04, Subd E.
2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements.
3. The proposed new home is in character with this neighborhood.
Approval is also subject to the following conditions:
The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:
• Survey date stamped February 6, 2013.
• Building plans and elevations date stamped March 22, 2013.
Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit if required. The City may
require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements.
Appearing for the Applicant
Kirk and Amy Aadalen, applicants and Peter Eskuche, 2212 Indian Road West, architect for the project.
Discussion
Chair Staunton commented this conditional use permit request is also a request for a variance from the
conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Teague responded in the affirmative adding staff is seeing
more requests of this type.
Commissioner Scherer said she noticed the applicants have petitioned for an address change from
Sunnyslope Road to Hilltop and asked Planner Teague if this was a usual occurrence. Planner Teague
responded this request is not uncommon; especially on corner and through lots and in commercial
areas.
Applicant Presentation
Amy Aadalen, 7630 S Bay, Bloomington, informed the Commission her family has a close relationship
with the Sunnyslope neighborhood having grown up in the immediate area. Aadalen explained the
house has been designed to "fit" the lot and neighborhood, adding they reached out to the immediate
neighbors apprising them of their plan. Continuing, Aaladen said they recently learned from a
representative for neighbors across the street that they have some concerns about the rear yard.
Page 6 of 13
Aadalen said their intent is to make sure the rear yard is screened affording privacy for both them and
their neighbors, adding they plan on a berm with natural plantings, reiterating their intent is to minimize
impact and maintain privacy.
Commissioner Forrest asked Mr. Eskuche if he knows what the building height is at the rear. Eskuche
responded that the building height at the rear is around 43 -feet. He added that the proposed house
meets the City's building height requirement. Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to clarify where
building height is measured. Planner Teague explained that City Ordinance states building height is
measured from the average ground elevation at the front building line. Teague said it's not unusual for
rear elevations to be above 40 -feet especially in walk out situations.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
Public Comment
Scott Massey, representing Andres & Heidi Faris, 4929 East Sunnyslope Road, Edina, MN (neighbor
across the street)
David Angler, 4924 East Sunnyslope Road, Edina, MN
Discussinn
Chair Staunton asked the applicants if they have discussed and drafted specific landscaping plans. Mrs.
Aadalen responded that they have discussed creating a natural buffered area including berm with
plantings. Mr. Eskuche shared photos of the property, adding at this time a landscape architect hasn't
been chosen. Mrs. Aadalen reiterated their intent is to enhance the natural features of the site; possibly
adding arborvitae and additional plantings. Planner Teague explained that technically a landscaping
plan is not required.
Commissioner Forrest said she observed a patio on the plans and questioned if lot coverage was an
issue. Mr. Eskuche said after construction lot coverage is at 19 %.
Commissioner Schroeder commented that a central element of development is land form, adding in this
instance the proposed landscaping "plan" reestablishes the original pattern of this lot. Schroeder
pointed out the lot naturally rises from Sunnyslope to Hilltop and when first developed it was developed
with a front walkout with driveway accessing Sunnyslope. That cut into the natural land form,
reiterating in his opinion the proposal as submitted reestablishes the original land form. Continuing,
Schroeder said the Conditional Use Permit requirement limiting elevation change was drafted to
accommodate homes with ground water issues; adding the Commission is now hearing the ramifications
of that change. Concluding, Schroeder said in his opinion this actually benefits the neighborhood.
Commissioner Platteter said he agrees with Schroeder adding that he would like to see the applicant
"flush out" a landscaping plan prior to Council.
Planner Teague commented that as part of the approval process conditions could be added addressing
the driveway and landscaping if the Commission is leaning in that direction.
A brief discussion ensued on landscaping and the driveway off Sunnyslope Road.
Page 7 of 13
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved Conditional Use Permit approval based on staff findings and subject to staff
conditions, including two additional conditions:
Provide a detailed landscape plan
Eliminate driveway off Sunnyslope Road
Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 8 -0.
VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Zoning Ordinance Update — Residential Development
Discussion
Chair Staunton reminded the Commission they are in the process of considering potential zoning
ordinance amendments regarding residential redevelopment. Staunton referred to a memo from staff
listing issues the Commission has been discussing over the past months. Staunton explained that this
evening he would like an informal discussion on the issues, adding this isn't a public hearing. Staunton
concluded that the end result this evening would be to direct staff to formulate ordinance amendments
for future consideration.
Staunton said he would like to take each item in the memo step by step to gage where their
direction.
#1. Options 1 & 2 indicates side yard setbacks on lots less than 75 -feet in width, adding there
are two options.
Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion this is a complicated item. Forrest said she would like
more information from other cities; especially how the side building wall is addressed. Forrest
said she believes Wayzata has an ordinance that addresses side building walls greater than a
specific number in length. Forrest said she was also concerned with the potential impact
changes could create for lots less than 50 -feet in width, pointing out Edina has a number of 40+
foot lots.
Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Teague what the side yard setback was for lots under 50-
feet in width. Planner Teague responded the side yard setback is 5 -feet from the side; both
attached garage and living space. Commissioner Platteter said what he also wants to eliminate
are the long blank side walls and mass, adding staggering setbacks and finding the right number
for building height could reduce the impact of the new house.
Page 8 of 13
Chair Staunton commented it is possible that staggering the setbacks (5/7 etc.) may work.
Commissioners agreed. A discussion ensued on staggering setbacks, 5/7, 6/6, 9/5, 8/6 for lots
75' and under. Commissioners agreed that staggering setbacks was the way to proceed
however, would like to see a table illustrating how these setbacks would look. The general
consensus was to eliminate the 5 -5 "bookend" look in favor of staggered setbacks.
It was also noted that the "step" formula for building height doesn't work in some instances
(lots less than 75 -feet in width) because it reduces style options so the house conforms to code.
A suggestion was made to lower building height; maybe to 30 -feet with no mid -point for lots
less than 75 -feet in width. Commissioners agreed that the 75 -feet was the breaking point for
changes. Commissioners also acknowledged the potential for unintended consequences.
The discussion ensued on changes that could create non - conformity pointing out many of these
homes are already considered non - conforming structures. In conclusion the following was
suggested:
Increase setback through staggering for lots less than 75 -feet in width — find a number
somewhere between options 1 & 2.
Add language that would address long building walls and how to break up that mass.
Eliminate 2nd story formula (this goes to #4 also).
Chair Staunton asked for comments on #2 — Rear and Side Yard Setback for accessory
structures. A discussion ensued with the consensus that at this time this wasn't an issue.
Chair Staunton referred to #3 — Front Yard Setback. Staunton reminded the Commission at
present front yard setbacks are determined by averaging the setbacks of the houses on either
side. Staunton pointed out problems arise when streets are curved or adjoining houses are
setback back at a deeper setback.
Planner Teague acknowledged since the recent ordinance change that re- determined the way
the City calculates front yard setback the Commission has heard a number of variances from
the ordinance mostly from the large lot neighborhoods. Teague explained many larger lots are
irregularly shaped thereby making it very difficult to use the average of the homes on either
side. Teague pointed out Edina requires a minimum front yard setback but no maximum so on
these larger lots house placement is flexible. Continuing, Teague said staff suggests amending
the ordinance to indicate a new house can maintain the existing front yard setback. Front yard
setback is established at a minimum 30 -feet in those areas where houses have been sited closer
than 30 -feet to the front property line.
Commissioners asked Teague to draft corresponding language for them to review.
Commissioners indicated maintaining the average in the smaller lots neighborhoods works;
acknowledging the problems this poises in the large lot neighborhoods. It was also noted that
lining up the houses all in a row may not be what they want either.
Page 9 of 13
Chair Staunton referred to #4 — Building height.
Chair Staunton said this ties into the conversation on #1. Commissioners recommended
keeping the 2 % story limit and a building height and height at 30 -feet to the ridge line on lots
less than 75 -feet in width. Lots over 75 -feet in width remain as is with regard to height.
#5 — Front loaded garages.
A discussion ensued on how this would be handled. Suggesting that a percentage of allowable
garage presence; and limiting its extension into the front yard setback makes sense, however, it
was observed that this appears to be another problem for the narrower lots (under 75 -feet in
width). Commissioners also suggested creating an incentive for homeowners building new
houses to build the garage in the rear (smaller lots again), adding lot coverage could be
increased for those new houses. This would also address the side yard setbacks because of
driveway placement. Commissioners expressed the opinion that they don't want to be too
restrictive in new house construction stifling creativity.
Commissioners directed staff to create an ordinance limiting garage stall space to two spaces
on the front fagade on lots less than 75 -feet in width, or find a percentage that would limit
garage presence. This change would be for lots less than 75 -feet in width. Continuing, the
discussion focused on the length a garage can extend into the front yard setback. One
suggestion was no more than 2 -feet or same as the house. After further discussion
Commissioners indicated they would leave that number up to staff or have staff leave it blank
to allow for more discussion on this encroachment.
#6 — Building Coverage on Lots less than 9,000 square feet in size. Defer to end.
#7 — Tree Protection Ordinance.
The discussion focused on tree protection and at what point does removal of trees interfere
with individual rights on discretionary tree removal.
Commissioner Schroeder noted that the EEC is reviewing this, adding it may benefit the
Commission to wait and see what they are doing. It was suggested that staff bring the EEC's
draft back for the Commission to review.
Continuing, discussion focused on teardown and tree protection during the construction phase.
Planner Teague said that Minnetonka has an ordinance that states during the construction
phase trees are protected within 10 feet of the perimeter of the building footprint, sidewalks,
driveways and garages; however, it doesn't mean once the new house is built homeowners
can't remove a tree within that 10 -feet.
Page 10 of 13
Commissioners directed staff to get a copy of the EEC's draft tree ordinance and also look at
Minnetonka's and bring both back to the Commission for future further discussion.
#8 & 9 — Stormwater Management and Retaining Walls —
It was noted much of this would be addressed through Engineering review. With regard to
retaining walls it was suggested that setbacks be required for retaining walls over 4 -feet in
height.
Staff was directed to continue working on this and draft an ordinance requiring a setback of
between 3 -5 feet for retaining walls 4 -feet in height or greater.
#10. Require access to backyard from front yard on same property.
A discussion ensued on the circumstances when a homeowner doesn't have access to their rear
yard and if this really is a big problem. It was further discussed where to place this
"requirement" in the ordinance.
Commissioners directed staff to draft language addressing this topic — is it through setbacks or
other means. Further discussion would occur on staff's draft.
#11— Window wells and egress windows exceptions to the setback, window wells —
Commissioners noted there is a difference between window wells and egress windows,
directing staff to draft language addressing a setback for egress windows of 5 -feet.
There was further discussion on overhanging eaves and their impact on drainage. Staff
explained that there is a setback for overhanging eaves of 3 -feet.
Commissioners asked Teague at this time to leave the language alone on overhanging eaves
and what can or can't encroach into the setback. However, draft an ordinance requiring egress
windows to maintain a 5 -foot side yard setback requirement. The traditional window well can
remain unregulated.
#12. Single /two car garage requirement.
A discussion ensued on what was the driver behind the two stall requirement. It was
acknowledged that the ordinance prohibiting parking on the street may have been behind the
two stall issue. There was some discussion on two stall vs. one stall as a lifestyle choice — It was
further acknowledged that the one stall scenario (if enacted) would be for lots under 75 -feet in
width. It was noted that this debate would continue on two vs. one.
#13 - Keep only the R -1 zoning district and make lot size changes within the existing structure.
Page 11 of 13
The discussion noted that Edina's zoning ordinance was drafted with one residential
classification R -1 and changing the ordinance to create more "R -1" zoning districts may not be
the way to proceed at this time. It was observed that lot size could address most issues. No
formal recommendation on this.
#6. - Lot coverage.
A discussion ensued on lot coverage and clarifying what is included and excluded in lot
coverage.
Further discussion suggested a lot coverage allowance of 25% for all R -1 lots. It was
acknowledged that this ordinance change could be the most controversial. Commissioners
asked Planner Teague to draft language with a maximum lot coverage of 25% for all R -1 lots
regardless of size.
Concluding, Chair Staunton said at this time the objective is to have Planner Teague provide the
Commission with a rough draft of the ordinance changes. Staunton said over the next few
meetings Commissioners can discuss the draft and decide if any need refining. Staunton said
the final goal would be to approve any /all revisions so a "preliminary final" could be brought
before the public at a public hearing.
It was further noted that comments from the public are always welcome.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
None.
X. STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague told the Commission there will be a joint meeting with the City Council on April
16th to discuss the AUAR for the Pentagon Office Park and Grandview. Teague said all
Commissioners are invited to attend, adding it begins at 5:00 pm at City Hall.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Carr moved adjournment at 10:10 PM. Commissioner Potts seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
J=/de OWa="at
Page 12 of 13
Respectfully submitted
Page 13 of 13