Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 11-15 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft MinutesE Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 9i Minutes e 1311 ) � City Of Edina, Minnesota •� Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers •'.<.,10.,iO3'..'' November 15, 20 I7 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, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Mittal and Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Chad Millner, engineering Director,Jessica Wilson, Water Resources Coord., Communications Coord., Eidsness, Support Staff, Hoogenakker Ill. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Strauss to approve the November 15, 2017, meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berube. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Strauss to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2017, meeting minutes. Commissioner Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Subdivision with Variances. Robert and Shirley Hermann. 6017 Walnut Drive, Edina, MN Staff Presentation Planner Teague presented his staff report recommending that the City Council approve the request for subdivision with variances for Robert and Shirley Hermann based on the following findings: Page 1 of 8 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 1. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The original lot was platted as proposed by the application at 88 & 89 feet wide and 12,170 and 11,643 square feet in size. 3. The proposed lots would be similar in size than all lots on Walnut Drive. 4. The proposal re-establishes the original Plat. 5. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique practical difficulty to the property caused by actions of a previous property owner that developed two lots into one. 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 north. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. c. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others in the neighborhood. Approval is also conditioned on: 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: a. Submit evidence of Nine Mile 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 November 3, 2017 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 Robert and Shirley Hermann Discussion/Comments Planner Teague was asked if he believes the required setbacks would be met for this subdivision with variances. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative. He said the subject lots are large and setbacks would be met. Page 2 of 8 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 Applicant Presentation Mr. Hermann addressed the Commission and reported he has lived in his home for over 20 years, adding that he was surprised to learn that he had to go through the subdivision process even though the lots were originally platted as two lots. He pointed out one of the reasons variances were required was complying with the 500-foot neighborhood calculations. He explained that the subdivision across Vernon Avenue was platted with larger lots. His lots are compatible in size with the Walnut Ridge neighborhood; north of Vernon Avenue. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. No one spoke to the issue. A motion was made by Commissioner Hobbs to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lee. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments Commissioners expressed the opinion that the requirements for subdivision were fulfilled. It was noted that because of the topography of the lots storm water would be directed to the street, the lot was originally platted as two lots and the information that the subdivision across Vernon Avenue was platted with larger lots was useful to help support subdivision and variance approval. Motion A motion was made by Commissioner Lee to approve the subdivision with variances based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Hobbs seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. VI. Community Comment Chair Olsen opened Community Comment. None. Commissioner Berube moved to close Community Comment. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. All voted aye. Community Comment closed. Commissioner Bennett asked if subdivisions could be done administratively. Planner Teague responded in "easy" cases it could make sense; however, public hearings are required and in many areas especially Page 3 of 8 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 where there is lot size variety, it can become difficult. Bennett suggested that when time allows that staff complete a tally of subdivisions to gauge how often the Council and Commission differ and the reason. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Staff Presentation Mr. Millner addressed the Commission and said this evening he and Jessica Wilson would like to receive input from the Commission to help guide City policies with regard to water resource management. Millner introduced Jessica Wilson Ms. Wilson presented slide presentation on the draft 2018 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Wilson said one of the goals of the water resources management plan is to move toward transparency. Continuing, Wilson explained that the Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter on Water Resources; which would include a water supply plan, wastewater plan and local water plan (aka Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan). Wilson added that this evening the presentation would focus on the local water plan. Wilson added that the goal is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing losses and disruptions and to work towards community resiliency and vibrancy. Wilson noted that at this time they are also taking public comments to be studied along with comments, from Energy and Environment, Planning Commission and City Council. Wilson pointed out that water resources management is a complex issue; especially as it relates to drainage and these issues can be difficult or impossible to solve because of the following: • Incomplete or contradictory knowledge • The number of people and opinions involved • A large economic burden; and • The interconnected nature of these problems with other problems. Wilson stated that the solutions are not right of wrong, but better or worse, adding the City has to analyze where the responsibility belongs. Wilson highlighted the following: • Flooding issues have increased over the last 10 year; adding that this year is no exception. She further reiterated that this "wet" trend has been happening especially over the last 4-5 years. Wilson said the feedback she receives from residents on this issue is that"they have never seen this before". Wilson added they are correct; precipitation is higher. • Impervious trend increase. Structures are getting larger. She noted the City does not have a limit on impervious surfaces; it does on hardcover. Code indicates that as the result of new buildings, alterations, etc. no harm can happen to neighbors and no damage can occur to the public system. Wilson stated this is virtually impossible, adding it is our intent to establish who owns the risk. Is it Page 4 of 8 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 managed on site or directed onto City property. Wilson said it should be noted that one solution could create another issue. • The city published flood map data to provide transparency for the public, staff and decision makers. • What is the right pace of implementation. What is the right level of service. Continuing, Wilson shared the following overall strategies for flood issues and runoff management: Infrastructure improvement strategy: • Improvements in conjunction with neighborhood roadway reconstruction projects and with standalone projects • Operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure Development/redevelopment strategy: • Opportunistic, planning new construction to reduce risk • Potential for shifts in neighborhood character Promote resiliency • Flood risk information informs actions and investment • Clean water strategy Wilson added the City does not have all issues identified and needs a strategic framework to move forward noting that money is not unlimited and the City needs to prioritize tradeoffs: Concluding Wilson raised the following questions for Commission input: • Should the City codify regional flooding standards for local flooding issues? • Should the City develop a plan for voluntary acquisition of at risk properties? • Should the City have an impervious lot coverage limit? • Should the City provide pumping services for non-structural flooding issues? • Some private drainage issues can be solved. Should the City provide a technical assistance program for engineering solutions (when feasible) for up to $4,000 per issue? • Water are the Commissions clean water concerns and perception of progress: Milner and Wilson stood for Comments: Commissioners expressed the following: • It was suggested that it would be helpful if the questions were sent out in advance. • With regard to the suggestion to fund up to $4,000 per issue, is their funding for that? Millner responded that Manager Neal has established a line item in the budget for this issue; however, Engineering would like to weigh in how that$4,000 for private local drainage issues would be spent. Millner pointed out that Engineering does not want to solve the issue; noting that the Watershed District has grant programs to help residents with their drainage issues. Continuing, Page 5 of 8 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 Millner said Engineering would like to provide the homeowner with an engineering firm vetted by the City to come up with a solution and plan. The engineering firm would be chosen by the City to ensure that any design solutions would not only benefit the resident but would tie into the neighborhood drainage solutions. Once a plan was established for the drainage, issue the resident could go out for bid. This option provides the residents with guidance on what needs to be done with the freedom to choose. Wilson explained that in the 1950's and 1960's the goal was to get water away to catch basins, in the 1980's and 90's ponds were the way drainage was addressed; however, now the City has learned more and has more tools to direct water reuse such as implementing rain gardens, infiltration systems and paying special attention to impervious surface requirements, such as coverage, and materials used. • Suggest adding a tax to fund the $4,000. • Suggest others such as MN Dot help as a stakeholder. Millner noted MN Dot through road reconstruction has been establishing ponding areas along the highway. • It was acknowledged that this is a big complex problem. Problems are everywhere and public and private are related. It was suggested that the private property owners need to step up too, reiterating that this is everyone's issue and it is OK for the property owners to be part of the solution. If private property floods it is OK to have the property owner fix it. Engineering staff agreed and noted that a flood risk reduction strategy plan will be developed but is it through street reconstruction measures, have streets flood vs. basements—what is the answer. What about property acquisitions, where, how many, is it even possible. In all matters, residents may disagree on the right strategy. • Celebrate that one of the delights of Minnesota is water. Use this delight as part of the solution. • How do you imagine strategies with at risk properties - purchasing it may be the answer. Help residents figure out their local issues. Nothing will be easy. • Encourage an overall strategy that involves infrastructure techniques, regional strategies, local strategies - work together. Millner reported they are considering a plan for the Grandview area that provides water use for the golf course. Millner also pointed out the City is working with property owners along Pentagon Park with the Fred Richards area. The City is looking to expand our strategies. • Commissioners stressed that impervious coverage should be looked into - that is a no brainer. How can this be implemented through the zoning process; establish an impervious ratio, allow different materials, etc. possibly establish impervious guidelines through zoning, set a limit. Engineering staff noted that establishing a ratio on impervious surfaces on top of the hardcover requirements could severely change neighborhoods; however, something needs to be done. • The Commission questioned if acquisition is done routinely. Millner responded that it is not done routinely; however, it is a solution. Wilson reported that in the City of Mankato, entire blocks were purchased and incorporated into open space and parks; however, these properties were in older areas and purchasing them was an option because of their value, adding it was doable for them. It should be noted that Edina is different in that many of the smaller lot areas have also become some of the most expensive residential properties—the tear-down-rebuild scenario. • Does offering the $4,000 place the City with liability? Millner responded that their goal as mentioned would be to provide access to an Engineer to help design a solution to the drainage issue. It would be the homeowners responsibility to retain a firm to implement the design. Page 6 of 8 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes Approved Date: 11/29/2017 • How does FEMA get involved? Engineering staff responded that this is a local discussion separate from FEMA. Variances have been a Zoning issue because the Codes (I-foot zoning vs. 2-foot above flood plain rule) are at odds. The Flood Plan Ordinance requires that a new structure or addition be build out the of the flood plain - period. It should also be noted that it is a public burden to continue to allow building in the flood zone. • It was pointed out that Edina is now identified as urban by the Met Council, adding how does that changes things. Wilson stated Engineering already considers Edina as urban, especially with regard to clean water. Edina is not as challenging, as Minneapolis but the City is urban with impervious surfaces driving our view as urban. Wilson stated it would be important to consider adding impervious standards to the Code. We need to be encouraged to think hard on imposing an impervious limit along with the lot coverage limit, any changes have impact. It was suggested by the Commission that a fee could be imposed if the impervious requirement was exceeded. Wilson again noted that especially in the small lot areas what would be a reasonable allowable coverage might already be over what the City would like to see now. This is where materials use for driveways, sidewalks could help. • It was questioned if water usage to keep our lawns green was also an issue. How about encouraging preserving water. • Is what happened at Lake Cornelia preventable? Wilson responded that it is too difficult of an issue to address; however, the facts were put out there, adding the stage was set for this in the 1930's. • Have you considered initiatives with leaves. Wilson stated that is being considered. She noted that currently street sweeping reduces negative impact. The City also encourages residents to manage their own yard waste. The City also has ordinances that prevent individuals from dumping or sweeping debris into the street. This is a shared problem. Commissioners suggested providing an educational component. Wilson said St. Paul has a program called adopt a drain that Edina may consider down the road. This program is similar to adopt a street. Residents would monitor their drains. • Consider the $4,000 as a loan or assessment. • These are complex problems that require creative solutions, pointing out if you address one thing it may adversely influence another. • With regard to the $4,000, consider a fee range on the need. There are areas that have more of a need than others to offset issues; slide the scale. • Education is key. Good to have the data now. Tackle the ones that have the identified issues first. • Surprise was expressed at the level of flooding prepare a report for each project and give it a high low grade. • It may be time to ask the Council to establish impervious standards. It was noted that currently development only considers structures as hard cover. Driveways, pools, sidewalks are not considered in hard surface calculations. • There is the need to prioritize. Look to the future and push consultants to look closer at the Southdale area. • Engineering staff was asked if there are any other policies not addressed. Wilson responded that one issue before the City is how to manage land locked basins especially when it is on private property. Direction is still needed on that. Page 7 of 8 Draft Minutes❑ Approved Minutes® Approved Date: 11/29/2017 • Consider looking at algae blooms as a biofuel. Chair Olsen thanked Ms. Wilson and Mr. Millner for their excellent presentation. Olsen again suggested that the questions Engineering wants comments on should be given to the Council before presentation. Olsen also suggested that Engineering staff forward to the Commission their presentation from this evening so the Commission can provide them with further comments. Teague said he would forward the presentation to Commissioners and they can respond to Engineering through him with further comments. Chair Olsen asked if the Commission will be able to review this draft plan after all comments are received. Teague responded in the affirmative. He stated the Commission would have the opportunity to review the engineering draft a couple times before it is finalized and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. VII I.Correspondence And Petitions Chair Olsen acknowledged back of packet materials. IX. Chair And Member Comments Commissioner Hobbs informed the Commission that his job has provided him with the opportunity to move to California. Hobbs said he would be resigning from the Commission and until his move is finalized, he would do as much as he can at the Commission level. Hobbs added that it has been very rewarding to serve on the Planning Commission. Chair Olsen and Commissioner wished him well and thanked him for his service. X. Staff Comments Commissioners Strauss and Lee updated the Commission on the progress of the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan Working Group. They reported that the community meeting is scheduled for December 9th. Xl. Adjournment Commissioner Hobbs moved to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 9:10 PM. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion was carried. Jackie ft-oogevolzlker Respectfully submitted Page 8 of 8