HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-22 Planning Commission Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
APRI 22, 2015
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Hobbs, Lee, Seeley, Strauss, Halva, Nemerov, Carr, Forrest and Platteter
Absent: Olsen and Thorsen
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Hobbs moved approval of the April 22, 2015, meeting agenda. Commissioner Carr
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT:
None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Subdivision. Janine and Jeffrey Johnson. 5825 Ashcroft Ave., Edina, MN
Staff Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission Janine and Jeffrey Johnson are proposing to subdivide
their property at 5825 Ashcroft Avenue into two lots. The existing home would be torn down,
and two new homes built on the new lots. To accommodate the request the following is
required: I subdivision; 2 Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and 31ot
area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,781 square feet for each lot.
Teague explained that both lots would gain access off Ashcroft Avenue. Within this
neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,790 square feet, median lot depth is 135 feet, and the
median lot width is 50 feet. The new lots would meet the median width and depth, but would
be just short of the median area. There are four significant trees on the site. Each one of these
trees would be maintained as a result of the subdivision. There are two smaller Cherry Trees
located along the north lot line that would also be saved.
Page 1 of 9
Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed
two lot subdivision of 5825 Ashcroft Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50
feet for each lot, and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,781 square feet for each lot.
Approval is based on the following findings:
I. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a
subdivision.
2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot width and depth and
nearly meet the median area.
3. The proposal would restore the property back to the form of the original plat, which
included two lots.
4. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because:
a. There is a unique practical difficulty to the property caused by the existing size of
the property which is two times the size of every lot on the block.
b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate
neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than most properties in
the area, including every lot on the block. The proposed subdivision would result
in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood.
C. The proposed lots would be the same size as the lots were originally platted.
d. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots
are of similar size to others in the neighborhood.
e. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of his property,
a 50 -foot wide lot, which is common to the area. In addition, the applicant would
be denied a subdivision with variances that has been previously approved with
these same circumstances by the City in the last few years.
Approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive
a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted:
a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may
require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements.
b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department.
C. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to review and approval of the city
engineer. The proposed plans shall meet all conditions outlined in the engineering
memo dated April 15, 2015
d. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property.
e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be
repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb -to -curb and from saw -cut to saw -
cut.
Page 2 of 9
f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new
homes.
g. Utility hook -ups are subject to review of the city engineer.
Appearing for the Applicant
Jeffrey and Janine Johnson, applicant and property owners
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest commented that she is having a hard time identifying the practical
difficulty. She acknowledged that the Ordinance was changed after approval of the Fairfax plat;
however, that Ordinance revision was to direct change; reiterating she is unsure of the practical
difficulties. Planner Teague explained in his opinion the practical difficulty is that the subject
property is double the size of all lots on this block, adding the proposed use of the property as
two lots is reasonable. Teague further noted that the subject lot is the only lot on this block
where two fifty foot lots were developed as one.
Commissioner Lee also indicated she too was having trouble with practical difficulties.
Continuing, Lee said in her opinion the practical difficulty is that this lot is being devalued
because it is a 100 -foot lot on a block where the rest of the lots are 50 -feet. Concluding, Lee
said she has no difficulty with the request for two fifty foot lots; however, can agree the one
home on two lots is out of character for this block.
Commissioner Nemerov asked if the large trees in the front (N -S) will stay. Planner Teague
responded from his discussions with the applicant they indicated they intend to save those
trees. Teague further noted that much would depend on driveway placement.
Applicant Presentation
Jeffrey Johnson introduced to the Commission his wife, Janine and realtor, Kim Melin. Johnson
gave a brief history of his property and the Fairfax plat and with graphics pointed out the
significance of the 500 -foot neighborhood and his property's location in that radius.
Continuing, Johnson delivered a power point presentation highlighting the following
There are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance to allow
reasonable use of the property. Without the granting of a variance they cannot do with
their land what the neighboring property owners can do with the same land.
This property is twice the width and land area of every other lot in its block (Block 7 &
Block 8).
The proposed subdivision and variance would create harmony because the lots would
be of similar size to that of other lots within this neighborhood.
Page 3 of 9
The character of the neighborhood would not be compromised because if divided the
lot would now be of similar size to the majority of lots within the 500 -foot
neighborhood. It was the original intent of the plat.
The subdivision meets all the standards set forth in the subdivision ordinance.
With regard to the trees Johnson said it is their intent to retain the two trees. He said he
believes the driveway can be poured in such a way as to save the tree on the north; however,
he added both trees may be trimmed.
Discussion
Commissioner Hobbs asked Mr. Johnson if he spoke with neighbors about the project. Mr.
Johnson responded in the affirmative. He reported that he held a neighborhood "open house"
in March that was attended by two neighbors. Johnson said both neighbors indicated their
support for the subdivision. Continuing, Johnson further noted he received two e- mails; one in
support and the other indicating they could not support the request on principle.
Public Hearing
Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue.
Commissioner Carr moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Discussion
Commissioner Nemerov asked if the preliminary plat were approved what would the setbacks
for the new home(s) be. Teague responded a recent change in ordinance dictates a 12 -foot
total side yard setback with no less than 5 -feet on one side. 6 -6 or 7 -5 is what the City
currently sees.
Commissioner Carr stated she can support the request as submitted. She further added that
she agrees with City staff on practical difficulties.
Commissioner Forrest said while it's not unreasonable for the applicant to want two lots she
continues to struggle with practical difficulties. Commissioner Forrest acknowledged the
neighborhood is changing and currently there are teardowns within this area on 50 -foot lots;
however, is skeptical on the practical difficulties but not strongly adverse to the request.
Chair Platteter indicated he can support the request, adding it is reasonable.
Commissioner Nemerov stated if the Commission was to approve the preliminary plat he
would like it conditioned that the lots need to be developed in compliance with the tree
ordinance. Commissioners agreed with that as a condition of approval.
Page 4 of 9
Motion
Commissioner Lee moved to recommend preliminary plat approval based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions to include compliance with the Tree
Ordinance. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Commissioner Forrest asked the applicant to be very careful with the Bur Oak during the
construction phase of the project.
Chair Platteter further requested that special attention was paid to condition d. "There shall
be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property."
VI. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Variance. Kelly Hayes, 6205 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker reported this item was continued at the last Planning Commission meeting so
the applicant could address concerns raised by Commission Members is regard to the quality of
building plans submitted.
Aaker said for your review the applicant submitted professionally drawn plans on April 15,
2015. The plans are consistent with the original plans and survey and the request for variance
remains the same with all other aspects of the plan conforming to ordinance requirements.
Appearing for the Applicant
Karen Hayes, applicant and property owner.
Discussion
A discussion ensued regarding the proposed second floor and if the existing walls would be able
to support the proposed addition. Commissioner Forrest suggested that if the Commission has
difficulty and are uncertain the existing walls could support the second floor they could
condition any approval on if more than 50% of the building walls are removed they must return
to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Lee said she also has an issue with the north elevation of the house. She
acknowledged the north elevation faces a parking lot; however, in her opinion this wall should
be broken up by adding a decorative band, windows or some other form of architectural detail
to break up the wall mass. Continuing, Lee further stated she has no problem with the
variance, adding her concern was if the project becomes a "tear down "; in her opinion, the
Page 5 of 9
applicant needs to return to the Commission for review. Lee added she also wants
architectural detail added to the north building wall.
Motion
Commissioner Forrest moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject
to staff conditions including the following conditions 1) should more than 50% of
the building walls be removed the applicant must return to the Commission; and 2)
add architectural detail to the north elevation. Commissioner Lee seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Lot Division procedure, Rezoning
procedure, side yard setbacks, regulations, R -2 District regulations
Planner Presentation
Chair Platteter asked Planner Teague to report on the revisions to the ordinance including
Commissioner Forrest's window well information.
Planner Teague reported that a definition has been added for window well. The definition
would include all types of window wells. Commissioner Forrest commented that basically she
would also like to see setbacks measured from the outer edge of the structure.
Planner Teague told the Commission there were three revised items.
• Define window well
• In Section 3 — Plan modifications — what triggers return to the Planning Commission;
• Non - conforming. Replacing duplex in the R -2 District — language added.
In summary Teague clarified the following changes to each section:
1) Lot Division /Party Wall. This change would allow a lot division (adjustment to an
existing lot line), and a party wall division of an existing duplex to be done
administratively. Teague reported that the majority of Cities in the area process these
types of request administratively. Teague further noted that this action doesn't create a
new lot, only changes a lot line or allows the split of a duplex along the party wall to
facilitate separate owners. In both cases no building, etc. is involved with the split.
2) Window Well. Added a definition of window well.
3) Plan Modifications. This section was changed to clarify when site modifications should go
back before the Planning Commission. Teague noted on page 5 strike all after site plan.
4) Procedure for Rezoning. This sections (4 &5) was amended to reduce the steps an
applicant takes to receive final rezoning approval. Presently it's a two -step process and
the amendment would create a swifter process for certain rezoning's from two -step to
one and one half.
Page 6 of 9
5) Building Coverage etc. (6 &7). Revisions add clarity to building coverage exemptions and
side yard setback requirement. Eliminate c. Interior side yard setback.
6) Section 8 — R -2 District Regulations. Teague said in this instance the suggestion is to
allow single family homes in the R -2 zoning district. Currently the Code prohibits it.
Teague said staff believes there is some disagreement from the Commission with the
proposed change.
7) Building Height Section 9. Corrects an error on the table.
8) Nonconforming R -2 Lots. This changes allow duplexes on existing nonconforming R -2
lot to be torn down and rebuilt within the need for variance.
Discussion
Commissioner Forrest said if the window well definition is approved she wants to reiterate she
would like the setback measured from the outermost edge of the window well surrounding
structure. Forrest also said she is hesitant on window wells on front facades and suggested that
they be subject to the same setbacks as the main house.
Chair Platteter also commented he continues to support the additional public hearing;
however, understands the time restraints.
Platteter said that at this time he believes the Commission can vote on all items except for
Section 8/R -2 District Regulations, adding that item should be voted on alone.
Motion
Commissioner Forrest moved to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance
Amendments to Chapter 32 and 36 of the Edina City Code excluding Section 8. R -2
District Regulations. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
Commissioner Carr moved to recommend approval of Section 8. R -2 District
Regulations. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.
A discussion ensued on Section 8. R -2 District Regulations with the majority of Commissioners
expressing objection to the proposed change. Commissioners indicated if the change were
permitted the diversity of the housing stock would change, affordability could be lost and the
buffer zone into the R- I District shrunk. Commissioner Nemerov noted that the locations of
Edina's R -2 zoning districts are scattered and depending on the area change could mean
different things. He suggested making a decision on this issue after adoption of Vision Edina.
Chair Platteter called for the vote: Ayes; Carr. Nays; Hobbs, Lee, Nemerov,
Olsen, Strauss, Platteter. Motion failed.
Page 7 of 9
C. Pentagon Park — Development Update (Scott Takenoff)
Planner Teague informed the Commission Pentagon Park is a 43 acre development that has
received preliminary approval to PUD, adding Scott Takenoff with Hillcrest is present this
evening for a project update.
Mr. Takenoff introduced himself and his team; Bob Close, Bob Close Studio, LLC and Tom
Witlock.
Scott Takenoff told the Commission Pentagon Park was constructed in the 1960's as a state of
the art office complex. The complex consisted of 8 three story office buildings, one four story
office building and a six -story "Tower ". All buildings are surrounded by surface parking.
Immediately north of the site is the Fred Richards Golf Course which is currently being studied
for repurposing. Takenoff delivered a power point presentation highlighting the sites past,
present (renovation of existing structures) and the future.
Continuing, Takenoff said the project will be developed in phases into a state -of- the -art
development with the emphasis on office use. Other uses could include a hotel, restaurants,
and retail. Takenoff further indicated they would also consider housing. Takenoff said if
housing is developed that could feed into the businesses reducing vehicle traffic. Takenoff said
he also envisions bike stations, electric car hookups, shared parking sites and underground
parking. Takenoff said one key element he remembers from past meetings with the
Commission and Council was to create the ability to keep the site active after 5 pm. Another
goal is to go from gray to green, adding the goal is to not have parking be the focal point.
Bob Close addressed the Commission and explained the six principles of the site:
• Green Streets
• Integrated Stormwater
• Pedestrian Friendly 77`h
• Connect west to east
• Multimodal connections
• Shared parking.
Mr. Witlock briefed the Commission on proposed building heights explaining building heights
would range from two to twelve stories based on location.
Discussion
Chair Platteter noted this area is also being studied for involvement in a regional trail system.
Mr. Takenoff agreed, adding Hillcrest would be meeting with those involved with the trail
system.
Commissioner Forrest commented that she observed increased activity on the site. Mr.
Takenoff responded that Hillcrest hired a general contractor to manage the demolition as the
project moves through its different phases. Continuing, Takenoff said he envisions a fresh
concept hotel and the creation of an active appealing space. Takenoff said he wants all
Page 8 of 9
components to mesh. He further noted that the phases are market driven and he is unsure if
they will break ground in 2015. Takenoff said patience is needed to redevelop the 42 -acre site
to its highest potential. Takenoff said he believes redevelopment will move west to east.
Commissioner Nemerov asked if the "refreshed" buildings are successful. Takenoff responded
in the affirmative. He said the tenants are smaller, adding they turned a C- building into a B, B+
building. Concluding, Takenoff reiterated this is a phased market driven redevelopment that
they hope will appeal to all; baby- boomers, millennials, everyone.
Chair Platteter thanked the development team for their update.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials.
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Hobbs briefed the Commission on past meetings of the Southdale France Area
Work Group and reported Saturday, April 25, 2015 a "Check -In" meeting is scheduled at the
Edina Senior Center from 10:00 -Noon. Hobbs said everyone is invited to attend.
Chair Platteter told the Commission he will be inviting the Heritage Preservation Board to
meet with the Commission sometime in May to learn their process. Platteter further noted
that he would like to schedule the Commission to take a "walk- about" in the greater Southdale
area, adding that would probably occur sometime in June.
Commissioner Lee reported she attended the Grand View open house. She noted that the
proposed concepts are changing rapidly in response to feedback and the design team may be at
a crossroads. The programming for the two major pieces, civic and residential, needs to be
determined in order to know what will actually fit on the site. Transportation and site
circulation are critical issues yet to be resolved.
IX. STAFF COMMENTS No comments.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Nemerov moved meeting adjournment at 10:30 pm. Commissioner
Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried.