Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 09-28 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes_ Approved Date:October 13,2016 N< li`N Minutes v 1 City Of Edina, Minnesota ' 41 Planning Commission = �' F Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:October 13,2016 revised the definition for lowest floor; however, did not include the exemptions. Wilson said those exceptions apply to homes on stilts, and pilings, etc.which is not typical in Edina. With regard to#7 Wilson indicated that the City chose the more conservative approach of two feet (previously was one-foot) to align with Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and several nearby communities. Continuing,Wilson went through the items 8 through 14; clarifying the City's position. Commissioners asked Wilson what this actually means. Wilson responded in 1980 when the City entered into the program the "clock started" on any additions, alterations,etc. made to a property. Any changes to the property is tracked through the permit process and the current market value is determined and the value of past improvements are adjusted for inflation. Wilson said the federal minimum is to track improvements over 365 days instead of over the life of the structure and this is what the City is proposing in the update. Wilson reiterated that adopting the minimum standard for this provision balances flood risk mitigation and development opportunity for the property owner. Commissioners asked Wilson when a resident sells their home are they required to disclose they are in a flood plain. Wilson said they are required to share that information if they are in a FEMA floodzone, adding a title search on the property should also divulge that. For homes in flood prone areas that are not FEMA floodzones, a disclosure would not be required. It was acknowledged that floodplain development standards are of benefit to the City and individual property owners because it is intended to mitigate flood risk and flood damages over time. Wilson agreed adding when flooding events occur the City also shares in the cost through emergency services, sandbagging, etc. Commissioners commented that for the most part they support the updates to the Floodplain District Overlay. Motion A Motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to adopt the Floodplain Districts Overlay ordinance updates. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. Ayes; Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Olsen. Nay; Nemerov. Motion to adopt carried 7-I. B. Public Hearing: Subdivision with Variances; 5845 Kellogg Avenue for Kyle Litwin on behalf of Young Kim Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the Kyle Litwin on behalf of Young Kim is proposing to subdivide the property at 5845 Kellogg Avenue into two lots.The existing home on the corner would remain, and a new home built on the north lot.To accommodate the request the following is required: Page 12 Draft Minutes CI Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:October 13,2016 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; 3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,709 square feet for each lot; and 4. A sid yard setback variance from 5.To 4.7 feet for the existing structure Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed two lot subdivision of 5845 Kellogg Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,709 square feet for each lot, and a side yard setback variance from 5 feet to 4.7 feet for the existing home to remain.Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Except for the variances,the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot width and depth and nearly meet the median area. 3. The proposal would restore the property back to the form of the original plat,which included two lots. 4. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique practical difficulty to the property caused by the existing size of the property which is two times the size of most lots on the block. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood.The existing lot is both larger and wider than most properties in the area, including the adjacent lots to the east,west and south.The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. c. The proposed lots would be the same size as the lots were originally platted. d. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others in the neighborhood. e. If the variances were denied,the applicant would be denied a use of his property,a 50-foot wide lot,which is common to the area. In addition,the applicant would be denied a subdivision with variances that has been previously approved with these same circumstances by the City in the last couple years. f. The side setback for the existing home is reasonable.The practical difficulty is the location of the existing home in relationship to the underlying 50-foot lots in the original plat.The proposed subdivision restores the existing plat, and the structure is an existing condition.The setback is very close to the required 5-foot setback at 4.7 feet back. (See page A8.)The lot line could be shifted to meet the setback, but then lot sizes would be irregular. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the following items must be submitted: Page 13 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:October 13,2016 a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval.The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb-cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. c. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. The proposed plans shall meet all conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated September 22, 2016 d. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb-to-curb and from saw-cut to saw-cut. f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Appearing for the Applicant Kyle Litwin, Realtor and Young Kim, property owner. Discussion/Comments Commissioners expressed the following: • Planner Aaker was asked if she knew the reason(s) the City Council denied two of the six subdivision requests in this area. Planner Aaker responded one of the subdivision requests (Brookview) was on a block with multiple lots in excess of 50-feet so the Council felt that the 100-foot wide lot was in character with that block; adding they may have felt the same for the lot on Oaklawn. • Commissioners asked Planner Aaker the history of the 75-foot lot width requirement. Planner Aaker reiterated as pointed out in the staff report two ordinances are at play here; the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Both have different requirements; however, are two separate processes. Median/mean lot size, width and area are part of the Subdivision Ordinance and the 75-foot lot with requirement is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Aaker said she is not sure why 75-feet became the standard. Aaker further noted that many of Edina's lots were platted, purchased and developed prior to the 75-foot lot width requirement. Those lots are now considered non-conforming; however, a property owner can request to subdivide and a variance from the Zoning Ordinance is required. Aaker said in this case it appears someone purchased two adjoining lots and built on one lot. The property owner is now requesting to subdivide. • It was noted that it appears the largest structure possible is built on these smaller lots. The argument has been made that two smaller houses (although new& larger) would be a"better fit" for the neighborhood than one overly large house on an overly large lot. Commissioners expressed with regard to the subject block that there are a number of two lot combinations on this block providing variety in spacing. Commissioners further pointed out this lot (as the others on the block) remain undeveloped; with the question remaining-what is the character of the Page 1 4 Draft Minutes❑ Approved MinutesE Approved Date:October 13,2016 neighborhood; what's there now or the underlying plat. Planner Aaker acknowledged that point, adding in a number of instances a house was built over the common line of the combined lots; however, in this instance the existing house was built on only one lot possibly leaving one lot for future development. • The opinion was also expressed that the subject site had reasonable use for 70 plus years, adding any hardship was self-created. Public Hearing The following residents spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision: Andrew Beson, 5844 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN Josie Fisher, 5901 Kellogg Avenue, Edina, MN Chair Olsen asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion to close the public hearing carried. There was a brief discussion on concern with drainage issues with residents pointing out in the past there have been water problems in this area. Discussion/Further Comments • It was observed that this subdivision request is interesting. It was noted that the block itself was unique because of the number of combined lots; however, the underlying plat is two 50-foot lots, which is the neighborhood average. This proposal falls into a gray area. • A question was raised on if the Silver Maple would be removed and if so would it be replaced. Planner Aaker responded that a Silver Maple is not a protected tree, adding the City Forester has reviewed the project and submitted findings. The City requires I-I replacement. • Commissioners again acknowledged the variety of lot sizes on the subject block adding they believe that variety created the character of this block. The majority of Commissioners also said they found no hardship to support the variances. A discussion ensued with the majority of Commissioners expressing the opinion they could not support the subdivision as submitted. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to deny the request for subdivision with variances for 5845 Kellogg Avenue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thorsen. Ayes; Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Olsen. Nay, Strauss. Motion to deny carried 7-1. VI. Community Comment Page I 5 Draft MinutesE Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:October 13,2016 None. A motion was made by Commissioner to close Community Comment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried. VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII.Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Nemerov congratulated Chair Olsen on her first meeting as Commission Chair. IX. Staff Comments None. X. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Thorsen. All voted aye. The motion carried. jc clgle i-toosevolq,IR,er Respectfully submitted Page 16