HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 01-25 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Planning Commission
Council Chambers
\\,,, ;:z7:1 "" January 25, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
I. Call To Order
Vice-Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
II. Roll Call
Answering the Roll were: Vice-Chair Nemerov, Commissioners, Hobbs, Lee, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett,
Berube. Student Members, Kivimaki and Jones. City Planner Teague, Support Staff Hoogenakker, Sr.
Communications Coord. Eidsness
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the January 25, 2017, meeting
agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the January I I, 2017, meeting
minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion
carried.
V. Public Hearings
A. Subdivision with Variances. 6124 Ewing Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission that Jacob Steen on behalf of the property owner 6124 Ewing
LLC, is proposing to subdivide the property at 6124 Ewing Avenue into two lots. the existing home and
detached garage on the lot would be torn down, and two a new homes built on the new parcels. Both lots
would gain access directly off Ewing Avenue. The existing driveway to the property would be utilized as
the new driveway for the south lot. Teague said to accommodate the request the following is required:
1. A subdivision;
2. Lot width variances from 81.5 feet to 76 feet for each lot; and
3. Lot area variances from 11,500 square feet to 11,172 square feet for each lot; and
1
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 11,500 square feet, median lot depth is 135 feet, and the
median lot width is 81.5.The new lots would meet the median depth, but would be just short of the median
area.
Teague asked the Commission to note that the city engineer reviewed the proposed plans and found them
acceptable, subject to conditions.
Concluding,Teague said Recommend 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.
Draft Minutes CI
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 2/8/2017
January 25,2017
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the following items must be submitted:
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
Jacob Steen, Larkin Hoffman
Discussion/Comments
Planner Teague was asked if the lot were to remain one lot how large could a new house be. Planner Teague
responded based on the size of the lot the size of the building pad for this lot could be roughly 5,500 square
feet. With two lots that would be cut in half.
Planner Teague was asked if the lot(s) were developed with rain gardens as depicted how would enforcement
occur. Teague responded that whatever method was chosen at the time of building permit application there
can be no increase in run-off. Teague reiterated the storm water management plan was submitted to the
engineer and the plan was found acceptable, subject to conditions. The applicant would be required to meet
those conditions.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Steen addressed the Commission and briefly explained the history of the lot and the lot line adjustments to
accommodate encroachments from adjacent properties. Continuing, Steen pointed out that the lot is large,
adding that the existing structure is non-conforming with no rear yard. He said if approved the two new homes
would be more in character with the neighborhood.
Continuing, Steen said with regard to runoff they are committed to ensure there would be no increase in run-off
to the west. Steen added their intent was to actually reduce run-off. Steen thanked the Commission for their
time and asked for their support.
Public Hearing
Vice-chair Nemerov opened the public hearing.
3
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
Richard Cook, 3705 61st Street West, addressed the Commission.
Vice-chair Nemerov asked if anyone else would like to speak; being none a motion was made by
Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. A second was offered by Commissioner Strauss. All voted
aye. The motion carried.
Discussion/Comments
Mr. Steen was asked if it was the intent of his client to split the lot when purchased. Steen responded their first
thought was to renovate; however, due to the nonconformity and condition of the home they found it was not a
good candidate for remodel. Continuing, Steen added in his opinion if the subdivision was approved the
proposed new homes would meet all setback and lot coverage requirements.
A discussion ensued on the subdivision process and past area subdivisions. It was noted that a number of past
subdivision requests were to subdivide 100-foot lots into 50-foot lots. The lot is question is larger and the
circumstances of this individual lot are unique; including that the existing house is setback deeper on the lot
than other homes in the area and if new homes are constructed those homes would be more in character with
homes in the neighborhood than the existing home.
Commissioners further expressed the opinion that they could support the subdivision request.
Motion
A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to recommend approval of the subdivision based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions noting the subdivision of the lot is in keeping with the neighborhood.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried.
VI. Community Comment
None.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to close Community Comment. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Thorsen. All voted aye. The motion carried.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. Sketch Plan Review- Kellogg Avenue & Valley View Road
4
Draft Minutes
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date:2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
Applicant Presentation
Planner Teague reported that the Planning Commission was asked to consider a
sketch plan request to redevelop the northwest corner of Valley View Road and
Kellogg Avenue. Teague explained that the project includes land owned by the
Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) at the intersection of Valley
View Road and Kellogg Avenue, and the adjoining properties of 6120, 6116, and
6112 Kellogg. The specific proposal is to build a two-story office/retail building
(5,000 s.f. on the first level) with five affordable housing units on the second level
on the HRA owned land; and 8 two-story townhomes, similar to the recently
completed Brownstones on France. Two single-family homes would be removed
(61 16 & 6112). The home at 6116 is in a very poor state of repair and is not
occupied.
Continuing Teague told the Commission the HRA issued a request for proposal to
redevelop the vacant property located at the corner. One proposal was submitted;
however, the HRA did not accept the plan, and chose not to pursue it any further. The
HRA requested that city staff approach the adjacent property owner, Ed Noonan, to see
if he was interested. Mr. Noonan expressed interest, and submitted a plan for
development of the site. That plan was presented to the HRA, and the HRA asked that
the plans be further reviewed through the sketch plan process with the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Teague stated the HRA's request for further review did not intend or imply that the plans
would be approved. The normal full development review process is still required. This is
the first step in that process.
Teague told the Commission the property is .85 acres (37,026 s.f.) in size. The
density proposed in the project would be 15 units per acre. This site is guided in
the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which allows up to 30 units
per acre in this area. The plans are consistent with the Valley View/Wooddale
Small Area Plan in terms of height and density.
This request will require an amendment to the Plan to expand the boundary of the
plan to include three parcels currently zoned for single-family homes.
The request would require the following:
A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the boundary of the NN,
Neighborhood Node. Re-guiding these three lots from LD, Low Density to
NN, Neighborhood Node; and
➢ A Rezoning from R-I, Single-Dwelling Unit District and PCD-4, Planned
Commercial District to PCD-2, Planned Commercial District-2.
5
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutest
Approved Date: 2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
The apartments/condos would be a conditionally permitted use within the PCD-2,
Planned Commercial District Zoning District. Variances would be required for the
setbacks that are proposed.
Teague pointed out the highlights/Issues listed below:
• Residential re-development on the edge of the Valley View/Wooddale Small
Area Plan area consistent with the Plan. Plans do however; expand the
Small Area boundary on Kellogg.
• Density and scale fit the Small Area Plan.
➢ Height matches single-family home height.
➢ Develops the vacant corner & provides 5 units of affordable housing. The City's
affordable housing policy would not require affordable housing units, because the
project contains less than 20 units.
➢ Per the Small Area Plan, Open/Public space is suggested in an apartment style
development on this corner. Gathering Space Guidelines suggest a small
landscaped open space to support pedestrian movement and visual identity. Add
landscaping.
➢ Pedestrian Connections/boulevard sidewalks. Demonstrate how the project fits
into the neighborhood, and how pedestrians will move through the site.
➢ Store and building fronts. Should follow the guidelines in the Small Area Plan.
➢ No underground parking; however, the parking is located behind the buildings and
shared with the property to the west. Small Area Plan suggests a potential for on-
street parking.
➢ Setback of the corner building is very close to Valley View Road.
• Traffic and parking impact study required, but would likely generate less traffic
than fully occupied retail uses.
Appearing for the Applicant
Ed Noonan, Noonan Construction
Comments/Questions
Planner Teague was asked the City's stance on the subject of providing open space.
Planner Teague explained the Small Area Plan encourages public open space areas,
adding they would work well along the corners; providing an area for benches
and/or increased green space and landscaping. Teague said with this proposal there
would be several options for the applicant to pursue.
P PP
Planner Teague was asked why a Comprehensive Plan amendment was required
for this project. Planner Teague responded the reason a comprehensive plan
amendment was required is to re-guide the R-I residential properties to
neighborhood node. Teague said of course the site needs to be rezoned to
accommodate the proposed uses.
6
Draft Minutes El
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
Commissioners asked how the affordable housing element of the proposal would
be enforced. Teague explained that affordable housing would be tied to the
rezoning with a land use designation. Teague said affordable housing conditions
typically run roughly I5-years and are for rental only.
Confusion was expressed on why the applicant didn't respond to the RFP sent out
by the City for this site.
Commissioners expressed concern over the lack of"interest" in architectural
details, etc.; especially on the Valley View side of the project
A question was raised on if parking was adequate and met the formula for the
mixed use aspects of office/retail/housing for the project. Concern continued to
be expressed over adequate "common space".
Planner Teague was asked what standard affordable housing. Teague responded
that standards begin over 20-units.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Noonan addressed the Commission and explained that he has met with city
staff a number of times on ideas to redevelop this property, adding none of his
ideas "panned out". Noonan said he always envisioned housing as part of the
redevelopment and was happy to respond to the request by the HRA to submit a
vision for this property. Noonan said in his opinion the submittal was very sensitive
to the R-I residential properties and developed within the guiding principles of the
Wooddale/Valley View small area plan.
Continuing, Noonan explained the upgrades he has made to his properties and his
vision for the redevelopment of this area. The subject area includes the vacant
property at the intersection of Valley View Road/Kellogg Avenue, and the adjoining
properties at 61 16 Kellogg Avenue and 6112 Kellogg Avenue. Noonan also noted
his parking lot is also included. With graphics Noonan shared the following:
•The name of the project is Sans Souci — which translates as "without worries"
or a "carefree" style of living.
•Eight (8) "Rowhomes" are proposed. (potential to 10)
•The project has the potential for five (5) affordable housing units.
•A one-story office building which compliments the newly renovated
4420 Valley View Road.
•Public amenity on the corner of Kellogg/Valley View Road.
Noonan in response to the question on why he didn't respond to the original RFP
explained at that time he had a lot going on and since then has tied up those loose
ends.
7
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
Concluding, Noonan asked for support from the Commission and said in providing
affordable housing he felt he was giving back to the city and acknowledged there
was a need for it.
Discussion
Commissioners thanked Mr. Noonan for his commitment to affordable housing.
Mr. Noonan was asked to take another look at providing public spaces. They
pointed out the redevelopment on the Wally's gas station site enhanced the
corner, suggesting that the applicant revisit his plans to provide more public space
areas.
Commissioners referred to the building sketches submitted and asked the applicant
if what was depicted is what would be constructed. Mr. Noonan explained that
the sketches before the Commission are a concept rendering. Noonan stated the
details haven't been finalized; however, he believes the concept works well and
what is laid out would be built.
A discussion ensued on the proposed concept with Commissioners suggesting that
more needs to be done on the Valley View side to break up the wall mass and find
ways to engage the facade with the street. Commissioners also stated they would
like to see more detailed plans indicating how the different uses interface. It was
further suggested that more could be done connecting Valley Wood Center I to
Valley Wood Center 2 and the housing component. More thought needs to be
focused on parking and the experience on foot or by bike through the project.
The discussion continued with Commissioners noting parking needs to be further
studied, adding a traffic study needs to be completed providing information on
traffic flow and parking. It was pointed out this stretch of Valley View Road can be
very busy with traffic to and from the hospital.
Concluding Commissioners said the plan was thoughtful; however, reiterated the
following:
•Provide a traffic study.
•Take another look at the corners and provide more public spaces that
complement what is occurring with the new redevelopment to the west.
•Enhance the architectural components on the buildings; again pay special
attention to the Valley View facade and how the different "uses" mix.
Vice-chair Nemerov thanked the applicants for their presentation.
Mr. Noonan told the Commission a neighborhood meeting was scheduled for
February 2, 2017.
8
Draft Minutes❑
Approved Minutes®
Approved Date: 2/8/2017
January 25, 2017
VIII.Correspondence And Petitions
Vice-chair Nemerov acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. Chair And Member Comments
Planner Teague was asked to clarify the sketch plan review process.
Planner Teague explained the sketch plan process provides an applicant nonbinding feedback from the
Commission and Council on "potential" projects. The "Sketch Plan" is heard first by the Commission
than proceeds to the Council. The applicant than decides if they want to move forward with a formal
application.
Teague said the sketch plan heard this evening was a little different because one of the components of the
proposal included land owned by the City. In this instance the HRA must weigh in on all City owned
property. Continuing, Teague stated the role of the Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council.
Vice-chair Nemerov asked Planner Teague if he had an update on the Comprehensive Plan. Teague
responded that he believes the agreement with the consultant would be signed and would be heard by the
City Council at their February 7th meeting.
February 8th is the work session with the Commission and Consultant. That work session would begin at
5 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
X. Staff Comments
Planner Teague asked the Commission to note the memo from MJ Lamon, adding they would discuss the
memo at their February 8th meeting.
XI. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning
Commission at 8:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs. All voted
aye. The motion carried.
Tackle 3 foogenakker
Respectfully submitted
9