HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTE SUMMARY OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUGUST 13, 2014
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Forrest Lee, Kilberg, Halva, Carr, Platteter, Staunton
Members absent from roll: Scherer, Olsen and Schroeder
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner Carr seconded
the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Carr moved approval of the July 9 2014, meeting minutes with one correction.
Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak; being none, Commissioner Lee moved to
close community comment. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; public
comment closed.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance. Urbanski. S800 Start Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Rothstein informed the Commission Jason and Molly Urbanski has submitted a variance
application to allow the construction of a new home at the property at 5800 Stuart Avenue.
They plan to tear their existing home down to the current foundation and re- construct the
home on the same foundation in the same location as the current home. The homeowners
currently have extensive patio /deck area with an in- ground swimming pool that they would like
to remain on site.
Page 1 of 17
Rothstein explained the plan includes a second story addition, a small addition of the rear of the
home, and a re- orientation of the garage from Grove Street to Stuart Ave.
The home has excessive mold and has been uninhabitable for quite some time, with the owners
living off -site. The plan is to remove the home for the purposes of mold abatement. The
owners felt that it would be an opportune time to add onto the house to include an expansion
west of the garage and a second story addition. All of the new additions conform to the setback
and height requirements of the city code. However, the proposed first floor will have a
different roof pitch than the original home.
Rothstein pointed out the current home is non - conforming for front and street side setbacks
and lot coverage. It is located 16.9 feet from the Grove Street lot line and required setback is
29.6 feet (the setback of the adjacent home). The current home is located 9.9 feet from the
southern property line, and the side yard setback is 10 feet minimum. The rebuilt home will
remain at the same setbacks as the existing home from the front, side street and side yard lot
lines and the additions meet the city code standards for setback (given the provision to allow
for a moderate expansion of a legal, non - conforming use). Also, the rebuilt home will not
increase the non - conformity of the lot coverage overages, as the only additions will replace
existing patio areas.
The Environmental Engineer has reviewed this application, and his memo is included in the
packet. There are no major issues associated with this application.
Rothstein concluded that staff recommends approval of the variances based on the following
findings:
a) The proposed lot coverage is not increasing with the request to construct a new
home — existing lot coverage is being maintained;
b) The encroachments into the setbacks are existing nonconforming setbacks that
were established when the original home was built in 1961 and was conforming at
that time, and the existing nonconforming setbacks are causing a practical difficulty in
keeping the foundation and building in a conforming location.
approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions:
1) The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped:
Survey dated: May 13, 2014
Building plans and elevations dated: April 24, 2014
2) Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo dated August 1, 2014.
Appearing for the Applicant
Jason and Molly Urbanski, Brad Schowen
Page 2 of 17
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Schowen told the Commission the new home will be constructed on the existing
foundation. Schowen explained that the reason for the teardown to the basement walls was
because the existing house had issues with mold and the only way to abate the mold was a
complete teardown.
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest commented that to her a majority of the yard appears to be pool and
decking. Forrest asked if the pool decking exceeds what's required by code. Planner Rothstein
replied that the pool and the required 4 -feet of decking are not included in lot coverage. All
other decking is included in lot coverage minus a 150 square foot onetime credit for deck or
patio. Concluding, Rothstein stated the lot coverage requirement for this lot is 25 %, adding lot
coverage shouldn't be confused with "hard cover."
Public Testimony
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak to the issues;
being none, Commissioner Lee moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr
seconded the motion, all voted aye; motion carried.
Discussion
Commissioner Carr stated as submitted she supports the variance, adding it makes sense to
her to rebuild on the existing foundation.
Commissioner Lee said her concern is with lot coverage, pointing out the site is over on lot
coverage and since the house is being rebuilt the Commission has the opportunity to mitigate
the non - conformity. Continuing, Commissioner Lee said the City is very sensitive to drainage
issues, reiterating this may be the opportunity to correct the overage.
Commissioner Forrest stated she agrees with Commissioner Lee's comments, adding she
would like to see any non - essential hard surfaces removed. Commissioner Lee stated she
agrees with Forrest and pointed out this is new construction providing the applicant with
options.
Commissioner Carr stated both Commissioners Lee and Forrest raised good points. Carr
asked if they had suggestions for the applicant. Lee said she would like to see the applicant
keep to the 25% lot coverage requirement as much as possible, questioning if it's possible to
reduce the size of the new house or eliminate non - essential hard surface.
Ms. Urbanski told the Commission she understands their concerns. She added when the pool
was put in nothing was mentioned about being over on lot coverage. Planner Rothstein
Page 3 of 17
reiterated the pool and the required 4 -feet of decking are not included in lot coverage
calculations.
Chair Staunton said the mold situation is unusual and it may be unfair to ask the applicants to
reduce the size of their house.
Commissioners agreed however, pointed out the site has so much hard surface suggesting if the
house isn't reduced some of the existing hard surface could be taken out.
Commissioner Carr suggested that the driveway could be changed out to pervious pavers
which would reduce runoff concerns. Commissioner Lee agreed that would be a good start;
however it's very difficult with the plans submitted to make an educated guess on what's what.
A discussion ensued focusing on the site's hard surface and the opportunities the applicant has
to reduce hard surface minimizing the threat of storm water runoff.
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved approval based on staff findings and subject to staff
conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion to include amendments;
the driveway is to be constructed of pervious materials and a landscaping plan must
be submitted to City staff for their review and approval. Commissioner Carr
accepted those amendments. Ayes; Carr, Platteter, Lee, Staunton. Nay, Forrest.
Motion carried 4 -1.
B. Variance. Moynihan. 6212 Crest Lane, Edina, MN
Planner Rothstein told the Commission the subject property is approximately 180 feet in width
(as measured 50 feet back from the front property lone) and is 79,798 square feet (1.8 acres) in
area. There is a steep grade change in the rear of the property.
There are two existing single - family homes on the north and south lots, both facing the Crest
Lane cul -de -sac. The north lot has a front setback of 35.4 feet and the lot to the south of the
subject property is set back 68.7 feet from the front property line, which also has a significant
grade change in the rear of the property.
The property owner is requesting to convert existing garage space into livable space, complete
an addition to the south side of the home, and build a new two -car garage to the north side of
the home. The proposed garage addition will not meet the front yard setback.
The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the
packet, which requests to direct most of the drainage to the front of the lot. The applicant is
working with the engineer to revise the plans to address runoff concerns associated with the
steep slope in the rear yard.
Page 4 of 17
Planner Rothstein concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
variance based on the following findings:
I. 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).
2. The proposed additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the
improvements will enhance the property.
3. 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 and the existence of a steep grade in the rear yard.
4. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions:
the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
following plans; Survey dated June 17, 2014 and building plans and elevations date
stamped June 19, 2014.
Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo dated August 1, 2014
Appearing for the Applicant
Kevin Moynihan
Discussion
A brief discussion ensued with Commissioners expressing the opinion they could support the
variance as requested.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved variance approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried 5 -0.
C. Conditional Use Permit. K. Alexander. 4603 Annaway Drive, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Rothstein reported that Kathryn Alexander has submitted a Conditional Use Permit on
behalf of the property owners to increase the first floor elevation 4.4 feet higher than the
current first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 4603 Annaway Drive. This
Page 5 of 17
property is located on the northernmost edge of Edina in the Rolling Green neighborhood and
a portion of the property is located in the floodplain.
A Conditional Use Permit is required 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 current home
located at 4603 Annaway Drive has a first floor elevation at 889.3 feet above sea level. This
neighborhood in Edina is located in a floodplain area, and the currently established floodplain
elevation is 889.4. Therefore, the entire basement of the existing home is in the floodplain.
Continuing, Rothstein explained that City Code allows for the issuance of a conditional use
permit to increase the first floor elevation of a new home over one foot above the existing
home under one of the following circumstances:
1) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100 -
year flood elevation, as established by FEMA;
2) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to protect from groundwater intrusion;
3) To elevate the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building
code, city code, or statutory requirements;
Furthermore, a conditional use permit may only be issued if the proposed project fits the
character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass.
Rothstein further explained that this property is situated at an elevation that is currently just
above the floodplain. FEMA has submitted draft revisions to the existing floodplain elevation of
889.4 to increase the flood elevation to 891.0. The city has conducted an independent model
and disputed the proposed FEMA elevation, suggesting instead a flood elevation of 890.0.
Whatever the determination (891 or 890) a portion of this lot would be in the revised
floodplain. Therefore, the applicant is seeking to establish a grade, low floor elevation at 892.0,
which would be I (or 2 feet) above the newly established floodplain. City code requires a 2
foot separation between floodplain and lowest floor elevations. Furthermore, the building code
now requires increased minimum ceiling height in basements and a minimum of 12 inch floor
trusses.
In staff's analysis, the proposed home fits the character of the neighborhood with regard to
height, scale, and massing. There have been several teardown /re- builds in this neighborhood,
the proposed home is below the maximum height restrictions, and the large lots make it easier
to meet requirements for lot coverage and setbacks. Therefore, the first floor elevation request
meets the eligibility requirements for consideration of a conditional use permit.
Planner Rothstein concluded that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as
requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report, and subject to the following
conditions:
The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:
• Survey date stamped June 23, 2014
Page 6 of 17
• Building plans and elevations date stamped June 23, 2014
2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's
memo dated August 1, 2014.
Appearing for the Applicant.
K. Alexander, Alexander Design Group, Inc. and Nicole Jennings, property owner.
Discussion
A discussion ensued on basement ceiling height and if the building code has a minimum
basement ceiling height requirement. Staff reported that the Uniform Building Code stipulates
ceiling height at 7 -feet minimum.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Alexander reported that the subject lot is low laying in nature and has a drainage easement
running through it. Alexander explained the main floor elevation would be 903.7 with the
current house main floor at 899.3. Alexander explained the new basement elevation would be
at 892, which is I (or 2 -feet) above the newly established flood plain. Continuing, Alexander
said all setbacks are met; the lot is large and very private. Concluding, Alexander stated the
back yard would not be filled and drainage would remain fine with the overall height of the new
home 2'8 3/4" below the required building height. Alexander asked for the Commissions
support.
Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner
Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All
vote aye; public hearing closed.
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved Conditional Use Permit approval based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Forrest commented that she feels the proposed ceiling height for the basement
is too high; it could be lowered. She did acknowledge the new home when completed does
meet the allowable building height.
Chair Staunton pointed out the height of the proposed house when completed remains below
what's allowed, adding in his opinion the new house fits in well with the neighborhood.
Staunton reminded Commissioners that this Conditional Use process is a "left over" from the
variance moratorium. Concluding, Staunton stated the Commission may want to revisit this
process.
Page 7 of 17
Chair Staunton called for the vote; all voted aye; motion carried. 5 -0.
D. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Beacon Interfaith Housing. 3330
West 66"' Street
Planner Presentation
Planner Rothstein informed the Commission to consider a redevelopment request of the
existing TCF Bank building, located at 3330 66`h Street by Beacon Interfaith Housing
Collaborative (Beacon). The applicant proposes to remodel and expand the
building into 39 units of small studio apartments for young adults who have
experienced homelessness. The size of the units would range from 322 -451 square
feet. Each unit would contain a full kitchen and bathroom. The building would contain
offices for on -site service providers and property management. There would also be a
community area for residents; a fitness area; a computer lab and a laundry room.
Continuing, Rothstein told the Commission the site is 39,204 square feet in size. The
existing bank is 18,179 square feet. The proposed addition would be 10,458 square feet.
The building would remain two stories. The remodel of the building would retain the
existing brick, and the addition would be brick with metal panels.
There would be 19 surface parking stalls. Proof of parking would total 37 total surface
stalls. No enclosed parking is proposed. The applicants have indicated in their narrative
that 18% of their residents have cars. Beacon anticipates that no more than 12 stalls
would be required for residents. The maximum need for staff parking is 6 stalls.
Therefore, they believe they would have adequate parking. Residents are expected to
utilize the Metro Transit bus service available across the street at Southdale.
All of the 39 units would be considered affordable housing, and would apply towards the
City and Met Council's goal for affordable housing.
Rothstein further explained that the Comprehensive Plan defines the site and area as RM,
Regional Medical. The RM allows for senior housing on a case by case basis, however,
does not allow other housing. Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required.
Rothstein added this development proposal is subject to a two -step review process. The
first step in the process is to obtain the following approvals:
I. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment to allow affordable housing in addition
to Senior Housing in the Regional Medical District.
2. Preliminary Rezoning from POD -I Planned Office District -1, to PUD, Planned
Unit Development and Preliminary Development Plan. (3/5 Vote of the City
Council required.)
Page 8 of 17
If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development
Plan are approved by the City Council, the following is then required for the second step:
I. Final Development Plan and Final Rezoning to a PUD.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing the PUD District.
Rothstein further noted that the property is located within an area of the City that is
designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan states that within the Potential Areas of Change, "A development
proposal that involves a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a rezoning will require a
Small Area Plan study prior to planning application. However, the authority to initiate a
Small Area Plan rests with the City Council." The City Council did not require a Small
Area Plan during the Sketch Plan Review.
Planner Rothstein stated staff believes the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
reasonable for the site for the following reasons:
I. Affordable housing is identified as a need in the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed
amendment would assist the City in meeting its established affordable housing goal with
the Met Council of providing 212 new affordable housing units by the year 2020. This
project would include 39 new affordable housing units toward that goal. That would make
up 100% of the total units in the project.
2. The proposed density of 43 units per acre is reasonable, and within the density range
suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of between 12 -80 units per acre.
3. The RM District allows senior housing currently. The proposed affordable housing project
would include units that are small in size generally similar to senior housing; and the
residents within the proposed project typically do not drive, similar to senior housing.
The proposed affordable housing project would generate less traffic than the existing bank
facility.
4. The project would utilize sustainability principles. Most notable elements include:
compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green
Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing
to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro Transit; impervious
surface would be reduced by 6.9 %; enhanced landscaping; making use of special
construction material; installing a rain garden for storm water management; and
pedestrian oriented design.
5. Project would meet the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
a) Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages,
incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina
residents.
b) Promotion of lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet
people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life.
c) Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within blocks,
rather than single buildings or building groups.
Page 9 of 17
d) Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of
design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing
development.
Rothstein explained the housing proposed by Beacon would not have a direct connection to
the RM, Regional Medical District. The structure would be located several blocks from the
hospital. There would not be a direct tie in to any medical use in the area.
The Regional Medical Zoning District contemplates a 10 acre minimum lot size. It is intended
for larger medical type uses along with senior housing which benefits from being in close
proximity to medical uses.
Planner Rothstein concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the request
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow affordable housing in the RMD District subject
to the following findings:
I. Affordable housing is identified as a need in the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed
amendment would assist the City in meeting its established affordable housing goal with
the Met Council of providing 212 new affordable housing units by the year 2020. This
project would include 39 new affordable housing units (100% of the projects units) toward
that goal.
2. The proposed density of 43 units per acre is reasonable, and within the density range
suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of between 12 -80 units per acre.
3. The RM District allows senior housing currently. The proposed affordable housing project
would include units that are small in size generally similar to senior housing; and the
residents within the proposed project typically do not drive, similar to senior housing.
4. The project would utilize sustainability principles. Most notable elements include:
compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green
Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing
to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro Transit; impervious
surface would be reduced by 6.9 %; enhanced landscaping; making use of special
construction material; installing a rain garden for storm water management; and
pedestrian oriented design.
5. The project would meet the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and
objectives:
a) Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages,
incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina
residents.
b) Promotion of lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet
people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life.
C) Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within
blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups.
d) Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of
design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing
development.
Page 10 of 17
Rothstein further recommended the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning and
approve the Preliminary Development Plan, based on the following findings:
I . Affordable housing is identified as a need in the Comprehensive Plan; and the proposed
amendment would assist the City in meeting its established affordable housing goal with
the Met Council of providing 212 new affordable housing units by the year 2020. This
project would include 39 new affordable housing units toward that goal.
2. The proposed density of 43 units per acre is reasonable, and within the density range
suggested in the Comprehensive Plan of between 12 -80 units per acre. The proposed
affordable housing project would generate less traffic than the existing bank facility.
2. The project would utilize sustainability principles. Most notable elements include:
compliance with Minnesota Overlay and Guide to the 2011 Enterprise Green
Communities Criteria; utilizing the existing building rather than a tear down; committing
to a 15% energy savings; locating the building to make use of Metro Transit; impervious
surface would be reduced by 6.9 %; enhanced landscaping; making use of special
construction material; installing a rain garden for storm water management; and
pedestrian oriented design.
3. Project would meet the following additional Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives:
a) Promotion of a vision of community that is inclusive of a wide range of ages,
incomes, and abilities and offers a wide range of housing options for Edina
residents.
b) Promotion of lifecycle housing to support a range of housing options that meet
people's preferences and circumstance at all stages of life.
c) Encourage an integrated mix of building type, heights and footprints within
blocks, rather than single buildings or building groups.
d) Incorporate principles of sustainability and energy conservation into all aspects of
design, construction, renovation and long -term operation of new and existing
development.
Preliminary approval is also subject to the following conditions:
I . The Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary
Development Plans dated June 20, 2014.
2. Sustainable design. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with
the Sustainable Initiatives as outlined in the applicant's narrative within the Planning
Commission staff report.
3. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the
fire marshal.
4. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo
dated July 15, 2014.
5. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter
36 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Page 11 of 17
7. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned
Unit Development for this site.
8. Final Rezoning is subject to review and approval of the Metropolitan Council on the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Appearing for the Applicant
Lee Blons, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Blons addressed the Commission giving a brief history of Beacon Interfaith. Blons said this
is their first in Edina and Beacon is collaborating with Edina Community Lutheran
Church. Continuing, Blons reported that the 39 studio apartment unit project would serve
suburban homeless young adults. Blons said they believe the location of 66 West is terrific.
She pointed out it is located directly on a bus line and is within walking distance of retail and
medical. Blons introduced Carol Lansing of Faegre and Benson and Bart Nelson of Urban
Works.
Ms. Lansing reported that the term "affordable" housing isn't a vague term it's a recognized
term.
Mr. Nelson with the aid of graphics gave a brief description of the units, parking stall count and
the Proof of Parking agreement. Nelson also reported access to the site would be off Barrie
Road. Continuing, Nelson said that per the request of the Commission the fence was removed
to create a more welcoming site. Nelson said a rain garden would be incorporated and the
vegetation planted would be at least 50% native plantings. Concluding, Nelson said the exterior
of the building will have a contemporary look.
Continuing, Ms. Blons explained the concept for the project adding their intent is to build
relationships between tenants and the neighborhood. The units are independent living
with an on -site property manager. She further explained that multiple support services
are provided, nutrition, independent living skills, etc., adding their intent is for all
residents to have support. Blons reported there will be three full time staff to include
overnight staffing. Blons thanked the Commission for their support.
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest asked if the residents of the building are considered permanent.
Ms. Blons responded in the affirmative, adding the "stay" rate is usually six months to three
years. Forrest asked how the project is funded. Blons responded that this type of project
works backward. Approval is first; funding next. Continuing, Blons said a project like 66 West
has diversified funding including private contributions. Forrest questioned age requirements.
Blons responded the majority of the tenants are between 18 -21 years. Forrest further asked
where the tenants come from. Blons explained that the majority of the tenants come through
referrals. Forrest asked the turnover rate. Blons responded that 7 -10 residents move in /out
Page 12 of 17
throughout the year. Forrest questioned if the tenant mix will be male, female or both. Blons
responded that hadn't been decided yet; however their other building serves both young men
and women.
Continuing, Forrest explained she is struggling with amending the Comprehensive Plan to
include "affordable" housing in the RM guided area. Ms. Lansing told Commissioner Forrest
that the Commission has the discretion on policy
Commissioner Platteter asked if the tenants are required to sign a lease. Ms. Blons responded
in the affirmative, adding the residents are expected to comply with all requirements of the
lease. She said if a tenant doesn't comply with the requirements their lease would be
terminated, adding staff would guide them to other housing if appropriate. Commissioner
Platteter questioned security /safety. Ms. Blons explained the entrances are secured entrances
with security cameras. Platteter asked about the daytime hours. Blons said during the day staff
is present and access is secured visitors can be "buzzed in ".
Commissioner Platteter said in viewing the landscaping plan he would like to see additional
landscaping added to the west. Mr. Nelson responded he would be willing to look at that. He
added their goal is to save as many existing trees as possible.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners discussing the makeup of the proposed housing. It
was acknowledged that what is requested is different from a "regular" apartment building.
It's a residence with support services that include everything from nutrition to transition
coaches. Some Commissioners suggested that the services provided at the proposed residence
could be considered compatible with the Comp Plan RM guided areas.
Public Hearing
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
The following spoke to the issue:
Sheila Rzepecki, 6617 Normandale Road, addressed the Commission.
Ms. Sims, 6433 Barrie Road, addressed the Commission.
Mrs. Prince, 7200 York Ave #602, addressed the Commission
Rev. Erik Strand, Edina Community Lutheran Church, 5732 Abbott Ave, addressed the
Commission.
Marilyn Peters, 6429 Barrie Road, addressed the Commission.
Bill Davis, 6616 Cornelia Drive, addressed the Commission.
Ms. Wood, 6525 Drew Avenue, addressed the Commission.
Thomas Stone, Nicollet Square, #404, addressed the Commission.
MJ Bauer, 7609 Gleason Road, Addressed the Commission.
Pacy Erck, 6315 Colony Way, addressed the Commission.
Mikkel Beckman, Hennepin County, 318 East 38`h Street, addressed the Commission
Tom Nelson, Kenwood /Lowry Hill neighborhood, addressed the Commission.
Robert Hobbins, 4708 Upper Terrace, addressed the Commission
Page 13 of 17
Carol Truesdell, 9 Woodland Road, addressed the Commission.
Pastor Mary Albing, Lutheran Church of Christ the Redeemer, addressed the Commission.
Lynn Truesdell, 9 Woodland Road, addressed the Commission.
Jenette Augustson, 5000 Arden Avenue, addressed the Commission.
Floyd Grabiel, 4817 Wilford Way, addressed the Commission.
Betsy Cruz, 8109 Dupont Ave., addressed the Commission.
Jon Good, 6816 Brittany Road, addressed the Commission.
Lisa Netzer, 6024 Timber Trail, addressed the Commission.
Linda Schmitz, 6483 Barrie Road, addressed the Commission.
Nate Schmeltzer, 132 West 62 "d Street, addressed the Commission.
Maura Schnonbach, 6221 Balder Lane, addressed the Commission.
Marcia Kermeen, 232 Morgan Avenue, addressed the Commission.
Jennifer Rolfes, 7675 Woodview Court, addressed the Commission.
Lisa Thompson, 5500 Benton Avenue, addressed the Commission.
Rose Minor, 6519 Barrie Road, Step by Step Montessori, addressed the Commission.
Denise, Prior Lake addressed the Commission.
Sandy Perzinski, 6519 Barrie Road, Step by Step Montessori, addressed the Commission.
2007 West 6 Is' Street, addressed the Commission.
Elizabeth Briden, 6525 Barrie Road, addressed the Commission.
David Coolaird, 7100 Metro Boulevard, addressed the Commission.
Bob Long, Larkin Hoffman, addressed the Commission
5100 Danens Drive, addressed the Commission
Father Tim Rudolphi, 6820 St. Patrick's Lane, addressed the Commission.
Adam Estrem, St. Stephens Church, addressed the Commission.
Rhonda Olson, 5109 Beard Avenue, addressed the Commission.
Janet Sullivan, 6832 Gleason Road, addressed the Commission.
Mark Swiggum, addressed the Commission.
Mark Chamberlin, 7004 Bristol Blvd., addressed the Commission.
Geoff Workinger, 5224 Kellogg Avenue, addressed the Commission.
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak, being none Staunton thanked
everyone for their input and asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Discussion
Commissioner Kilberg commented that he is struggling with the requests. Kilberg stated he's
not convinced this isn't residential creep into an office /commercial neighborhood. Continuing,
Kilberg said in his opinion the businesses have valid concerns about the proposed rezoning to
PUD to allow housing and Comp Plan amendment. Concluding, Commissioner Kilberg
reiterated this could be considered reverse creep; commercial to residential, not residential to
commercial.
Commissioner Carr asked for clarification on the zoning /rezoning. Planner Rothstein explained
Page 14 of 17
that currently the property is zoned POD -I, Planned Office District and is guided in the
Comprehensive Plan as Regional Medical and earmarked as an area for potential
change. The request before the Commission this evening is to amend the Comp Plan
RM and a rezoning to PUD to allow housing other than senior.
A brief discussion ensued on the recently approved rezoning for 6500 France allowing
senior housing. It was pointed out that aspects of that project are strictly tied to medical
(assisted living; aftercare; hospice) and that coincides with the Regional Medical guide. The
Commission acknowledged the current request is difficult because while the City encourages
"affordable housing" there isn't a specific zoning guide for that and to tie the "affordable" use to
medial may be difficult.
Chair Staunton acknowledged this is a thriving medical area; however, the proposed housing
does include support services and is a "cared" environment. Staunton said in his opinion
this use "feels different" from market rate housing. It's an environment that helps its
residents on different levels. Commissioner Platteter agreed, adding this is just the other end
of the spectrum. The elderly need support services and so do these young adults.
Commissioner Forrest said the request is creating interesting tension. She pointed out on one
hand the City has a mandate to provide affordable housing opportunities; however, the means
to provide it are limited. Forrest also pointed out the site isn't zoned RMD it's only
guided RM in the Comp Plan. Zoned and guided are two different things. Continuing, Forrest
said there must be a way to craft language that would allow this use in the Regional
Medical similar to a senior housing use in RM guided areas. Concluding, Forrest also pointed
out if the City stays strictly to how an area is guided there are a number of uses in the area
"guided" Regional Medical that don't meet the definition.
Commissioner Carr said she can't support the proposal as presented. She stated it's not
consistent with the Regional Medical District Comp Plan guide classification, adding the
neighbors in her opinion have raised valid points, adding this could be considered spot zoning.
Chair Staunton said the Commission could eliminate the word affordable and say housing
located in an area guided as Regional Medical must include support services. Commissioner
Forrest said she agrees, adding her concern is with the word "affordable" adding it's a
language thing.
Chair Staunton agreed "affordable" housing doesn't solve it; there needs to be a mention of
housing linked with care /support services that maintains the values of the Comp Plan and its
goal of affordable housing.
Commissioner Carr said whatever the Commission decides, if the Comprehensive Plan is
amended, it's a significant change. She said a change like this may warrant more public input,
adding it's clearly not medical related.
Chair Staunton pointed out if the sticking point is amending the Comprehensive Plan the
Commission should note without an amendment to the Comp Plan the project as proposed
Page 15 of 17
can't move forward.
Motions
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend amending the Comprehensive
Guide Plan based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commenting
further, Platteter stated he doesn't like the use of the word "affordable" suggesting that it be
changed to "housing with support services ". Motion failed for lack of second.
Commissioner Carr moved to recommend denial of the request for an amendment
to the Comprehensive Guide Plan to allow affordable housing in the Regional
Medical District. Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. Ayes; Forrest, Lee,
Carr. Nays; Platteter, Staunton. Motion to deny carried 3 -2 vote
A discussion ensued with some Commissioners expressing the opinion that while they support
the project their issue is with the word "affordable" as written in the proposed guide plan
amendment. Commissioners said they are struggling to find an appropriate way to approve an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; however, are at a loss in clarifying their intent.
Commissioner Forrest asked Attorney Knutson if a motion could be made that was more
general in terms. Forrest said it's difficult to have the exact language "on the spot ". Attorney
Knutson responded the Commission is advisory, adding they can recommend anything to the
Council for their consideration.
Commissioner Forrest moved to recommend amending the Comprehensive Guide
Plan /Regional Medical by incorporating guidelines /goals /requirements that would
allow this type of project in the Regional Medical. Commissioner Lee seconded the
motion. Ayes; Forrest, Lee, Platteter. Staunton. Nay; Carr. Motion carried 4 -1.
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend preliminary rezoning from POD -I,
Planned Office District -I to PUD, Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Lee
seconded the motion. Ayes; Platteter, Forrest, Lee, Staunton. Nay; Carr. Motion
carried 4 -1.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Staunton reminded the Commission of the upcoming work session on August 27,
2014. Staunton said the session will begin at 5:30; Commission meeting directly after.
Staunton noted the Commission will continue to work on finalizing the 2015 Work Plan.
Page 16 of 17
Commissioner Forrest reported the Valley ViewMooddale Avenue small area plan is
proceeding at a good pace.
Chair Staunton reported its student member Ben Kilberg's last Planning Commission
meeting before he heads off to college. Staunton and the Commission thanked Kilberg
for his service and his excellent work on the Commission.
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
None
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Platteter moved meeting adjournment at 12:45 AM. Commissioner Carr
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried.
F4W— —Ul 1; -s CU61r'
Page 17 of 17