Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 04-27 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date:5/25/2016 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission 0113 Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street April 27, 2016, 7:00 P.M. I. Call To Order Chair Platteter called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Chair Platteter, Commissioners Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Olsen Carr, Hamilton, and Student Commissioners Kivimaki and Ma. Staff present: Community Development Director Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker, Senior Planner Repya and Support Staff Hoogenakker III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Hobbs suggested a change to the Agenda to allow the requested variance for Thomas and Shannon Leach, 5526 to be heard first. Motion to approve amending the Agenda as stated was made by Thorsen. Motion seconded by Strauss. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioners Lee and Nemerov requested changes to the minutes. Motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2016 Planning Commission meeting with the changes suggested by Lee and Nemerov. Motion was seconded by Strauss. All voted aye; motion carried. V. Public Hearings B. Lot width variance for 5526 Interlachen Boulevard for Thomas and Shannon Leach Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the property is a vacant"neck lot" located on the north side of Interlachen Boulevard and backing up to a ponding area. The property was subdivided in 1952 and has been vacant since subdivision. The ordinance requires a single dwelling unit lot to consist of no less than 75 feet in width, (as measured 50 feet back from the front lot line). The subject property is 30 feet in lot width, 50 feet back from the front lot line and is 67,601 square feet in area. 1 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date:5/25/2016 Planner Aaker noted the lot provides a 30-foot lot width, adding a 45 foot lot width variance is required to allow a new home to be built on the lot. There is no evidence that variances were granted as part of subdivision, so presumably the plat met city requirements at the time of division. A majority of the lot far exceeds the lot width, depth and area requirements, however, where the width is measured per ordinance definition is too narrow. The property owner is hoping to construct a new two story home on the main, (larger) part of the lot . The house will conform to all zoning requirements including height, setback and coverage. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance based on the following findings: I) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions. 3) The imposed lot width by definition does not allow redevelopment of the property without the benefit of a variance. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions: I) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site Plan date stamped April 5, 2016. • Building plans and elevations date stamped: April 5, 2016. • Approval of a revised grading, drainage, storm water management and erosion control plan by the Engineering Department prior to building permit issuance. • Approval of a final tree placement plan by the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Site must comply with the City's tree ordinance. Appearing for the Applicant Thomas and Shannon Leach Applicant Comments Mr. Leach addressed the Commission and explained their desire is to build a family home. Leach said he reached out to his neighbors and informed them of their plans. Leach further explained that he will work with neighbors on tree and landscaping placement during the construction process and after the new home is built. Continuing, Leah said the site was cleared of buckthorn, Cotton Wood and Aspen, adding he worked with an arborist on tree preservation and replacement. Leach asked Commissioners for their support. Chair Platteter raised a question if a new house is built on a vacant lot is it required to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative. She noted the City Forrester reviewed the applicants tree preservation plan and in his judgement determined the requirements and replacement procedures Commissioners further noted that during the construction 2 Draft Minutes El Approved Minutes►'1 Approved Date:5/25/2016 process attention needs to be paid to the trees root system. Mr. Leach was asked the width of the new driveway and the size of the new trees. Mr. Leach said the driveway is proposed at around 12- feet and trees are proposed at a 2 '/z diameter at breast height. Leach stressed that they would comply with all Code requirements. Discussion Commissioners expressed the following: • A question was raised on when the ordinance was changed to require a 75-foot lot width, and if in Edina there are other"flag type lots". Planner Aaker responded that she believes the ordinance was changed sometime in the 1970's, adding there are a number of"flag" or "neck" lots within the City. Aaker further noted that the ordinance also requires that a lot must have 30-feet of frontage on an improved street, which this one does. • It was pointed out that any change/increase in water runoff would need to be mitigated. Planner Aaker responded in the affirmative and introduced Charlie Gerk, with the Engineering Department to speak on water management. Charlie Gerk addressed the Commission and said this area was carefully studied. Gerk said the City does not want an increase in runoff to private property or the pond to the east adding there are a number of ways to accommodate the excess water. Continuing, he noted a rain garden or ponding area could be implemented on the site; adding the "area" required would be approximately 20 X 20 and I-foot deep. Gerk said a revised grading plan for the western low point of the site would need to be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit. A discussion ensued on the water management options with Gerk explaining that in working together with the applicant a satisfactory storm water management plan can be implemented. He said the goal was to ensure adequate water management for a I 1/2—inch rainfall. Gerk said he believes a 2 inch per hour perk rate was needed. Gerk further noted Cooper pond to the east gathers the water runoff from a number of lots and in the past if the pond was full the City would pump it out. Gerk said the City no longer pumps out that pond. Again, Gerk explained that all details would be worked out prior to issuance of a building permit. • A question was raised regarding the removal of trees noting that trees were removed prior to the variance request. Planner Aaker explained that a property owner has the right to remove trees and/or vegetation on their property and that includes vacant lots. Aaker explained the property owner purchased the property with the intent of building a house. The Tree Ordinance has a one year "no touch" requirement before a building permit is "pulled". She concluded the applicant has submitted a Tree Preservation Plan. • Commissioners asked the applicant to keep in touch with neighbors during the construction process. Mr. Leach responded it is his intent to "keep in touch". Public Hearing Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. 3 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/25/2016 Lynn Gulbronson, 5 Cooper, addressed the Commission and reported she has concerns with drainage. She further noted that the City no longer pumps out"Cooper" pond. Laurie Swift, 29 Cooper Circle, addressed the Commission and expressed concern that the pond pumping is no longer being done by the City, adding her concern is also with water runoff. Marilyn Jasa, 5520 Interlachen Boulevard, asked staff for clarification on the proposed house placement. Chair Platteter asked if anyone else would like to speak being none, Motion made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Carr. Motion carried. Continued Discussion Planner Teague was asked for clarification on the Commissions role for the requested variance. Planner Teague responded that the applicant has requested a variance from the City's lot width requirement. Teague stated the role of the Commission is to determine if the subject lot is buildable. A lot width variance is needed so construction of a new house can occur. • It was noted that this lot appears to have acted as a watershed for this area and the pond is critical. It is important to know where the water will go. • The property owner has the right to construct a house; however the existing homeowners should not be negatively impacted as a result of new home construction. • Advise the engineering department to follow this application through the process very carefully. A successful development of this site is contingent on how the engineering department monitors the entire process. • Consider an increase in tree size (2 '// caliper may be too small) to allow for maximum absorption, noting some of the trees that were removed were of considerable size. The buckthorn that was removed was also part of the absorption process in this area. Consider more landscaping. Motion Commissioner Carr commented that overall she believes the house was well placed on the lot. Motion was made by Commissioner Carr to approve the 45-foot lot width variance based on staff finding and subject to staff conditions including the recommendation that Condition 3, page 5, of the staff report read as follows: "Approval of a revised grading, drainage, storm water management and erosion control plan by the Engineering department prior to building permit issue both during construction and post construction". Motion was seconded by Commissioner Thorsen. All voted aye; motion. 4 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date:5/25/2016 Chair Platteter commented that at this time it may be worthwhile for the Engineering Department to reconsider their policy on pumping "Cooper" pond. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment—Scoreboards at Kuhlman Stadium and Courtney Field Planner Presentation Planner Teague reported that Edina Public Schools is requesting an amendment to the City's Sign Ordinance to build a new scoreboard at Kuhlman Stadium. The proposed sign is 544 total square feet in size including the advertising panel (25% allowed). Continuing, Teague explained that the current Ordinance allows a scoreboard to be no more than 200 square feet and staff recommended that a Zoning Ordinance Amendment rather than a large Variance request accommodate the new scoreboard. Planner Teague shared photos of the size of neighboring communities' school scoreboards: • Burnsville 1,350 s.f. • Eden Prairie 1,432 s.f. • Wayzata 950 s.f. • Minnetonka 1,000 s.f. Planner Teague concluded that based on the comparison of similar scoreboards at similar sized schools, staff recommends the Ordinance changes as proposed. Appearing for the School District Troy Stein Applicant Comments Mr. Stein addressed the Commission and explained that the proposed sign will be digital LED, adding the sign will be able to display results for all sports. Stein asked the Commission for their support. Discussion/Comments • Mr. Stein was asked if the "hornet" logo is lit. Mr. Stein informed the Commission the hornet would be illuminated only during games. • A question was raised if the sponsorship raceways could display the sponsors more uniformly and not randomly display them "all over the board". It was noted that sponsors logo would be displayed along the "raceways"; however without uniformity. A sponsor's" brand" logo would be permitted. Motion Motion was made byCommissioner Carr to recommend that the CityCouncil approve amending the Ordinance based on the staff findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thorsen. All voted aye. The motion carried. Chair Platteter asked Mr. Stein when the District proposes to have the sign up. Mr. Stein responded their goal is to have it up and running by fall. VI. Community Comment. None 5 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date:5/25/2016 VII. Correspondence and Petitions Chair Platteter acknowledged receipt of the Attendance and Council Connection. VII. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Lee commented that for her the engineering departments' project memo is very helpful, adding she feels it would be very useful to receive project memos from the Transportation Commission. Lee questioned if it would be possible to get feedback from the Transportation Commission (especially for the Southdale area) when the Commission is reviewing development proposals. Continuing, Lee said she feels there is a gap, adding she is not sure of the Transportation Commissions role. Chair Platteter informed Commissioners the Transportation Commission no longer has an "active" role, adding they used too. He said believes a decision was made (before his time) by the Council to eliminate the Transportation Commission from the planning project review process. Platteter said when a formal application is filed both the applicant and City work under a timeline established by the Legislature. Platteter said he believes at one time both the City Council, Transportation and Planning Commissions reviewed proposals; however, it became a long difficult process (under a time line) adding the question got to be about the public process. By statute the Planning Commission holds the public hearings, not the Transportation Commission. Notification or "getting the word out" at the Transportation Commission level could become confusing on who conducts the public hearing. Teague agreed reiterating a duplication process did occur when the Transportation Commission commented on site specific issues. Platteter noted that all development proposals go before the City Council, noting a "two-step" process became a "three-step process" if it went before the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Lee stated she believes the Commission should know how the Transportation Commission feels about a specific project along with their suggestions if warranted. Planner Teague responded the transportation element for every project is addressed in the engineering memo by Mark Nolan, the transportation planner. A question was raised if the traffic consultants and Mr. Nolan look at developments from a multimodal point, not just a vehicle point. Planner Teague responded that the "policy" when reviewing a development proposal would be to include all forms of transportation in the traffic study and engineers memo. Commissioner Carr said she was curious about the Council outcome of the sketch plan review proposal for the properties on the 4500 block of France by Ed Noonan. Planner Teague responded the developer revised the plan before Council review per suggestions from the Commission, adding the Council heard the sketch plan and agreed with much of what the Commission suggested. Teague said the Council appeared to be receptive to the proposal, adding he believes Mr. Noonan will return with a formal application. Commissioner Nemerov commented in thinking about his previous comments on boulevards that now he's not sure if it's a good idea especially when one considers the chemicals used to keep a boulevard "green". Commissioner Hobbs pointed out there are hardy plants that can be planted on boulevards along busy streets. He said not all boulevards need to be "green grass turf'. VIII. Staff Comments Planner Teague informed Commission they are invited to attend a work session with the City Council on May I7th. At 5:30. Mic Johnson, Southdale Area Plan Process, will present findings to the City Council. Teague said the work session is not mandatory; just an invite. 6 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes Approved Date:5/25/2016 IX. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to adjourn the planning commission meeting at 8:30 P.M. Motion seconded by Commissioner Olsen. All voted aye; motion to adjourn carried. ..Tacki.eigoogonakicer Respectfully submitted 7