Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 f Minutes ,, ELETiiiCity Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission �` Edina City Hall Council Chambers April 26, 2017. I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Commissioners Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Bennett, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Kivimaki and Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker Senior Planner, Repya, Sr. Communications Coord., Eidsness, Support Staff, Hoogenakker III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the April 26, 2017, meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting; The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Variance. 6312 Post Lane, Edina, MN. A first floor height variance to build a new home. Staff Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission MJL Homes has submitted a variance application on behalf of the property owners to increase first floor elevation 2.75-feet higher than the current first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 6312 Post Lane. Planner Aaker reported that staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a variance to allow the first floor elevation 2.75 feet higher than the existing home for the following four reasons: Page 1 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 1) The proposed home design elevates the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. 2) The proposed home design elevates the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code with regard to minimum ceiling heights and floor truss size; 3) The proposed home design fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass; 4) The request meets the criteria for approval of a variance given the following findings: a. The proposal meets the conditions for variance. b. The proposal meets all other applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. c. The proposal fits the character with this neighborhood. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of a 1.75 foot 1st floor height variance to allow the construction of a new home that will be more than one foot (2.75 feet total) above the existing first floor elevation of the previous home located at 6312 Post Lane due to Flood Plain Regulations. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: Survey date stamped March 10, 2017. Building plans and elevations date stamped March 10, 2017 Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo. Appearing for the Applicant Mike Lindor, MJL Homes Applicant Presentation Mr. Lindor addressed the Commission and explained that the homeowners desire a higher ceiling noting that the bedroom ceiling is a tray ceiling; however, the pitch of the roof was lowered to reduce mass. Lindor noted that the neighborhood has many differing house styles; to include two story, mid-century modern, ramblers, etc. Lindor asked the Commission for their support. Discussion/Comments Commissioners acknowledged the fact that home styles in this neighborhood vary; however, it appears that Edina's housing stock is being replaced by larger homes. Mr. Lindor agreed that homebuyers want larger homes, adding he has constructed a number of homes in Edina; all large compared to past standards, with clients sometimes wanting larger. Mr. Lindor was asked if trees would be removed. Mr. Lindor responded in the affirmative, adding that he believes at minimum 7 trees would be removed to accommodate the new construction. Lindor said he had an arborist out to the site who indicated to him that if one builds in the drip line of a tree chances are that tree would not survive. Lindor concluded that they will be careful with tree removal and would add replacement vegetation. Planner Aaker interjected that a tree replacement plan would be drafted for the Page 2 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 site, adding that the applicant would have to meet any requirements stipulated in that plan during the permitting phase of the project. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments Commissioners noted that in the future the Commission may want to reconsider roof height; especially if adjacent homes are one or I '/z stories. It was observed that retaining the character of a neighborhood was important. It was stated that the proposed home was in keeping with the neighborhood; however, neighborhood character should always be addressed. The Commission further commented that the new homes being constructed throughout Edina are large and are replacing for the most part smaller homes. Concluding, Commissioners stated in this instance the house does fit the scale of the neighborhood; albeit height continues to be a struggle. Commissioners expressed support for the project. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the variance based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berube. All voted aye. The motion carried. B. Variance. 5721 Blake Road, Edina, MN. A 2-foot fence height variance Planner Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the subject property is located in the northeast corner of Blake Road and Eden Prairie Road, consisting of a two story home with an attached two car Garage built in 1993. The owner would like to replace existing fence sections that are 4 feet tall with a 6-foot tall fence sections. The current fence varies in height given adjacent front yard area of neighboring property. Aaker explained that the homeowner has decided to replace the existing fence on the property.The fence is proposed to be 6 feet in height, with a section adjacent to the west neighbor located at 6116 Eden Prairie Road to exceed the allowable 4 foot height in the front yard area.The section requiring a variance extends beyond the front wall of the neighbor to the west within what is considered their front yard area.The existing fence is 4 feet Page 3 of 9 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 in height with the proposed 6-foot tall section of the fence requiring a 2-foot fence height variance.The property to the west is a two-story home built in 1973. The neighboring home fronts Eden Prairie Road and faces south, which is adjacent to the subject homes side street. Approve the requested variance based on the following findings. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: • The practical difficulty is caused by the corner lot configuration and adequate fence protection around the lot perimeter. Approval of the variance is also subject to the following condition: I. The fence must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped April 13, 2017, Appearing for the Applicant Blaine and Cara Anderson, property owners and applicant. Applicant Comments Mr. Andersen said the reason they are requesting an increase in fence height from 4-feet to 6-feet is to provide privacy and protection. He said the impacted neighbor supports the fence. Concluding, Andersen said the fence also provides a buffer from the higher density apartment across Eden Prairie Road. Discussion/Comments Commissioners asked Planner Aaker the reason for the 4-foot front yard setback limit. Planner Aaker explained that the Code stipulates that fences in the front yard setback area cannot exceed 4-feet in height. This height limitation eliminates sight line obstructions to the front street. Aaker further noted that because of the orientation of neighboring homes some corner lots are required to maintain two front yard setbacks. Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. Public Hearing None. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs. All voted aye; The motion carried. Motion Page 4 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve a 2-foot fence height variance based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berube. All voted aye. The motion carried. A. Sketch Plan Review— 5150 & 5220 Eden Avenue. (Edina School Bus Garage Site). Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to re-develop the existing school bus garage for Edina Schools. The bus garage operation will be moving into the City's Industrial Park west of Highway 100 and north of 1-494. Teague stated the Commission input would be nonbinding. The specific proposal is to tear down the existing structure on the site and construct a 6-story 180-190 unit senior housing development with 235 underground parking facilities. The subject property is 1.64 acres in size. The proposed 180-190 unit building would be 1 10-1 15 units per acre. The site is currently guided for a maximum of 75 units per acre; which is a result of the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment that increased density in the Grandview area from 30 units per acre to 75 units per acre. Teague reported to accommodate the request the following is required: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase the density from 75 units per acre to 115 units per acre in the MXC-Mixed Use Center; and ➢ A Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The focus of the feedback on this proposal should be on the proposed density and setbacks, which exceed the city zoning ordinance standards and comprehensive plan. The Southdale Area Development Principles were shared with the applicant; and they have responded. Continuing, Planner Teague said while the proposed uses would be an upgrade to the current buildings on the site, staff could not support this project as proposed due to the significant size and the number of variances needed; and the reliance of land not controlled by the applicant and public right of way for sidewalks and landscaping. Staffs concerns include: Y Number and size of variances needed. r No podium height is proposed here; the six-story height is located right up close to the lot line on all four sides. Lack of green space and public realm. ➢ Green Space, Landscaping and sidewalks proposed are located in the right-of-way and on property not even owned or controlled by the applicant. (See pages A25-26.) ➢ Mass of the building. ➢ The proposed density far exceeds the Comprehensive Plan guideline, which was just increased to 75 units per acre. Page 5 of 9 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/1 0/20 17 Teague concluded that higher density seems reasonable in this area given the proximity to arterial roadways; therefore, the high end of the 75-unit max would seem reasonable. Appearing for the Applicant Grady Hamilton and Johnny Carlson, Trammel Crown Company and Aaron Roseth, ESG Discussion and Comments Commissioners asked Planner Teague how this redevelopment proposal evolved. Planner Teague responded that the School District went out for an RFP. Trammel Crown Company was chosen to proceed with a redevelopment vision. Commissioners expressed the opinion that redevelopment of this site could be better if it was combined with the City owned property to the east. Combining those two sites could result in a better project. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hamilton introduced the project and informed the Commission they believe the proposed land use is the correct use for this site. Hamilton said the project as proposed is a senior apartment building for the 55+ active senior. Hamilton noted that the design of the project responds well to the City's transportation recommendations within the Grandview District Development Framework. Hamilton further noted that they have been in discussion with Jerry's Enterprises. Hamilton concluded giving a brief history of Trammell Crow Company. Mr. Carlson addressed the Commission and explained that the project as proposed is an age restricted active adult luxury residential community with 180-190 units and 235 parking stalls. Carlson said that the proposed development is aimed at the active adult that would enjoy the mixed-use aspect of the area that provides walkability and other amenities at their fingertips. The development would include an activities director introducing socialization options. Mr. Roseth delivered a presentation highlighting specific design options of the site to include: • Structure would be a wood-framed structure over a concrete podium. • Exterior building materials will consist of stone, brick, stucco, composite siding and glass. • Windows are expansive allowing plenty of daylight into and views from the units. • Front porch style outdoor space and a simple system of recessed and hung balconies that allow residents to take advantage of the outdoors. (Courtyard style) Page 6 of 9 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date:5/10/2017 • The site would provide appropriate connectivity to include pedestrian walkways, yards and porches fronting Eden Avenue, dense landscaping Continuing, Roseth said the Southdale Guiding Principles were also taken into consideration with the development of this project. Roseth further reported that traffic improvements within the area both private and public are important. Roseth further noted the grade differences are hard to work with; however, would be addressed. Concluding the Development Team thanked the Commission for their attention and stood for questions. Discussion and Comments Commissioners asked the Development Team if they considered staff concerns stipulated in the Staff memo. Mr. Roseth responded they are early in the design process and are looking for Commission comments as well as Staff comments before proceeding with formal application. Roseth said it is understood that the site has some challenges, adding the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning to PUD are important aspects of the project. Continuing, some Commissioners stated they support the proposed land use and were pleased with the addition of affordable housing however, some Commissioners stated they were finding it difficult to support the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Nemerov further suggested that the sketch plan review should not have occurred before staff comments were dealt with. Commissioners shared the following: • The future walkability of the area was acknowledged as a plus; however, more thought needs to be given to the street level of the building to create a feeling of openness to the street and the feeling of the building blending with the street. • Again, create more openness to the street, create a "front porch" for the entire building, it is too closed in. • Look at the access between Jerry's and the subject site. Make that work. • Design exterior flexibility; consider opening the pool level up to the street; stressing again the importance of the ground level and the sense of activity. • Consider urban landscaping. • Take another look at Eden Avenue and the pedestrian flow to include bike traffic. • Consider reducing unit size or the configuration of the building to reduce mass at street level; maybe consider re-orienting the building. • Podium height would be of benefit in reducing the mass. • The building height that is proposed is too tall; again look at podium height "play around with height". Page 7 of 9 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 • The density as proposed is too much; Commissioners stated they support an increase in density; however, reiterated as proposed it is too much. • Support for the project was expressed; however, as previously mentioned the Commission stressed the importance of paying attention to the concerns expressed by staff; suggesting that the Development Team respond to those concerns before proceeding to the Council. • Concern was expressed for the slope of the site and that the building as proposed may not relate to the best of its ability to the rest of the Grandview area. In conclusion, a number of Commissioners expressed support for the land use and that the project had good qualities; however, asked the Team to reconsider, density, building mass, building height and area connectivity. Chair Olsen thanked the applicants for their great presentation. VI. Community Comment A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to close community comment. The motion was seconded by Commission Thorsen. All voted aye. The motion carried. VII. Reports/Recommendations VIII.Correspondence And Petitions Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. Chair And Member Comments None. X. Staff Comments Planner Teague reminded the Commission of the two upcoming Comprehensive Plan meetings. The first; May 3rd is the Comprehensive Plan 101 Work Session for Boards and Commissions; and the second on May 8th is the Comprehensive Plan Kick-off. Teague said all are encouraged to attend. Teague reported that on the next agenda staff would be placing the Temporary Health Care Dwelling Unit draft ordinance for their comments and action. XI. Adjournment Page 8 of 9 Draft Minutes0 Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 5/10/2017 A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs. All voted aye. The meeting was adjourned. facia& cogovicacker Respectfully submitted Page 9 of 9