Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 10/25/2017 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers October 11, 2017 I. Call To Order Vice-Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll: Commissioners Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Vice-Chair Nemerov. Student Member Mittal. Staff, Assistant Planner, Aaker Sr., Water Resources Coordinator, Wilson, Communications Coord., Eidsness, Support Staff, Hoogenakker. Absent from the roll: Commissioners Hobbs, Olsen,Jones, Berube. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the October 11, 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 September 27, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Variance. Refined LLC. 5712 Woodland Lane, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Aaker reported that the applicant is requesting to increase the first floor elevation 7.1 feet higher than the current home's first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 5712 Woodland Lane. This property is located in the Minnehaha Woods neighborhood and a large portion of the property is located within the floodplain. The City of Edina's Engineering standards require the basement elevation of the new home to be 2 feet higher than the FEMA base flood elevation. The Page 1of6 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 10/25/2017 requirement for increased height in basement elevation affects the ability for the project to conform to the maximum first floor height requirement of I foot. The property is located at the end of Woodland Lane Cul-de-sac and backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The multi-level home was built in 1952 prior to the FEMA floodplain study conducted in 1979 to determine flood risk areas. The lowest level of the home is at 858.3, which is 3.9 feet lower than the minimum flood protection elevation of 862.2. This is a neighborhood prone to flooding with most of the homes built prior to the flood plain study and with many having low floors below the flood protection elevation. It is a City and Watershed District goal to elevate and remove homes out of the flood hazard areas when the opportunity presents itself. Aaker explained that a variance is required to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one foot. The current home located at 5712 Woodland Lane has a first floor elevation of 865.6 feet above sea level. This neighborhood in Edina is located in a floodplain area, and the established floodplain elevation is 860.2. The minimum basement elevation must be no less than 2 feet above the flood elevation so the minimum basement elevation for the property is at 862.2 feet. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped September I I, 2017. • Building plans and elevations date stamped September I I, 2017. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated. Appearing for the Applicant Andy Porter, Refined LLC Comments/Questions Planner Aaker was asked how tall the new house was. Planner Aaker responded that the house as proposed is 39-feet high, adding 40-feet is the maximum height allowed. The ridge height is at 90I. The discussion continued with some Commissioners questioning the overall building height of the house and how height is measured. Planner Aaker explained that height is measured from the existing grade. She pointed out that the house being torn down is a multilevel house, adding first floor height is measured at the threshold where you enter the front door. She stressed this is not a typical house measurement; reiterating multilevel homes are difficult to work with and are challenging for homeowners and builders. Continuing Aaker further noted the homeowner desires a garage and basement area. Aaker further Page 2 of 6 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 10/25/2017 pointed out that the City of Edina requires houses to have basements. Concluding, Aaker noted the basement ceiling height is proposed at 8'6", which is not an unusual ceiling height in modern American homes. Water Resources Coordinator Wilson explained that the City requires the basement elevation of a new home to be 2-feet higher than the FEMA base flood elevation. She noted the lowest level of the new home is 585.3 which is 3.9-feet lower than the minimum flood protection elevation. Coordinator Wilson also noted that it is the goal of the City and the Watershed District to elevate homes out of flood hazard areas when the opportunity presents itself, such as in this instance. Wilson pointed out that the variance request is the result of a zoning ordinance requirement that limits the first floor elevation of a new home to be no more than I-foot above the existing. Wilson said in instances of floodplain that can be impossible to accomplish; reminding the Commission, they require a minimum raise of 2-feet. Coordinator Wilson was asked to address house placement and fill. Wilson explained that in the rear yard area there would be minimal fill. She pointed out that the house is being positioned closer to the street to lessen impact. Wilson was also asked if part of the review process would include requiring the applicant to include drain titles and gutters when built. Wilson responded those requirements are not part of this process; however, they could be included in the storm water management plan at the time a building permit is applied for. Continuing, Wilson stressed that all runoff would be directed toward the street or to the creek, not onto adjacent properties. Public Hearing Vice-Chair Nemerov opened the public hearing. The following residents spoke to the issue: • DD Drays 5633 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN (across creek) • Martin Freeman, 5637 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN (across creek) • Kent Oaks, 3936 West 58th Street, Edina, MN • Laurie Gratz, 5513 Park Place, Edina, MN • Tracy Eickhorn-Hickes, 5708 Woodland Lane, Edina, MN A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments Commissioners shared the following: • It was noted that a variance would be required to build any house on this lot to raise it out of the flood plain. It was also acknowledged that the subject site has unique restraints to include; the Page 3 of 6 Draft Minutes0 Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 10/25/2017 flood plain, required setback from the creek and a sewer line bisecting the site. These restraints reduce the size and location of the building pad. • It was pointed out that this is a low area. It was suggested that there are other options (variance for building without a basement) and other house designs that would reduce the visual impact. A thoughtful design could alleviate concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. In addition, when making a decision on if a variance should be granted it would be beneficial to the Commission to be able to review all drainage plans. It would be very helpful if those plans could also reflect the final as built. It is hard to make a decision when final information is not provided. • It was acknowledged that this is a tough balance. Reiterating the new home must be brought out of the flood plain. What is important to know is where the water is going, the rate of flow and how it is stored. The visual appearance of the house is subjective. Confusion was expressed on the lack of information on drainage and erosion control. Mr. Porter referred to the drainage and erosion control plans found in the packets and highlighted how drainage and erosion control would be managed. With regard to fill, Porter said little fill would be required; except for constructing the new driveway. Mr. Porter was asked if he submitted a permit to the Watershed District and if so were there any conditions to approval. Porter responded that at this time the Watershed District has not formally commented on the permit; however, they are aware of the permit, adding it is a normal review process for them. Porter said the Watershed District indicated to him that they did not see any issues. Porter noted the Watershed District does not comment on permits until after City review. It was pointed out the variance requested is a height variance, adding that indicates height matters. An opinion was shared noting that the house depicted is similar to other new houses being built in Edina, adding that is not a bad thing; however, the variance is about height and the design of the new house is too tall. It was acknowledged that a masterful job was done in getting the house to fit on the site despite the lots many restraints; however, the homes design does not address the height with sensitivity. More could be done. A discussion ensued on the option of tabling the variance request until final storm water management plans are completed and presented to the Commission. Planner Aaker responded that the Commission could ask the applicant if they want to table the issue and see if they were agreeable. It was noted by staff that adequate drainage and erosion control plans were submitted; however, it was acknowledged that the final plans are part of the building permit and engineering review processes. Aaker further explained that whatever decision is reached there is an appeal process. The discussion ensued on water quality and the rate at which runoff would shed from the new driveway. Porter agreed that runoff from the new driveway would be quicker; however, the changes made to the front yard would slow down that rate. Porter said that in reality the driveway and changes to the front yard area would offset each other by slowing down the rate from the front yard and speeding it up from the driveway. The outcome of the storm water management plan would be net neutral. Page 4 of 6 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 10/25/2017 Resource Coord. Wilson explained to the Commission that the City does not regulate water quality for any building permit unless they are landlocked pieces; this is not. Water quality is part of the permit process with the watershed district. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton to deny the variance as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee. Ayes; Lee, Hamilton. Nays; Thorsen, Strauss, Bennett, Nemerov. Motion to deny failed 2-4. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the variance based on staff findings and subject to staff, conditions with an additional comment that the Building and Engineering Departments are to pay careful attention to drainage and storm water runoff to ensure neighbors are not negatively impacted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. Ayes; Thorsen, Strauss, Bennett, Nemerov. Nay; Lee and Hamilton. VI. Community Comment None VII. Correspondence And Petitions Vice-chair Nemerov acknowledged back of packet materials. VIII.Chair And Member Comments Commissioners Strauss and Lee briefed the Commission on the status of the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan Working Group. The noted they met for the first time on October 5th, adding it went well. Commissioner Bennett shared comments on the 44th and France Avenue Small Area Plan Working Group. IX. Staff Comments None X. Adjournment Commissioner Mittal moved to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:1 0 PM. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion to adjourn carried. Page 5 of 6 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 10/25/2017 .40 tT,e� Respectfully submitted Page 6 of 6