HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 08-26 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUGUST 26, 2015
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
I1. ROLL CALL
9
Answering the roll call were: Lee, Strauss, Thorsen, Seeley, Nemerov, Olsen, Carr, Forrest and
Platteter
Absent: Hobbs, Halva
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
9
Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the August 26, 2015, meeting agenda. Commissioner
Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of August 12, 2015 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lee
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT:
City Manager Scott Neal invited members of the Commission to attend a guest speaker event on
Monday, September 14, 2015 from 8 am to 10 am. Neal added that Commissioners should "save this
date". He explained at this time a venue hasn't been secured and as soon as its secured he would
forward that information. ,
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance. Anne Bishop. 5732 France Avenue, Edina, MN.
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker presented her staff report concluding staff recommends approval. Based on the following:
• The practical difficulty is caused by the location of the home to the north.
1IPage
• The encroachment into the setback continues a setback pattern and will not affect neighboring
properties on the street scape; and
• The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home and existing floor plan.
Approval is conditioned on the home must be constructed per the proposed plans date stamped August
9, 2015.
Appearing for the Applicant
Greg Hansen, Sylvester Construction
Public Comment
Chair Platteter asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Thorsen
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; public
comment period closed.
Discussion
Chair Platteter commented that it appears everything is very straight forward. Commissioners agreed.
Motion
Commissioner Forrest moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff
conditions. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B. Variance. David and Lisa Ramsay. S42S Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker reported that the subject property is approximately 75 feet in width (as measured 50 feet
back from the front property line) and is 14,355 square feet (.29 acres) in area. The property backs up
to Minnehaha Creek. The home is two stories with an attached two car garage built in 1940.
Planner Aaker explained that the property owner is hoping to convert a portion of the existing garage
space into livable space, (mud room), and build an addition to the front of the garage to provide more
space to menuvere and store cars. The addition will include a dormer above the garage addition. The
roofline slopes towards the south side yard with one continuous roofline above the bedroom dormer
over to the new garage.
Planner Aaker reported that the attached garage with living space above was expanded southward in
1995 at a time when the side yard setback for garage area was required to be 5 feet. The garage is
located 6.4 feet from the side lot line and is legally nonconforming. The living space expansion above the
garage received a variance to match the 6.4 foot setback instead of the requirement at the time, (10 feet
plus additional setback for height). The garage may be expanded at the same setback given the alternate
setback standard that allows expansions of legal nonconforming structures at the same setback, (current
setback required for the garage is 10 feet). The living space/dormer area must be 10 feet from the side
21Mage
lot line because it is not an expansion of a legal nonconforming setback. The living space expansion
receieved a variance in 1995, so any expansion to the second floor within the 10 foot setback also
requires a variance.
Planner Aaker noted that the proposed garage addition with dormer above will. maintain the alternate
setback requirement to allow expansion of a nonconforming setback of the garage side wall on the main
floor, however, will not conform to the 10 foot side yard setback for living space on the second floor
given the roofline. The interior living space addition/dormer will be approximately 10.9 feet from the
south side lot line which is conforming to the required 10 foot setback, however, the roof line attached
to the dormer extends over the garage below and will be setback 6.4 feet to the side lot line, (same
setback as the existing garage with living space above). The side yard setback variance request addresses
roof structure area that extends from the 2nd floor dormer addition over and down to the garage
extension below. The roof area in question is lower than 5 feet in height and is non -habitable space. It is
the sloped roof area above the garage that overlaps the setback.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval based on the following findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted in the R- I Single Dwelling Unit District and complies
with all the standards, with exception of the side yard setback of the non -habitable
roof area. 4
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 side yard setback and the
existence of existing living space at the proposed nonconforming side yard setback.
4. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The addition will blend well with the existing architecture.
Approval of the variance 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: Survey dated June 29, 2015 and
building plans and elevation date stamped June 16, 2015.
Appearing for the Applicant
David and Lisa Ramsay, applicant and property owners.
Discussion
A discussion ensued on if a condition of the past variance was ever implemented.
Commissioners referred to a condition of approval to add casement windows in the garage
(side elevation) to break up building mass. Planner Aaker responded that minimal windows
were added on the east fagade; which is the garage side; however they were added to the new
addition above the existing garage, which is what was intended. She further noted that the
neighbor to the east worked with the previous homeowner on window placement to ensure
31Page-
that their privacy was not compromised because of the proposed addition 'and change in
elevation between properties.
Chair Platteter asked if the proposed addition meets the front yard setback requirement. Aaker
responded in the affirmative. She explained that originally it was determined that the applicants would
need a front yard setback variance; however, through averaging the front yard setback of all the houses
on that side of the street between intersections it was found that a front yard setback variance was not
required. Aaker further stated that it was determined that a side yard setback variance was required.
Commissioner Lee noted that the street at this location curves significantly. Aaker agreed, adding
because of the curve setbacks appear different.
Commissioner Carr commented that she doesn't like the existing (east) side wall or the proposed. She
said in her opinion the east building wall isn't attractive and the articulation is minimal at best.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Ramsay introduced her family, builder and architect, Phil Johnson, and explained they did not own
the property at the time the other two variances were granted. Ramsay said they have been working on
the addition for some time and believe what's proposed works best. Ramsay acknowledged when they
applied for a variance in June there was some confusion on "what the variance was for"; however, that
has been determined and they are seeking a side yard setback variance for a small portion of their
addition. .
Chair Platteter opened the public hearing.
Public Hearing
The following spoke in opposition to the requested variance:
Jacob Steen, Attorney, Larkin Hoffman representing resident Kristine Donatelle
Kristine Donatelle, 5427 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN
Chuck Donatelle, 5200 France Avenue, Edina, MN
Julie Donatelle, 6509 Willow
The following spoke in support of the requested variance:
Mark Bretheim, 5429 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN
Mark Swenson, 5501 Dever Drive, Edina, MN
Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place, Edina, MN
Paul Maenner, 5432 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN
Phil Johnson, Architect explained to the Commission the reasons for the variance were: to provide
adequate space for opening car doors in the garage area, and to convert a portion of the existing garage
into livable space (mudroom). A dormer would also be added above the new garage space to help
match roof lines.
Commissioner Carr stated that in her opinion windows are needed on the east building elevation and
asked if they would be receptive to adding window(s) on that side. Mr. Johnson noted there are
41 Page
windows on that side elevation, adding the differing heights and roof lines also soften that wall. Carr
said she agreed the differing heights help; however, continues to believe more needs to be done. Mr.
Johnson responded it could become a security issue if a window was added to the new garage addition.
He also asked the Commission to note that the stone on the front of the house will wrap around to the
side. 11
Chair Platteter commented that the Commission believes that more needs to be done on that elevation
(east) and asked the applicant to consider installing a window(s). Ms. Ramsay said they would consider
it, adding it was always their intent to ensure that the east elevation was softened in some form.
Commissioner Nemerov noted that the applicant was not responsible for the past variances and at this
time is "working with what they have" in trying to achieve an accessible garage without building to the
rear.
Chair Platteter asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Thorsen
moved to close the public hearing, Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; public
comment was closed.
Discussion
Commissioner Strauss commented that he was unclear on how water runoff gets to the street. The
builder responded that the gutters would flow to a drain box with 6 -inch lines thdt would run to a
popup.
Commissioner Lee commented that she finds this interesting; however after reviewing the plans she
believes the solution presented is best. Continuing, Lee said she doesn't find it unreasonable for the
homeowner to want adequate space (or just better space) when opening their car doors and creating
space in the existing garage for a mudroom isn't that unusual by today's standards. Lee said the
Commission needs to remember the applicants are working with "what they have", adding in reality the
area of the variance is minimal. Lee said she was very comfortable with the roof §loping away from that
side and that as previously mentioned the curve of the street and the ebb and flow of the homes would
blend; the street isn't linear. Lee concluded that she can support the request as presented.
Ms. Ramsay stated they are open to suggestions on sidewall articulation. She added they have every
intention to add softening elements to the east side building wall.
Commissioner Nemerov said he understands Ms. Donatelle's concerns; however, can support the
variance as presented.
Commissioner Forrest commented that while she believes the accessibility and safety of the garage is a
valid concern, a mudroom isn't. Forrest stated in her opinion the practical difficulty is the inadequacy of
the garage and without the addition there is no way to address that issue. Continuing, Forrest said the
lower garage area needs to be addressed and that a window can easily be added on that elevation to
break up the building mass. Forrest pointed out the east elevation slopes downward toward the
neighboring property so security shouldn't be an issue.
Chair Platteter commented that it appears a lot is going on with regard to the prgposed addition;
however, he stated in his opinion he supports the applicants advocacy of the creek and the existing tree
canopy. Platteter said in general this proposal makes sense. Building to the front allows preservation of
51Page
the urban forest and less disruption to the creek bed; while allowing the homeowner to increase their
garage space and provide a mudroom. Platteter concluded that he supports the project as proposed.
Motion
Commissioner Thorsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion.
Commissioner Strauss and Carr offered an amendment to the motion;'add a window into
the new garage portion of the addition for the purpose of articulation. Commissioners
Thorsen, Strauss accepted that amendment,
Commissioner Carr offered an amendment to the motion; add additional landscaping to
the east elevation to soften the impact of the addition from the east. Commissioners
Thorsen, Strauss accepted that amendment,
Commissioner Forrest offered an amendment expanding the practical difficulties to
include the marginal functionality of the garage and its proximity to the neighboring
property line preventing the garage from being expanded directly that way.
Commissioners Thorsen and Strauss accepted that amendment.
Commissioner Nemerov noted that he supports the variance as presented; however, has
concerns with the level of design detail.
Chair Platteter called for the vote; all voted aye; motion carried.
VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Sketch Plan Review. Titus/Eberhardt. 66th St at York Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch
plan proposal to redevelop the 5.6 acre parcel at 6550 Xerxes and 3250 66th Street
West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing buildings and redevelop the
site with the following two phase development: Phase 1 (3250 66th Street West): A 6-7
story, 230 -unit apartment building. Six floors of housing above the parking and amenities
area, and Phase 2 (6650 Xerxes Avenue): A 5-6 story, 145 -unit apartment building.
Five and four floors of housing above the parking and amenities area.
Teague explained that the primary entrance to the site would be off Xerxes Avenue.
There is a secondary access available off of York. Both of these access points exist
today. There is a shared access arrangement with the adjacent property owner at 3316
66th Street west. That shared access would also remain.
61Page-
Teague To accommodate the request, the following amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan would be required: Re -guiding of the site from RM, Regional Medical to CAC,
Community Activity Center. The proposed height (7 stories) and density (66 units per
acre) would meet the standards of the CAC. A rezoning of all the property to PUD,
Planned Unit Development is requested.
Teague reported that this property is located within an area of the City that is
designated as a "Potential Area of Change" within the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. he
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 is therefore requested to
determine if a Small Area Plan is necessary. A study is currently underway in this area as
part of the Planning Commission's work plan, adding the France Avenue Southdale Area
Development Principles have been shared with the applicant. They have been asked to
address each of the principles with any formal application.
Teague further asked the Commission to note that the applicant is not proposing any
affordable housing as part of this project. Given housing policy under consideration by
the City Council; this project should be required to provide affordable housing
consistent with the policy or 20% of the units designated for affordable housing.
Teague concluded that the development team is present to explain their proposal.
Appearing for the Applicant
Rich Kauffman, DLC Residential and Dennis Sutliff, Elness, Swensen Graham Architects
Discussion
Commissioner Olsen asked if the majority of the parking would be underground.
Teague responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the RMD District shrinks would the district continue to
be viable. Planner Teague responded that is a good question. Teague explained that the
Regional Medical District evolved because of the hospital and the need for medical uses
to be in close proximity. Teague reported that even if the area changes to CAC;
medical is still a permitted use in that district.
Commissioner Nemerov asked for clarification on the building setback variances.
Planner Teague responded that it has been the policy of the Commission and Council to
bring (whenever possible) buildings up to the street to enhance the pedestrian
experience. Teague did acknowledge because this project will be done in two phases
that details can change. Nemerov questioned what would happen if the details changed
from approval to build out. Teague said the applicants have indicated they would be
redeveloping through the PUD process, adding if there are changes the PUD would
7 1 P a g e
need to be amended. Nemerov mentioned he is a little concerned that this proposal is
in phases.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Kaufman addressed the Commission and gave a brief description of DLC, Inc. and
explained the proposed residential redevelopment would occur in two phases. He said
if the project proceeds they would be requesting a comprehensive plan amendment,
rezoning to PUD, and site plan approval. Kaufman said the majority of the apartment
units would be one, one -plus and two bedroom units. Kaufman concluded there will be
a small number of studio and three bedroom apartments.
Mr. Sutliff told the Commission ESG has a long history within this neighborhood. He
asked the Commission to note they embraced the France Avenue Southdale Area
Working Principles and Supporting Questions. Sutliff said this site is also a gateway site
and the intent is to create something dynamitic. Phase I would occur on parcels 2 and 3
and will consist of a 230 unit rental apartment with two levels of underground parking.
He reported that the existing Titus building will remain on parcel 1. When phase 2
commences the Titus building would be removed. With graphics Sutliff shared
schematics of the project.
Discussion
Commissioner Olsen asked about the affordable housing element. Mr. Sutliff said there
is a strong desire to implement affordable housing; however, they need to look for a
way to implement it. Sutliff said there will be tradeoffs; reiterating they are willing to
discuss it.
Commissioner Carr said she likes the design elements of the proposed building and was
impressed with the landscaping and the attention paid to pedestrian movements.
Commissioner Strauss said he agrees, he likes the building, adding the approach is
inviting.
Commissioner Forrest commented with regard to sustainability at this time the City is
looking for more than industry standards. Forrest said the City wants developers to go
above and beyond that and to also indicate measurable standards.
Commissioner Platteter said he has some concerns with the two phase concept and
timing. He added he would hate to see the properties on the east become orphan
properties. Continuing, Platteter said he can support the CAC designation for this area,
adding it makes sense to have all four corners CAC. Platteter stated in his opinion
affordable housing is needed period. With regard to the exterior of the building he
wasn't "blown away"; suggesting that the curve in the road is followed more closely. In
conclusion Platteter said the goal should be to view this parcel as part of a whole; not an
individual island. He asked them to ensure that special attention is made to
connectivity, transit options, and signals to traffic improvements to achieve the next
level for pedestrian movement.
Commissioner Nemerov said these four corners are important and suggested that the
City and developers work together to develop a connected area. He suggested the
possibility of walking bridges spanning the road.
Mr. Sutliff said that their intent is to be a good neighbor adding they have every
intention to grow the walkability. Sutliff said they are willing to work with city staff on
this issue.
Chair Platteter stated in this area public and private partnerships will be key to piecing
these areas together.
Commissioner Forrest commented that the buildings appear welcome and attractive
from all sides; however, suggested that the applicant makes sure when the building is
constructed that that element remains and isn't just drawings. Mr. Sutliff responded that
the step back approach from the street offers the appearance of smaller building mass ,
adding they have every intention of creating a buijding attractive from all sides.
Commissioner Forrest said she also was a bit concerned with the two phase element of
the proposal and asked the applicant if there is a time frame. Mr. Kaufman responded
that Phase I is ready to start in 2016 with Phase II within five to six years.
Commissioner Lee asked what makes this site say" Edina". Mr. Sutliff said this land use
element helps create a more mixed use area vs. just retail. The introduction of housing
with excellent access to transit and other amenities help the buildings residents to move
away from the automobile. Lee said in her opinion more work needs to be done in
engaging the street, she pointed out the limited street frontage make it difficult to
introduce retail. She suggest that the applicant's revisit their vision. She further added
the City also needs to decide what the City wants to see on these four corners. Does
the City want smaller shop fronts along the street with stepped back housing; or
something different. She asked the applicant to show how people are encouraged to
walk, not ride and how is the "true" gateway of this area established. Concluding, Lee
also stated she is looking for affordable housing in this development.
Commissioner Olsen agreed that much is proposed to be redeveloped at this
intersection/corner, adding she too would like to see how they will connect together.
She suggested that when they return with a formal applicant they show the connectivity
between these corners. Olsen suggested that the applicant look at the bigger picture
and how this fits into the greater Southdale area. Concluding, Olsen asked if there was
any opportunity for other uses on the site. Mr. Sutliff responded that adding retail
would complicate parking. He noted there is only a small amount of surface parking
available. He said they want to create special outdoor spaces; however, thlere are
restraints.
Commissioner Forrest asked the applicant to ensure that people feel invited to walk
through the area; she said she understands the difficulty in adding retail, suggesting that
amenities like dry cleaners, bike repair, uses that would be used by occupants of the
building may work.
Commissioner Nemerov asked the applicant who their residents are. Mr. Kaufman
responded he believes they will be the 30-stomethings that rent by choice., Nemerov
asked the applicant if they were confident they can fill these units. Mr. Kaufman
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Carr asked the applicant to take the time to work on the streetscape
and to work with the City on street calming measures on this corner and intersection.
Chair Platteter thanked the applicant for their presentation noting the importance of
connectivity and enhancing neighborhood walkability. 9
S. 2016 Work Plan
Planner Comments
Planner Teague commented that he continues to work on the 2016 Work Plan . ,
Chair Plateter suggested that for the next meeting staff indicate what the Commission accomplished in
2015. Planner Teague responded he would look into that and would welcome further comments from
the Commission..
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet of materials.
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Platteter asked Planner Teague where the City is with the Greater Southdale Area Study. He
added he would like the Commission to keep abreast of the study. Teague reported that at this time
the "Work Group" is waiting for the Council to appoint three new members to the Group; which the
Council will do at their next meeting. Teague further noted an RFI to engage a consultant has been
posted on the APA website along with mailed invitations
}
Commissioner Forrest told Commissioners the Edina Historical Society will conduct a house tour on
Saturday, September 13th.
X. STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague reported that the next meeting of the Planning Commission is September 30, 2015.
Planner Teague reported he is working on scheduling a date for the joint meeting of Commissioners
from Edina, Bloomington and Richfield. He said at this time he is looking at November 18, 2015.
1
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Thorsen moved adjournment at 10:20 PM. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion to adjourn carried.
Respectfully submitted
9
I
I
111 Page