Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 06-27 Planning Commission Minutes/ Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers June 27, 2018 Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. Roll Call Answering the roll were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, City Planner, Kris Aaker and Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planners, Kaylin Eidsness, Communications Coordinator, Jake Omodt, Communications Assistant, Liz Olson, Support Staff Absent from the roll: Commissioners Mittal and Jones Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Nemerov offered a change to add approving a new member to the 50th & France Small Area Plan Working Group at the end of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the June 27, 2018, meeting agenda. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried. Approval Of Meeting Minutes City Planner, Teague explained that due to Jackie Hoogenakker’s retirement, the minutes from May 23, 2018 and June 13, 2018 will be completed and in the packet for the July 25, 2018 Planning Commission meeting to approve. Public Hearings A. Variance Request. 4606 Browndale Avenue, Edina, MN. Addition to home. Staff Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission that Jean Rehkamp Larson with Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc., the applicant, has submitted a variance request at 4606 Browndale Avenue. The proposed home is a pivotal home and landmark in the Country Club District and one of the first ones built in 1925. The two-story home is located on the west side of Browndale and it backs up to Minnehaha Creek. There has been little, if any change, to the home or maintenance done over the years. There was a garage added to the home in the 1950’s. The original home has the garage loading sideways, which was a design standard for Country Club and most of the houses had the garages behind the home. The new home owner intends to completely renovate the home with the inside and bring the exterior up to a more modern building standard by adding on to the home. It is clear that there are some disrepair issues and deferred maintenance issues on the property. Planner Aaker explained that the property does back up to Minnehaha Creek and does sit up higher from the creek so there is an increase in elevation from the creek edge. The lot is a little over 18,000 square feet and the property is quite shallow. Because the property backs up to the creek, there is an increased setback from the creek at 50 feet, which causes the home to be non-conforming. The home does overlap into the required setback from the creek. The back of the home has a doorway and is a walkout. The patio area above used to have a screen porch with a roof and this is the side that backs up to the creek. Continuing, Aaker explained the survey of existing conditions shows that it is a shallow double lot and it’s constrictive in terms of front yard setback, required side yard setback, and the 50-foot setback from the creek. Prior to 1990, the creek’s setback was 25-foot and at that time, the home conformed to the ordinance requirements. The closest point to the home is the lower level door basement area is 31 feet away from the edge of the creek. The closest back corner of the house is on the second floor at 35.5 feet. Those two setbacks are what the property owner has tried to work within in terms of adding on to the house. Aaker noted that while it is a nice size lot, there is not a lot of buildable area opportunity. The home owner has been conscientious and trying to maintain the existing non-conforming setback and not getting any closer to the creek than any portion of the home that currently exists there now. The proposed addition would add about 489 square feet of footprint into the non-conforming setback area and the patio would be about 577 square feet. There is existing patio in that area that extends to that 31-foot setback. This proposal has already been revived by the Heritage Preservation Commission and they have supported the request. They did indicate that while the addition will change the size and massing of the existing home, it does not detract from the essential historic character of the subject property or the neighborhood. It was their opinion that the project meets the requirements of the Country Club District plan of treatment and the secretary of interior standards for the rehabilitation of historic property and recommended approval. Engineering has reviewed the proposed work and it does not require any mitigation. The Engineering department would want to make sure the driveway was pitched correctly and they would go out to look at that. Aaker concluded that staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Jean Rehkamp Larson, Rehkamp Larson Architects Inc. Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Aaker was asked if the water elevation of the creek was a factor in terms of a flood zone and responded that they are well under. The 50-foot setback mandated by the DNR that dates back to the 1990s is when we had to adopt the new setback requirements. Prior to that all of our water bodies had a 25-foot setback. It was noted that many properties you will see a lot of close structures close to our water bodies because they pre-date our current code. Applicant Presentation Jean Rehkamp Larson said that she wanted to preserve the front facade, window proportions staying the same, materials staying the same, and extruded what was there in the roof form to keep the scale appropriate. The hope was to get more room in the floor plan to have the house more in sync with neighbors and in terms of its size and livability. Rehkamp Larson was asked if she was familiar with the two properties to the south of the location and if she knew the distance from the creek to their houses. She was familiar with one and stated that the property was similar, if not closer to the creek, than the proposed property. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners were in agreement that the house and plans presented were incredible and the use was reasonable. The two houses to the south are closer to the creek than the proposed house. This variance doesn’t jump out compared to the neighbors. The documentation and drawings are clear to see the proposed addition going into the zone. The Commission stated that they were very grateful to the architect and staff for the thorough packet and the drawings. It was noted that it is a nice addition that does match the existing. Commissioners commented that it’s nice to have the Heritage Preservation Board weigh in on the presentation and was great background information and were pleased that the garage is being moved back to the original state. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to Staff conditions. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. The motion carried. B. Conditional Use Permit for Rooftop Dining, Life Time Athletic, 250 Southdale Center. Staff Presentation Planner Bodeker presented that Life Time Athletic, the applicant, is proposing rooftop dining at the building currently under construction at 250 Southdale Center, the former site of J.C. Penney at Southdale Center. A site plan for Life Time and an adjacent multi-tenant building were reviewed and administratively approved by planning staff. A formal review of the site plan was not required due to the square footage of the new Life Time is smaller in size than the previous square footage of J.C. Penney. A footing and foundation permit was issued and a second building permit for the remainder buildout is currently under review. Life Time Athletic is a three story building plus a rooftop which includes leisure pools, lounge seating, bocce courts, and the proposed rooftop bistro/restaurant. To accommodate the restaurant request, a conditional use permit would be required for that portion. Planner Bodeker explained that the subject property is zoned PCD-3 and is located in the North East corner of Southdale Center. There would be no change in access to traffic or parking to the site. The rooftop would be utilized by Life Time Athletic members and their guests with no additional parking needs or traffic that would be generated with the approval of the rooftop restaurant. The number of parking studies has been completed with new development and redevelopment at Southdale, that latest one being the parking study completed with untights. That parking study accounted for the redevelopment of the JCPenny site with the Life Time Athletic Fitness retail and office development shown. With the building materials, there are no changes that would be made to the exterior of the approved building materials. Those approved building materials were looked at and reviewed by staff. The rooftop will general be opened seasonally from May until September. The applicant has agreed to the hours of 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. to comply with the city’s portion of the conditional use code. There are no residential properties with close proximity to the proposed rooftop. The Onyx apartments are located over 500 feet away from Life Time Athletic, 66 West is located around 600 feet away, and 1 Southdale Place is roughly 800 feet away. Bodeker concluded that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Ferguson, Life Time Athletic Discussion/Comments/Questions Planner Bodeker was asked what happens if the applicant comes back and request to be open until 11 p.m. or later with special events like they originally wanted. Bodeker explained that the applicant has agreed that their hours will be posted until 10 p.m. If they wanted to expand their hours, they could come back to amend their conditional use permit. Applicant Presentation Chair Olson opened the floor for any questions that the Commission had. The applicant was asked if this design is unique or the first time it’s being used. Ferguson responded that it is unique and it would be the first rooftop amenity at Life Time Athletic in the country. The applicant was asked about the materials and the exterior expression of the building and if this would be the prototype if it is successful. Ferguson responded that this would be the first time using the cut limestone and it would be used as a prototype if successful. He also stated that this rooftop dining at Life Time Athletic is currently being proposed in a few other locations around the country. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Commissioner Thorsten moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked if the 11 p.m. time of the original request could be satisfied now instead of 10 p.m. Staff recommended that the condition stay at 10 p.m. because this is the first rooftop dining request the City has received since the ordinance was amended to allow the use. Commissioners stated that this use is a great example of a conditional use permit. It was suggested that if there are no complaints in the neighborhood for the first year of operation, staff could consider extending the hours of operation based on their feedback from the neighborhood. Teague stated that staff prefers we keep it specific so it runs with the property if residential uses were to be built closer to the property. The question was asked how late other properties are open that have a liquor license at Southdale. Planner Teague answered that he believes Dave and Busters serves alcohol until 1 a.m. Commissioners expressed there might be demand for this type of rooftop dining in smaller nodes and that 10 p.m. may be a good decision for now. Motion Commissioner Thorsten moved to approve the conditional use permit approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. C. AUAR, Alternative Urban Areawide Review, Pentagon Park Area Update. Staff Presentation Planner Teague reported that back in 2007, as part of a potential development proposal in Pentagon Park, the city undertook an alternative urban area wide review. Teague explained that it takes the place of an environmental impact statement. It looks at development scenarios and mitigation factors under certain densities that are built within that area to mitigate those environmental impacts. Teague noted that that project didn’t occur and the City updated this AUAR 5 years ago. Every 5 years if no development occurs, the City needs to update this document. It’s been 10 years since the original so we’re on our second update. Andy Moffit did the study back in 2007 from WSB & Associates, Inc. and was the lead along with Chuck Rickert who did the traffic study portion. They are still with us on the project and are have done the update for us. Appearing for the Applicant Andi Moffatt and Chuck Rickert, WSB & Associates, Inc. Discussion/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked if this AUAR was part of the review when approving the development of North and South properties and if this is updating or changing anything. Teague responded that this is not changing anything and this study does not override the normal comprehensive plan or rezoning process. Some of the transportation recommendations that came from this document were implemented as part of that project so it was used in that regard. Teague was also asked if the purpose of this was so that if a future project comes along, it would not need to do its own environmental study. Teague answered yes, this is an area wide study so it doesn’t need to be done project by project. Teague was also asked what would create the need for this and if that was based on the size or district of the parcel we’re looking at. Teague answered that it was based on the size of the project that was proposed to the city back in 2007. The proposal was dense, so it triggered the need for an environmental review. They could do an EIS or the AUAR. The applicant at that time chose to do the AUAR. Commissioners asked if what we are proposing for the Southdale area does not have set off any triggers in the same way. Teague answered that it does not for any individual project like the 2007 project did. Applicant Presentation Andi Moffit thanked the Commission and Planner Teague and noted that she has been with this project since 2007. This is the second update for the Gateway study area. This environmental review runs outside of the specific development area. It’s required and reduces the need to do lots of many mini environmental reviews because it covers an area. The area is about 135 acres between Minnesota Drive, Highway 100, the former Fred Richard’s Golf Course, and Pentagon quads and towers. The study looked at potential redevelopment scenarios within the whole 135 acre area. An AUAR is an environmental review document that evaluates different development scenarios and includes a specific mitigation plan. It gets updated every 5 years if no development occurs. The AUAR 2013 update is smaller than the one from 2007 and is not as extensive because you are generally doing a check to make updates only if needed. Per the rules, in preparing the original AUAR you need to look at the traffic, air, and noise analysis, storm water analysis, ecological analysis, wastewater analysis, water use analysis, parks and trails, historic and archeological resources, and erosion, sedimentation, and geologic hazard analysis. This particular AUAR looked at the Comprehensive Plan, “Master Plan,” Maximum Commercial Build, and Residential Build, and with this update there was no need to change these scenarios. When doing an update, it’s necessary to evaluate what has happened, evaluate stated mitigation measures, update environmental review, and agency and public comment period of 10 working days to state agencies and the public. In the 2013 update, there were a number of areas that had redeveloped around the area. Within the study area, there was a 68,000 square foot medical office near France Ave. and Minnesota Drive that did happen within the study area. There have been waste water improvements over the past 5 to 10 years to address deficiencies in the system, no water supply changes, 9 Mile Creek Water Shed has updated their rules, and updates on the traffic study. The next steps are to review it with the Planning Commission and then go to the City Council in July. After City Council reviews it, it will be distributed for a 10 working day comment period. Comments will be reviewed and responded to. It will come back to the City Council to adopt or not adopt the AUAR update. If adopted, it will serve as the required environmental review through 2023. Discussions/Comments/Questions Commissioners asked Planner Teague generally when do the conditions get applied. Teague responded they get applied with individual projects that are proposed. An example is the Pentagon Park quads and towers that had asbestos. They needed to dispose of it properly and received grants through the Met Council. Teague was also asked if the demolition or construction permit is when we would check off that all of these mitigation requirements are being met. Teague stated that it would be part of the initial development proposal that came in. Commissioners asked Andi Moffit about the process regarding cumulative impact in regards to Edina working with Bloomington and potentially participate in a regional traffic study that will assist in anticipating future potential redevelopment within the Highway 100 and Highway 494 area and plan for infrastructure improvements. In context of doing a development, does that have to occur before development can happen or does stating it in this document satisfy the environmental goal so development could occur whether or not Edina actually does do these things. Moffit responded that we recognize traffic impacts and that we’re going to need to work with our neighbors on some of these issues. Highway 494 and Highway 100 area a regional item. Commissioners responded that the example required coordination with another government body outside Edina. It was asked that we don’t necessarily need to do those things per development, we need to assess per development whether or not they need to occur. Moffit responded affirmative. As redevelopment happens, at what point do we need to look at a bigger picture with some of those things. Commissioners asked Moffit what the review process is like with the state or metro body after the City Council approves it. Moffit responded that the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act is where these rules stemmed from piggybacking on the National Environmental Policy Act from many years ago. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is the state agency that oversees rules and guidance related to an environmental review, whether it’s an environmental assessment worksheet, AUAR, or EIS because they set the rules based on the statute. In those rules and guidance, there are about 25 local state and federal agencies that would receive this. Commissioners asked if this process could take months with the state agency review and Moffit responded that the 10 working day period would stop that from happening. In rare occasions, an agency could file an official objection because of something in the document but there are specific timing within the rules that you work out the timing with the agency. Commissioners asked Moffit for another example of where one of these may occur inside or outside of Edina and how frequent they are. It was also asked at what point do these go away or do they always get updated. Moffit responded that AUAR started as a popular tool 15 to 20 years ago giving cities flexibility to look at a study area. They aren’t as common as environmental impact statements or environmental assessment worksheets. The examples of cities that have AUARs are Minnetrista, Rosemount, and Maple Grove (large planning areas that you think are going to newly develop or redevelop). Planner Teague was asked by Commissioners if this kind of document is something we would look at and use it to change some of our zoning or impact some of our different land uses in that area, especially in a Comprehensive Plan year. Teague replied that all the uses that are contemplated here are allowed under the current zoning, it’s a mixed development district that allows office, retail, and commercial. It was also asked by Commissioners if it would get as specific as POD-2, PCD, or PID. Planner Teague responded that and AUAR indicates land uses and does not get specific with zoning. Commissioners followed up with a question asking if everything is done under PUD and we don’t need to have land use. Teague explained that the zoning did change as a result of that project to the current mixed development district. The only change in land use was to allow residential uses, which were allowed in this district in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners asked about the reported forecast under the traffic operations and the levels of service. Rickert responded that during peak hours, level E is considered an acceptable in a congested area. Level F is stop-and-go where we need to make changes. Commissioners commented on their interest in the mitigation and the importance of improving the intersections. They would hope this information is put in front of all the right bodies of people and it seems very valuable. Rickert noted that they have had conversations with Bloomington and the 77th and Highway 100 interchange had been a subject that the city staffs have been talking about for an extended period of time. Planner Teague added a comment that they have talked to Bloomington about the sewer capacity because there are capacity issues there so they use this tool to help us convince Met Council that we needed to upsize some of those pipes to the South to handle some of these development scenarios. Commissioners pointed out the transit section and asked when do we go beyond looking at auto traffic and talk about transit. With increased densities, at some point it was noted that not everyone might be able to have a car and asked how that is dealt with in this scenario. Ricker responded that the transportation plan would be more of a part of the Comprehensive Plan. We strictly looked at capacity and what is needed to handle that traffic on the roadway. As more development occurs, those types of things like widening the roads or looking at other forms of transportation will be discussed in more detail. Commissioners noted the ground water mitigation at Pentagon Park problem and the desire to begin to surface and show it no matter what the use is, light industrial or housing. It’s not clear from reading the report if any of those ideas were addressed or should be. The Southdale small area plan group previously discussed that the water is currently being buried in underground holding tanks and their idea is to express some of that water and have it turned into an appreciated feature. Planner Teague added that the idea may relate more to the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to make sure we are taking care of the storm water issues or mitigating that above ground instead of below. This document is just outlining the measures that have to be taken in order to take care of the storm water. The alternatives can be said through the zoning and Comprehensive Plan. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. None. Motion Commissioner Thorsten moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. A discussion ensued from Commissioners on how it is a difficult document to read and comment on. It is not necessarily project specific and more procedural. There is not anything specific to object to other than the great point about widening the roads and we are always looking at it in terms of cars. Planner Teague explained that the Planning Commission doesn’t need an official approve, but more for comments that can be forwarded on to the City Council. VI. Community Comment None. VII. Reports/Recommendations Commissioner Thorsten introduced Mark Arnold as the new addition of the new member of the 50th and France work group be discussed. Commissioner Nemerov explained that a member of the group is unable to make the working group meetings due to the time of day. The Commission believes that an applicant would do an outstanding job. The Commission would like to propose that Arnold join the working group in place of the member who is unable to attend the meetings. Motion Commissioner Nemerov moved to approve the additional member to the 50th and France working group. Commissioner Thorsten seconded the motion. The motion carried. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Bennett recommended that in some of these sections of the Comprehensive Plan Update to make it clear upfront as to some of the “why.” All of the changes that come before the Planning Commission, often times the Commission doesn’t have good enough reasons, rational, or vision documents to refer to the community to say why we are accepting a change. In sections like economic growth, explain why the city needs to grow and why it’s essential for a community. There is a lot coming to the city that is greater than what the regulations allow for. Commissioner Lee noted that the documents during the Planning Commission working group should replace some of the different types of housing in Edina in the Comprehensive Plan. Lee said at this time the Commission should include why growth needs to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan because this is the shift that has occurred over the last 10 years that we need to pay attention to. Commissioner Lee further discussed the space to accommodate growth, specifically looking at spread-out and lower versus stacked dwelling units. Lee stated she would like to continue to have the working sessions because there is a lot that has surfaced over the last year that needs to be visited. Chair Olsen agreed with Lee’s statements regarding simple statements that make the talking points easier to understand. Commissioner Lee noted that there were several items the Commission would like to have put on the work plan list including the introduction of maximum impervious surface requirements, incorporating the energy environment checklist into the development proposal review process, and the traffic study summary. Lee also requested more advanced notice of proposals and work sessions to know what is on the docket. Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague when the goals for 2019 are set for the work plan. Teague responded that is takes place in the summer and submit in September. Teague also suggested that it can be discussed during the work session. Commissioner Miranda discussed the LimeBike bike share program starting soon and Clover Ride that started last week. Miranda pointed out the transportation studies that the Commission receives are quite variable and most tend to be very car focused. Miranda noted that the transportation studies need to reflect the higher densities and options other than just cars. Miranda noted the increased biking in the city and full bike racks at 50th and France. Chair Olsen discussed the open house for the greater Southdale working group on July 12th at the Public Works facility from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Nemerov discussed the 50th and France working group on July 10th at 7 p.m. at the Edina Community Lutheran Church. X. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsten moved to adjourn the June 27, 2018, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. The motion carried.