Loading...
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