Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-22 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 22, 2014 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call was: Hobbs, Lee, Olsen, Seeley, Halva, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton Absent from Roll: Scherer, 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 September 10, 2014 meeting minutes with correction. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn Avenue addressed the Commission on tree preservation. Commissioner Platteter moved to close community comment. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. Variance. Mark Larson. 5024 Bruce Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission Dave and Kara Walter /Mark Larson /Rehkamp Larson Architects are requesting a 20.25 foot setback variance from the 50 foot setback requirement from Minnehaha Creek to increase basement area below an expanded deck at the same existing nonconforming setback from the Creek. Aaker further explained that the owners are also requesting a second variance to allow Page 1 of 10 modification of an existing nonconforming room above the attached garage. A 5 foot side yard setback variance is requested from the 10 foot side yard setback requirement. The variance is needed to increase the ridge height of the roof to allow proper ceiling height for the existing small bedroom. Currently the bedroom is a step down, with lower ceilings, an under structured floor system and an HVAC system in need of improvements. Continuing, Aaker explained that the subject property is located north of Bruce Place cul -de- sac consisting of a two story home with an attached two car garage. The home backs up to Minnehaha Creek and provides a 29.75 foot setback from the water body to the existing deck. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from naturally occurring lakes, ponds or streams. The existing home and deck are nonconforming and overlaps the required Creek setback. There will be a small addition to the main floor kitchen that will conform to the alternate setback standard with the maximum additional encroachment in the setback of no more than 200 square feet, so no variance is required for main floor kitchen and deck modification at the existing nonconforming setbacks. The applicant is also requesting a 5 foot side yard setback variance to modify the ceiling height of the upstairs bedroom. The second floor bedroom above the garage will match the existing nonconforming side yard setback of the existing room. The roof line will be modified to allow for adequate ceiling height. There is no opportunity to conform given that the existing room above the garage is already too close to the side yard. The proposed bedroom above the garage cannot comply with the zoning ordinance. The garage and bedroom above are at a lower elevation as compared with the neighbor to the east who is at a higher elevation, so height impact will be minimal. It should be noted that the Planning Commission approved a tear -down re -build on the property in January 2013, with the new home to match the setback of the back deck, bringing all three floors of living space of the new home closer to the Creek edge. The variance was requested by a previous homeowner who never implemented the plan. The permit was not applied for by the anniversary date of variance approval, so the variance expired and became null and void. See attached approved new home plans for the property. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variances. based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variances requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing conditions without reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors. b. The imposed setback and existing house location do not provide opportunity for an increase in second floor ceiling height above the garage or expansion of the basement. Page 2 of 10 C. The original placement of the home closer to Creek and the side yard than currently allowed prohibits expansion in the basement and on the second floor without the benefit of a variance Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions: I) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey date stamped October 7, 2014. • Building plans/ elevations date stamped October 7, 2014. • Engineering memo dated October 17, 2014 Appearing for the Applicant Mark Larson Discussion Commissioner Carr asked Planner Aaker if staff received any comments; pro or con from neighbors. Planner Aaker responded that to date staff has not received any comments; pro or con. Chair Staunton noted it appears there is an expired variance for this property. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative, adding a variance expires if a building permit is not applied for one year after approval date Commissioner Forrest commented on the difficulty of establishing an existing setback from the creek since creeks tend to meander. Aaker agreed. Applicant Presentation Mr. Larson reported that the survey submitted is recent, adding the updated survey found that the creek had meandered. Larson said he was looking forward to renovating a great family home. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Hearing No comment. Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to closed public hearing carried 7 -0. Page 3 of 10 Motion Commissioner Carr moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Commissioner Forrest suggested as part of the findings to include the unusual features of the subject lot. Ayes; Nay, Platteter B. Variance. Scott Busyn /Great Neighborhood Homes. 5300 Oaklawn Ave., Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported the subject property is approximately 59.73 feet in width and is 8,097 square feet in area and is located in the southwest corner of West 53rd Street and Oaklawn Ave. There is an existing single - family home on the property that will be demolished, and the applicant is requesting to rebuild on the lot with a noncompliant setback for a garage opening facing the street. Planner Aaker further explained that Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. The proposed grading as shown by the "Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan" dated 9/19/2014 was prepared and signed by Brian Mundstock, a Licensed Engineer in the State of Minnesota. The proposed conditions create a better drainage situation for the three neighboring properties. All of the neighboring properties will see less drainage than existing conditions currently produce due to new site improvements. Our stormwater infrastructure has no limitations in the area and a sump drain line was installed in 2011 during a street reconstruction project. The erosion control plan meets our expectations. The existing driveway and curb cut will be relocated approximately 25 feet west of its current location, further away from the nearby intersection, and be reduced from a 22' wide driveway to a 14' driveway. There are no concerns with a new waterline connection or a new sanitary line connection. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance based on the following findings: 1. The property with a new home can comply with the setbacks and is therefore a reasonable use, and the request to deviate from the side street is not necessary to make reasonable use of the property. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale with the proposed garage; however the garage can comply with the required setback. 3. There is not a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements due to the ability to locate a garage in a conforming location. Page 4 of 10 4. There are no circumstances unique to the property that necessitates a variance to make reasonable use of the property. The property will be a vacant 59.73 foot wide lot in a neighborhood of other 59 - 60 foot wide lots with many that have been rebuilt on within the ordinance requirements. A new home with a garage can be designed to conform. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Busyn, Great Neighborhood Homes, Brian Smith, property owner. Applicant Presentation Scott Busyn addressed the Commission and explained he has built and renovated a number of homes in Edina, adding he believes the plans proposed for the new house are appropriate. Busyn explained that the proposed building location creates functionality and is aesthetically pleasing. The position of house /garage allows a usable rear yard where children can play. The large Oak tree is also retaining with the proposed building placement. Contusing, Busyn also stated in his opinion the plans as presented are sensitive to drainage and storm water management by creating the right balance. Busyn concluded that he held a neighborhood meeting, adding no issues were raised at that meeting. Discussion Commissioner Carr thanked Mr. Busyn for his effort to save trees and asked if the Oak in the front yard would be saved. Mr. Busyn responded he was unsure if that tree could be saved. He said it may be possible to shift the building back; however, it is difficult to guarantee that tree would remain; it's iffy. Carr suggested if the Oak is lost that it be replaced. Commissioner Platteter commented it would have beneficial to have a survey or materials reflecting trees saved /lost. Public Hearing Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. The following resident spoke in support of the project as submitted. Barbara Whalen, 5301 Kellogg Avenue, addressed the Commission. Brian Smith, 5300 Oaklawn, property owner, addressed the Commission and explained they love the neighborhood and believe Mr. Busyn will build a house that maintains the character of the neighborhood. Schmidt further stated it is their intent to keep all the trees they can; trees are part of the character of this neighborhood. Page 5 of 10 Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the proposal; being none Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion Commissioner Olsen stated she tends to agree with the applicants that a conforming location would be a detriment to the lot and neighborhood. She pointed out that although this will be new built other homes in the area have garages with nonconforming setbacks; reiterating she agrees with the applicants the plans as presented are best for the site and neighborhood. A discussion continued with Commissioners in agreement the plans as presented suit the site better than a conforming location would. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend variance approval subject to the Findings that include the overly large right -of -way; the existence of mature trees, and the existence of other nonconforming setbacks in the neighborhood. Approval is also tied to the plans presented that maintain the existing setbacks, and lot coverage. Approval is also conditioned on saving the three (3) existing pine trees on the west as well as the Oak on the east and west; if the Oak in the front yard is lost it is to be replaced with another Oak. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Commissioner Carr suggested the following amendment - that during the construction process trees be preserved in accordance with the Watershed District guidelines; approval is also conditioned on Watershed District approval if applicable. All voted aye; motion to approve carried. 7 -0. C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: "Sidewalk Facilities Plan" Staff presentation Mark Nolan, Transportation Planner addressed the Commission and presented a Sidewalk Facilities Plan for an amendment to the Pedestrian and Bike Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. Nolan explained the "new" Sidewalk Facilities Plan is based on part of the 2008 Comprehensive plan, the Living Streets policy and input from City staff. Nolan said at a work session the City Council requested an updated Sidewalks Facilities Plan prior to final approval of a Living Streets Plan. Nolan noted currently the "Plan" is in the "public comment" period of the process with the Council scheduled to hear the proposed amendment on November 3, 2014. Nolan concluded that numerous comments in support of the "Plan" have been received; including two negative comments. Page 6 of 10 Discussion Commissioner Seeley asked Mr. Nolan if it was found that pedestrians are unsafe without sidewalks. Nolan responded their findings indicate pedestrians are safer off the street. Commissioner Platteter commented that the proposed amendment is a piece of the proposed Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Plan could fold into the Comprehensive Plan when it's updated. Commissioner Lee asked Mr. Nolan if there was flexibility in sidewalk size. Mr. Nolan responded there is an element of flexibility; however, the City's goal is for a 5 -foot boulevard and 5 -foot sidewalk. Lee questioned how sidewalks are prioritized. Nolan said as the City develops its Capital Improvements Plan sidewalks are prioritized. Sidewalks can also be done on a case by case basis for safety reasons, connectivity to schools, etc. A discussion ensued with Commissioners wondering if streets can be narrowed, if boulevards are private or publicly owned and who is responsible for boulevard and sidewalk maintenance. In response to questions Mr. Nolan explained that streets can be narrowed when opportunities arise. Boulevards in residential areas are generally publically owned; however maintenance of the boulevard falls to the property owners. Nolan said discussions on boulevard plantings continue; reiterating boulevard maintenance is done by the property owners. Continuing, Nolan also reported that sidewalk maintenance falls to the property owners unless they are located on a State -Aid road or road connecting to public schools. Questions were raised if sidewalks reduce vehicle speed and if a narrower street reduces speed. Mr. Nolan responded he doesn't believe the introduction of sidewalks in itself reduce vehicle speed; however, when other engineering tools are implemented such as narrowed streets, bump outs, plantings, etc. speed is reduced. Nolan reiterated sidewalks provide safety for pedestrians. Commissioners asked if a tree study would be done during the sidewalk process, acknowledging trees could be lost through sidewalk construction. Mr. Nolan responded all sidewalks are subject to a feasibility study, property notice, public input etc. Nolan also said study is also done on which side of the street is best for the sidewalk and where possible trees would be saved. Commissioner Platteter said with regard to sidewalks and trees he has seen sidewalks introduced that actually go around trees. Nolan agreed, adding as previously mentioned all sidewalks are thoroughly studied and noticed before constructed. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Testimony Deanne Dubbs, 5316 Maddox Lane addressed the Commission on the issue of sidewalks. Page 7 of 10 Tom Dewey, 5612 Concord Avenue addressed the Commission on the issue of sidewalks Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing approved. Two residents on West Shore Drive addressed the Commission on the issue of sidewalks. Discussion Commissioner Forrest commented as she understands it a sideway improvement plan and public input process is required before City Council approves specific sidewalk locations. Continuing, Forrest said what's before the Commission this evening is an amendment that updates the Comprehensive Sidewalk Facilities Plan. This "update" provides the public with information on future sidewalk locations. Nolan agreed, reiterating all sidewalk improvement plans would be noticed and heard by the City Council before constructed; adding sidewalks can also "go away" or be added as the City evolves. The Comprehensive Plan Sidewalks Facilities plan doesn't signify immediate sidewalk construction. Commissioner Hobbs stated in his opinion its good that the City provides residents with a sidewalk facilities plan. Commissioners and Chair Staunton agreed, adding it provides transparency. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Sidewalk and Bike Facilities Plan. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Staunton reiterated he supports the amendment, adding transparency is important and the Sidewalk and Bike Facilities Plan provides that transparency. Staunton further noted all proposed sidewalks will be noticed by the City and heard by the City Council for review and approval. This also provides residents with the ability to share their concerns or support for sidewalks in their area. VII. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS A. Lot Division. David Hendel. 5320 Kelsey Terrace, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Teague reported that Mr. David Hendel on behalf of the property owners Paul and Jean Mooty, is requesting to shift the existing lot line that divides the property at 5320 Kelsey Terrace and Outlot B of the Parkwood Knolls 26`h Addition. Both properties are owned by the Mootys. The purpose of the request is to shift the side lot line to the north to make room for Page 8 of 10 an addition to the existing home. The Outlot appears to be a leftover remnant of Parkwood Knolls 26`h addition, that ended up being platted as an Outlot. The Outlot originally appears as part of Lot 26 in the Preliminary Plat. Planner Teague concluded t that staff recommends that the City Council approve the Lot Division of 5320 Kelsey Terrace and Outlot B of Parkwood Knolls 26`h Addition subject to the following findings: I. The proposed lot line adjustment does not create a new lot. 2. The Outlot and 5320 Kelsey Terrace are both held under the same ownership. The properties appear to be one lot. 3. The existing utilities on the Outlot would not be impacted. Approval is also subject to the following condition: The existing drainage and utility easement must be vacated prior to filing of the approving resolution with Hennepin County. Discussion Commissioners questioned why minor lot line rearrangements and party wall divisions can't be accomplished administratively. Teague explained that at this time Code requires Commission and Council review. Commissioner Lee commented that in her opinion the lot should be combined as one lot; not continue as two. Teague responded that would require a re- platting and at this time the property owner has requested this action. Motion Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend lot division approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Hobbs seconded the motion. Ayes; Hobbs, Olsen, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Staunton. Nay; Lee. Motion carried. VIII. CORESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Platteter noted this past Tuesday a work session on the proposed tree ordinance was held. Platteter said there was good discussion, adding he believes there is good momentum to move forward on the ordinance. Page 9of10 Commissioner Lee updated the Commission on the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan project. X. STAFF COMMENTS Planner Teague reported that the City Council approved the Beacon project for homeless youth. Teague further reported that staff is considering enacting a 30 -day lead time on variance applications. The extra time is needed to ensure that all materials are presented and reviewed by staff and the Commission before the meeting. Teague pointed out presently there is such a short turn over time that items are missing or revisions are needed and the Commission doesn't get them until the meeting. This isn't enough time for staff to comment or for Commissioners to make an educated decision. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hobbs moved meeting adjournment at 10:30 P.M. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. Respectfully submitted Page 10 of 10