Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-09-28 Planning Commission Packets
AGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEPTEMBER 28, 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 September 14, 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. 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. B-11-08 Front Yard Setback Variance Scott Busyn/Great Neighborhood Homes 5413 Doncaster Way, Edina, MN 2011.0009.11a Conditional Use Permit for Classroom Addition Wold Architects/Edina Public Schools 4725 South View Lane, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS • Sketch Plan Review/JMS Bishops Walk — Indianola Avenue, Edina, MN • Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Revisions to Approved Site Plans • Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Real Estate Signs in the R-1 & R-2 Districts • Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Utility & Mechanical Equipment 9 VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection 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. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Gary Teague September 28, 2008 2011.009.11 a Director of Planning INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Background Information The Edina Public Schools are proposing to build a 5,600 square foot, two-story addtion to to the South View Middle School located at 4725 Southview Lane. (See location on pages Al—A4.) The additon would include a new kitchen for the cafeteria and various claclassroom space. (See narrative and plans on pages A5—A10.) The building additon would be setback 117 feet from the front property lino along Concord Avenue, to match the exiting setback of the school. (See page A6.) A Conditional Use Permit is required for the expansion to the school. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single-family homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Concord Elementary School, zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Highway 100. Existing Site Features The existing 28 acre site contains South View Middle School; the Edina Community Center; athletic facilities for Edina Schools including tennis courts, baseball and softball field a football/soccer field with a track; and three large parking fields. (See page A4.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Grading & Drainage Public/Semi-public R-1, Single -dwelling district Drainage patterns would generally remain the same. The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable. The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. Final grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval of the city engineer at the time of building permit application. The proposed plans will also require a review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Parking The parking calculations are based on the capacity of the largest place of assembly. Parking spaces equal to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly is required. There is a shared parking arrangement between the South View Middle School and the Edina Community Center. Each facility contains a gymnasium. The gymnasium capacity of the each building is 765 at South View and 860 at the Community Center. Therefore, the required number of parking spaces is 542 for the campus. There are four parking fields for these facilities with a total of 554 parking stalls. Therefore, the campus provides enough parking spaces per City Zoning Ordinance. Conditional Use Permit Per Section 850.04 Subd. 5.E, the City Council shall not grant a Conditional Use Permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: a. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; The proposal for a small addition to the school, and would not impact the above. 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; The proposal will not generate additional traffic. The parking regulation is generated by the maximum capacity of the largest place of assembly; this project would not impact the largest place of assembly. 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; Again there would be no impact, as the use of the property remains the same as exists today. 11 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and Improvement of other property in the vicinity; The addition would be constructed to match the existing school. (See building renderings on page Al 0.) 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and The new addition would conform to all applicable zoning ordinance requirements. B. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A school is a conditionally permitted use in the R-1 District, and therefore, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front — Concord 50 feet 117 feet Side Street — South View Lane 50 feet 500+ fee Rear — West 50 feet 500+ feet Side — South 50 feet 500+ feet Building Height 30 feet 25 feet (Existing school is 35 feet tail) Over -story Trees 128 trees required 242 trees existing on the (number is based on the site perimeter of the site) Parking 1/3`d the max. capacity of the 554 existing parking largest place of assembly spaces between the four South View - 765 gym capacity parking fields. ECC & Normandale -860 gym capacity (542 spaces required) Primary issue • Is the proposed new building addition reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for the following reasons: 1. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit findings. As demonstrated on pages 2-3 of this report the six findings for a Conditional Use Permit would be met. 2. The proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards. All setback requirements would be met. 3. The proposed addition would match the existing school. 4. The addition addresses building space needs at the school Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit to build an addition to the South View Middle School at 4725 South View Lane for Edina Public Schools. Approval is based on the following findings: 1, The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions per Section 850.04 Subd. 4.E, of the Edina Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The addition addresses building space needs at the school. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. If necessary, approval of the site work from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Plans may be revised per conditions of the Watershed District. 2. A building permit must be obtained within two years of City Council approval. Deadline for a city decision: December 20, 2011 4 rwv. a.ivavr.-ra.....vva ILOMUM F�� pAttAINt Ca Tea ue From:. Vaughn Dierks <vdierks@woldae.coni> Sent: Thursday, September 08,201111:35 AM To: CaryTeague Cc: Nick Marcucci Subject: Re: Application for CUP Cary, As requested here is the project narrative: "The Edina School District has reached a point where student capacity of the buildings, in particular the Middle Schools, is reaching the maximum point. South View Middle School is the most critical. The proposed project seeks to expand the existing cafeteria to meet the demand of the existing student body, and to provide both relocated spaces and additional student capacity in a small addition. The addition would be two stories, located on the southeast corner of the building. The addition will be of a matching brick color, and is situated such that It will not cause any impact on the neighboring community. The addition will house both special services classrooms and additional classroom space to assist with the capacity of the building in meeting rising enrollments. Given the increase in enrollment both now and for the projected future, this project Is critical to provide an appropriate environment for Edina's students. Every step has been taken to provide a conservative approach to meeting this demand, and the District would greatly appreciate your consideration in approving this project." Please let me know if this is adequate, or if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Wold Architects and Engineers Vaughn Dierks // AIA, LEER AP Partner 305 Saint Peter Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 tel 651 227 7773 fax 651 223 5646 www.wol_dae.com Comm. No.. 112083 On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Nick Marcucci <nmarcucci@a�woldae.com> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Froin: Cety Teague <cte &t-te ci edilla.mil .iis> Date: Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM Subject: Application for CUP To: iunarcucci_,woldae.com Nick, r ee. Independent School District #273 South View Middle School Addition and Improvements September 1, 2011 1A —/ Comm No: 112083 WCLE T -I 17T, ,� MAN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN t6 Independent School District #273 South View Middle School Addition and hnprovements September 1, 2011 r tv wwvww wwwwr EL F F� Ar . . _ -- _ _ Comm No; 112083 1. ,v / (4, I�ON/lititLL flYf ; 1Nfl {[ 1 h cr amc CCr� OL oMOMnax ro+ nxw C i tv wwvww wwwwr EL F F� Ar . . _ -- _ _ Comm No; 112083 1. ,v (4, I�ON/lititLL flYf ; 1Nfl h cr �s�ar awtauaw tv wwvww wwwwr EL F F� Ar . . _ -- _ _ Comm No; 112083 1. � b � 2� & � 2 § ! ( � [� |�� , A(0 § � � Topic: Real Estate Sign Ordinance Date Introduced: September 28, 2011 Date of Discussion: September 28, 2011 Why on the list: The City recently received a complaint in regard to the size of real estate signs in the R-1 and R-2, zoning districts. Upon investigation of the complaint, it was discovered that most all of the existing for -sale signs in Edina don't conform the City's maximum size requirement of six (6) square feet. History: A traditional "for -sale" sign is six square feet in size. However, over time it has become standard to add signs to the original sign, including open house information, web site information and real estate agent names. (See attached examples.) The combination of all of these signs exceeds the maximum size requirement. Decision Point: Should the City expand its maximum size requirement for real estate signs in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts? Options: 1. Leave the maximum real estate sign size requirement at six (6) square feet. 2. Expand the maximum real estate sign size requirement. For Discussion: Staff has done a survey of cities and discovered that many allow more real estate signage than six (6) square feet. Of the seventeen cities surveyed, ten allow more square footage. See the chart below: City Maximum Setback Removal required Size in Maximum Requirements Low Height Density Res. District EDINA 6 s.f. 10' not In ROW No regulation Apple Valley 6 s.f. 8' 13' No regulation Blaine 10 s.f. 10' remove 10 days after sale -Bloomington 10 s.f. 6' 10' remove 7 days after sale closes Burnsville 12 s.f. 8' Coon 8 s.f. 10' remove 10 days after term of Rapids use Cottage Grove 9 s.f. not in ROW remove 7 days after sale closes Eagan 16 s.f. I not in ROW Eden Prairie 6 s.f. 6' 10' remove 7 days after sale Hopkins 8 s.f. 5' Lakeville 12 s.f. 6/8'(M F) 15' Maple Grove 6 s.f. ** remove 10 days after sale Minnetonka 6 s.f. 6' not in ROW Minneapolis 8 s.f. 6' not in ROW New Brighton g 6 s.f. 7' from pavement Plymouth 8 s.f.*** 10' St. Louis Louis ParkApple 6 s.f. 25' Valley 6 s.f. 8' 13' remove after sale rsioomington requires a 100 foot setback to residential parcels. ** Minnetonka requires a 200 foot setback to residential parcels. ***Minneapolis requires a 20 -foot setback to residential parcels. In its research into the size of the typical real estate sign, staff discovered that the City of Bloomington's requirement of 10 square feet would be the appropriate maximum size requirement that would match to common practice of real estate signage. Therefore, staff would recommend the attached Ordinance Amendment. The Ordinance does not propose a change in the height or setback requirement, but does recommend that the sign be removed seven days after the closing on the sale. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING REAL ESTATE SIGNS IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 460.03. Subd. 8. is amended to read: Subd. 8 Temporary For Sale Signs - Existing Buildings and Vacant Land. A temporary sign may be erected for the purpose of selling or leasing a residential or non-residential building or selling vacant land provided: A. Such signs shall not exceed 16 square feet for non-residential buildings, residential buildings of ten or more dwelling units, or vacant land. Provided, however, such signs may be increased to not more than 32 square feet if the lot or tract abuts a highway with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or more and the sign is oriented to such highway. Temporary signs for the purpose of selling or leasing one vacant lot in the R-1 or R-2 Districts or a residential building of less than ten dwelling units shall not exceed six ten square feet. Signs shall be removed within seven days after closing_ B. Only one such sign shall be permitted per building or vacant lot or tract. If the building is one of two or more buildings which together comprise a tract, then only one sign per tract shall be permitted. C. Signs for non-residential projects shall be located no closer than 100 feet to any pre-existing residence. D. Freestanding signs shall not exceed ten feet in height. E. All sign surfaces including legs and support members shall be painted and maintained in a crack free and blister free condition. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2011. City Clerk 2 i ,# '. . o'�`��, ;, . � ��:`� b.° S ! ! ` �� �•�' rl.�h, � to " " � +� ' � r _ ' �. ' AL ♦ . w rM tr mg �LB TY OFOOMINGTON MINNESOTA Residential Real Estate Sign Information Sheet A real estate sign Is any temporary sign placed in an area by the owner or real estate company which announces the sale, rental or lease of that property. Property Sale or Lease Signs Although a permit is generally not required, the signs are subject to the following requirements when placed on the residential property for sale or lease: Number: One sign is permitted per street frontage with a maximum of two per lot. Location: Signs must be located on lots for sale or lease and at least 10 feet from the public street right-of-way (which Is not the curb). Size: Signs shall be a maximum of 10 square feet and six feet high. Time limit: Signs must be removed seven days after sale closing. Illumination: No illumination is allowed. Other: Stringers, streamers and balloons less than 24 inches in diameter may be used. L J Sale or Lease Sign Illegal on public -owned land (City, School Districts, State, etc.). Illegal on traffic island. Illegal on tree or other natural feature. Open House/ Directional Signs Open House/Directional Signs Signs are only allowed when an agent is present at the property for sale and open for viewing. Owner's permission is required if installed on property. Prohibited Signs See "Prohibited Locations for Residential Real Estate Signs" below. Real estate signs are also prohibited in residential areas if the sign: • Interferes with clear view triangle (see below). • Is portable. • Is flashing. A permit is required for any deviation from — Intersection - Clear View Triangle Areas maintain vehicle visibility and prevent accidents. No sign can be located within a clear view triangle area next to driveways and street Intersections. Prohibited/Legal Locations for Real Estate Signs Illegal on utility pole. Illegal on street sign, traffic control device, fire hydrant. LEGAL behind sidewalk on private property. LEGAL ! Illegal between sidewalk and street (within street 10' from ROW, (no ` right-of-way). sidewalk) on private feet ,, ROW, property. Community Development Planning and tconomic uev. rn `JDG-0oo oacv c -m P1Q111O bF ��•••"""" ""7• ^•• 1800 W. Old Shakopee Road FAX 952-563-8949 www.ci.bloomington.mn.us Bloomington MN 55431-3027 TTY 952-563-8740 web_52prealect pg2 of 2 (12103) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cary Teague, Planning Director DATE: September 28, 2011 RE: 5016, 5020 & 5024 Indianola Avenue - Sketch Plan Review The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal by JMS Homes to redevelop the properties at 5020 and 5024 Indianola Avenue and properties owned by Edina Covenant Church at 5016 Indianola. (See property location on pages Al A5.) The proposal is to develop the properties in two phases. The first phase would be to tear down the existing single-family homes at 5020 and 5024 Indianola, and build six (6) detached homes over a four lot, 26,730 square foot area. The new homes would stretch from Indianola to Jay Place. There would be underground parking for each of the units, with access from Indianola Avenue. (See page A8.) The Planning Commission considered a similar plan back in June of 2011 for seven (7) detached homes. (See minutes on pages A9—A13, and the previous plans on pages A16 A17.) The second phase of development would be the church property, where eleven (11) detached homes are proposed. Access would again be off of Indianola. (See page A8.) Overall the proposed density would be 11 units per acre, which would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDR, Low Density Residential to MDR, Medium Density Residential. Additionally, a rezoning of these sites from R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD, Planned Residential District would be required. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the PRD -3 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Please note that the proposal would require several variances. Compliance Table *Would not conform to Ordinance Standard of the PRD -3 District Staff has the following concerns with the proposed project: The proposed phasing & site plan. The phasing of the project would propose six units to be built where the seven units where previously proposed. It is essentially the same proposal that was not supported by the City Council last June, If the Church property is available for redevelopment, it would seem that the density of the development should occur close to 50th street, and the area that is proposed for the first six units, should be used as a landscape buffer area between the medium density use and the low density use to the south. • Lack of surface parking. As proposed, the only available on-site parking spaces would be the two spaces underground. Visitor parking would have to occur on Indianola. It would be appropriate to provide on-site visitor parking within the site, and not rely on Indianola. Density and the number of variances requested. It appears the density is too much for the site given the number of variances required, and the lack of on-site parking. 01 City Standard (PRD -3) Proposed Building Setbacks Front — Indianola Avenue 35 feet 25 feet* Front — 501h Street 35 feet 25 feet* Side — South 20 feet 25 feet Rear — Jay Place 35 feet 15 feet* Building Height Three Stories or 40 feet whichever is less Two stories & 30+1- feet Building Coverage 30% 30.44%* Lot Area Per Dwelling 64,434 s.f. lot area (11 units per acre) 3,400 with allowances for underground 3,790 square feet parking & quality construction Parking Stalls — Residential 2 enclosed stalls per unit 2 enclosed stalls per unit (No on-site parking) Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 16 feet* *Would not conform to Ordinance Standard of the PRD -3 District Staff has the following concerns with the proposed project: The proposed phasing & site plan. The phasing of the project would propose six units to be built where the seven units where previously proposed. It is essentially the same proposal that was not supported by the City Council last June, If the Church property is available for redevelopment, it would seem that the density of the development should occur close to 50th street, and the area that is proposed for the first six units, should be used as a landscape buffer area between the medium density use and the low density use to the south. • Lack of surface parking. As proposed, the only available on-site parking spaces would be the two spaces underground. Visitor parking would have to occur on Indianola. It would be appropriate to provide on-site visitor parking within the site, and not rely on Indianola. Density and the number of variances requested. It appears the density is too much for the site given the number of variances required, and the lack of on-site parking. 01 • Concerns raised by the Planning Commission that have not been addressed: 1. Lack of area to control drainage. Concern was raised in regard to building coverage and drainage. This plan has more building coverage than the first plan. 2. Lack of individual storage space including bikes. 3. Garage entrance coming off Indianola. A suggestion was made to come off Jay Place. 4. Lack of depth and separation of uses. Setbacks remain the same to the single family homes to the south. 5. Concern over the increase in density. The density has not been reduced. The first plan proposed 11 units per acres. This plan proposes 11 units per acre. If this type of development is desirable for the City of Edina, it would be appropriate to have the ability to rezone to a PUD, Planned Unit Development. Currently PUD zoning is not available in the R-1 District. By utilizing PUD zoning, the City would have greater authority to regulate development, such as requiring affordable housing, sustainable building, and a more walkable development. Conditions required in a PUD are much easier to enforce then conditions placed on standard rezoning projects. As with any rezoning, the authority to rezone would still rest with the City Council. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council rethink the prohibition on allowing PUD rezoning in the R-1 Zoning District. 3 A3 PID:1802824410173 5016 Indianola Ave Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina .—*sit—...NAIfr " �C{.Nrr -d1a iI ai. IbuNW bel1 4614 Oat i Oto 4813 4010 114a 11111,0101 lemo 1,U11 Nil_74126-4471 410 +421 4e» 41m , . ♦Sia Nr1 Ori r c+lrwnta N:a 4017 141 r lz (�� lai4 75 Nt+ 702A 401+ 402S 12)0 rtr' CtNaa Nt 4411 N—will 4019 4011 Nld 4d» 4728 a JIM 1111 f"�'1 utu (yaws LJ y 4071 NH � ♦dY► fila f9 1277 +ear 41271s )dt) 7 �jy 9flH � SJOwa 4121 •-40J0 Nt M 4451 4403 Nf) 4123 4454 U Parka N0I +1277 44)0 122! Jail.... 4900 I4ON �I v N2x tenitlp 4125 4014 4473 4W4 +901 Ilii IAT .+000 4 4190 .100 129 7941. i �� !. ) it JpOt4.+aT�aw9aror 0eva+t 4121 --goof- 4 r00itWp40+Mdof�md 4.>rel ypNf� 49nt 4090 4121 ,,Oe + tbONNar10«rwr+wl0wn+1 t• __,,, '••+ 1104 4FP5 4912 4019 74 a 1! ! + N me* 41186 Od s++M�areal +IOa +007 49na 4ota +011 ►Co•g9w.a+Ge+f«++ernal 470 4201 . pot !, a 4910 It !+ AUS An ►4a•)IMwrN Onra«aMowrtr) 490! m �, Nt1 (014 � ais + + 3 1276+9 9ca)Itwn.eOpMnmw Ornui Jett Nr! 111 is 4020 4021 ICOtldypnMa4a+ralWiKcr 4400 1010 I9tJ 9fi 9�It.n..a s 4.w W owml 'to" f7) i 7r 90D•r{fla.4wtatrrirtw Of 4 4DH {x0'0 f d. tnoa{tw.w twh.o.v',1t "Iff2fW o1A•A{Me+alar:+« u+OL►a1 ta7aldwaJa»+waoaA al 49$1 faen seAr n94o saet 1 J10A 410 7J N 2 f tiro•)IA+arol MdlarW6WN ...1002 3007 am MO.4 Vner+a4ca+aN Ii101wuN! not food foDl iMa 470 ..Hats 1t t Aa7s{9wa4a aopWrW o.ml IS .sees / 9001 5001 ..103! rd W1a MaJltwpb lr+e ahumt Sib" AOM 1011 1000 b11d�a+rinawaW41 NOJ to t0 Soft tf SOeb N a•)IawWDn�+aaW 5018 4072 •Sets SOtd SON7 felt Ao 5029 soM RlWigla+^�tMarO�lnal oil $012 Sot$ sof+ $ 66037 5072 bi 0 Pafwb AofO SM 7011 $01$ 0 4014 slot 7190 $071 Is lots Sell $004 40 Step 5101 Set $010 6121 Am NdfarSv 9i9rsrw HOf 7100 flet 1212 aolx mol 5103 NM SIM 5101 5100 mos !lel ttifdi m166 $112 ala 011 Srr! stat stns Step IfM Ato Stns 4030 7011. ri rrlf Sw$ S/fl AIt4 $109 $roe $111 $fit q AIu !1127 elaaalzla slot stoo 71 "IS m21 file $11) 5114 SIIT 3110 4YG ae»-i> MIA' sew sm sea It"Ari4 s Stfl 1J sra ft2o tit AtJA 111 sit) 0117 $020 7119 5171 Srtf 1110 6120 $124 arbn pair IHI itis 0lt4 7177 0I alts I 1221 .66112 `A117 .... 17 .i.. sttl ____ ____ ..� 6170 PID:1802824410173 5016 Indianola Ave Edina, MN 55424 r «�yvuallryryY « VZOSS NW YautP3cr Aa , PAY alouelPai 9109 ' It a1 Kot Ros/ 1fOC 6 iRtgnf�i9!"N� ..iw7.OW 1.p.. 1 ttfs dolt toll tIPO [IU 1t0f eta fAV VAPWV < slog oras safs Otos till hY 01 L/Pt tt44 BOfs flog 1104 tltslva ❑ ►tog ►t 40" IIr�W01m'0+11fr4Wllaatl ■ It9g 4104 ItrOMWra66M+W2•i � hi L(� ICrrl O4fdf11•b IwfA+ROM�lMrW1TNW LI04 ties IOt► CODS 19xw� hlraywa Odr+gik'ON Itlwwa M�tlNa trmeldlTotlO Iwxxa 1rwrMW wr.rylL•aw IW—o""?- 0-419 ON L997 K Imnaa 94-IH.taxay>4011f }flt gott i IwM0�1WM•x4a}LOOd 1906 C6epwarsNofrrntlil•a00 h+x�plwPrM Wrr141 W, m iwways?Mr+4)TOPd 9s•xIROO�+yNr�l}t•aod Mlflltaf Iwra+�wMFwmV1L•0o1 IwwO�roMyra1111•IXM wwawr Wfgfwr11/4tIW1 stop Off Icuwa we++w�t t.rilkaMlr w ., 1�: o•;ow�rwwo6awNITpM -. � OatY ttdf IwpraM+fiaKMarla�IMV ttbf f10i f4ua ❑ KOY 004h itd► fld► wwryl Mf1 ❑ also* stat POP 114t town Ala N 114401 "ON 144" JOP OUP O"t 0144*1,t4WaN LwaM �1q Puna l tt AfPcrC4Wr VA44ATN't Bishops WafkVpdate sepcem6er ao, aoll Over the past 12 months, we together with many neighbors, our church and the municipal stakeholders have expressed a sincere desire to find a new approach to life cycle housing. As we focus on the future housing stock in Edina, we must acknowledge that homes, just like cars, are not the same old things of generations past. Bishops Walk offers fresh concepts, smart detached format. Innovation is our friend. The June 2011 experiences of a unanimous approval by Planning followed by an unfriendly overture from certain neighbors, we went back to the drawing board as suggested by City Council. Revised concepts, reduced density and neighbors input (a follow up meeting June 20, 2011 and a September 2011 design charrette). Soon we will present a newly revised luxury single-family home in a medium density setting. The homes have a phased concept. Let's focus on housing; by some estimates, there is a multi-year supply of large, single- family homes available in the marketplace today. It's been well documented that family size and makeup has been changing for quite some time and a growing under -served segment is the one- and two -person household. Bishops Walk promises to be a good alternative for this household type, but there have been limited options for those seeking detached houses of this type in Edina. We look forward to creating an award winning, detached infill neighborhood. We want to be part of the future of quality housing for Edina. Because we all know and understand the markets impressing at overall desire to "re -size" new homes. Let's keep in mind that size is relative for some clients, re -sizing might mean going from 4,500 to 3,500 square feet. For others, it might mean looking for an efficiently designed, yet charming two-bedroom cottage at Bishops Walk. As we know, per Professional Builders August 2011, "the obvious challenge is to design and build a home that offers value, flexibility, functionality and excitement. While our clients may not be able to afford the dream home they once envisioned, we must be able to deliver a home that stirs their emotions". This is our goal at Bishops Walk for Edina. We look forward to securing a respectful dialogue to finalize the Bishops Walk concept. Page 1 of 1 (I �� � � � � \ �� � » ..� � © � � «� �� � ` � � � . � ,,,., e.. v /« >��\yam»� >. ��� » .. .� - . y� �� . . . � y\: . � � . ..� � y: \ � � � «� �, � � . ,� ���� a� � � > � ». � . «a . ,u ? ~ .!t «V< � » ® x� � 6 � y � § &. . (� � � Q saw srREEr r• 1 � —=----------r--- r n t.4i+ Y n C6N Y EIOSTWC rwm NowE E77Si6MC TKU HC/K I 1 r i 1 �.�.ppt. g w 7,y8M 57 I i EX E7L , I rura�' w� t -�" La 17 r 7 i �. tdM AF RI,7r09' �+,n87r, ^+.7104 �f,77851 �t.nBT ^t,nBY r I 91, 1 n ..,, r:_worasto soEw.eu r, i 1EX9 jun „ t9}6 Y r t6S6 Y % 18.76 Y + 7,7a9 Sf:. t,749 9 • - _ _ _ :gym sF I � 7 t R '40 CIL 7 OL PHASE A ti UMTS 1 PHASE I 6 NIRS s i S PROPOSED LAYOUT f©r BISHOP'S WALK PHASE I & II ALTERNATE B LEGAL U'MP710N. Port of SIEVIDW IST AWMON TO AMMEAPOLIS and pat of GLENtIEW AMMON TO MNA, aceordhg to the reeorded plots thereof. Hemwtn t aunty, AWnwato, F i 0mrotas ltndergrorxrd Perking :s GRAPHIC SCALE G 2C 40 80 (IN FEET) Carlson McCcun �A<••Sumer7r7s. 295 Apoft !$. Stage 190, UM Lakes, MN $5019 p7moe: 763.959.7900 Fax: 763-499-7959 Motion Commissioner r moved approval of a 21.2 foot front ya ack variances to build a n ome. Commissioner Scherer ded the motion. Commissioner Staunton asked cceptan an amendment to the motion adding to the findings that the lot co of the new home is less than 14%, the building has been shifted and th re my a width of 38 -feet between setbacks. Commissioner or and Scherer accepted the a ment. All, aye; motion carried. 10-0. VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Pian Review — JMS — 5020 and 5024 Indianola Avenue Planner Aaker delivered a brief power point presentation outlining the sketch plan. Aaker pointed out the following: Applicant proposes to - • Build seven (7) detached homes over the four lot, 26,730 square foot area. • Underground parking for each of the units • Access from Indianola • Density would be 11 units per acre • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezoning Chair Grabiel noted that the sketch plan appears similar to the townhouses built on France Avenue. Planner Aaker agreed, adding that there are similarities and differences, both abutting residential (R-1) properties; however, the townhouses on France Avenue are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Aaker if Jay Place was a public road. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative; acknowledging that it functions more like an alley. Commissioner Fischer asked if any consideration was given to a PUD process. Planner Aaker responded that was a thought by the applicant; however, Edina's code prohibits a PUD development in the R-1 Zoning District. Page 4 of 9 Appearing for the Apaficant Jeff Schoenwetter, applicant and Kathy Alexander, architect. Aaplicant Presentation Jeff Schoenwetter gave the Commission a brief overview of his past projects. Schoenwetter told the Commission the proposed project would be called "Bishops Walk". Schoenwetter delivered a power point presentation highlighting aspects of the sketch plan proposal for seven (7) detached homes as follows: • The proposal is in response to the market for smaller homes close to amenities • All homes are 1, 1 Y7 or 2 -story design. Shorter elevation than surrounding structures. • Transitional ergonomics • Transitional Zoning • Pedestrian life style. De-emphasizing the automobile. • Green roof design; natural green grass planted upon the roof of parking garage • Private patios • Photocell controlled illumination • Development will have a Home Owners Association (HOA). • PRD or PSR Zoning. Schoenwetter explained they are very receptive to a PSR zoning. • Units will be owned not rented. With graphics Schoenwetter highlighted renderings of the proposal and the impact of the proposal from south, north, east and west. In conclusion Schoenwetter said in his opinion Bishops Walk is a good example of creativity. Schoenwetter pointed out this was an "infill' site and any redevelopment of these sites needs to be done with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood. Concluding, Schoenwetter said the proposed homes would not be large -with footprints between 900 and 1200 square feet. Schoenwetter asked the Commission to note that if the site were rezoned to PSR a 2 -bedroom limit was attached to that zoning classification. Kathy Alexander told the Commission she is very excited to be part of this project adding the proposal addresses the current demands of the market place and in her opinion would be a great addition to Edina. Discussion The following questions, comments and concerns were raised by Commissioners: * The Commission questioned parking for the church? Planner Aaker said that church parking is non -conforming and will continue to be non -conforming. The proposal will not alter that fact. It was also noted as previously presented that this project includes "shared" parking with the church. Page 5 of 9 AIS • The Commission asked if the City's parking requirements are met for this proposal alone. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. Mr. Schoenwetter also addressed this question and stated if the proposal was approved there would be no net loss of parking. Expanding on the question Schoenwetter said the plan indicates 2+ parking spaces per unit, adding they are working toward providing 3 parking spaces per unit. Schoenwetter noted that if the proposal was rezoned to a PSR zoning classification the parking provided would be twice the PSR parking requirement. • The Commission asked what separates the proposed homes from the church parking lot. Schoenwetter said the north sides of the homes are considered the rear yard and a maintenance free fence will separate the rear yard of the homes from the new church parking spaces that will run east and west along the northern border of the site. The Commission asked Mr. Schoenwetter for clarification on the location of the private patios. Schoenwetter explained that the private patios will be positioned between each home. The patios would be similar in size to a deck. • The Commission asked for clarification on the "green roof' and hard cover. Mr. Schoenwetter said that the proposed "green roof` would handle run off; but acknowledged at a lesser rate than natural soil. The Commission questioned if the City's definition of "hard cover" includes or excludes the green roof, not on how much green space the site has, but on the capacity to hold water. Planner Aaker responded that the City's Ordinances do not address that difference. Aaker added that the project would need to obtain a permit from the watershed district before construction could begin. The Commission reiterated that Schoenwetter should look at run-off and seek watershed district input on the project. The Commission reiterated there is a difference between "manufactured" green space and natural green space. Schoenwetter said he also would be willing to engage an engineer knowledgeable on rain water management/green roof, etc. • The Commission suggested that sidewalk connections need to be implemented Into the site and if this project was carried forward to look carefully at the possibility of providing those sidewalk connections. Continuing, the Commission noted if the site was marketed as walkable there needs to be connectedness to ensure less emphasis on the vehicle. Less emphasis on the vehicle was also important because if the project was approved there would be an increase in area traffic because of the increase in density. Mr. Schoenwetter agreed, adding he would be willing to look into finding a way to accomplish sidewalks. • The Commission questioned bike storage -- Schoenwetter said each unit has garage and storage space below ground. • The Commission suggested flipping the homes so the proposed homes don't front the rear yard of the adjacent homes. Mr. Schoenwetter responded if the Commission wants that as a condition the reversal would be reviewed. Schoenwetter pointed out because this was a sketch plan review there was time to reevaluate the project. Concluding Schoenwetter said the original intent was to use the rear yards as a pedestrian corridor deemphasizing the church parking lot. • The Commission asked Mr. Schoenwetter if he ever considered fewer units. Mr. Schoenwetter said if he reduces the number of units the price of the units would Page 6 of 9 increase. The Commission asked the price points of the proposed homes. Mr. Schoenwetter said the price points of the new homes would roughly be in the 600 -thousand range. Schoenwetter said there was also the potential for future growth, a possible Phase II, depending on what happens with the present church. • The Commission expressed some concern with lot depth — adding that the rear yard may need more "breathing room". Ms. Alexander said when the project was designed they considered the rear yard as more of a side yard, adding in reality the side yard functions as the rear yard. • Consider flipping the entrance to the garages. The discussion continued with the Commission acknowledging the creative approach this project presents and that the location of the project is generally good; especially in relation to 501h and France and the potential to promote and encourage walkability. The Commission said there are many good parts to this proposal but also obstacles. Continuing the Commission pointed out that if this project proceeds a rezoning is required and the guide plan of the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to accommodate this type of land use; noting that's a "big deal". The Commission also pointed out that density could become an issue depending on the final zoning classification of the project, noting this project envisions a change in density that's in between PSR -PRD in a predominantly R-1 neighborhood. Schoenwetter said Edina has a unique zoning ordinance and if approved conditions could be placed on the project, adding Bishops' Walk could be considered transitional zoning between the commercial properties to the east and the surrounding R-1 properties. The Commission acknowledged the multiple zoning districts within the 501h and France area; however, indicated they what to keep their "eyes open" when considering projects that include rezoning and comprehensive guide changes. Concluding, the Commission noted that residents rely on the City's ordinances when purchasing a property, reiterating any changed would need to be carefully weighed. Schoenwetter said in his opinion, in reality this project could be considered a form of single family development. The discussion continued with the Commission reiterating there's a difference between PRD and PSR zoning classifications pointing out these districts have different requirements and density ratios. Mr. Schoenwetter said in his opinion the proposed homes will fit the neighborhood and would replace some very tired homes. He added he doesn't have a strong preference between the two proposed zoning classifications; however, believes this product would appeal to the "empty nester". The Commission did agree that this was an attractive project for empty nesters because it provides them with a detached single family home with common underground garages. Continuing, the Commission acknowledged that the project makes sense and the concept is attractive; however, there will be many different opinions about the project and it is very important to engage the neighborhood in the process to assess their feelings. It was acknowledged by the Commission that the project was an attractive unique concept, which could benefit the community if done correctly and in the right place; however, they reiterated and underscored that amending the comprehensive guide plan and rezoning Page 7 of 9 the site is a change and given the City's recent history it is very important to reach out to the neighborhood before a formal application is submitted to the City. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone present would like to speak to this proposal; being none, Chair Grabiel thanked Mr. Schoenwetter for his presentation. B. Vdinance Amendment Regarding Variances as a result of the Krum Planner\wit ed the attached ordinance amendment was drafted by R r Knutsonrney. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission com approvadinance amendment as drafted to bring Edina's Ordina a into compliantate Law. Discussion The Commission said i reviewing the proposed language that t °` y observed what they considered sequencing i ues under #4. "Practical difficulties ding that the order of "practical difficulties" cool atter in interpretation. The Co fission also noted that #5 ends with the word and, whi could signify that there woul e a N. Planner Aaker responded that she will raise t se concerns to Roger K Motion Commissioner Staunton moved app val of th*oncept of the ordinance amendment noting the amended ordln ce a _ drafted conforms to State Statutes and that the Commission has a few que 'o they would like clarified before the City Council meeting. Commissioner Sch r ascended the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Vil. Chair Grabiel noted receipt of the Codicil Connection Vill. Commissioner Platteter said with the Energy and Environ presenting the ordinance to Commissioner Staunton Commission on Rooftod Commissioner Committee met t he, along with Commission it Commission on ordinance Planning Commission late st Potts continue to meet iguage with the goal of Mer; early fall. ed the Council's suggested a meeting with the Planning ing and wondered if that would occur. said on May 12th the Grandview Small Area Plan Steering ig their discussion on the Grandview area. Staunton noted that Page 8 of 9 June 21, 2011 Edina City Council regular meeting minutes Page 2 of 6 IV.F. Award of Bid — Fire Hydrants, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Ferguson Waterwor at $51,941.25. IV.H. Set 0011c Hearing (July 5, 2011) —Valley View Sidewalk from McCauley Trail clary lane, Improvement I%p. S-095. Rolicali: Ayes: Bennett, S%FRO , Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED THE CONSENT AGENDA IV.G. PUBLIC iMPRO ENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEME 5 APPROVED — MINNEHAHA WOODS AREA Public Works Director/City ineer Houle explained staff requeste this item be removed from the Consent Agenda to consider tempora eletion of the assessment for Da Turk, 5500 Park Place, because it the correct amount was less than i 'cated in the staff report. Me ` er Swenson made a motion, seconded by M bar 5 ra e a roving Pu Improvement and Speci Assessment Agreements, Minnehaha Woods em p gu , pp Area with the exception of 5500 P Place. Ayes: Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, viand Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Wayne Carlson, 523 Coventry cane, stated 0 denied his request for more than three dogs. with Resolution No. 2011-40 findings of fact that VL REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS , P VI.A. REQUEST FOR MINOR CHANGES BUILD REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION — WATERS SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT Planning Director Teague noted the ncil had consid d the request of Waters Senior Housing to reduce the size of its proposed building by. feet and to elimina 39 parking spaces at its lune 7, 2011, meeting and continued consideration to solici edback from property vers within 1,000 feet. He reported a series of comments were received and r ' uested direction whether t Council found this revision to be minor in nature. The Council reviewed its sideration from the lune 7 2011, meet and subsequent advice from Attorney Knutson that the matte a referred to the Planning Commission for ecommendation on whether or not the site plan should b mended to include the proposed modification The Council discussed the threshold of a minor revision. r. Teague stated if this was referred to the Planni Commission, a public hearing on the site plan ame merit and preliminary plat would be held at Planning mmission's July 13, 2011 meeting. If the, anning Commission made a recommendation at the July 1 th meeting, the City Council would consid4the project at its first meeting in August. Member Swenson de a motion, seconded by Member S gue, referring the request of Waters Senior Housing for change o its site plan and prellmina , plat to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommen tion and to ask that particul attention be paid to the formula for parking spaces to assure sufficien for the Waters Senior proje s well as the church.;, Ay Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland tion carried. VI. B. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW — JMS HOMES — 3020 AND 5024 INDIANOLA AVENUE Mr. Teague explained the sketch plan review process and presented the proposal of JMS Homes to tear down the existing single-family homes at 5020 and 5024 Indianola Avenue, combine two lots currently used as l hHa� l/xrixrzrr ri rrlin"l mn I1R/CitvC ouncil/CitvCouncil MeetingMinutcs/201 10G21Reg.htm 9/20/2011 June 21, 2011 Edina City Council regular meeting, minutes Page 3 of 6 parking for the adjacent church and build seven detached homes over the 26,730 square foot area resulting in a density of 11 units per acre. This density would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and rezoning from Single Dwelling Unit District to Planned Residential District. Mr. Teague described the zoning of surrounding properties and summarized the Planning Commission's comments indicating that while the Planning Commission liked the concept, it had concerns relating to: the location, grading and drainage, unit storage space, orientation of the proposed homes, lack of site depth, that the increase in density may result In rezoning to Medium Density for the properties up to Soth Street, adequacy of church parking and point of access from Indianola Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting prior to proceeding. Mr. Teague indicated staff shared the same concerns and noted the project would require a number of variances. Jeff Schoenwetter, JMS Homes, presented his company's development history in Edina and his sketch plan for Bishop's Walk, a set of seven single-family detached residences. He updated the Council on the neighborhood meeting that informed residents of JMS's and his assurances that the homes would be small, owner -occupied, and result in no net loss of parking spaces for the church. Mr. Schoenwetter described the proposed homes features and pre -sale interest from buyers who want transitional housing near 50h and France. Mr. Schoenwetter displayed a site plan, claiming that the below -grade garages with a single entrance would remove significant hard surface coverage and that none of the proposed homes would exceed 2,200 square feet In size. Mr. Schoenwetter promised the use of traditional architectural forms, modern green building standards, and a pedestrian -friendly design. Mr. Schoenwetter proposed using the City's existing right-of-way to create a sidewalk from 50th Street to the property as part of this project. A home owners association would address issues such as maintenance and snow removal. Aerial views of the subject site were presented and locations identified of commercial, duplex, and multi -family zones. The Council reviewed the sketch plan and asked questions of Mr. Schoenwetter who indicated the minimum rear yard space was code compliant at 25 feet. He suggested the need for a transitional zoning buffer on the south side of 50th Street and opined that Bishop's Walk would provide that "soft step" between the church parking lot and the single-family neighborhood. The Council noted a transition line already existed at Halifax and just west of Halifax. The Council discussed the proposed project and indicated that while it liked the concept of cottage -style single-family residences with underground parking; this was not the appropriate location due to the proposed density. It was acknowledged that a church use was allowed in a residential neighborhood with a conditional use permit because it was thought to not be incompatible with single family housing or to require a buffer. The Council indicated a Comprehensive Plan amendment would require a four-fifths vote and it found no public purpose to contemplate the requested amendment at this time. Mr. Schoenwetter raised the option of razing the two homes south of the church to create parking and constructing single family homes on Jay Place rather than on Indianola Avenue. The Council indicated that may be appropriate if the project matched the housing style and average lot sizes of the neighborhood. Mr. Schoenwetter thanked the Council for its candor. }//,C; p OVED FOR RECORDING AND BROAD G CIiY COMMISSION MEETINGS Manager Neal reviewe osed policy for re " g and rebroadcasting City advisory commission meetings, which previously had b at a work session with the City's advisory boards` and commissions' chairs. M., i, i,vitumnai ri Mina rnn-ns/0tvCouncil/CitvCouncil MeetingMtnutes/20110621 Reg.htm 9/20/2011 Y1 I iY� N m JAY PLACE --- u. g a � , } S � b e � tib) �7 ►t! 1Q. t �w 'aa LAy 77 m / At. _ 1 . z _ - ----- .s_-__ tz 5 8d+^��, °dam ��'�a„ '��• e INDIANQLA" AVENUE pit' 0 Out sa�+ Joe) cl or �s m �rn a ;117 a H - Srieel inf 2 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cary Teague, Planning Director DATE: September 28, 2011 RE: 5016, 5020 & 5024 Indianola Avenue -- Sketch Plan Review The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal by JMS Homes to redevelop the properties at 5020 and 5024 Indianola Avenue and properties owned by Edina Covenant Church at 5016 Indianola. (See property location on pages Al A5.) The proposal is to develop the properties in two phases. The first phase would be to tear down the existing single-family homes at 5020 and 5024 Indianola, and build six (6) detached homes over a four lot, 26,730 square foot area. The new homes would stretch from Indianola to Jay Place. There would be underground parking for each of the units, with access from Indianola Avenue. (See page A8) The Planning Commission considered a similar plan back in June of 2011 for seven (7) detached homes. (See minutes on pages A9—A13, and the previous plans on pages A16—A17.) The second phase of development would be the church property, where eleven (11) detached homes are proposed. Access would again be off of Indianola. (See page A8.) Overall the proposed density would be 11 units per acre, which would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDR, Low Density Residential to MDR, Medium Density Residential. Additionally, a rezoning of these sites from R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD, Planned Residential District would be required. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the PRD -3 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Please note that the proposal would require several variances. Compliance Table *Would not conform to Ordinance Standard of the PRD -3 District Staff has the following concerns with the proposed project: The proposed phasing & site plan. The phasing of the project would propose six units to be built where the seven units where previously proposed. It is essentially the same proposal that was not supported by the City Council last June. If the Church property is available for redevelopment, it would seem that the density of the development should occur close to 50th street, and the area that is proposed for the first six units, should be used as a landscape buffer area between the medium density use and the low density use to the south. Lack of surface parking. As proposed, the only available on-site parking spaces would be the two spaces underground. Visitor parking would have to occur on Indianola. It would be appropriate to provide on-site visitor parking within the site, and not rely on Indianola. Density and the number of variances requested. It appears the density is too much for the site given the number of variances required, and the lack of on-site parking. 2 City Standard (PRD -3) Proposed Bultding Setbacks Front— Indianola Avenue 35 feet 25 feet* Front — 5d" Street 35 feet 25 feet* Side — South 20 feet 25 feet Rear — Jay Place 35 feet 95 feet* Building Height Three Stories or 40 feet whichever is less Two stories & 30+/- feet Building Coverage 30% 30.44%* Lot Area Per Dwelling 64,434 s.f. lot area (11 units per acre) 3,400 with allowances for underground 3,790 square feet parking & quality construction Parking Stalls — Residential 2 enclosed stalls per unit 2 enclosed stalls per unit (No on-site parking) Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 96 feet* *Would not conform to Ordinance Standard of the PRD -3 District Staff has the following concerns with the proposed project: The proposed phasing & site plan. The phasing of the project would propose six units to be built where the seven units where previously proposed. It is essentially the same proposal that was not supported by the City Council last June. If the Church property is available for redevelopment, it would seem that the density of the development should occur close to 50th street, and the area that is proposed for the first six units, should be used as a landscape buffer area between the medium density use and the low density use to the south. Lack of surface parking. As proposed, the only available on-site parking spaces would be the two spaces underground. Visitor parking would have to occur on Indianola. It would be appropriate to provide on-site visitor parking within the site, and not rely on Indianola. Density and the number of variances requested. It appears the density is too much for the site given the number of variances required, and the lack of on-site parking. 2 • Concerns raised by the Planning Commission that have not been addressed: 1. Lack of area to control drainage. Concern was raised in regard to building coverage and drainage. This plan has more building coverage than the first plan. 2. Lack of individual storage space including bikes. 3. Garage entrance coming off Indianola. A suggestion was made to come off Jay Place. 4. Lack of depth and separation of uses. Setbacks remain the same to the single family homes to the south. 5. Concern over the increase in density. The density has not been reduced. The first plan proposed 11 units per acres. This plan proposes 11 units per acre. If this type of development is desirable for the City of Edina, it would be appropriate to have the ability to rezone to a PUD, Planned Unit Development. Currently PUD zoning is not available in the R-1 District. By utilizing PUD zoning, the City would have greater authority to regulate development, such as requiring affordable housing, sustainable building, and a more walkable development. Conditions required in a PUD are much easier to enforce then conditions placed on standard rezoning projects. As with any rezoning, the authority to rezone would still rest with the City Council. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council rethink the prohibition on allowing PUD rezoning in the R-1 Zoning District. 3 City of Edina r 101031 1#i# M14 IIAbi}NH4si0 930 re 4310 1921 rap Mt I Nit Nir Nod �Wt pNra#rt 1541 Ntl irr N» low Ira? fir 1114 nos Lovrw HaWa NumMt 4abOhr 451P uia isl7 tastl j •SH iHN �4rjf N11 Ndf 1101 nai St a4f 1921 cit) Iraq oral 48It 0 1371 H 4527. 1 0 i 4109 3916 +Sop Nit ata Not Mri 2 IP01 Iro4 ai# 1515 4122 45" i/a..11if,rrl N7i 4aI0 !fir Sm N11 4111 24 H 4111 9011411 Marna ta00h QM LIm9a 4"t - MY Pall lir NOS Mtr,+Bac) aNl aWr itaM'rf 46ai4' 1 a/ol F— "1 — 1 s r 7 a 7t wn nrs 14002 109 N01 t +rat 4wi A4» Ifwalm N01 Mia - I 7A NBf�`N0i 44sor j +,M "" Oft 4�404a 4 a iib: 4f oma Mf0 11 N10 "if off aMflio 4�rS'1 1300 ,yr). aipr 1011 11 r0er A�Mix tars of Nfl'R1ON 1 l 4004 »0t a N f4 iNW ' or �rart +atr N AM. Nts NWIM aa7 an 1103niata 3. Nitis lr4814 "I fait 4011 qtr air 141110 ,rt•° CrtNt ® tall! tisoaa tslea U 4�afit �f6A ^� Mit �.q6 17 s{te 46TI NtO 1114 NH �qrs tars NII t7 A 4 A }3 NH NH 4N7 NTO 121ll4 4/w 62IM4 afN #IS NH ails f 41 NJa TS H t+4f►1H11 Leis 4011 33�NH aa9 NN if 16 4117 f Uji Mi N78 JI•i N26' H'NH ast4 44172 4Q4 NfA NH NN jH 4m NN t » t 7N7 19 Kt tJ om �rfia •013 30 NslliOf Mi! aH Nti 7011 Ns4 4177 .- lNit-163):Npp ,. 4071 34 N. do y7}}4/32 j" » 6H,yH t`uS4114 at27 Ht i«+r »+1304 10}]2301 N1r aDU1 t�6 Nai, Iwo 41x1 NOS 1 t ' 77 9 111`44 Ifai i305� arts 41074101 Itoo iaoii i• ION SSf1 4976 attDA/401 9"'T111121. 4N2 4001 / Irl Ntr »i0 .. ...-- 140 a90a NM 4004 4" �H2r MILE] 17r1 N1716 • t! N@0 tfM IRs q20� Fx5.... w tai /l r 0 ... »M t 44» 401iu lOP2 N 4 0 + 1017 H 12 011 s096 a49r5ao/ 3007 71 t 2N9 p i m 7 S ow Reps N aitt ai0/ (t Nfo ro fon foss wli : l 461H� i rt SDH 503/ So 601/ 0017 9. i $012 ra/s aS�/N 303/ NSW Fia Sai0 nor 24 k "1 1on301 t0;if 1)430) 0 Off, 4410 to 10 s01t 1033 1 a0H 9020 jos 110/ festal tel al 3104 it00 iP Snr 1 alas l i3 $lot sr44 arcs In6A r015t 9 Itaa r r 0 sits F0I sit/ stn i6H w)r . f0 ata, Insrft iQD,3foa sits su1 1141 !r 1117 s0» 3101' 11 itisf A h/ri 3fit Erie ftt) 8111 sysp3ti stn' 11 #IH9fs• tri sit fit Sri 31P1 Soli it Mit 1-�t fit Inl sin $124 it 1 r2i1r15rN Itf 51 0 Ari sfit Sri sr SI srts� t t>7 5173 /3arai3 431 40 31 stn { r its 6nl �I/42.1130 I es its rt 4}3514 Aa srN 3111 ffi 117 ft rt .Its trot 5569 sial s INS F9a�\j 211 �, SM4 670} lie p 32i3 3011t 1 `� 3rA 5413 uto 021) 311110asti�s2t0 3}IT 1444 for k'�,. 3121 FH 3141 Sts silt 9t1V1 $210 111 $124 5tH '�-, 3433 FN 5173 SiN 5113 f}N 4t+a 4337 ,... P� f ftH UPS 12" an. Flt arN+ 1437 alit 711 5111 fa ills FH 3210 Ii Fli StF3 H pole tai n.., _\ SND $fat Inolm 33916600 s"II&M 1200 slat noo urrw.r.�Wic*ra+lclr00satran 54W 5sW »ea OHI 5104 PID•1802824410173 � a 5016 Indianola Ave��/ "i Edina, MN 55424 ep list;AI /0 A3, PID:1802824410173 5016 Indianola Ave Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina ...4012- Legend 4014. 7 Id1" Oft tlfl t7 .fat Nu Maus# NWrMf 1.20010 410 OIA pf2 10 850 p10 Nt7 Int"I Nemo LOOM 01st N fa71 4s70 id1. ... It20 ,!y 4021 .) Cqp Llfnff2 1025 4077 1! aarY :< 4517 - 4824111777 • N73 / Cfwtte 4870 !62 ' 4511 'i0i0e'r 4075 K_��j 1029 flti rT.•a ® Lane Home 4➢a �tD 4a _461f_ f� 4070.. NN � IbtO e320 MJ2 4077 70 7 J47f J0 tots! 4➢3+ L4M6e fW1 Iii9 ias, 4476 4421 ipt Opt I4K2 IA77 aau IN7 tau fall 4400 �■■■q NtNar1■!w�IIIe... 7.44100 Oaf 00 4094 IM! 7�;�+ Iu 7OnU.v4..rt1.1d4Mwt1 AM 4201 I�0 IPOS swl lto0a1t0arAl2wido„»®+nrwt CItW� 4001 1 4901 --*an YOD SIM>'M O+w1...++M 0~1 �^•._ IoW 1417 44_4 71 t JO t 4 Ube a1wMpwW.+wNtOlt 4400 IOPI 4504 f40S aC0.11MMGtiw+4nM^.+1 I20 la IrW 1 a9r0 t1 4971 „_RMw ➢00•J1.1..�M G++ws'40++Mi M!7 4011 4414 S 4425 4.�� I T➢7 ��0... Pgkfr➢M�eNGxammalOw��al (8W iA1t .4912 Mfo (970 1079 fKiWtlitfn4MGaw4a1041.k�1 JtoO 4!111 4917 4*t7 f�IhnwM l.aya..40imsIt t@f0 IAti 77 .177 500 ➢ 7t :..� 100.111w.M0grOW+lA1 4014 4tH 0g0 I f.. ,,.. 441D.71ta+.M OMx.Oear±1 20t712fW WO.114Wwd grd4nlM 610/11 #Wp41➢w..# q.w.+1w Owsll saw 3091 e9a2 7001 tlJ"4 470 2! Yt Mq•ilNwmtAd/MWeuv+nl 2801 UO2 D00J 5007 SOW I Med V4..M RW WM OlMngl 5000 Was SaO2 2003 (704 6815 17 mi-Sipw.M M4ls" cowl fS 7 Was 5007 I4 fOM 44401-81PW.rq fu+�n 1 24W4 5009 AM 0000 1434 N h11WMMwtw0Wr41 Am II It ml 23 5800 q•f10v.Wn+wW't n^41 70}0 0017 8011 :. I 4b91 �Jf•� off, 5070 IWnlWer10:4M1 tWt *012 5810 7014 S 8037 $072 dr © P4f241A 501. 3010 ml, 7010 t.. !014 4101 3100 5077 "is 40H 3010 5011 t! #tsrs7'W AIW 4401 ➢x2237 W 010/ SIsO 010! Sof 6020 3821 am son 8101 slog 1100 SIW stat 5100 afos lttt atg3 Dt,r 0940 $/02 Sf6f 34l7 Siff vias N0+ sfaa 4fa sre3 40N 77�J 4070 3027 �� 4403 Mot bIW 1tf7 4114 /too 5101 48147 7117 qy� offs gglk34IK 3109 sitz x m 0 6120 $717 ftft 4ft7 SItA Q of? 1112 GGGG� its b#3a ^•\ �. loin 5110 softA 1nB JIM SIN A 4117 viii > Siff lt70 12t A DQs 1112 $177 4120 5129 3173 Dirt St7D 0125 SIl1 Sr4tiq aa,r $114 lits 124 3177 Dqi 6135 b12t b171 38$iniUJ 2t<:.. 4147 ___ .... .... ..«. _.._. st 4170 .... PID:1802824410173 5016 Indianola Ave Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina rtLopond 4901 4070 IOII EO Now* Nwnbar labels Nam t. SAmt Nam Cly limas 4011 1974 1021 rA+t Cwoke ® uke Names ISSS sere 19l! Park* ' Puha a Zoning 4147 4977 YOltaMw#ariYaM OWeW L� SS�'11aiWOwWM'rNtMr t) 1572 41W iF ee�ete{N eIR44W1�Alhti 4911 /q7A LODa1isMN OInMNM+i th4nW MA14MM10swAahD+u..�1 "_' ARL iaMli W 10001�0an=r.setasrAwl IgF}tMsslGnwredOMaN PteaSmweW GtaTaealtMaaN >. 1+0011M+esCmwOWAM Taal �..- W031tas.eMOnanYenal 4 Wr 4201 ►Aa.hl}rs*nb/SaNsnSrlOaukq N MO31Mw.sl awUcadO�.i m02 Me}IsweW aw3s+twr04 saOa i Masa asa3uAy SMaell 3404 ►te}Iiq.sb asylrAYIt4�SMl 4201 Soff SOf/ /aaitMeMarbrasl/,sN .... a.hq m.orww wrl 1 214lIeaYMMMeai Ueµ 5070 ® RtiO4araWWsdesU:pl 34 $071 ® Pascals aoi0 � 4011 soil Nw 5070 5017 ]A Altp Sol) 50}9 3671 $040 5045 .yAt4rA AVO fall 3077 m SOt7 �J AIOf SfaO SOq self S. bala VseWawhW6G✓f'1'ftatOGt�tW e v _ PID: 1802824410173 4{� ► ,i r 5016 Indianola Ave p'. AO �+ 4, Edina, MN 55424 ,1s '11 �4`�n/j1yAi�e uuSi Bishops WafkVpdate Septem6er20, 2011 Over the past 12 months, we together with many neighbors, our church and the municipal stakeholders have expressed a sincere desire to find a new approach to life cycle housing. As we focus on the future housing stock in Edina, we must acknowledge that homes, just like cars, are not the same old things of generations past. Bishops Walk offers fresh concepts, smart detached format. Innovation is our friend. The June 2011 experiences of a unanimous approval by Planning followed by an unfriendly overture from certain neighbors, we went back to the drawing board as suggested by City Council. Revised concepts, reduced density and neighbors input (a follow up meeting June 20, 2011 and a September 2011 design charrette). Soon we will present a newly revised luxury single-family home in a medium density setting. The homes have a phased concept. Let's focus on housing; by some estimates, there is a multi-year supply of large, single- family homes available in the marketplace today. It's been well documented that family size and makeup has been changing for quite some time and a growing under -served segment is the one- and two -person household. Bishops Walk promises to be a good alternative for this household type, but there have been limited options for those seeking detached houses of this type in Edina. We look forward to creating an award winning, detached infill neighborhood. We want to be part of the future of quality housing for Edina. Because we all know and understand the markets impressing at overall desire to "re -size" new homes. Let's keep in mind that size is relative for some clients, re -sizing might mean going from 4,500 to 3,500 square feet. For others, it might mean looking for an efficiently designed, yet charming two-bedroom cottage at Bishops Walk. As we know, per Professional Builders August 2011, "the obvious challenge is to design and build a home that offers value, flexibility, functionality and excitement. While our clients may not be able to afford the dream home they once envisioned, we must be able to deliver a home that stirs their emotions". This is our goal at Bishops Walk for Edina. We look forward to securing a respectful dialogue to finalize the Bishops Walk concept. Page 1 of i A (d ----------------------------------------- SQTH �-STREET t R � 4 r----- -----------' --- A,Npa sr _ l aSin/C TO" NOW fASTWC THEY NOK 4 !�. i ss o i � 1 PHASE 1t i "R.M , CAI-= i � ., - 11 tH+fFRS ase ire tsl -- i z i - nt yet lnr si i Q J Y 4uio u,�io j,mo � .26 ? taro sr 127o Sr w qno sr x sru t r: 7s! 7ae ne 2u ss " sse o Z t i . t ,'- rxamb16 t PHASE i R lois, s .". cast u ;-+olesri,a4e sr� xxs s7 b tltrllTS 1 n '11113- -^- -. _ ;✓_96C, . IGJN ExM1 + ozena a - -Ek k ' OULOW i 1 IX amb"'' t e.-y.,.r PROPOSED LAYOUT for BISHOP'S WALK PHASE I & II ALTERNATE B t rt:A1 dES RIPT10N: Pat of STEMDW IST AWMON TO MVOWAPOUS and pat of QENVWW AEON TO EMA, ooeordhg to the recorded plots thereof. Hennepin County. Minnesota Omiotes Underpvwd Poednq N v «req f GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 8o (IN }'EET) 'Carlson )McCcdn errvneow►ieHr�u.,iaecaNee�m�o�aumer,we ' 248 A9010 Dr. Suite 100. Uno takes, MN 55014 PhWW. 763i89 -74W fors: 769.489-7959 ', Motion Commissioner r moved approval of a 21.2 foot front ya ack variances to build a n ome. Commissioner Scherer ded the motion. Commissioner Staunton asked cceptan an amendment to the motion adding to the findings that the lot co of the new home is less than 14%, the building has been shifted and th re my a width of 38 -feet between setbacks. Commissioner or and Scherer accepted the a ment. All aye; motion carried. 10-0. VU. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review — JMS — 5020 and 5024 Indianola Avenue Planner Aaker delivered a brief power point presentation outlining the sketch plan. Aaker pointed out the following: Applicant proposes to - • Build seven (7) detached homes over the four lot, 26,730 square foot area. • Underground parking for each of the units • Access from Indianola . Density would be 11 units per acre • Comprehensive Plan Amendment • Rezoning Chair Grabiel noted that the sketch plan appears similar to the townhouses built on France Avenue. Planner Aaker agreed, adding that there are similarities and differences, both abutting residential (R-1) properties; however, the townhouses on France Avenue are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Aaker if Jay Place was a public road. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative; acknowledging that it functions more like an alley. Commissioner Fischer asked if any consideration was given to a PUD process. Planner Aaker responded that was a thought by the applicant; however, Edina's code prohibits a PUD development in the R-1 Zoning District. Page 4 0£ 9 i e! Appearing for the Applicant Jeff Schoenwetter, applicant and Kathy Alexander, architect. Applicant Presentation Jeff Schoenwetter gave the Commission a brief overview of his past projects. Schoenwetter told the Commission the proposed project would be called "Bishops Walk". Schoenwetter delivered a power point presentation highlighting aspects of the sketch plan proposal for seven (7) detached homes as follows: • The proposal is in response to the market for smaller homes close to amenities • All homes are 1,1 'lZ or 2 -story design. Shorter elevation than surrounding structures.. • Transitional ergonomics • Transitional Zoning • Pedestrian life style. De-emphasizing the automobile. • Green roof design; natural green grass planted upon the roof of parking garage • Private patios • Photocell controlled illumination • Development will have a Home Owners Association (HOA). • PRD or PSR Zoning. Schoenwetter explained they are very receptive to a PSR zoning. • Units will be owned not rented. With graphics Schoenwetter highlighted renderings of the proposal and the impact of the proposal from south, north, east and west. In conclusion Schoenwetter said in his opinion Bishops Walk is a good example of creativity. Schoenwetter pointed out this was an "infill' site and any redevelopment of these sites needs to be done with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood. Concluding, Schoenwetter said the proposed homes would not be large -with footprints between 900 and 1200 square feet. Schoenwetter asked the Commission to note that if the site were rezoned to PSR a 2 -bedroom limit was attached to that zoning classification. Kathy Alexander told the Commission she is very excited to be part of this project adding the proposal addresses the current demands of the market place and in her opinion would be a great addition to Edina. Discusslon The following questions, comments and concerns were raised by Commissioners: • The Commission questioned parking for the church? Planner Aaker said that church parking is non -conforming and will continue to be non -conforming. The proposal will not alter that fact. it was also noted as previously presented that this project includes "shared" parking with the church. Page 5 of 9 A-1% • The Commission asked if the City's parking requirements are met for this proposal alone. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. Mr. Schoenwetter also addressed this question and stated if the proposal was approved there would be no net loss of parking. Expanding on the question Schoenwetter said the plan indicates 2+ parking spaces per unit, adding they are working toward providing 3 parking spaces per unit. Schoenwetter noted that if the proposal was rezoned to a PSR zoning classification the parking provided would be twice the PSR parking requirement. • The Commission asked what separates the proposed homes from the church parking lot. Schoenwetter said the north sides of the homes are considered the rear yard and a maintenance free fence will separate the rear yard of the homes from the new church parking spaces that will run east and west along the northern border of the site. The Commission asked Mr. Schoenwetter for clarification on the location of the private patios. Schoenwetter explained that the private patios will be positioned between each home. The patios would be similar in size to a deck. • The Commission asked for clarification on the "green roof' and hard cover. Mr. Schoenwetter said that the proposed "green roof' would handle run off; but acknowledged at a lesser rate than natural soil. The Commission questioned if the City's definition of "hard cover" includes or excludes the green roof, not on how much green space the site has, but on the capacity to hold water. Planner Aaker responded that the City's Ordinances do not address that difference, Aaker added that the project would need to obtain a permit from the watershed district before construction could begin. The Commission reiterated that Schoenwetter should look at run-off and seek watershed district input on the project. The Commission reiterated there is a difference between "manufactured" green space and natural green space. Schoenwetter said he also would be willing to engage an engineer knowledgeable on rain water management/green roof, etc. • The Commission suggested that sidewalk connections need to be implemented into the site and if this project was carried forward to look carefully at the possibility of providing those sidewalk connections. Continuing, the Commission noted if the site was marketed as walkable there needs to be connectedness to ensure less emphasis on the vehicle. Less emphasis on the vehicle was also important because if the project was approved there would be an increase in area traffic because of the increase in density. Mr. Schoenwetter agreed, adding he would be willing to look into finding a way to accomplish sidewalks. • The Commission questioned bike storage — Schoenwetter said each unit has garage and storage space below ground. • The Commission suggested flipping the homes so the proposed homes don't front the rear yard of the adjacent homes. Mr. Schoenwetter responded if the Commission wants that as a condition the reversal would be reviewed. Schoenwetter pointed out because this was a sketch plan review there was time to reevaluate the project.. Concluding Schoenwetter said the original intent was to use the rear yards as a pedestrian corridor deemphasizing the church parking lot. • The Commission asked Mr. Schoenwetter if he ever considered fewer units. Mr. Schoenwetter said if he reduces the number of units the price of the units would Page 6 of 9 increase. The Commission asked the price points of the proposed homes. Mr. Schoenwetter said the price points of the new homes would roughly be in the 600 -thousand range. Schoenwetter said there was also the potential for future growth, a possible Phase 11, depending on what happens with the present church. • The Commission expressed some concern with lot depth — adding that the rear yard may need more "breathing room". Ms. Alexander said when the project was designed they considered the rear yard as more of a side yard, adding in reality the side yard functions as the rear yard. • Consider flipping the entrance to the garages. The discussion continued with the Commission acknowledging the creative approach this project presents and that the location of the project is generally good; especially in relation to 50th and France and the potential to promote and encourage walkability. The Commission said there are many good parts to this proposal but also obstacles. Continuing the Commission pointed out that if this project proceeds a rezoning is required and the guide plan of the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended to accommodate this type of land use; noting that's a "big deal". The Commission also pointed out that density could become an issue depending on the final zoning classification of the project, noting this project envisions a change in density that's in between PSR -PRD in a predominantly R-1 neighborhood. Schoenwetter said Edina has a unique zoning ordinance and if approved conditions could be placed on the project, adding Bishops' Walk could be considered transitional zoning between the commercial properties to the east and the surrounding R-1 properties. The Commission acknowledged the multiple zoning districts within the 501h and France area; however, indicated they what to keep their eyes open when considering projects that include rezoning and comprehensive guide changes. Concluding, the Commission noted that residents rely on the City's ordinances when purchasing a property, reiterating any changed would need to be carefully weighed. Schoenwetter said in his opinion, in reality this project could be considered a form of single family development. The discussion continued with the Commission reiterating there's a difference between PRD and PSR zoning classifications pointing out these districts have different requirements and density ratios. Mr. Schoenwetter said in his opinion the proposed homes will fit the neighborhood and would replace some very tired homes. He added he doesn't have a strong preference between the two proposed zoning classifications; however, believes this product would appeal to the "empty nester". The Commission did agree that this was an attractive project for empty nesters because it provides them with a detached single family home with common underground garages. Continuing, the Commission acknowledged that the project makes sense and the concept is attractive; however, there will be many different opinions about the project and it is very important to engage the neighborhood in the process to assess their feelings. It was acknowledged by the Commission that the project was an attractive unique concept, which could benefit the community if done correctly and in the right place; however, they reiterated and underscored that amending the comprehensive guide plan and rezoning Page 7 of 9 Al , the site is a change and given the City's recent history it is very important to reach out to the neighborhood before a formal application is submitted to the City. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone present would like to speak to this proposal; being none, Chair Grabiel thanked Mr. Schoenwetter for his presentation. AL 8. rdinance Amendment Regarding Variances as a result of the Krum Planner er noted the attached ordinance amendment was drafted by R r Knutson, C Attorney, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission com approval oft ordinance amendment as drafted to bring Edina's Ordina a into compliance wit tate Law, Discussion The Commission said i reviewing the proposed language that t y observed what they considered sequencing i ues under #4. `"Practical difficulties ding that the order of "practical difficulties" soul atter in interpretation. The Co fission also noted that #5 ends with the word and, whi could signify that there woul e a N. Planner Aaker responded that she will raise t se concerns to Roger K son . Motion Commissioner Staunton moved app %vaIcoftht*oncept of the ordinance amendment noting the amended ordie a 'drafted conforms to State Statutes and that the Commission has a few quo 'o they would like clarified before the City Council meeting. Commissioner Sch r seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Vil. Chair Grabiel noted receipt of the Co '` cil Connection Vill. Commissioner Platteter said th he, along with Commissio r Potts continue to meet with the Energy and Environnt Commission on ordinance guage with the goal of presenting the ordinance to je Planning Commission late su er; early fall. �r Commissioner Staunton #bted the Council's suggested a meeting with the Planning Commission on Rooftoining and wondered if that would occur. Commissioner Stau on said on May 12' the Grandview Small Area Plan Steering Committee met co inuing their discussion on the Grandview area. Staunton noted that Page 8 of 9 r June 21, 2011 Edina City Council regular meeting minutes Page 2 of G IV.F. Aand of Bid —Fire Hydrants, awarding the bid to the recommended low bidder, Ferguson Waterwor at $51,941.25. IV.H. Set. b1lc Hearing (July 5, 2011) — Valley View Sidewalk from McCauley Trai! clary Lane, Improvement . S-095. Rollcail: Ayes: Bennett, S\thani Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. ITEMS REMOVEDHE CONSENT AGENDA IV.G. PUBLIC IENT AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEME S APPROVED — MINNEHAHA WOODS AREA Public Works Direy ineer Houle explained staff request this item be removed from the Consent Agenda to considora eletion of the assessment for Da Turk, 5500 Park Place, because k the correct amount whan i 'cated in the staff report. Me er Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Spragueing Pu Improvement and Speci Assessment Agreements, Minnehaha Woods Area with the excof 5500 P Place.Ayes: Bennett, SSwenson, vland Motion carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT I. Wayne Carlson, 523 Coventry lane, stated hi lot, eement with Resolution No. 2011-40 findings of fact that denied his request for more than three dogs. VL REPORTS/ RECOMMENDATIONS . Vi.A. REQUEST FOR MiNOR CHANGES BUILD REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION — WATERS SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT Planning Director Teague noted the ncil had consid d the request of Waters Senior Housing to reduce the size of its proposed building by feet and to elimina 39 parking spaces at its June 7, 2011, meeting and continued consideration to solic€ edback from property hers within 1,000 feet. He reported a series of comments were received and r ' uested direction whether t Council found this revision to be minor in nature. t. The Council reviewed its Knutson that the matter the site plan should b of a minor revision. r. the site pian ame a, men sideration from the June 7 2011, meet and subsequent advice from Attorney e referred to the Planning Commission for re, mended to include the proposed modification Teague stated if this was referred to the Planni t and preliminary plat would be held at Planning :ommendation on whether or not The Council discussed the threshold Commission, a public hearing on %mmission's July 13, 2011 meeting. If the,"fanning Commission made a recommendation at the July 1 would consid the project at its first meeting in August. Member Swenson Member Sp ' gue, referring the request of Waters Senior Housing for than prelimina F' plat to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recom particul attent€on be paid to the formula for parking spaces to assure su proje , s well as the church, Ay : Bennett, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland tion carried. meeting, the City Council de a motion, seconded by o its site pian and n tion and to ask that len for the Waters Senior V1.6. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW — JMS HOMES -- 3020 AND 5024 INDIANOLA AVENUE Mr. Teague explained the sketch plan review process and presented the proposal of JMS Homes to tear down the existing single-family homes at 5020 and 5024 Indianola Avenue, combine two lots currently used as A t,i�„ l�r,nxrcar r; r�rl;n.� ,nn �iG/C'itvC0u11ci1/CitvCouncil. MeetitigMintites/2011062IReg.htm 9/20/2011 June 21, 2011 Edina City Council regular meeting minutes Page 3 of 6 parking for the adjacent church and build seven detached homes over the 26,730 square foot area resulting in a density of 11 units per acre. This density would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and rezoning from Single Dwelling Unit District to Planned Residential District. Mr. Teague described the zoning of surrounding properties and summarized the Planning Commission's comments indicating that while the Planning Commission liked the concept, it had concerns relating to: the location, grading and drainage, unit storage space, orientation of the proposed homes, lack of site depth, that the increase in density may result in rezoning to Medium Density for the properties up to 50th Street, adequacy of church parking and point of access from Indianola Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant hold a neighborhood meeting prior to proceeding. Mr. Teague indicated staff shared the same concerns and noted the project would require a number of variances. Jeff Schoenwetter, JMS Homes, presented his company's development history in Edina and his sketch plan for Bishop's Walk, a set of seven single-family detached residences. He updated the Council on the neighborhood meeting that informed residents of JMS's and his assurances that the homes would be small, owner -occupied, and result in no net loss of parking spaces for the church. Mr. Schoenwetter described the proposed homes features and pre -sale interest from buyers who want transitional housing near 50th and France. Mr. Schoenwetter displayed a site plan, claiming that the below -grade garages with a single entrance would remove significant hard surface coverage and that none of the proposed homes would exceed 2,200 square feet in size. Mr. Schoenwetter promised the use of traditional architectural forms, modern green building standards, and a pedestrian -friendly design. Mr. Schoenwetter proposed using the City's existing right-of-way to create a sidewalk from 50th Street to the property as part of this project. A home owners association would address issues such as maintenance and snow removal. Aerial views of the subject site were presented and locations identified of commercial, duplex, and multi -family zones. The Council reviewed the sketch plan and asked questions of Mr. Schoenwetter who indicated the minimum rear yard space was code compliant at 25 feet. He suggested the need for a transitional zoning buffer on the south side of 50th Street and opined that Bishop's Walk would provide that "soft step" between the church parking lot and the single-family neighborhood. The Council noted a transition line already existed at Halifax and just west of Halifax. The Council discussed the proposed project and indicated that while it liked the concept of cottage -style single-family residences with underground parking; this was not the appropriate location due to the proposed density. it was acknowledged that a church use was allowed in a residential neighborhood with a conditional use permit because it was thought to not be incompatible with single family housing or to require a buffer. The Council indicated a Comprehensive Pian amendment would require a four-fifths vote and it found no public purpose to contemplate the requested amendment at this time. Mr. Schoenwetter raised the option of razing the two homes south of the church to create parking and constructing single family homes on Jay Place rather than on Indianola Avenue. The Council indicated that may be appropriate if the project matched the housing style and average lot sizes of the neighborhood. Mr. Schoenwetter thanked the Council for its candor. yt,C; P�� QVED FOR RECORDING AND BROAD G Cil Y COMMISSION MEETINGS Manager Neal review e osed policyfor re Egg and rebroadcasting City advisory commission meetings, which previously had b at as work session with the City's advisory boards' and commissions' chairs. i,trr,./Axnxnm (-i t-dina n,n.iis/C",itvCouncii/CitYCOuncit MeetingMinutes/20110621 Reg. him 9120/2011 f ( PROPOSED LAYOUT ,' 1. I l forA WALK' YY K' GAl_ DFSC WTIM E _ A Port of S7E7VfN5 I57 ADDITION TO �S and port of GLENVIEW ADDITION to y e recorded plots 28¢54 . tthhwwf, Hennepin Count . >am"atc. } •— a W d , _ — " rx7 t 3 SSee Sheet 2 for Crow-Sections r r i r a, —r- i � �T� . Q -C sn t i 1 l sF t , aun sr w I.= ur raaa : mu sr a r i o a C+M �l n ? y v r j C GRAPHIC SCALE I � (IN FEET) \ SIT-' DATA PARKING SUM14AIR flit StabtosC 20 a iDcnatp Uadergrot�d Pmrk�g Amb, rison EzM tq Area.11 AGHew Stair- 20 Prapoaad Area----.*Mal Ar- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUR ly u• racaeoas 0• sls sre� Proposed Area-----10.64 Ar- Nota "Onear, sums too. 4Hw waa MN 55014 Crass Density .+70.94 UAlta/A4 Phone: 76e-4W"013 Fair xr,3-+99a9Sn Topic: Utility & Mechanical Equipment Ordinance Date Introduced: September 28, 2011 Date of Discussion: September 28, 2011 Why on the list: It has come to the -City's attention after the 100 square foot, 10 -foot tall air conditioning unit was installed at York Gardens within the required setback that based on the City's definition of structure, all utility cabinets and mechanical equipment are required to meet required setbacks. However, as the City has developed, utility and mechanical equipment have been installed all over town, and not been required to meet a structure setback. History: Utility cabinets and equipment have traditionally not been required to meet structure setbacks in Edina. However, as a result of the air conditioning unit installed at York Gardens, it would seem appropriate to require a structure setback for utility equipment at a certain size, and exempt smaller equipment. Decision Point: Should the City require setbacks for utility equipment? Options: 1. Leave the requirement as it is today, and enforce setback regulations for all utility equipment. 2. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to exempt small utility equipment and require setbacks for large equipment. For Discussion: Staff has done a survey of cities and discovered that most cities do not require setbacks for utility equipment, and do not address large mechanical equipment. City Setback Required for Utility and Mechanical Equipment EDINA Yes—Same as structure setback Columbia Heights Require a 1 -foot setback Blaine No setback required — Must be within an easement area Bloomington No setback required Burnsville No setback required Coon Rapids No setback required Cottage Grove No setback required Robbinsdale No setback required — Permit required if in a r -o -w Eden Prairie No setback required — typically located on lot lines Hopkins No setback required Lakeville No setback required Maple Grove No setback required Minnetonka No setback required —A permit required if within the r -o -w Minneapolis Two -foot setback New Brighton No setback required St. Louis Park Require utilities to be underground or in the building (in practice this is not enforced) Wayzata No setback required Based on the above survey and issues, staff is recommending the attached ordinance. The ordinance would exempt small utility and mechanical equipment from required setbacks as has been the standard practice in Edina. The ordinance would require setbacks to be met for equipment over 80 square feet or 6 feet tall. Additionally, the Ordinance would require setbacks for air-conditioning units in the R-1 and R-2 District similar to accessory uses. This regulation would make the standard practice in Edina of requiring a 5 -foot side yard setback for small air conditioning units adjacent to single-family homes and duplexes more clear in the ordinance. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -- AN AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF UTILITY EQUIPMENT The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Subsection 850.07. Subd. 23. is amended to read: Subd. 23 Utility Buildings and Structures. A. Utility Buildings and Structures Owned by the City. Utility buildings and structures owned by the City and used for rendering service to all or any part of the City (but excluding warehouses, maintenance buildings and storage yards) shall be a permitted principal or accessory use in all districts. B. Other Utility Buildings and Structures. Utility buildings and structures owned by private utility companies or governmental units other than the City, and used for rendering service to all or any part of the City (but excluding warehouses, maintenance buildings and storage yards) shall be a conditional use in all districts and shall only be constructed pursuant to a conditional use permit granted in accordance with Subd. 4 of Subsection 850.04. C Utility poles and wires water, gas electric and mechanical equipment are permitted at any location in a front side or rear Yard with no minimum setback from any property line. If utility or mechanical equipment is located within city right-of-way a permit is required Utility and mechanical equipment that is larger than 80 square feet or 6 feet tall shall be required to meet all setback requirements in the underlying zoning district Air conditioning units in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts shall comply with the setback requirements for accessory uses. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen; City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2011. City Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cary Teague, Planning Director RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Revision to Approved Site Plans DATE: September 28, 2011 The City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment to clearly define when changes may be made to approved site plans. Current Edina Ordinance is not clear. Minor changes are not defined. (See below.) The Council advised that the Ordinance could be patterned after the City of Bloomington's regulations. (See attached.) Attached is the draft ordinance amendment that was considered by the Planning Commission on June 29, 2011. The Commission tabled the item for staff to conduct a survey of how other city's dealt with minor changes to a site plan. The table on the following page summarizes the survey of cities. The proposed ordinance would allow staff to administratively approve changes to a site plan up to a 5% increase or a total of 10,000 square feet, the same as the City of Bloomington. The Planning Commission is asked to consider the proposed amendment, and if comfortable with the language, make a recommendation to the City Council. Existing City of Edina Ordinance: 1. Plan Modifications. Minor changes may be authorized by the Planner. Proposed changes to the approved site plan affecting structural types, building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space and all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the Commission and Council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site plan. City Can staff allow revisions to What is the threshold? approved Site Mans? Apple Valley Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Bloomington Yes 5% increase of total s.f; no increase in density Coon Rapids Yes Community Development Director may revise* Cottage Grove Yes CD Director may approve minor changes* Eagan Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Lakeville Yes Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes * Maple Grove Yes "Substantial" changes to the approved plan require Council review * Minnetonka Yes "Substantial" changes to the approved plan require Council approval* In practice a 10% expansion of the building New Brighton Yes In practice a 10% expansion of the building * Plymouth Yes Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes * St. Louis Park Yes Staff may approve minor revisions * Eden Prairie Yes Staff may approve minor revisions Wayzata Yes Building Official can approve changes — changes are not defined * Edina No** All changes brought to CC Minneapolis Yes Zoning Administrator may approve minor changes * * Site Plan allowed change threshold is not defined by Ordinance ** Per City Council Policy As shown above, most cities allow staff to approve revisions to approved Site Plans; however, in most instances the threshold for determining what changes can be made on a staff level is not specifically defined by ordinance. In general the threshold is determined by what requires a site plan approval in the first place, which is a 10% expansion of a building. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2011- AN 011— AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING REVISIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS The City Council Of Edina Ordains Section 1. Subsection 850.04. Subd. 3.1 is amended to read: 1. Pian Modifications. Minor changes may be authorized by the Planner. types, all othSF Ghanges WhiGh afleGt the overall design of the pwpedy shall be aeted en, reviewed and PFOGessed by the Commission and GeunGll in the as they Feviewed and P Gessed the site . Changes are considered minor 1 There is no increase to the proposed number of dwelling units, and 2 Any proposed increase in the floor area of structures on site does not exceed five percent (5%) or a total of 10,000 square feet, and 3 All proposed revisions comply with City Code requirements. All other plan modifications shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the Commission and Council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site plan. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK 1, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2011, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2011. City Clerk 2 Bloomington City Code - Section 21,501.03. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS, Paige 2 of 3 SEC. 21.501.03. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. (a) Purpose. The purpose of the final development plan application process is to; (1) Ensure that new development within the Planned Development Overlay District comply with City Code requirements or receive necessary approvals for flexibility,. (2) Ensure that sufficient information is provided by the applicant to determine the extent of compliance with City Code requirements and the public benefit related to proposed City Code flexibility; and (3) Ensure that approved development not yet constructed Is consistent with City Code requirements. (b) Where Required. f=inal development plan approval is required in the Planned Development Overlay Zoning District prior to the issuance of any permit for a new building, building addition, site characteristic or parking lot expansion. (c) Review and Approval. New final development plans and major revisions to previously approved final development plans must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and acted upon by the City Council, which has the authority to attach conditions of approval. Minor revisions to previously approved final development plans will be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Manager, who has the authority to attach conditions of approval. In the event that an application for a minor revision to a final development plan is denied by the Planning Manager, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by submitting an appeals request and any supporting materials within three days of the decision. (d) Revisions. Revisions to final development plans are considered minor it: (1) There is no increase to the proposed number of dwelling units; (2) Any proposed increase in the floor area of structures on site does not exceed live percent or a total of 10,000 square feet; (3) All proposed revisions comply with City Code requirements; (4) There Is no alteration to any condition of approval previously attached by the City Council, and (5) There is no alteration to a plan modification previously required by the City Council, (e) Findings. The following findings must be made prior to the approval of new final development plans or revisions to previously approved final development plans: (1) The proposed development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) The proposed development is not in conflict with any adopted District Plan for the area; (3) The proposed development Is not in conflict with the approved Preliminary Development Plan for the site; (4) All deviations from City Code requirements are in the public interest and within the parameters allowed under the Planned Development Overlay Zoning District or have previously received variance approval; (5) The proposed development is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit; (6) The proposed development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development; and 171 7ha nrnnnaarl rlavoMnmant a+itl nil ho Ini+ rtn++¢ fn fho ¢+ rrn++nrlinn ^al�hiu�rhnnrl http://www.ci.bloomington.mii.us/code//index.php/o/page/p/3065 6/8/2011