Loading...
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