HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Scherer, Schroeder, Hobbs, Seeley, Forrest, Carr, Lee, Olsen, Halva,
Staunton
Members absent from roll: Platteter
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Forrest moved approval of the September 10, 2014 meeting agenda. Commissioner
Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Lee moved approval of the August 13, 2014, meeting minutes. Commissioner Carr
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 Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; public comment
closed.
V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance. Bill Robey /Mike Erickson. 5808 Crescent Terrace, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reported the subject property is located on the northeast corner of Crescent Terrace
and Bywood West. The site is 1.02 acres in size and is located in the Rolling Green neighborhood. The
proposed new home would have setbacks further from the north side lot line and further back from
Crescent Terrace than the existing home. The existing home has a 12 foot side yard setback (north lot
line), and the new home would be 18.6 feet. The existing home has a 30 -foot setback to Crescent
Page 1 of 12
Terrace, and the proposed home would be setback 61.5 feet. This is the setback where the variance is
required.
Teague explained that the subject property is approximately 110 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back
from the front property line) and is 44,456 square feet (1.02 acres) in area. The lot is rolling in
topography. There are two existing single - family homes on the north and eastern lots, one facing
Bywood West and one home facing Crescent Terrace. The Bywood home is located 102.3 feet from the
front property line, and the Crescent Terrace home is located 74.7 feet from the front property line.
Continuing, Teague said the property owner is requesting to tear down the existing home and build a
new home on the property in a location that does not meet the Crescent Terrace front yard setback.
Section 36 -439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the average setback of the two abutting
homes. The average setback of the two abutting homes is 91 feet. As a corner lot, the property owner
may choose the front yard. The appliant has chosen Bywood West as the front street. Cresent Terrace
then becomes the side street. However, because the home to the east faces Crescent Terrace, the side
street setback becomes a front street setback, and they must match the front street setback of the
abutting home, which is 74.7 feet.
The Planning Commission is currently analyzing the interpretation of this particular ordinance
requirement, but under any interpretation, the proposal needs a variance approved in order to
construct in the proposed location.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested Variance based on the
following findings:
The proposed location of the house is reasonable. It would be located further away from the
north side lot line and Crescent Terrace than the existing home.
2. The applicant could locate the home on the lot to meet all setback requirements; however, it
would move the home much closer to the adjacent lot to the north, and create less area for
drainage.
3. The practical difficulty in this instance is the narrow lot combined with the large front street
setbacks of the abutting homes, which make the building area minimal compared to the size of
the lot.
4. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed
addition will complement the existing neighborhood homes.
Approval is also subject to the following conditions:
• Survey date stamped August 13, 2014
• Building plans date stamped August 14, 2014; and
• Engineering Memo dated September 2 with revisions dated September 10, 2014
Appearing for the Applicant
Bill Robey, Tom Rauscher, Rauscher & Associates and interested neighbors.
Page 2 of 12
Discussion
Chair Staunton stated he would like to thank the applicant for their excellent exhibits; especially the
exhibit indicating the outline of existing and proposed house.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Rauscher informed Commissioners that he worked hard with the property owner on locating a
house that wouldn't negatively impact the adjoining properties. Rauscher said the house is positioned to
provide adequate spacing for the subject property and house to their north. Rauscher said the issue is
also aesthetic; adding in his opinion the house placement proposed works best with the site.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
Public Comment
The following spoke in support of the variance:
Kevin Gilligan, 5804 Crescent Terrace, Edina, MN
Paul Bachman, 4817 Bywood West, Edina, MN
Discussion
Commissioner Scherer commented that she supports the request as submitted. Scherer pointed out
that traditionally corner lots are difficult. She stated in her opinion the aesthetic style and design is
pleasing and compatible with the neighborhood.
Motion
Commissioner Olsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff
conditions; survey date stamped August 13, 2014, building plans date stamped August 13,
2014, and Memo from Ross Bintner dated September 2, 2014 and revised on September
10, 2014. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B. Conditional Use Permit. Ted & Amy Carlson. 5516 Knoll Drive, Edina, MN
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague reported that Ted Carlson has submitted a conditional use permit on behalf of the
property owners to increase the first floor elevation 1.97 feet higher than the current first floor
elevation in order to construct a new home at 5516 Knoll Drive.
Teague explained that 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
Page 3 of 12
home located at 5516 Knoll Drive has a first floor elevation at 954.97 feet above sea level. The proposal
is to tear down the house to the existing foundation and re -build on the existing foundation, but
increase the basement height by 1.5 feet and increase the floor trusses by 8 inches, for a total of 2.16
feet increase in first floor elevation.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as requested
subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans:
• Survey date stamped August 8, 2014
• Building plans and elevations date stamped August 8, 2014
Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo
dated August 1, 2014.
Appearing for the Applicant
Ted & Amy Carlson, property owners.
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest said she wonders if the variance request can be heard as requested. She said she
is unsure of the legality of requesting a variance from eligibility conditions. Planner Teague responded in
the past the Commission has heard variances from the eligibility requirements for a Conditional Use
Permit.
A discussion continued with Commissioners discussing the methods indicated for storm water
management noting the suggestion of Ross Bintner recommending an alternative.
Nick Adams, City Engineering responded that the applicant revised the plan (at the recommendation of
the Engineering Department) and the plan now provides an alternative for drainage; down the backyard
slope. Flow would drain to an area of level ground and the retaining wall.
Applicant Presentation
Ted Carlson addressed the Commission and said he was very excited about the project. He pointed
out the lot is a large lot and lot coverage would be around 8 %. Carlson acknowledged they revised
their storm water management plan to include a gutter system, and additional plantings to handle the
water runoff. Carlson asked for their support.
Public Hearing
Page 4 of 12
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
No comments.
Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion.
All voted aye; public hearing closed.
Discussion
Commissioner Lee said she was very pleased to see reuse of the existing foundation and preservation of
a rambler. She added in her opinion the plans as proposed is a sensitive way to rebuilt and revitalize a
rambler. Lee said she supports the project as presented.
Commissioner Staunton said he agrees with Commissioner Lee. He reminded the Commission part of
the goal of the I -foot rule was to prevent homes from being built out of scale with the neighborhood.
He said in this instance the request makes sense and the house certainly matches the neighborhood.
Commissioner Forrest stated she can't support the request procedurally and the variance is self -
imposed. Teague responded his research indicated that the Commission and Council have approved
two such requests one in Indian Hills and the other in the Sunnyslope neighborhood.
The discussion continued with the majority of Commissioners believing the request under the
circumstances made sense and there would be no negative impact to the neighborhood.
Motion
Commissioner Scherer moved Conditional Use Permit approval based on staff findings and
subject to staff conditions to include the revised storm water maintenance plan.
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Hobbs, Carr, Olsen,
Lee, Staunton. Nay, Forrest. Motion carried.
C. Final Rezoning and Final Site Plan with Variances. Frauenshuh. 5108 Edina
Industrial Boulevard, Edina, MN
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Frauenshuh Commercial Real Estate is proposing to tear
down an 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 uses.
Page 5 of 12
This request has received the following approvals from the City Council:
I. 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 33 and 25 feet.
3. A Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Neighborhood Commercial.
Teague further explained that the proposed plans are generally consistent with the approved Preliminary
Plan. The applicant has slightly revised the plans per the recommendations of the Planning Commission
and City Council, including shifting the building back to the north to create more patio space in front of
the building. The applicant has not however, provided boulevard trees or additional landscaping along
Edina Industrial Boulevard as was requested. The applicant believes that trees and additional landscaping
would be difficult to maintain, cause problems for snow storage, and trees would block visibility to the
building for the retail tenants. The boulevard area is 10 feet wide; therefore, there is adequate area for
some tree planting and landscaping. Hennepin County requires trees to be planted six feet back from
the curb. Trees could be planted to meet that standard. The city engineer has reviewed the plan and
believes the area could be landscaped including trees and still could be maintained. The City of Edina
would be responsible for the plowing of snow on this sidewalk in the winter.
Teague stated the following is requested for this final review:
1. Final Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District; and
2. Final Development Plan with Front Yard Setback Variances from 35 to 33 and 25 feet.
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Final
Rezoning from POD -1, Planned Office District to PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and
Final Development Plan with Variances to tear down the existing retail building at 5108 Edina
Industrial Boulevard and build a 10,000 square foot retail building as proposed.
Approval is subject to the following findings:
[.The proposed rezoning meets the criteria in Section 36 -216, as noted on Pages 4 -7 above, in
regard to rezoning property. 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.
3. The variance criteria are met. The proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is the
small size of the site. A building could be located on the site to meet all the applicable setback
requirements, however, the result would be a building located in the middle of the site with
parking lots in front.
4. The unique circumstances are the small size of the property and location as a corner lot. The
building could be moved back to meet required setbacks, however, would create a parking lot in
the front. While there are other small corner lots in the PCD -2 Districts, these circumstances
are generally unique compared to all PCD -2 District properties.
Page 6 of 12
The following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan would be met: "Where appropriate,
building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance
the pedestrian environment." This would be the first building in this area to be brought up to
the street. Currently there are no sidewalks on the site. The proposed boulevard style sidewalk
will encourage pedestrian movement in the area.
6. The traffic and parking study done by Wenck concludes that the existing roadways can support
the proposed project.
Approval is also subject to the following Conditions:
Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below:
• Site plan date stamped August 20, 2014.
• Grading plan date stamped August 20, 2014.
• Utility plan date stamped August 20, 2014.
• Landscaping plan date stamped August 20, 2014.
• Building elevations date stamped August 20, 2014
• Building materials board as presented at the Planning Commission and City Council meeting.
2. Prior the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan must be submitted, subject to staff
approval. Additionally, a performance bond, letter -of- credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for
one and one -half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or
erosion control measures.
3. Additional landscaping, including deciduous trees shall be planted within the boulevard, subject to
review and approval of the city forester and city engineer
.4. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies.
5. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions
to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements.
6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo dated July 15, 2014,
including entering into a developer's agreement for construction of utilities and sidewalks.
7. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 36 of the
Zoning Ordinance.8. Dedication of an easement over the proposed sidewalk, subject to
approval of the city engineer.
Appearing for the Applicant
David Anderson, Frauenshuh, Nick Sperides
Discussion
Page 7 of 12
Commissioner Forrest asked if the placement of the monument sign is correct. Planner Teague
responded all signs would conform to ordinance requirements. Commissioner Scherer suggested adding
additional landscaping around the monument sign when it's installed.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Anderson told the Commission he has been working with the City forester and will bring some
trees to the boulevard. Anderson said one hesitation with regard to boulevard trees is what happens
after the two years of required maintenance. He pointed out with Minnesota weather, snow removal
and storage and maintenance issues longevity could become an issue. Anderson said he also doesn't
want to "over plant" the boulevard area.
Mr. Sperides with the aid of graphics indicated the patios at the end of the building noting that they are
now attached to the sidewalk.
Commissioner Lee asked if they know what type of materials would be used for the patio hard surface
areas. Mr. Sperides responded that at this time they area planning on concrete hard surfaces.
Commissioner Lee said she would encourage the use of pavers. Continuing, Lee asked if they ever
considered flipping the elevations. She said she has a concern that the "back doors" face the street and
the doors indicated on the plans would be locked. She stated she worries about street engagement.
Concluding, Lee stressed the use of pavers vs. concrete.
Commissioner Schroeder commented that Commissioner Lee brought up a good point about the doors
facing the street and asked if the doors would be open to the public or locked. Mr. Anderson
responded that the operation of the doors would be up to the individual tenant. Anderson explained he
understands the Commissioners comments; however, much is up to the tenant, adding most retail shops
have one entrance for safety and a customer control point. Continuing, Anderson said we also have to
consider the customers that park their vehicles; it would be difficult for them to walk around to the
other side of the building to gain access.
A discussion ensued on tenant access, end doors and internal traffic flow. Commissioners also
suggested that the landscaping plan be continuous, vegetation for all seasons. It was further suggested
with regard to landscaping that a landscaping plan be submitted by a landscape architect.
The discussion refocused on the traffic flow for the drive through with some Commissioner expressing
worry about the potential for accidents. Mr. Sperides pointed out the plans for the drive through
haven't changed; adding the majority of the traffic for the drive through will come from Metro
Boulevard.
It was further reiterated to the applicant that the Commission wants to see boulevard trees. It was
pointed out that the trees indicated on the plan for the boulevard are smaller than the ones that will be
removed. The Commission indicated their vision was to see trees of similar size on the boulevard.
Page 8 of 12
Commissioner Carr stated she believes the plan is good, adding the applicant followed the direction of
the Commission. She further pointed out that engaging the street is an excellent goal; however it is
difficult to do "urban" in many areas of Edina. She pointed out while sidewalks are being implemented
to afford a pedestrian experience street parking isn't allowed. She stated it's a conundrum for
developers and the City. She agreed most retail experiences have one entrance and in this instance
without street parking it makes sense to have the major entrances access the parking area; otherwise
those that parked in the surface lot would have to walk around the building to access the tenants.
Motion
Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions including the following:
• Applicant is to replace trees removed with trees of the same caliper
• Ensure plantings that are used create continuous landscaping zones that survive
tough environments.
• Ensure that signage meets code
• Locate transformers, electrical, mechanical to the south side
• Add directional signage for the drive - through off of Metro Boulevard
Commissioner Schroeder said he understands the dilemma in keeping doors open to the public;
however, in his opinion with regard to the two end units on the south side of the building those
entrances should remain open to the public during regular business hours. Schroeder offered that as an
amendment.
• Doors on the south side shall remain open during regular business hours.
Commissioner Olsen said she accepts that amendment.
Chair Staunton stated he supports the request as submitted with amendments. Staunton said the
Commission needs to better articulate what we mean by pedestrian friendly, and vibrant streetscape.
He acknowledged it appears the Commission goes round and round about this and in fairness to
applicants we need to be straight forward.
Commissioner Carr said while she has no objection to the conditions of "keeping the doors" open; that
may be hard to enforce.
Ayes; Scherer, Schroeder, Hobbs, Olsen, Carr, Staunton. Nays, Lee, Forrest. Motion
carried. 6 -2.
Page 9 of 12
VII. Reports and Recommendations
A. Work Plan — 2015
Presentation
Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to review the 2015 Work Plan.
Planner Teague reported he took past discussion points and folded them into the work plan. Teague
reported he also included with the packet the Edina Zoning Ordinance Process Tracker. He said this
"tracker" should keep the Commission abreast of where we've been and where we're going. Teague
said he included as a continuation in the Process Tracker 1) Parking regulations /Proof of parking; 2)
Lighting Phase 2; and 3) Impervious Surface /Grading & Drainage. With regard to the three topics
Teague said Parking is ongoing, Phase I of Lighting is proposed to be implemented in 2014 with Phase 11
beginning in 2015, and grading and drainage continues to be reviewed by the Engineering Department.
Chair Staunton said it may be a good time to add something about front street engagement standards or
at minimum create a policy on what the City if after when suggesting that buildings move closer to the
street and engage the street. Staunton said he has been very frustrated that concept isn't easily
communicated.
Commissioner Scherer said she agrees. She also stated she believes the review should flexible. She
pointed out sometimes it isn't feasible to move a building closer to the street, parking can be
accomplished in front of a building in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Scherer said in her opinion the
goal of the City is to engage and be friendly to the pedestrian and flexibility should be allowed in framing
this policy.
Commissioner Schroeder said he agrees with that comment. He added the City needs to find a way for
buildings to be connected to the street, adding the goal should be connectivity.
Commissioner Olsen commented it would be good to draft a policy with some teeth.
Chair Staunton said the Commission has made some inroads in encouraging engagement between
structures and the street; however, better communication if needed.
Commissioner Schroeder said the adoption of a "Living Streets" policy goes a long way in providing
guidelines and beginning communication.
Commissioner Forrest said in exploring policies they need to keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan
where the majority of the City's policies and procedures are located. Commissioners agreed.
In all cases Commissioner Schroeder said when it comes to policy it's hard to dictate the private realm.
Schroeder pointed out for certain policies to work everyone must be on board; both private and public
Page 10 of 12
realm. Schroeder said in his opinion the way buildings address the street needs to remain on the work
plan. Commissioner Forrest agreed adding it needs to be kept on the radar.
Commissioner Hobbs stated storm water assessment is important and asked Planner Teague if a storm
water audit of the City has been conducted. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative.
Commissioners expressed the desire to continue to keep all aspects of drainage and grading on the
2015 work plan.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners acknowledging that the drainage and grading component is
monitored by engineering staff with the suggestion that drainage and grading be moved to the top of the
list on the 2015 Work Plan. Commissioners indicated their support for the 2015 Work Plan as
presented. Chair Staunton suggested that Commissioners e-mail Planner Teague if they think of
additional changes and /or suggestions to the plan. Staunton said all work plans would be presented to
the City Council at a pre - council work session.
Vill. Correspondence and Petitions
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. Chair and Commission Comments
Chair Staunton welcomed new student member Madison Seeley; Madison is a junior at Edina High
School.
Chair Staunton reported that Edina kicked off Vision Edina. Staunton said the event was a good start
with good attendance.
Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Forrest reported on the progress of the Wooddale Valley View
Small Area Plan. It was noted that a Discovery Workshop would be held from 8 am — Noon on
Saturday October I Ith at the Edina Village Market. (Breakfast at 8 am at Snuffy's with a "walk- about"
9:00 am- Noon).
X. Staff Comments
Planner Teague informed the Commission since the first of the year the City has issued 120 demo
permits and 83 new single family home permits.
Jordan Gilgenbach reported that the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan can now be found on the
City's website. www.edinamn.gov
Page 11 of 12
XI. Adjournment
Commissioner Hobbs moved meeting adjournment at 9:35 pm. Commissioner Lee seconded
the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried.
Respectfully submitted
Page 12 of 12