HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-25 Planning Commission Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 25, 2015
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Hobbs, Lee, Seeley, Strauss, Thorsen, Nemerov, Olsen, Carr, Forrest
and Platteter
Absent: Halva
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Hobbs moved approval of the March 25, 2015, meeting agenda. Commissioner Thorsen
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Nemerov moved approval of the March 11, 2015 meeting minutes. Commissioner
Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT:
Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place addressed the Commission and asked the City to consider a
definition of a gable.
John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn, addressed the Commission and questioned if the variance
process was the route to take to appeal an interpretation of Code.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance — Request for Condition Revision — Molly Urbanski, 5800 Stuart Ave
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission is asked to re- consider the condition that
was put on their approved Variance that required a pervious driveway. The applicant is proposing a
rain garden in place of the pervious driveway, which was required as a condition of approval of the
variance by the Planning Commission.
1 Y
Concluding, Teague reminded the Commission the original request was to approve setback and
lot coverage variances to use the existing foundation and build a new home because the existing
home had significant mold and was uninhabitable.
Discussion
Commissioner Lee asked Planner Teague if as originally conditioned would pervious pavers "take care"
of the issue of run -off. Teague responded in the affirmative, adding either method would work.
Applicant Presentation
Ms. Urbanski addressed the Commission and explained that since the last variance meeting she
researched storm water management and hired Civil Site Group to conduct a storm water
study of her property. Urbanski also reported that Kevin Bigalke of the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District was also consulted. Urbanski said after thoughtful study she believes that
pervious pavers aren't the only option that would reduce storm water run -off, noting the soil in
the area is clay. Urbanski asked the Commission to note their unique situation, adding pavers
would be problematic due to the maintenance issues. Concluding, Urbanski said she believes as
requested that the use of a rain garden would mitigate the issue and asked the Commission to
reconsider their previous condition of approval requiring the driveway to be constructed of
pavers.
Discussion
Commissioner Lee asked the applicant what currently exists in the proposed driveway area. Ms.
Urbanski responded that presently that area is sod. Commissioner Lee asked the dimension of the
driveway. Urbanski responded she was unsure of that exact measurement. Lee commented that the
absorption rate for clay is slower; however, in her opinion the rain garden is small and the pavers would
accomplish the goal as conditioned.
Commissioner Forrest commented that the site is already over on lot coverage asked the applicant
when all is "said and done" is there an increase in impervious surfaces. Ms. Urbanski responded the
new house will be built on the existing foundation, adding everything remains the same as previously
indicated and approved.
Commissioner Hobbs commented that careful attention should be paid to the plantings selected for the
rain garden. Hobbs asked Ms. Urbanski how the plantings were chosen. Ms. Urbanski responded that
she attended a Nine Mile Creek workshop on native plantings.
Public Hearin
Chair Platteter opened the public hearing.
2
No one spoke on the issue. Commissioner Lee moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner
Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed.
Discussion
Commissioner Lee stated she continues to be conflicted with the request. She noted it appears both
options work; however, she sees no reason to amend the conditions of approval. Ms. Urbanski
explained the upkeep needed to ensure that the pavers were working to their best capacity would be
difficult to manage, adding the alternative also addresses the drainage concerns.
Commissioner Carr asked Planner Teague if City engineering staff reviewed the plans, and if so, what
was their opinion. Planner Teague responded that engineering staff did weigh in; however, didn't
indicate which route they preferred. Engineering stated both would work.
Motion
Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the
request revising a condition of approval, adding the alternative presented serves the same
purpose. Approval is also conditioned on Watershed District approval. Commissioner
Hobbs seconded the motion and added an amendment requiring the addition of more
native grasses in the rain garden. Ayes; Strauss, Thorsen, Olsen, Nemerov, Carr, Forrest,
Platteter. Nays; Hobbs and Lee. Motion carried 7 -2.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague said the Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council
on proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments for lot divisions, rezoning's, side yard setback
requirements and R -2 district regulations. Teague updated Commissioners on the changes made to
each section per their input.
Discussion
A discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement on the changes made; however, added that the
Ordinance should also include a definition of window well; eliminate the egress window reference , and
add to Section 3 36 -130 Plan Modifications. Commissioners reiterated the need for a definition of
window well, pointing out "window wells, egress windows, have created some confusion.
Public Hearing
Chair Platteter opened the public hearing
---4 3 Y---
Mike Korman, 6113 Beard Avenue said his concern is with Sections 4 & 5 adding that he has a 1955
rambler and would appreciate it if the Commission would act quickly on the proposed ordinance
amendments.
John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn Avenue told the Commission a definition of window wells is needed in
the code; along with how /where to measure building height. Crabtree said another issue that concerns
him is with trespass during tear /down rebuilds.
Jim Grotz, 5513 Park Place stated he agrees with Mr. Crabtree and his suggestion of providing a
definition of window well. Grotz further said residents need protection from those who cheat the
system.
Chair Platteter asked if anyone would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Olsen
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Discussion
Commissioners discussed the necessity (as previously mentioned) of providing a definition of
"window well ". Planner Teague reminded the Commission that a recent Code amendment
now requires a 3 -foot rule; thereby reducing trespass onto another's property to gain access to
the rear yard area. Commissioners agreed that was a needed amendment; however they
added a definition of window well was also necessary.
Commissioner Hobbs asked the reason for the required "3- foot" rule. Commissioner Forrest
explained the reason was mostly to provide protection for smaller lot neighborhoods by
requiring a 3 -foot unencumbered access strip into the rear yard. After a brief discussion
Commissioners suggesting eliminating the word "egress" and providing a definition for "window
well ".
The discussion continued on allowing an R -2 lot to be developed as an R- I as a principle use.
There was some concern that allowing this without going through the process could eliminate
affordable housing options; however, it was acknowledged when it comes to teardown /rebuilds
would anything be considered affordable. Commissioners felt more discussion in needed on
this topic before they vote on it. Commissioner Thorsen asked Planner Teague if the City
receives many applications going from an R -2 to an R -1. Teague responded that request isn't
asked very often.
Chair Platteter said in summary that more work is needed before adopting all the proposed
amendments. Planner Teague agreed adding he would bring back revisions.
4 �
C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan
Presentation
Commissioner Lee introduced to the Commission members of the Wooddale Valley View
(WVV) Work Group in attendance: Connie Carrino, Bill Weber, Peter Musty and Bill Smith.
Lee thanked those members for their work on the small area plan.
Continuing, Lee said in her opinion the Wooddale Valley View process worked very well with
active engagement from the community throughout the process. Lee reported that throughout
the process it became apparent that the four corners (Wooddale Valley View) are significant
Lee delivered a power point presentation on the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan.
Discussion
Commissioner Hobbs referred to the WVV plan and asked Commissioner Lee where in the
City a 30 -unit per acre development can be found. Commissioner Lee responded she's not
sure; however, the density follows the goal of capping building height. Chair Platteter asked if
anyone knows what the building height/density is at the SW corner of the plan area. Planner
Teague responded that he believes that building is three stories, adding, he was unsure of the
density. Platteter suggested looking into the density of that site prior to City Council, adding a
visual example would be of benefit.
Commissioner Carr commented that she thinks the "Plan" is terrific and thanked everyone for
their hard work on the Plan. Carr stated she wonders if the WVV Plan was too detailed for
the Comprehensive Plan. She referred to building heights /stories, etc. detail and asked if an
application was submitted with greater building height and /or density would the Comprehensive
Plan need to be amended. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Forrest
commented that the WVV Plan could be considered an overlay district which offers protection
of the guiding principles. Commissioner Carr said that personally she doesn't like repetitively
amending the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Nemerov stated he thinks the plan is very well done; however, has some
questions on the vision and how to achieve the vision, adding in his opinion if the vision is
successful parking and an increase in traffic could become an issue. Nemerov said he visited a
similar area in another city that underwent a very successful "change "; however, that change
brought increased traffic. Commissioner Lee said she could envision that scenario happening
here, adding she believes the "Plan" would allow for it. Lee further noted that if a
redevelopment spark occurs the "Plan" does address structured parking.
Commissioner Forrest commented that in achieving the "vision" so much depends on the
individual property owners. Forrest also reported that the WVV work group presented this
plan to the Transportation Commission.
Public Hearing
Chair Platteter opened the public hearing.
No one spoke to the issue.
Commissioner Nemerov moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Olsen seconded
the motion. Public hearing closed.
Discussion
A discussion ensued with Commissioners complimenting the plan and its guiding principles.
Planner Teague was asked to clarify the process.
Planner Teague explained the Planning Commission would be required to adopt the plan as part
of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan would be forwarded to the City Council for their
adoption and sent to Met Council for their comments.
Motion
Commissioner Carr moved adoption of the Wooddale Valley View Small Area Plan
into the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion.
All voted aye; motion carried.
VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Vision Edina
Presentation
Assistant Manager, Karen Kurt delivered a power point presentation on Vision Edina. Kurt
reported that the Vision Edina initiative worked with local residents, organizations and
businesses to develop Edina Vision 20/20 to replace the previously adopted and updated Vision
Edina. Kurt said the Council is seeking feedback from all board and commissions prior to their
work session on April 2I t
Comments
Commissioner Olsen asked the number of survey participants. Kurt responded that 591
individuals were surveyed.
Commissioner Thorsen asked if the survey was done randomly. Kurt responded that the
survey group was self - selected.
--1 6 Y---
Assistant Manager Kurt reported an open house on Vision Edina is planned for April 14`h and
Council approval is scheduled for May. Concluding, Kurt asked Commissioners to provide
feedback to her individually, Speak Up Edina or email at mail _.edinamn.gov
Chair Platteter thanked Assistant Manager Kurt for her presentation.
B. LIVING STREETS
Presentation
Mark Nolan City engineering staff presented to the Commission a draft of the Living Streets
Plan and delivered a power point presentation. Nolan concluded the goal is for adoption of the
plan at the May 5`h Council meeting. Nolan further explained that parts of the Plan would be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
Chair Platteter asked who decides which part of the Living Streets plan is adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan. Nolan responded that staff and Council would decide what sections
would go into the plan.
Commissioner Carr asked Planner Teague if in the future applicants would be required to
design their plans to be consistent with the Living Streets Plan. Planner Teague responded in
the affirmative.
Commissioner Nemerov said the plan is done very well; however he questioned how this plan
will be publicized to provide clarity on the plan and to let people know there is a plan. Planner
Teague commented that Living Streets could be added to the developer's checklist. Teague
further explained that in 99% of all redevelopment projects staff meets with the applicants,
developers, surveyors, etc., adding at these meetings staff could provide them with information
on Edina's Living Streets Plan and Edina's goal toward Living Streets. Sketch Plan Review also
provides staff, the Commission and Council opportunities to address Living Streets.
Commissioner Nemerov reiterated his support for the plan further suggesting community
outreach, noting that if adopted Living Streets will be a culture change for some residents.
Mr. Nolan agreed, and in response to Commissioner Nemerov reported outreach programs
will be started in the near future. Chair Platteter agreed on the importance of outreach, adding
keeping communication open on this topic is a must.
Commissioner Forrest said in her opinion the Living Streets Plan is an excellent tool to have in
the City's tool box. Forrest said without proper community outreach and clarification
residents may believe "everything will start tomorrow" and won't view this plan as a future
product.
Chair Platteter agreed, adding the public needs to remember this is a 50 -year plan.
The discussion concluded with Commissioners expressing their support for the plan, and the
layers in the plan, acknowledging in Edina the "one size fits all" neighborhood doesn't apply.
Chair Platteter thanked Mr. Nolan for his update.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Olsen reported that the kick -off of the France Southdale Area Plan would take
place at the Edina Senior Center on Thursday March 26th, from 6:30 -9:00 pm. Olsen said all are
invited to attend.
X. STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague reported that the City Council appointed the following to the France Southdale
Area Plan work group: Michael Schroeder, Steve Brown, Peter Fitzgerald and Lori Severson.
Teague further reported that the Commission appointed JoAnn Olsen and Steve Hobbs as
Planning Commission representatives to the work group. Teague said at the kick -off meeting
on March 26th, business owners and residents would be appointed.
Chair Platteter thanked everyone for their participation in the meeting.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Strauss moved meeting adjournment at 9:45 pm. Commissioner Thorsen
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
�.- � � thy-► ��'���'� � i1 �),
(a1