HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-23 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTE SUMMARY OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JULY 23, 2014
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Schroeder, Olsen, Kilberg, Lee, Carr, Platteter,
Forrest, Staunton
Members absent from roll: Scherer, Halva
Chair Staunton requested that Agenda Item VII.D. be moved to before VII. A. and
asked for a motion. Commissioner Platteter moved Agenda Item VII. D. before
Agenda Item VII. A. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Chair Staunton noted that Agenda Item VII. D. was continued to the next meeting of
the Planning Commission on August 13, 2014 due to a glitch in the public hearing
notices. City Attorney, Roger Knutson indicated that legally the City can proceed
with the hearing; however, Planner Teague felt re- notification for the August 13,
2014, meeting using Hennepin County's mailing list was best.
Rev Eric Strand, Edina Community Lutheran Church thanked the Commission for
their time adding he would return on August 13`h
Commissioner Platteter moved to continued agenda item VII. D. Rezoning Beacon
Interfaith Housing to the August 13, 2014 meeting of the Edina Planning
Commission. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the meeting agenda as amended.
Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
[1]
IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS — Fill Secretary Vacancy
Commissioner Platteter moved to nominate Commissioner Carr as Secretary.
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All vote aye; Carr appointed Secretary to the
Edina Planning Commission.
V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Carr moved approval of the July 9, 2014, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V1. COMMUNITY COMMENT
Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak; being none, Commissioner Platteter
moved to close community comment. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All
voted aye; public comment closed.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance. Porter. 4206 Crocker, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Rothstein informed the Commission Steve and Peggy Porter (the applicants) are
requesting a 4.33 foot side yard setback variance to remodel their home and construct
an attached garage 3 feet from the southern interior side property line.
Continuing, Rothstein explained that the subject property is approximately 67 feet in
width and is 13,317 square feet in area. There is an existing single - family home on the
property, and the applicant is requesting to remodel a portion of their existing home
and complete an addition to add a two -car garage to the south side of their existing
home, and convert the existing one -car garage into a living space.
There are three existing single - family homes abutting the north side lot line and one
existing single - family home on the south lot, both facing Crocker Avenue (4212 Crocker
Avenue). The home located on 4212 Crocker has a two -car garage on the south side of
the home, and was built in 2006 with no variances.
Rothstein concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the
variance based on the following findings.
1. The property with an addition that can comply with the setbacks is a
reasonable use, and the request to deviate from the side yard is not
necessary to make reasonable use of the property.
Page 2 of 14
2. The home is appropriate in size and scale with the addition of a complying,
detached garage, or a single or 1.5 car garage that complies with the
setbacks.
3. There is not a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements due
to the ability to locate an expanded garage in a conforming location.
4. There are not circumstances unique to the property that necessitates a
variance to make reasonable use of the property.
Appearing for the Applicants
Steve and Peggy Porter, Applicants.
Discussion
Commissioner Carr noted that immediate neighbors appear to support the request as
submitted. Staff agreed.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Porter addressed the Commission and explained that she distributed their
remodeling plans to neighbors, adding neighbors have indicated their full support for the
project as submitted. Porter further added that practical difficulties do include
aesthetics, and the addition as designed is aesthetically pleasing. Concluding, Porter said
in her opinion their proposal enhances not only their property, it enhances the
neighborhood.
Chair Staunton asked Ms. Porter if there are changes to the drainage pattern as the
result of this project. Ms. Porter responded there should be no change to drainage
patterns.
Commissioner Olsen asked Ms. Porter if a deck is proposed. Ms. Porter responded
that no deck is proposed at this time; however, they are considering adding an at grade
patio.
Commissioner Platteter asked if the large evergreen would be removed. Mr. Porter
responded in the affirmative; adding their intent is to replace this tree with another to
the middle of the yard.
Commissioner Lee asked the applicants if they ever considered a tandem garage. Mr.
Porter responded that they did discuss tandem garages; however, agreed they were
undesirable.
Public Hearing
Chair Stanton opened the public hearing.
Page 3 of 14
The following spoke in support of the project as submitted.
Jay Podaly, 4212 Crocker Avenue, Edina, MN
Sue Gruidl, 4213 Crocker Avenue, Edina, MN
Discussion
Commissioner Carr stated that although many neighbors have expressed their support
for the project she can't support it as submitted. Commissioner Lee added she is also
having a difficult time in finding a reason(s) for support. She stated she was very happy
to see this wasn't a tear down, noting she believes the proposal as submitted is an
improvement; however she continues to struggle with the request because there are
conforming solutions.
Commissioner Schroeder agreed that there are conforming solutions; however, a
tandem garage does create a very long building wall, adding this isn't a teardown and
what's proposed appears acceptable.
Motion
Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend approval of the requested
variances based on findings 1) Existing location of home on lot, 2) two car
garage facing street is reasonable, 3) lot is unique because of the three
abutting properties to its north, 4) Engineer report; and 5) subject to the
plans presented at the July 23rd meeting. Commissioner Platteter seconded
the motion. Ayes, Olsen, Schroeder, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton. Nays,
Lee and Carr. Motion carried 5 -2.
B. Variance. Cates Fine Homes. 6816 Cheyenne Circle, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Rothstein informed the Commission the subject property is approximately 150
feet in width and is 59,561 square feet (1.4 acres) in area. Approximately .8 acres of the
lot is above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Indianhead Lake.
She explained that there are two existing single - family homes on the north and south
lots, both facing the Cheyenne Circle cul -de -sac. The north lot has a front setback of 53
feet and a setback from the OHW of 31.7 feet. The lot to the south of the subject
property is set back 55.7 feet from the front property line and is set 10 feet from the
rear property line. Rothstein said at this time the property owner is requesting to
demolish the existing single - family home, which currently does not meet the setback
from the OHW, and build a new home.
Page 4 of 14
Planner Rothstein concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the variance based on the following findings:
• The proposed use is permitted in the R- I Single Dwelling Unit District and
complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as
determined by the average of the two adjacent homes).
• The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements
will enhance the property.
• The property is subject to the OHW setback of 75 feet, and the property to the
north does not meet that setback, allowing the home to set farther back toward
Indianhead Lake (31.7 feet from OHW).
• The proposed home, as proposed, protects the lake and existing foliage by
meeting the OWH setback of 75 feet.
• There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements and there
are circumstances unique to the property due to an imposed front yard setback
from adjacent homes that do not meet rear yard setbacks.
• The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
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: 1) Survey date stamped: July 9, 2014 and 2) Building plans and
elevations date stamped: July 8, 2014
Appearing for Applicant
Jennifer Cates, Cates Fine Homes and Mike Huber, Architect.
Discussion
Commissioner Platteter noted their reference to the Watershed District and
asked how far along they were in that process. Ms. Cates responded revised
plans were submitted to the watershed district, adding they are still in
discussions. Mr. Huber interjected that the goal of the drainage plan is to have
zero runoff. He added there will be a cistern that would contain and filter water
that will be used for irrigation.
Commissioner Lee complimented the applicants on their storm water
management plan adding the design is super. Lee concluded she has no issue
with the project as presented.
Page 5 of 14
Public Hearing
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing; no one spoke to the issue.
Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing passed.
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved variance approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions including final approval from the 9 -Mile Creek
Watershed District. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
C. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Variances. Frauenshuh.
5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague told the Commission Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is proposing
to tear down the existing 12,199 square foot office building and build a new 10,000
square foot retail building that would include a drive - through. The property is located at
5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard, just west of Highway 100, and is located across the
street from retail uses that are zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Retail uses
to the south include the Shell Gas Station, Burger King, Dairy Queen, and a small retail
strip center. North and east of the site are office /light industrial use. Teague explained
to accommodate the request, the following would be required:
1. Preliminary Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District -1, to PCD -2,
Planned Commercial District -2.
2. Preliminary Development Plan with consideration of Front Yard Setback
Variances from 35 to 30 and 25 feet.
3. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood
Commercial.
Teague further noted this "preliminary" review is the first step of a two -step process of
City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council, the
second step would be Final Rezoning to PCD -2 and Final Site Plan & Front Yard Setback
Variances from 35 feet to 30 and 25 feet. The second step would again require review
by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment in this first step would be a final action.
Planner Teague stated staff recommends that the City Council approve the request for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows:
Page 6 of 14
➢ To re -guide 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard from O, Office to NC,
Neighborhood Commercial; and re -guide 5125, 5105, 5101 Edina Industrial
Boulevard and 7700 Normandale Boulevard from 1, Industrial to NC,
Neighborhood Commercial.
Approval is subject to the following findings:
I. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in
this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses.
The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and
enhance this limited retail area.
2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the properties to the south is really a
housekeeping item, as it was mistakenly guided for industrial use.
3. Neighborhood Commercial is defined as small to moderate -scale commercial,
serving primarily adjacent neighborhoods. Primary uses are retail and services,
offices, studios, institutional use. Existing uses in this area include a gas station,
limited retail and convenience food. All are permitted uses within the PCD -2 and
PCD -4 Zoning Districts.
4. The proposal would meet the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies:
a. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should
form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance
the pedestrian environment.
b. Movement Patterns.
• Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent
neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways.
• A Pedestrian - Friendly Environment.
c. Encourage infill /redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city
infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and /or corridor
context and character.
d. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the
city, and the larger region.
e. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets to create
pedestrian scale.
5. The traffic study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can
support the proposed project.
Continuing, Teague further recommended that the City Council approve the
Preliminary Rezoning from POD -I, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned
Commercial District and Preliminary Development Plan to tear down the existing retail
building at 5108 Edina Industrial Boulevard and build a 10,000 square foot retail building
as proposed subject to the following findings:
I.The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36 -216, as noted on Pages 5
and 6 above, in regard to rezoning property. Subject to approval of the
Page 7 of 14
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the project would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The project would not be detrimental to the surrounding
properties; would not result in an overly intensive land use; would not result in
undue traffic congestion or hazards; and with the exception of the setback
variances would conform to all zoning ordinance requirements.
2. The proposed land uses are consistent with existing and proposed land uses in
this area. The uses to the south exist today as neighborhood commercial uses.
The proposed limited retail uses and PCD -2 zoning would complement and
enhance this limited retail area.
Approval is further subject to the following Conditions:
I. The Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Development Plans dated June 6, 2014.
2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per
Chapter 36 of the City Code.
3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per
Chapter 36 of the City Code.
4. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated July
15, 2014.
5. Approval of the requested Front Yard Setback Variances.
Appearing for the Applicant
Dave Anderson, Frauenshuh and Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Anderson addressed the Commission and gave a brief run - through of the revisions
to the plans since their last meeting with the Commission.
Discussion
Commissioner Platteter commented that the proposed sidewalk going north doesn't
appear to connect, and wondered if there was a way to ensure there is a sidewalk
connection north. Mr. Anderson responded that connection would be reviewed.
Platteter said it makes sense to him to have a connection to the north so people in the
offices to the north could walk to the site instead of driving.
Commissioner Platteter asked if the transformer would be screened. Mr. Sperides
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Forrest asked Mr. Terhaar, Wenck & Associates if he found any issues
with traffic flow. Mr. Terhaar responded that for the most part traffic flows well and
will continue to work well. He acknowledged there are times when there is back up at
left lane ramp; however it does clear rather quickly. Forrest asked if Terhaar believes
Page 8 of 14
this "use" would generate more traffic than the present use. Terhaar responded in the
affirmative, adding they believe there will be an increase during the PM peak hours.
Commissioner Carr complimented the applicant on their design changes and questioned
what the proposed exterior stone looks like. Mr. Sperides explained at final review they
will be presenting a material board that would better highlight the exterior materials and
color scheme.
Commissioner Platteter asked if there is a bus stop in the area. Mr. Anderson
responded in the affirmative; however, there is no bus shelter.
Commissioner Lee commented that it appears the site will be losing the existing green
buffer zone.
Commissioner Schroeder said he has an issue with drainage noting off Metro Boulevard
there is a low area along the sidewalk that could flood during a heavy rainfall. He
added in his opinion it's not a good idea to have people walk to the building through a
stream of water. Mr. Sperides agreed, adding he would review the engineering
drawings and "take care" of any drainage issues.
Public Hearing
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing; no one was present. Commissioner Carr
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioners Platteter seconded the motion. All
voted aye; public hearing closed.
Discussion
Commissioner Kilberg commented that in his opinion the redevelopment of this site
establishes a good precedent. He said with this proposal pedestrians are better served.
Kilberg complimented the drive - through redesign, adding in his opinion it's much better
than at sketch plan. Continuing, Kilberg stated he likes the rain garden feature. In
conclusion, Kilberg said he likes the location of the building instead of having to view a
sea of cars. Kilberg said he supports the proof of parking, the improvement to traffic
flow and is in favor of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Preliminary
Rezoning and Development Plan.
Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague if the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
should include the property to the east. Planner Teague said at this time it would be
best to only focus on the subject site.
Commissioner Lee commented if the goal of the Commission is to bring new buildings
up to the street the Commission should be clearer in what they mean when they
suggest that an applicant "pull the building" up to the street. She stated the solution
presented is good; however, engaging the street could be better defined. Continuing,
Lee said she also likes to see boulevard trees and does have a concern that the existing
Page 9 of 14
trees and green buffer would be lost with this redevelopment.
Chair Staunton said the intent of "pulling the building" up to the street was to engage
the street.
Commissioner Schroeder explained that the direction from the Commission to relax
the setback of the building from the front street was to create an engaging street front
with patio spaces, etc. Schroeder said the Commissions goal was to achieve an active
engaging pedestrian friendly experience at front building fagades; however, at times
achieving that goal was difficult because the applicant(s) may have certain restraints
(safety).
Mr. Sperides said they would work toward creating more active patio areas.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that the corner of Edina
Industrial Boulevard /Metro Boulevard is busy; and encouraged the applicant to add more
vegetation in that area. The discussion continued focusing on the parking area and
public space and ways to better achieve balance.
Commissioner Carr suggested that the applicant use pavers in the two patios and other
areas because when viewing the site there appears to be a lot of concrete. Mr.
Sperides responded that at this time the materials for the hard surface areas haven't
been finalized; however, would keep in mind the use of pavers.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend a Comprehensive Guide Plan
amendment based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions.
Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend Preliminary Rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan with variances based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion.
Commissioner Schroeder asked if the motion allows for movement flexibility along the
north side of the building patio area. Commissioner Lee said she would also like to see
additional landscaping added. Chair Staunton suggested adding their issues as an
amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Schroeder moved to amend the motion to include as an additional
condition a reapportionment of the public space on the north side to create more
useable space on the south side. Commissioners Platteter and Carr accepted that
amendment.
Commissioner Lee moved to amend the motion to include as an additional condition
the addition of vegetation and trees on the boulevard area. Commissioners Platteter
Page 10 of 14
and Carr accepted that motion subject to findings.
A brief discussion ensued with Mr. Anderson pointing out with regard to the
request for additional plantings on the boulevard there is a concern that tenant
identification and signage could be compromised. Commissioner Lee commented that
with careful selection of plantings such as deciduous trees any impact should be minimal.
Chair Staunton called for the vote; all voted aye; preliminary rezoning and
preliminary development plan approved 7 -0.
VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Front Yard Setback and First Floor
I -foot rule for tear down and rebuild.
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reminded the Commission that at their last meeting they discussed front
yard setback and the one -foot rule for teardown and rebuild. Teague said in speaking
with the city attorney he is recommending that the zoning ordinance regulations on
these two items be revised. With graphics Teague highlighted proposed changes to the
ordinance.
Continuing, Teague explained front setback reads "average the front street setback of
the homes on either side ". He pointed out this does not account for a side street
setback or an abutting lot with a front street setback that faces a different street. The
intent of the one -foot rule was that the first level of the new home was to match or be
no taller than one foot above the pedestrian entry of the existing split level. The
ordinance did not define front entry so a garage could be considered a front entry.
Additional, it did no account for multiple entries for a new home.
Chair Staunton noted much of the ordinance was written to address the east side and
the traditional grid pattern, adding it's extremely difficult in some areas of Edina like
Indian Hills or Rolling Green where the lots are large and oddly formed to achieve a
uniform front yard standard.
Planner Teague stated he agrees with that observation; however, Zoning Ordinance
requirements are across the board. He explained the only way to remedy the problems
that arise would be to establish different zoning districts within the R- I umbrella.
Teague also said the new I -foot front yard rule has been difficult because split -level
homes are not adequately addressed. Teague pointed out that the City doesn't define
front entry, adding there are areas of the code that are clearly defined in every instance.
Chair Staunton acknowledged the difficulty pointing out the City, with regard to the
I -foot rule didn't want residents to artificially raise the grade of the house. Teague
Page 11 of 14
agreed.
Commissioner Forrest stated the ordinance changes proposed by Planner Teague are
a great improvement; however, she questioned if it would be beneficial to provide
illustrations interpreting the changes.
Commissioner Carr said it would really help her if she could see illustrations and asked
Planner Teague to provide illustrations used by other cities to clarify ordinance
requirements. She added as previously mentioned by Forrest visuals would be
beneficial.
Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to place these two topics back on the Planning
Commission for their August 27`h meeting.
B. Conflict of Interest/Bylaws
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague stated as a follow up to our previous discussions on Bylaws and conflict
of interest he indicated that the city attorney has suggested the following:
SECTION 21. ETHICAL AND RESPECTFUL CONDUCT
(A) Conflict of Interest
Members may not use their position on the Planning Commission for personal
benefit. The interests of the Planning Commission must be the first priority in all
decisions and actions. Any member who has a financial interest in or who is
employed by a business that has a financial' interest in or who may receive a
financial benefit as a result of, any Planning Commission action, decision or
recommendation must promptly disclose this fact as a conflict of interest. A
member who has disclosed a conflict of interest should abstain from discussion
and voting on the matter and should sit`' in the audience when the matter comes
Discussion
Commissioner Schroeder stated he understands the need for conflict of interest
language; however, he pointed out Edina is a small community and the question
becomes at what point does it become financial gain or interest. Chair Staunton agreed
adding financial interest is difficult to define, adding it's hard to make a blanket move.
Schroeder agreed pointing out for those of us that work for large companies we may
not even know if certain sectors of our company are working with or for the City.
Commissioner Carr said in her opinion the language as written is too restrictive. She
suggested the Commission look at the guidelines written by the League of Women
Voters. Continuing, Carr pointed out conflict isn't only financial there can be conflict if
Page 12 of 14
the applicant is a relative, close friend or neighbor, adding that's where perception can
play a part.
The discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging the difficulty in "tightening"
the language. It was noted a conflict could be considered anything that prevents one
from making an objective decision.
Chair Staunton said the Commission has had ongoing discussions on this topic, adding
he likes the idea of a City Policy; however, the Commission could ask the Council to
weigh in with their opinions.
It was further suggested that staff provide the Commission with the League of Cities
policy and also circulate conflict of interest policies from other cities before a decision is
made.
IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Staunton suggested that the Commission have a discussion on density. Staunton
noted it appears the Commission doesn't really have an organized approach to density,
adding it would also benefit the applicants by providing them with more guidance.
Commissioner agreed that that an educated approach to density needs to be developed.
Commissioner Forrest stated that the Wooddale /Valley View Small Area Plan is working
well with a great group of volunteers. Forrest reported that next week the working
group would be interviewing consultants. Commissioner Lee commented that their goal
is to also have a community session sometime in September
XI.STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague reported that the City Council heard the Sketch Plan for 7200 France
and indicated to the applicant that the project is too dense and too tall. Teague
reported that the City received a large amount of a -mails on this sketch plan review.
Continuing, Teague reported that the Tree Ordinance is "still in the loop" for discussion
on October 21, 2014.
Teague reminded Commissioners that there will be a work session before the next
Commission meeting on August 27`h. Teague said he believes the meeting will be at 5:30
in the Community Room. Topic of discussion building permits process.
Page 13 of 14
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lee Moved adjournment at 10:30 PM. Commissioner Olsen
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at
10:30 pm.
M �.lt -i 7, 101,1 �, • N1 /.
-.
Page 14 of 14