Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 09-26 Planning Commission Minutes/ Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers September 26, 2018 Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM Roll Call Answering the roll call was: Commissioners Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Mangalick, Melton, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Jennifer Bennerotte, Communications & Technology Services Director, Liz Olson, Support Staff Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Miranda Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the September 26, 2018 meeting agenda. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioner Lee suggested to make a change on page 3 on the last bullet of Discussion/Comments/Questions to read, “Commissioners asked if the non-conforming setback of the old patio would have needed a variance with the same footprint and Staff replied yes.” Commissioner Lee also suggested to make a change on page 4 on the second bullet of Discussion/Comments/Questions to read, “Commissioners requested to coordinate a work item with the Transportation Commission to jointly review the traffic studies.” Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the September 12, 2018, meeting minutes. Lee seconded the motion. The motion carried. Public Hearings Staff Presentation Planner Aaker presented the staff report for 6205 Spruce Road, Edina, MN. The applicants have submitted a variance application to rebuild a two story home with an attached three car garage at the same nonconforming front yard setback as existing on the property located at 6205 Spruce Road. No portion of the proposed front building wall will be extended closer to the front lot line than the existing front face of the home. The existing home is nonconforming regarding front yard setback. The new home is required to match the only other home on the same side of the block that fronts Spruce Road. The adjacent home is located deep within their lot providing a front yard setback of 169.7 feet from Spruce Road ROW. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Aaker to explain the how the setbacks are determined for the house to the south and which homes its related to. Aaker explained that the house to the south fronts Belmore Lane and if it were to be redeveloped, the home to the south would need to match the front yard setback of the house to east and match the front yard setback of the home to the north. Aaker noted that if this variance is not approved, it would affect the opportunity of the home directly to the south. • Commissioners asked if all 3 houses have driveway access off Spruce Road and Aaker responded in the affirmative. • Commissioners asked if the home owner was asked to meet the setback, a large amount of tree removal be required and more impervious surface coverage. Aaker replied in the affirmative and commented that there would be a larger driveway extension to the house. Appearing for the Applicant None. Public Hearing Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners commented that this variance application is being presented due to a product of circumstance. The house was once conforming because of a neighboring property being built. The applicant is doing their best to match the existing footprint of the house. Commissioners stated that it is a beautiful addition and they support the variance. • Commissioners commented that this variance makes sense because of the possible disruption of the trees and the difficulties of the home to the south. • Commissioners commented that they were appreciative the applicant didn’t make it more difficult by trying to go in front the where existing garage is or a little wider than the existing house. Commissioners stated that from a resident’s standpoint, it makes it easier to visualize and the size and design seem to match well with the neighborhood. • Commissioners commented that they received a well written and persuasive letter from a neighbor in favor of approving the variance due to the variance being more in spirit of the ordinance’s goal. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried. VI. Community Comment None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the Community Comment. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried. dfd Reports/Recommendations A. Solar Energy Systems Ordinance Amendments Tara Brown, Sustainability Coordinator, and Casey Casella, City Management Fellow, gave a presentation explaining that the City of Edina staff are applying to be a SolSmart Designated Community. Discussion/Comments/Question Commissioners asked what the City of Edina gets, other than the designation, and Casella responded that it helps advertise the community to businesses and residents in addition to providing a great deal of resources. Commissioners asked if the program helps open up the opportunity to grants or access to funding to help support it. Brown replied that they don’t have grants specifically under SolSmart, but it showcases for other grant potentials. Commissioners asked if the City has a vision for a plan to communicate to residents regarding education. Brown responded that the City plans to host events, publish About Town articles, create website articles, and create Sun Current articles. Commissioners discussed the possible snow blockage and the difficulties with low slope solar application as well as the difficulties with the maintenance problem when re-roofing. Commissioners also suggested looking at future consideration regarding technologies and possibly limiting the maintenance problem by using the Tesla shingle. Commissioners asked if the SolSmart discussion is about the desirability of changing the zoning to be more accommodative to solar or to pick from the options presented. Director Teague responded that the ordinance is drafted and the City currently allows energy collection systems. Teague also explained that this draft ordinance provides more detail and definition. Teague stated that feedback from the Planning Commission will be collected, a public hearing would be made, and a formal recommendation to the City Council would be made. Commissioners asked if the solar arrays would be subject to height limitations. Teague responded that the height definition would need to be looked at and contain language that include the structures within the height. Commissioners agreed with Teague’s response. Commissioners asked staff if there was anything the City could do to help people get a good idea of the financial impact of their decision and how to make selections. Casella replied that the individual solar page on the website provides several resources that were sent to staff by the SolSmart provider. Student Commissioners asked if there were any financial incentives from the City for installing solar panels and Brown replied that there are not at this time, but there are tax breaks and possible bill credits for working with Xcel Energy. Commissioners discussed needing to consider allowing the solar panels in the front yard and not allowing them to encroach in the setbacks. Teague explained that section 36-1269 of the existing ordinance talks to setback requirements for these facilities including front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Commissioners discussed new homes and the potential of removing trees to accommodate sun exposure for solar panels and the impact of new design. Brown replied that staff has not researched how other cities have applied these ordinances changes and how it affects the tree canopies. Commissioners discussed where in Edina it would be an appropriate use of land for solar panels and where wouldn’t be a nuisance to neighbors. Brown replied that other cities have had solar panels on roofing for a patio in back or on top of a commercial building. Commissioners expressed concern that some solar panels on the yard could affect the character of some areas negatively. Director Teague made a suggestion to Commissioners to potentially exclude the exception of the building coverage and include it specifically in a building coverage requirement to prevent residents from putting them all over the yard. Student Commissioners asked if the installation of the panels and associated electrical equipment create safety hazards and if there sufficient regulations to see that harm doesn’t occur. Brown replied that the electricity code is done by the state and permitted and inspected by the state. Commissioners asked Brown if the City started with the education process, would it be expected that the solar panels are primarily being taken advantage of initially by commercial or residential. Brown replied both commercial and residential. Commissioners asked Brown what law it refers to in regards to selling excess energy back to a public utility. Brown replied that she would get that information after the meeting, but noted that it is all regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. Commissioners suggested changing the word “the” law to “applicable” law or “laws” in the ordinance. Student Commissioners asked where the excess energy goes and Brown explained that it goes on the distribution line and is re-distributed. In conclusion, Brown summarized the following: How we are educating the consumer and helping to inform residents. Installations beyond the roof and how that could look in the future. Word adjustments to applicable law. Adding a section to the ordinance that would address the building height regulations. Planner Aaker thanked Brown and Casella for presenting on this because its given the Planning Department an opportunity to look at the current zoning ordinance and the fact that we only have one sentence that discusses solar and wind energy. Casella concluded with the information for the opening of the Solar Community Garden Launch at Public Works. It takes place on Monday, October 1st at 4pm. RSVP online at EdinaMN.gov/SolarLaunch B. 2109 Planning Commission Work Plan Director Teague discussed the following: Reviewing all of the land use requests and making recommendations to the City Council. Finishing the Comprehensive Plan update and everything that results from that. Zoning ordinance amendments in addition to what is the result of the Comprehensive Plan, including the impervious surface regulations, basement requirements for single family homes, 1 foot rule, 2 car garage requirement, consideration of single family homes in the R-2 district and allowing duplexes within the R-1 district, and a work session with the Transportation Commission. Director Teague recommended to approve the work plan. Commissioners discussed the following: Tree ordinance. Give-to-Get and reference it as a different name. Variances being approved for purposes of living in the home versus selling it. Regarding the Transportation Commission and input on transportation related issues, the Planning Commission should have an independent consideration of the pros and cons of having them do the review, and not just to discuss the possibility of doing it. Commissioners suggested changing the wording to, “review the pros and cons of having the Transportation Commission do the review,” or “the benefits and disadvantages of having the Transportation Commission do the review.” Not postpone the area study for the Cahill Industrial Park. Director Teague discussed keeping it on the work plan because its a known implementation step that is going to come out of the Comprehensive Plan, and it has been noted as funds not available right now. Explore a process where any development review where Mic Johnson would provide formalized input, look into how communities implement design quality/standards, or have residents help with a review system for developments. Director Teague suggested that the design guidelines, those things are mentioned and covered in the experience guidelines. Teague also recommended that the Commissioners look at amending the PUD ordinance to talk about the give-to-get under the zoning ordinance amendment. Zoning ordinance amendments, bring them to the Commissioners periodically or discuss in work sessions. Teague responded that the list is long and we should do 3-4 at a time and discuss when to do them. Teague suggested a work session would. Commissioners suggested a work session would be a good time to discuss. In conclusion, Director Teague summarized what is being added to the list of zoning ordinance below to explore: Tree ordinance PUD ordinance Next year discussing, with the City attorney, the variances being approved for purposes of living in the home versus selling it. Commissioners suggested prefacing it with encouraging and supporting the affordable housing component. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions None. Chair and Member Comments Director Teague stated that the open house for the Greater Southdale area study has been postponed from the October 11, 2018 date and the new date will be publicized when the date is set. Commissioners commented that the 50th & France community meeting will be held on October 23, 2018 at the Public Works building at 7:00 PM. Staff Comments Director Teague commented that the City Council actions include denying the Pentagon North/ Sienna on the Park project. Adjournment Commissioner Melton moved to adjourn the September 26, 2018, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:22 PM. Commissioner Mangalick seconded the motion. The motion carried.