Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-14 Planning Commission PacketsREVISED AGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the August 31, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may modify times as deemed necessary. 4 Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. Y 2011.0008.11a Rezoning, Site Plan and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Comcast 9699 Data Park Drive, Edina, MN Improve site for additional parking stalls VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • PC Roster IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague September 14, 2011 2011-0008.11a Director of Planning INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Comcast is proposing to renovate their existing driveway and parking areas to accommodate an increase in the number of employees within their existing three story building located in the City of Minnetonka, at 9699 Data Park Drive. The plans include construction of a new parking lot that would be partially located within the City of Edina. (See location on pages Al—A5.) A small wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot. Wetland credits are requested to be purchased with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, for wetlands to be created off-site (See the applicant narrative and plans on pages A6—A17.) The property located in Edina is Zoned R-1, Single -Dwelling Unit District, and guided Low Density Residential. This zoning designation was to be a place holder for future development. The request therefore requires a Rezoning from R-1 to POD -1, Planned Office District, a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office, and a Site Plan Review. Site Plan approval is also required from the City of Minnetonka, and as the City of Edina's regulatory authority regarding grading, drainage and wetland impacts, approval for filling the wetland is required by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: A wooded area and United Health Group Offices located in the City of Minnetonka Easterly: Highway 169 Southerly: Crosstown Highway 62 Westerly: Comcast — A three-story office building located in the City of Minnetonka Existing Site Features The subject property contains a wetland, steep slopes and mature trees. The site is three acres in size. (See pages A4—A5.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single -Dwelling Unit District Guide Plan & Current Zoning Designation The current R-1 zoning of this site and the Guide Plan designation of low density residential was to serve as a place holder for future development. Vacant land in Edina has traditionally been zoned R-1, as the least intensive zoning district. Similarly, the Guide Plan has designated vacant land as low density residential. The uses in this area are all office, and there are major highways to the east and south; therefore, development of this site as low density residential would not seem to be appropriate. The use is consistent with surrounding land uses. This property is located within an area guided and zoned for mixed use including office within the City of Minnetonka. United Health Care is located to the north, the Comcast building to the west, and Highway 169 and Crosstown 62 to the east and south. By locating the parking lot within the City of Edina, mature trees and steep slopes are avoided on the Minnetonka portion of their property. Site Access The primary access to the site would remain off Data Park Drive and Blue Circle Drive within the City of Minnetonka. Parking & Traffic Because the building and majority of parking is located in the City of Minnetonka, the requirements for parking and traffic shall be reviewed by the City of Minnetonka as part of their Site Plan review. Within the City of Edina, there would be 49 parking stalls. Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, 41 overstory trees are required. There are well over 100 mature trees on the site that would not be disturbed. In addition, the applicant would be planting 10 new overstory trees on the Edina portion of 2 the site. (See pages Al2-15.) The applicant worked with Minnetonka staff to minimize impact to the slopes and mature Oak trees located on the site. Wetlands The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District is the City's regulatory agency regarding grading, drainage and wetland impacts. Therefore, approval of this project would be subject to approval of the Watershed. If the District approves the requested filling of the wetlands, any conditions that they would place on the approval would also be required by the City. If the Watershed denies the project, then the parking lot could not be built. Site Plan Review Section 850.04.Subd. 4.5, requires the City Council to make the following findings for approval of a Site: a) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment to office. b) is consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan as approved and modified by the Council and contains the Council imposed conditions to the extent the conditions can be complied with by the Final Site Plan; The request is for preliminary and final site plan to construct the parking lot as proposed. Any approval of the plan would be required to meet specific conditions, such as approval from the City of Minnetonka and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. c) will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; The proposed parking lot would not be detrimental to the properties that surround the site. d) will not result in an overly -intensive land use; and e) will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards.- The azards; The Edina portion of the site is vacant. The reason the parking lot is proposed on the Edina property is to avoid steep slopes and mature trees in the City of Minnetonka. The traffic issues will be considered as part of the review in the City of Minnetonka. f) conforms to the provisions of this Section and other applicable provisions of the Code; and 3 The parking lot conforms to the Edina Zoning Ordinance. g) provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. Staff believes the proposal would meet this criterion. PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Site Plan reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The R-1 zoning of this site was to serve as a place holder for future development. Vacant land in Edina was traditionally zoned R-1, as the least intensive zoning district. The uses in this area are all office, and there are major highways to the east and south; therefore, development of this site as residential would not be appropriate. There is no direct access to this site. 2. The use is consistent with surrounding land uses. This property is located within an area guided and zoned for mixed use including office within the City of Minnetonka. United Health Care is located to the north, the Comcast building to the west, and Highway 169 and Crosstown 62 to the east and south. 3. The parking lot location in the City of Edina allows Comcast to avoid mature trees and steep slopes on their property in the City of Minnetonka. The existing wetland is of low quality, and could be replaced better quality wetland off site. The replacing of the wetland is subject to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. 4 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to O, Office; Preliminary & Final Rezoning from R-1, Single -Dwelling Unit District to POD -1 Planning Office District and Preliminary & Final Site Plan approval for Comcast at 9699 Data Park Drive. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The guide plan change is consistent with the adjacent land uses. 2. The R-1 zoning of this site was to serve as a place holder for future development. Vacant land in Edina was traditionally zoned R-1, as the least intensive zoning district. 3. Development of this site as low-density residential is not practical given the surrounding office land uses, the major highways to the south and east, and the site access limitations. Approval of the Guide Plan Amendment, the Rezoning and the Preliminary and Final Site Plan is subject to the following Conditions: The proposed grading, parking lot construction and wetland filling is subject to approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Plans may be revised per conditions of the Watershed District. 2. Project approval from the City of Minnetonka. 3. The Site Plan must be constructed within two years of City Council approval. Deadline for a city decision: November 15, 2011 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker September 14, 2011 B-11-08 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 10.53 foot front yard setback variance from the average front yard setback requirement of 43.5 feet to allow a 32.97 foot front yard setback for a new two story home to be built at 5413 Doncaster Way. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Property owner Scott Busyn is requesting a front yard setback variance to build a two story home with a footprint of 2,473.4 square feet on property located at 5413 Doncaster Way. The property backs up to Highlands Elementary School and is currently occuped by a rambler with an attached two car garage, (see Figure 1. A - C, site location and 2. A - L , photos of subject and adjacent homes, site survey and building plans). The ordinance indicates that the setback from the street is determined by averaging the front yard setbacks of the adjacent homes located at 6409 Doncaster Way at 58.1feet and 5417 Doncaster Way at 29 feet. The required average front yard setback for the subject property is 43.9 feet. The existing home provides a front yard setback of 28.7 feet. The new home would be built with a front yard setback of 32.97 feet. The new home would be 4.27 feet farther back from the front lot line than the existing home. The proposed home was designed to conform to all of the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the setback required along Doncaster Way. The new home would improve upon the setback of the existing home. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Highlands Elementary School Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 16,791.7 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1954 and pre -dates the current front yard setback requirements and is closer to Doncaster Way than the proposed house will be. Many of the homes along Doncaster Way including the subject home were built years before the current minimum front yard setback standard was established. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposed home is a two story with an attached 3 stall garage. The proposed first floor elevation of the home will be 912.5 which is two feet lower than the existing home that has a first floor elevation of 914.5. The finish materials include shake siding with hardi-panel and trim. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of front yard setback from Doncaster Way which is established from the average of ON City Standard Proposed Front - 43.5feet 32.97feet* Side- 10+ height 25/16 feet Rear- 25 feet 25 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 stories, 26 feet to 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to midpoint,31 feet to the ridge, ridge Lot coverage 25% 14.4% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of front yard setback from Doncaster Way which is established from the average of ON neighboring properties with the home to the north providing a deeper setback than the existing home on the subject property. The new home would improve upon the disparity in front yard setback between the existing home and the home to the north. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The new home is actually much smaller by ordinance standards than it could be and will occupy less than 15% of the lot area. 3. The new home has been shifted back farther on the lot than the existing home. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would be farther from the street than the existing home that has occupied the lot for over 57 years. There is no consistency in front yard setbacks between the properties to the north and south. The home to the south is much closer at 29 feet from the front lot line and is consistent with the location of the existing home on the subject property. The home to the north is twice as far from the street as the subject home and the home south of the subject property. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The required front yard setback along the block varies with the proposed front yard setback farther from the street than a number of homes along the block . 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are the variation in front yard setback between the home to the south and the one to the north. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new home improves upon the front yard setback from Doncaster Way that has been provided by the existing home on site. Staff Recommendation Recommend that Approval is based on 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. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with surrounding properties and improves upon the nonconforming setback that has historically been provided by the existing home. b. The imposed setback limits design opportunities by forcing the home more towards the back of the lot. A conforming new home would locate the front of the house half way behind the front wall of the home to the south, ultimately affecting 5417 Doncaster's front yard setback average. c. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain an even and consistent streetscape given surrounding property improvements. The proposed home location will provide a transition between the two properties on Cl either side by locating it farther from the street than 5417 and closer to the street than 5409 Doncaster Way. 3) The unique circumstances are the original placement of the homes built along the block. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey date stamped: August 31, 2011 2 0 • 11. Building plans and elevations date stamped, August 17, Deadline for a city decision: October 30, 2011 5