Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JUNE 11, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER 11. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call: Scherer, Lee. Olson, Halva, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton Members absent from roll: Schroeder III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Carr moved approval of the June 11, 2014 meeting agenda. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission May 14, 2014 Commissioner Carr moved approval of the May 14, 2014, meeting minutes. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT No community comment. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Variance. Stojmenovic. 5501 France Avenue, Edina, MN. Staff Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the 1.3 -foot side street, 10.3 -foot rear yard setback and a 5 -foot front yard setback variance to allow a garage and second floor addition to a home located in the south east corner of France Ave. and West 55th Street. The owners are requesting variances to allow additions to the home at the same nonconforming front and rear yard setback as existing and add a garage west of the home that will be 13.7 feet from the lot line adjacent to France Ave. instead of the 15 foot setback as is required. The project is a major remodel and addition to an existing nonconforming single family home. All of the improvements will match the existing setbacks with the exception of setback from France Ave. to provide for a garage. Page 1 of 8 Aaker reported that the property has a number of challenges including that it is a corner lot requiring deeper setbacks to both streets; the existing structure is nonconforming regarding both front and rear yard setback which can be attributed to the shallow lot depth of 84 feet, (minimum lot depth per ordinance is 120 feet) and the lot is quite small at 6,720 square feet in area. Aaker explained that the required setback from West 55th Street is established by the front yard setback of the home to the east located at 3809 West 55th Street which is located approximately 33 feet from the lot line adjacent to West 55th Street. The neighbor's home was built in 1982, (much later than the year built of the subject home). The subject home is located 28.1 feet from West 55th Street and pre- dates all of the surrounding homes. The structure that is now a dwelling unit was originally built as a church. No garage had been necessary at the time of construction since it was built as a church and no garage has ever been located on -site. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum two car garage per single dwelling unit. The challenge has been finding a suitable location on the property that allows access from the street. Access cannot be accomplished from France Ave. since it is a busy county road, so the property must gain access from West 55th Street. The Engineering Department has approved access from West 55th Street as indicated in an attached e-mail. The subject home has had no improvements and few permits for maintenance indicated in the building file and had been rental property for many years. The proposed improvements and additions would bring the home up to current building code standards and provide needed living space and a garage for the owner's family. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following findings: The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the existing home. b) The encroachments into the setback continue existing nonconforming setbacks that were established when the original structure was built on the property. C) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home relative to the orientation of surrounding homes. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following condition: I. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped, April 30, 2014. Appearing for the Applicant Aleksander and Erin Stojmenovic, property owners Discussion Commissioner Carr asked Planner Aaker if there was a sidewalk on France Avenue. Planner Aaker responded there is no sidewalk. Carr asked if a sidewalk could be build. Aaker responded in the affirmative. Carr asked where the new garage entrance would be. Aaker responded on West 55th Street. Page 2 of 8 Applicant Comments Mr. Stojmenovic told the Commission he was very happy to be in Edina, adding he loves the City and schools. Stojmenovic stated he believes the proposed addition and alteration to the existing home will be an improvement not only for him but for the neighborhood. He further added it was important to him to be considerate of the neighbors. Concluding, Stojmenovic said he has neighborhood support for the project. Discussion Chair Staunton acknowledged neighborhood support correspondence and stated in his opinion this is a good project. Commissioner Lee commented in her opinion this is a good solution, adding it's a perfect example of taking into consideration building mass and working with the site and neighborhood. Lee said the roof treatment pulls the house back from the street, reiterating the entire project makes good use of the site. Lee complimented the property owners on their project. Public Hearing Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue, being none; Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All vote aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Commissioner Scherer stated she likes the project, adding she is a huge fan of garages and this proposal brings the house into compliance with the City's2 -stall garage requirement. Concluding, Scherer said she appreciates all that was done to minimize the impact of the addition. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B. Variance. Whiteman. 3932/34 West 49th Street, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Aaker presented the staff report concluding that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variances requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R -2, Double Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions. 3) The imposed lot area does not allow redevelopment of the property without the benefit of a variance or a zone change. Page 3 of 8 Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions: Survey date stamped: May 29, 2014 and building plans and elevations date stamped: May I, 2014. Appearing for the Applicant Paul Whiteman, applicant Discussion Commissioner Carr asked for variance clarification. Planner Aaker explained that the variances requested are for lot width and lot area. She informed the Commission when platted the lot met code; however, the City amended the Ordinance to now require a lot width of 90 -feet and a lot area of 15.000 square feet. The double proposed for the lot meets all other zoning ordinance requirements. Commissioner Lee asked Planner Aaker if this would be a complete teardown. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Platteter referred to the survey and questioned "where the rest of the survey was ". Continuing, Platteter said if he reads the survey correctly required information wasn't provided and the survey was not signed by a licensed professional engineer; also required by Code. Planner Aaker explained the survey Platteter referred to is required at the building permit stage, adding the variance request is for lot area and lot width; not the structure; reiterating the proposed building meets code requirements. A discussion ensued with Commissioners of the opinion since a variance is required the Commission has the right to view the plans for the proposed house and to see a survey indicating house placement, and water management plan including grading, drainage, etc. Commissioners stressed that in their opinion the plans presented fall short of what's needed to make an educated decision. Chair Staunton asked Commissioners if they believe the variance request should be continued to allow the applicant time to provide adequate building and drainage plans. Commissioners agreed that it's a good idea to continue the variance request until the next meeting suggesting the following: • Provide a survey (Storm water maintenance) signed by a licensed professional engineer. • Consider one driveway vs. two as proposed. • Consider using pervious materials for the driveway(s). • Consider massing; the schematic of the home appears large; suggesting that the applicant pull the house back because as presented the building feels like it is looming over the rest of the area. • Focus on drainage and provide further information on the survey to include drainage, soil removal, soil addition; etc. • Acknowledge that the building plans presented are inadequate with the suggestion that the applicant consider adding some form of architectural relief on the large building wall. Page 4 of 8 • Consider rezoning the property to R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District noting there are single dwelling unit lots in the neighborhood. • Acknowledge that low density residential has been applied throughout the City as a buffer for the R- I Single Dwelling unit district. Further discussion continued with Commissioners agreeing that although the request is for a lot width and lot area variance more detail is needed on both the survey (civil) and building plans before the Commission can act on the requested variance. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to continue the variance until the next meeting of the Planning Commission on June 25, 2014 to allow the applicant time to present a more detailed survey and consider amending the design to include sidewall articulation and one driveway (if driveways remain at two consider pavers etc.) Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Residential Density for Mixed Use Areas Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that as a result of the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Lennar project, the Metropolitan Council requested that the City establish new residential density ranges within the City's Comprehensive Plan to better align with the description of the uses allowed within each District. Teague explained that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) alone cannot be used to determine densities. Teague presented a Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding residential density for mixed use areas and asked the Commissioners for their comments. Concluding, Teague reported that the Metropolitan Council is aware of the inconsistencies in the density ranges in Edina's Comprehensive Plan and that the City is actively working on a solution to amend the Plan to better reflect the intent. Discussion A discussion ensued acknowledging the need to amend the density ranges; noting currently in the City's most intense districts the density guidelines are less than that of the low density residential category. It was further discussed as the density guidelines are reviewed and amended there may be impact on current projects (Byerly's) and future projects (Grandview). Commissioners raised the following issues: Page 5 of 8 Are the proposed changes in the density guidelines for OR, MXC, RM and CAC high enough; or should they be increased Consider not having a minimum instead of 12 -75 require 0 -75, etc.; noting that in some cities 0 is the starting point or there is no limit. Continuing it was observed in some of Edina's small commercial nodes where redevelopment could happen a proposal may work better with less residential units than the minimum would allow. It was also noted that having a minimum would encourage the development of housing. It was suggested that a sentence be added above the Future Land Use Categories table that indicates "when residential development is proposed in a mixed use district, the residential density range shall apply, in addition to the FAR requirement. Residential development is not required in mixed use areas. Chair Staunton referred to correspondence from Scott Takenoff, Pentagon Revival and asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue, being none Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing carried. The discussion continued with Commissioners noting that in 2015 the City will begin the Comprehensive Plan revision process and at that time more thought and time could be put into the decision making process on density guidelines. A number of Commissioners felt that amending the ranges at this time without more discussion wouldn't be prudent; acknowledging that any changes to the density ranges would have major development consequences. It was further suggested that the Commission consider acting on what was presented by staff. Chair Staunton commented after further thought he would agree that more discussion and thought is warranted in making density decisions and asked Planner Teague how he arrived at the density ranges proposed in the resolution. Planner Teague responded that he arrived at those numbers staying consistent with the City's already established high density residential range, and incorporating density ranges that are consistent with existing development within those districts. Commissioner Platteter said in his opinion that the suggested changes to increase density guidelines this evening are reasonable; however, he understands the feelings of other Commissioners that more thought and discussion on these changes needs to take place. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend approval of the proposed Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan Amendments regarding residential density for mixed use areas, building height, floor area ratio and land use in its entirety as presented by staff. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Commissioner Forrest asked for an amendment to the motion to be placed before the Future Land Use Categories table to read "when residential development is proposed in a mixed use Page 6 of 8 district, the residential density range shall apply, in addition to the FAR requirement. Residential development is not required in mixed use areas. Commissioners Platteter and Scherer accepted that amendment. All voted aye; motion carried. VI1. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS Work Plan Chair Staunton noted its half way through the year and the Commission needs to "touch base" with its work plan. Staunton commented that sometime in September the Commission will meet with the City Council, adding it would be nice to have a rough draft of the 2015 Work Plan. Staunton asked Commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Carr said she would like to reiterate her priority on lighting, adding light pollution is an issue that needs to be addressed especially since the City is experiencing multiple developments and redevelopments. Carr suggested that staff contact other cities to find out "what's out there" vs. the City's current ordinance on lighting. Teague reported he has gathered background information on the issue and would place lighting on the next Planning Commission agenda for further discussion. Chair Staunton noted lighting /noise is an ordinance on the list for "review" with three other items; sign plan, parking regulations and unit size for senior housing. Staunton asked if the Commission thinks these ordinance issues should continue into 2015. Planner Teague responded that ordinance issues are large undertakings and may need to be extended into 2015. Commissioners agreed; however wondered if senior housing unit size could be addressed more quickly administratively. The Sign Plan Ordinance and parking regulations /Proof of Parking could be considered at the end of the year or next. The Commission continued discussing policy recommendations. Chair Staunton noted that Commissioner Platteter has already been working on the mid -term comp plan, adding the tree ordinance is also in the process; however, hasn't been formally adopted ( a work session scheduled for August). A discussion ensued on the needs of the 2014 Work Plan acknowledging more work needs to be accomplished. A work session was discussed with Planner Teague telling Commissioners he would advise them on the date(s). It was further suggested that the work session be held prior to a Planning Commission meeting (5:00 PM). Teague said he would coordinate the date with Commissioners and get back with them. Continuing, the discussion Commissioners Page 7 of 8 acknowledged the start of the Wooddale Valley View Small Area plan; noting "small area plan" was an item on the 2014 Work Plan that was earmarked to continue into 2015. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Staunton reported that Commissioner Potts resigned his seat on the Planning Commission and read for Commissioners a letter of resignation from Potts. Commissioner Carr reported on Living Streets and also informed the Commission Paul Thompson with the Energy and Environment Commission is hosting a walk on July 4th on "Edina Deeper Shade of Green for those who want to participate. Commissioners Forrest and Lee reported that there are members of the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan team. She reported a kickoff meeting would be held at the Edina Senior Center on June 18th 6:30 pm. Forrest said all are invited to attend this meeting. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported the next planning commission meeting will be sizeable; including the rezoning of the single dwelling unit into a double dwelling unit on West 49th Street XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lee moved adjournment at 9:20 PM. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. _ Itfully subm ted Page 8 of 8