Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-30 Planning Commission Meeting Minuted RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Answering the roll call were: Hobbs, Lee, Strauss, Thorsen, Ma, Kivimaki, Nemerov, Olsen, Carr, Forrest and Platteter III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the September 30, 2015, meeting agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of September 9, 2015 meeting minutes. Commissioner Nemerov offered an amendment to the minutes. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. f'l V. COMMUNITY COMMENT: VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Edina Pet Hospital LLC. 7701 Cahill Road, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague presented his staff report noting the following: Staff believes the proposal is justified for the following reasons: I. The site contains mature trees and utility equipment including a telephone pole and cable that would prevent a code compliant sign to be located in the southwest corner of the site. 2. The building has little visibility for clients coming to the site from the east on 78th Street. 3. The building sits lower than 78th Street, which adds to the difficulty in visibility. 4. The two signs combined would be less than half of the square footage allowed for monument signs on this site. S. The variance criteria are met. Planner Teague said the practical difficulty is the site's location at 78th and Cahill, two very busy streets. There are mature trees, and utilities located along the south lot line that creates a practical difficulty in meeting the setback requirement. The building and site in general sits lower than the street; the building is screened by mature trees as traffic approaches the site from the east on 78th Customers may miss the turn on Cahill, as there is no building identification along 78' Street. A much larger (80 square foot) Code compliant sign could be located at the southwest corner of the site; however, utilities would have to be moved, and mature trees would have to be taken out. Continuing, Teague said the unique circumstances are the location of the above mentioned utility equipment and the mature trees along south lot line. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested variances for 7701 Cahill Road, based on the following findings: 1. The practical difficulty is cause by the location of utilities and mature trees along the south lot line that would prevent the applicant from building a larger sign to meet the City Code requirements. 2. The building and site in general sits lower than the street; the building is screened by mature trees as traffic approaches the site from the east on 78th. Customers may miss the turn on Cahill, as there is no building identification along 78th Street. 3. The two signs combined would be less than half of the square footage allowed for monument signs on this site. Approval is subject to the following conditions: I . The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Site Plan dated stamped August 17, 2015. • Sign plans and elevations date stamped August 17, 2015. Appearing for the Applicant Jill Eversman, Edina Pet Hospital Discussion Commissioner Carr asked if snow removal could compromise sight lines for the new sign. Planner Teague responded that West 78th Street is a busy street and snow removal and maintaining sight lines is a priority, adding the sign should not be compromised because of its location on the property; off the right-of-way. Commissioner Forrest questioned the distance between the sign and the corner. Teague responded the distance is 40+ feet. Commissioner Strauss asked if there are any future plans to add a sidewalk on that side of West 78th Street that could impact the sign. Planner Teague responded that he is unsure of future sidewalk plans; however, the sign wouldn't be compromised because the sign is located on the property; not the right- of-way. Commissioner Nemerov raised the question of practical difficulties with regard to the setback for the sign and suggested that if approved another finding (#4) be added that acknowledges another difficulty in meeting setback would require the removal of a large tree. Applicant Presentation Ms. Eversman addressed the Commission and explained she met with City staff and between them they determined the importance of the existing large tree and the City's goal to retain as many of the large trees as possible. Ms. Eversman further explained that because the building sits lower visibility is especially difficult as traffic approaches the site from the east. Eversman said when it's an emergency situation people sometimes drive right by. She stated the additional sign would aid in finding the hospital. Public Hearing Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Thorsen further suggested that a finding is added to the practical difficulties indicating that preserving the large tree supports the need for a I 0 -foot sidestreet setback. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B. Variance. John Colliander. 6012 Halifax Avenue, Edina, MN. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission the applicant is requesting a 1.3 -foot side yard setback variance to add an addition to the south side of the existing garage. Aaker reported the following Staff believes that the practical difficulty is that the home was originally built as a rambler and was subsequently remodeled with a 2nd floor added by a previous home owner and prior to the current (deeper), setback requirements. The current design proposal has been based on the previous code that would have allowed for a 5 foot setback on both sides if wall height doesn't exceed 15 feet. The lot is pie shaped as is the neighbors, so structures move farther from one another as they go back in their respective properties reducing any impact on neighboring properties. Continuing, Aaker said the addition makes sense given the existing floor plan and location of the garage. The narrow garage cannot be improved upon without the benefit of a variance. The garage is currently substandard and is not a two car width garage as required by city code. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance based on the following findings: 1. The property with an addition of the garage width, mudroom and pantry and the request to deviate from the side yard is a reasonable use of the property. 2The home is appropriate in size and scale with the addition of garage width allowing reasonable use of the under -sized two car garage. Mere is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements due to the existing floor plan and desire to maintain the character of the home. 4There are circumstances unique to the property that necessitates a variance to make reasonable use of the property. The garage is currently under sized with the proposed additions minimal to create functional spaces. Aaker concluded that approval is subjects to the following conditions; the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Architectural site plans date stamped: August 28, 2015 • Building plans/ elevations date stamped: August 28, 2015. Appearing for the Applicant Jon Colliander, Applicant and Shawn Everts and Anne Reddy, Homeowners Discussion Commissioner Thorsen asked staff if the City has a standard two stall garage width. Planner Aaker responded that the City doesn't have language that addresses minimum or maximum two stall garage width; however, she said 22'X22" or larger is what the City sees most often for a two stall. Commissioner Nemerov asked when the original house was built. Planner Aaker responded she is unsure of the exact date; however believes it predates the 1960's. Commissioner Lee asked Planner Aaker if the existing home was compliant. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative, adding the reason a variance is needed now was because of the June 2015 ordinance change. Commissioner Carr asked if the City received any comments from neighbors. Planner Aaker responded no negative comments were received. Commissioner Hobbs asked Planner Aaker if the driveway was changing. Planner Aaker responded at this time she is unsure if the driveway would change. She explained that driveways do not require permits; however, a new curb cut would require a permit from the Engineering Department. Commissioner Forrest asked for clarification on the variance. Planner Aaker explained that this past June the zoning ordinance changed requiring a 60 -foot wide lot to require a minimum setback of 12 -feet total with no less than 5 -feet on one side. Aaker pointed out the current setback on one side is 5 -feet; therefore in order to be compliant with the new code the setback on the opposite side would need to r 4 � be 7 -feet. The applicants are requesting a setback of 5.7 -feet; not the required 7 -fee; therefore a 1.3 - foot side yard setback is required. Applicant Presentation Mr. Colliander explained that the new homeowners would like a larger garage door to provide adequate clearance. Colliander said the current garage door width is 15 -feet and the homeowners desire a 16 - foot wide door for better maneuverability. Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. Public Hearing No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Commissioner Forrest commented if approved it is good to note that the side requiring the variance abuts the neighbor's garage. Mr. Everts agreed. He added the next door neighbors support the request as proposed. Commissioner Nemerov said he wonders if this would pass the "bobcat" test. Planner Teague responded he is unsure of that; however required clearance is 3 -feet. Commissioner Lee agreed that it is a valid point on how machines get onto the property without trespass. Commissioner Forrest asked if the stoop would be removed. Mr. Colliander responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lee stated for the record that she is having difficulty justifying the variance. She said the previous addition took a rambler and made a two story home which took advantage of the existing floor plan/foundation; adding an interior element which is now an issue. Lee said in her opinion the end result is a significant change for the neighborhood that she can't support. Commissioner Carr commented she agrees that the floor plan shouldn't be an issue to support the variance; however, in her opinion the angled lot shape created the practical difficulty; supporting the need for a variance Motion Commissioner Carr moved variance approval based on staff findings and the additional finding that the angle of the lot presents a practical difficulty. Commissioner Forrest moved to amend the findings to include impact is minimal due to the garage to garage layout between homes. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Ayes; Hobbs, Strauss, Thorsen, Nemerov, Olsen, Carr, Forrest, Platteter. Nay, Lee. Motion carried. C. Variance. Andrew Vick. 5120 West 44th Street, Edina, MN 5 Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the Commission the setback variances are being requested to add onto a home located in the north east corner of West 44th Street and Brookside Terrace. The owner is requesting a variance to allow an addition to his home at nearly the same nonconforming front yard setback along West 44th Street as existing and an extension to the west side of the home that will provide a 15.7 foot setback from Brookside Terrace. Improvements will include a basement rec room, a main floor living room and a master bedroom with bath on the second level. A conforming mud room behind the home is also proposed. The owner is proposing a patio on the west side of the home to be located 6 feet to the westerly lot line/Brookside Terrace. The project is a major remodel and addition to an existing nonconforming single family home. The architect has indicated that less than 50% of the existing exterior wall area will be removed for the project. Aaker explained that all of the improvements will allow for a reasonable expansion of the property given the existing floor plan and deep setback requirements from both West 44th Street and Brookside Terrace. The property must maintain two front yard setbacks along both 44th Street and Brookside. The required setback from west 44th Street is established by the front yard setback of the home to the east located at 5116 West 44th Street. The home to the north fronts Brookside Terrace so the setback for the subject property is dictated by the front yard setback of the neighbor to the north. The home to the north facing Brookside and located at 4375 Brookside Terrace is farther back on their lot, (30.1 feet), than the minimum 15 side street setback standard required for a typical corner lot. Continuing, Aaker reported that the subject property is located on the north side of west 44th Street and east of Brookside Terrace consisting of a two story home with a detached two car garage built in 1920. The lot is 11,360 square feet in area. The owner is proposing additions and improvements to be setback from the front, (south), lot line approximately 48.7 feet, which is almost the same distance as the existing home at 48.9 feet. The west side wall of the new home addition will be at 15.7 feet from Brookside Terrace with a proposed patio to be within 6 feet of the westerly/Brookside Terrace lot line. The patio requires a setback variance from the west lot line of 24.1 feet. Aaker noted that the setback from Brookside Terrace is established by the front yard setback of the home to the north, which was built at a much later date, (1978), than the subject home built in 1920. If there were no adjacent homes fronting Brookside Terrace then the side street setback from Brookside Terrace for the subject home would be 15 feet and the addition would be conforming. However, the patio as proposed would still not conform to a typical 15 foot side street. Continuing, Aaker noted that spacing between the home to the north and the side wall of the detached garage closest to the adjacent home will remain at over 60 feet. The back wall of the home will still be over 110 feet from the closest point of the home to the north. So spacing between improvements and the existing home to the north will remain generous. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the exception of the patio setback from Brookside Terrace. The patio should be approved at a setback no closer to Brookside Terrace than the addition to the home. Approval is based on the following findings: 6 The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is caused by the location of the home to the north and the home to the west. b) The encroachment into the setback will maintain a typical side street setback of 15 feet. C) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing home. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following condition: I. The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped, August 28, 2015. Appearing for the Applicant Andrew and Janelle Vick Discussion Commissioner Lee asked if the City has any plans to improve Brookside Terrace. Planner Aaker responded that Brookside Terraces has been a gravel road for decades and to date the City has no plans to improve it. Commissioner Olsen asked if the patio indicated on the plans is an existing structure. Planner Aaker responded it is; however, the setback for the existing patio is non -conforming; and if replaced as indicated would need a variance. Aaker explained staff felt that the setback variance for the patio could be avoided with redesign. Applicant Presentation Ms. Vick addressed the Commission and explained that Brookside Terrace is a gravel "street" that serves two homes to the rear of their property. Ms. Vick said their plans were shared with all neighbors who have indicated their support for the project. With regard to the patio Mr. Vick said the patio would be rebuilt exactly as is; the size would not be increased. This allows the grove of trees that screen the patio to remain. Commissioner Carr asked for clarification on the patio. The architect reported that the existing patio would be removed to accommodate the renovations and then rebuilt. Chair Platteter asked if any trees would be removed. Mr. Vick responded that one tree would be removed, adding they recently planted a new Locust tree which would remain. Chair Platteter opened the public hearing Public Hearing No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Carr moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close public hearing carried. Discussion A discussion ensued on the existing patio and the patio after renovations are completed with Commissioners noting as presented that patio is buffered by a row of trees. Commissioners indicated they want those trees to remain. Commissioner Carr commented that she can support the request as submitted including the variance for the patio. She acknowledged the discussion on the patio and staff's position that it could be redesigned to conform; stating she supports all variances including the variance for the patio being rebuilt in its entirety. Commissioner Hobbs said he agrees. Maintaining that row of trees is important and impact from the patio if any is minimal. Commissioner Thorsen also noted that the "street" Brookside Terrace could be considered a "shared driveway" since it only serves two homes. Chair Platteter asked if any portion of the patio was in the right-of-way. Planner Aaker responded that the patio was not in the right-of-way. Commissioner Lee said it was refreshing to see the majority of the house being left. She said the plans as presented are great; it's a good approach, adding the street scape is interesting and the flow continues to make sense. Motion Commissioner Olsen moved variance approval based on staff findings to include approval of the patio as depicted. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. D. Variance. Meriwether felt. 4100 Grimes Avenue, Edina, MN. Planner Presentation Planner Aaker told the Commission the subject property is located west of Grimes Ave. consisting of a two and one half story home with a detached two car garage. The applicant is planning to move the detached garage back farther into the rear yard remodel the interior of the home and add a front porch to the fagade to add interest and character to the home. The plan includes a front porch addition which requires a front yard setback variance. The front porch is proposed to be 8.58' x 12.5' or 107.25 square feet in area. The zoning ordinance requires that the front yard setback is established by averaging the front yard setbacks of the homes on either side. The average front yard setback required for the subject property is 35.34 feet. The existing home provides a 35.46 foot front yard setback which is slightly farther back than the average. The ordinance allows a porch to encroach into the required front yard setback area by a maximum of 80 square feet. The porch is proposed to be 8.58 feet deep by 12.5 feet wide. The porch exceeds the allowable encroachment of 80 square feet in the front yard area by 28 square feet. r Aaker pointed out the home was originally a rambler built in 1958 that had a M/2 story addition added in 1998 by a previous owner. The plan for a porch improves upon a previous remodel and addition to the original rambler with the current sturcture providing enough space without the need for a complete teardown-rebuild of the home. If the existing home were removed, a conforming plan could be designed with the desired front porch. The plan is to maintain the existing home so retrofitting the existing structure can be difficult given the current code requirements. The goal is to allow enough porch area to balance the front fagade and allow seating. Planner Aaker concluded that staff supports the variance as proposed and puts forth the following findings: 1. With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The additions are to an existing home and must conform regarding current conditions. A porch would be easily attainable with all new construction, (tear-down/re-build). 2. The proposed porch will blend well with the eclectic nature of the Morningside neighborhood. 3. The imposed setback limits design opportunity for a porch. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing from the street. The addition will enhance the property and will not detract from the surrounding neighborhood and will still provide adequate spacing to the street. Appearing for the Applicant Meriwether Felt, Architect and Jonathan Glover property owner, Discussion Commissioner Forrest noted that the proposed porch must remain open. Planner Aaker agreed adding approval is conditioned on the porch remaining open. Commissioner Carr asked how far the porch would encroach into the front yard setback. Planner Aaker responded the encroachment is between 8.5 -9 -feet and the porch is 12 '/z -feet wide. Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. Public Hearing No one spoke to the issue. Commissioner Carr moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion varied. Discussion Commissioner Strauss questioned if the Commission should revisit the 80 sq. ft. allowance if it appears that "number" isn't working and the Commission continues to get variance requests. Chair Platteter commented that it doesn't happen often; however, it's a good point. Commissioner Forrest said originally the thought was to cover the stoops; however, in some instances covering the stoop can exceed the allowance. A discussion ensued with Commissioners agreeing the request made sense; the porch was proportional and reasonable. Motion Commissioner Car moved approval of the variance subject to staff findings and staff conditions. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Taprooms, Brewpubs, Wineries and Distilleries. Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that the City Council is considering an amendment to Chapter 4 of the City Code regarding alcoholic beverages. As part of that consideration the Planning Commission is asked to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow taprooms. brewpubs, breweries, and distilleries in Edina. Teague explained that currently code allows a brewery, distillery and winery in the PID, Planned Industrial District; however doesn't allow a brewpub or taproom anywhere. The reason being is that currently a restaurant like Granite City the restaurant use is permitted; however, the distilling is not permitted in the PCD or MDD districts. Likewise a distillery is an approved use in the PID zoning district; however, a taproom or cocktail room would not be a permitted use in that district because the "retail" component isn't allowed. Thus the need for amending the code. Teague said the City Council would like feedback from the Commission on amending the code to allow Taprooms, Brewpubs and Distilleries. Concluding, Planner Teague delivered a presentation highlighting Taprooms and Brewpubs in other communities and how those communities address them. Discussion Chair Platteter asked if a brewpub would be tied to food. Planner Teague responded that the draft ordinance for a brewpub requires a minimum of 30 restaurant seats. Teague explained that currently manufacturing isn't permitted in the PCD district and the brewpub concept includes manufacturing with restaurant. Commissioner Thorsen stated with regard to allowing taprooms and the manufacturing of beer in the PID zoning district it may be wise to also allow food or food trucks. Planner Teague said the problem with that is a "sit down" food establishment and/or food trucks are not an allowed use in the PID zoning district. The PID district is for manufacturing; no retail which is why the code needs to be amended to allow not only the manufacturing aspect but the use of a "taproom" or "cocktail" room. Allowing food would be an additional component. Continuing, Thorsen said in his opinion if the City wants successful taprooms allowing food trucks in the PID zoning district would be important. Commissioners said they agreed, adding it is wise to allow food where alcoholic beverages are served. Commissioner Carr questioned if the City would put limitations on the number of taprooms or brewpubs allowed in the City. Teague responded that he believes there would be no limit; however, parking would need to comply, which may reduce location options. Chair Platteter questioned if there was a radius limit for proximity to residential or schools. Planner Teague responded that is addressed as part of the liquor permit licensing requirements Commissioner Hobbs asked if law enforcement had weighed in on the proposed changes. Teague said law enforcement is involved and so far no red flags have been raised. Hobbs said it would be interesting to hear if "crime" went up in communities after they permitted taprooms and brewpubs. Teague said he would be willing to look into that and report back. Commissioner Strauss asked if anyone knows the hours of operation for taprooms, adding he assumes brewpubs would be open regular restaurant hours. It was reported that taprooms usually have limited hours because the owner(s) of the taproom(s) may also work another job. It was noted taprooms usually have limited evening and weekend hours. Commissioner Hobbs also asked if odor from distilling could become an issue. Planner Teague responded that odor is hard to assess; however, the City's health department may know about the odor aspect of operating taprooms or brewpubs, adding he can check with them. Chair Platteter asked Planner Teague if other zoning districts should be considered. Planner Teague said he took a more conservative approach. Commissioners agreed a more conservative approach may be best until the City sees how the code amendments are working. Commissioner Nemerov asked if staff has received any feedback from those in the industry. Teague responded that he has received at least 5 inquiries from people wanting to open brewpubs; nothing on taprooms. A discussion ensued with Commissioners in agreement that the proposed amendments are worth recommending and if the City Council decides to amend the code the following should be studied and/or recommended: • The Commission recommended that if the Council recommends approval of taprooms in the PID zoning district that they should seriously consider allowing food trucks in Edina. Commissioners said if allowed food trucks could be permitted only in specific zoning districts. • Survey other communities and find out if there had been any complaints on odors from the brewpubs and distilleries • Survey other communities and find out if law enforcement has noticed a "peak" in crime. A discussion ensued on parking with staff explaining that parking would be addressed on a case by case basis and if enough parking isn't found a variance would be required. Commissioner Olsen said in certain instances she can see the use of shared parking. Teague agreed especially in large commercial and industrial nodes where shared parking is a common occurrence. Planner Teague thanked Commissioners for their input. VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS Chair Platteter acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. CHAIR AND STAFF COMMENTS: Commissioners shared their comments on the differing committees they serve on. X. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Olsen moved meeting adjournment at 9:S0 pm. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. �!. �� . AT 11 � u 11. ,11 - -