HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-26 Planning Commission Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JUNE 26, 2013
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Scherer, Schroeder, Potts Carpenter, Kilberg, Carr, Platteter, Forrest,
Grabiel, Staunton
Absent from Roll: Cherkassky
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Scherer moved approval of the June 24, 2013 meeting agenda.
Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues
or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't
slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair
may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally
speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during
Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond
to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration
at a future meeting.
No public comment.
V. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Living Streets Policy
Appearing for the City
City Engineer, Wayne Houle and Paul Nelson, Chair of the Transportation Commission were
present.
Page 1 of 13
Staff Presentation
Engineer Houle addressed the Commission and delivered a power point presentation on Living
Streets. Houle highlighted the following:
• Edina is responsible for 467 lane miles of roadway, with over 27 million square feet of
pavement.
• Within the next decade the City intends to replace 120 lane miles.
• Challenges faced by the City are that Edina has the largest percentage of residents over
age 65 (21%) in the metro area and school age children under 18 (24%). These groups
are less likely to be safe on streets or vehicles.
• Edina is responsible for 671,620 lineal feet of storm sewer.
Continuing, Houle explained that in creating "living streets "the needs of motorists, bicyclists,
pedestrian and transit riders need to be balanced. Houle added to implement the "vision"
ordinances, engineering standards, Comprehensive Plan and other policies will need to be
reviewed and amended when appropriate to achieve the goals of promoting safety and
convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental
sustainability and provide opportunities for active living and better health.
Concluding Houle said he would like a volunteer(s) from the Planning Commission to serve on
the Living Streets Advisory Committee.
Engineer Houle and Mr. Nelson stood for questions.
Discussion
Commissioner Grabiel questioned if there is anything the Commission can do to promote
"Living Streets" as they review redevelopment plans, questioning if "living Streets" should be
incorporated into design plan criteria. Grabiel also questioned if Engineering is currently
reviewing redevelopments with "Living Streets" in mind. Houle responded at present
redevelopment proposals are reviewed with an eye toward living streets. Houle said that
currently during the review process we are communicating our goals on Living Streets. He
further noted that some projects have already incorporated elements of Living Streets in their
projects. Platteter said it would be beneficial to have a Living Streets policy/plan in place when
the Commission reviews redevelopment proposals. Mr. Nelson agreed, adding the goal of the
Transportation Commission is to get the "word out" by visiting all Boards and Commissions and
draft a formal policy and plan.
Commissioner Schroeder pointed out the goal of the Planning Commission is a bit different,
adding the Commission would review private property development plans and how they
interface with the right-of-way. Commissioners agreed.
Page 2 of 13
Continuing, Staunton asked if Living Street was addressed in the France Avenue project.
Engineer Houle responded a number of design elements will be incorporated into the France
Avenue project, adding crosswalks are of special interest. Houle said a meeting is planned on
July 9th to look at Urban Design features that include bike paths, lighting, vegetation, trees,
lighting monuments, etc. Houle said the goal is to fold as many features into the project as
possible; however, funds are limited.
Commissioner Carpenter asked if there are follow up measures implemented to ascertain the
benefits of a Living Streets policy/plan. Houle responded measures would be in place to
ascertain the success of living streets, adding bike lanes have been a very positive addition to
living streets.
Commissioner Schroeder observed that many of the features of living streets require 24/7
maintenance such as the bike paths, adding during winter months the paths need to be cleaned
and cleared of snow and are one portion of the budget.
Commissioner Scherer asked Houle if specific areas had been identified for sidewalks. Houle
responded that sidewalks are being planned for School Road to Benton Avenue, a segment of
Interlachen/Vandervork, an area of Xerxes Avenue (west side), an area along West 42 nd Street,
and near Normandale Lutheran Church. Houle also reported Engineering is in the process of
creating a new sidewalk plan and a new Transportation Planner has been hired to work on the
implementation of a Living Streets policy/plan and to work closely with pedestrians and cyclists.
Sidewalks would also be prioritized. Scherer questioned how trees would be addressed during
the implementation of the new sidewalk plan. Houle responded that the City would do its best
to work around trees.
Commissioner Forrest asked Houle and Nelson where this is in the process. Mr. Nelson
responded that at this time they are still in the process of visiting boards and commission and
figuring out what's needed and what should be added to the policy and plan. Continuing,
Nelson said their goal is to bring this to the City Council sometime in July.
Commissioner Platteter suggested adding some form of public education piece. Houle agreed
adding part of this process will be a resident engagement component, adding as previously
mentioned asking for volunteers from each board and commission to serve as part of a work
group.
Commissioner Potts said because of the continuing tear down and rebuilds storm water is
impacted even if its private property. Houle responded that storm water charts are changing
and the goal is to keep the rates in check.
Page 3 of 13
Forrest asked what percentage of residential homes doesn't have storm sewer catch basins or
curb/gutter. Houle responded that roughly 20% don't have curb and gutter and probably the
percentage lack a storm sewer system. Houle acknowledged this is a challenge. Staunton
agreed adding flood control and water quality management through rain gardens, etc. is a
discussion in itself.
Chair Staunton commented the Planning and Transportation Commissions will have to work
together on this and define the difference between policy and plan. A good goal as mentioned
by Engineer Houle would be to fold the Living Streets policy into Edina's Comprehensive Plan,
which is a policy or guide (adding the Commission will also begin addressing the Comprehensive
Plan in the near future). Continuing, Staunton said he envisions the plan as strategic for
implementing policy through ordinance. Houle responded in the affirmative. He said he
envisions as this moves forward that different ordinances will need to be amended as part of
the plan.
Chair Staunton thanked Houle and Nelson for their time.
B. AUAR Update — Pentagon Park
Appearing to Present the AUUA
Andi Moffatt, WS, Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development LLP, and Jim Nelson
Planner Teague explained that that in 2008 to coincide with a master development plan for the
Pentagon Park area an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was ordered and completed.
At that time owners of Pentagon Office Park requested a rezoning and a final development plan
to accommodate redevelopment of their property into housing, office, and commercial to
include a hotel. Teague explained to date nothing has been accomplished on the site and the
site has a new owner Hillcrest Development LLC. Continuing, Teague explained time has passed
and it's time for the AUAR to be updated. Concluding, Teague said at this time Andy Moffatt
will explain the updating process.
Ms. Moffatt delivered a presentation explaining that the study area is 135 acre site and in order
to remain valid the AUAR is required to be updated every five years. Moffatt gave a brief
power point presentation explaining the AUAR and the four build out scenarios contained in the
AUAR. Moffatt stated at this time their findings indicate that the AUAR continues to be a valid
Page 4 of 13
document, and the redevelopment scenarios remain valid. Moffatt commented during this
process it was interesting to find that in this area there actually was a decrease in traffic.
Commissioner Forrest asked during this review process how are other agencies contacted and
informed. Moffatt said e-mails are sent to proper agencies and it is also publish in the paper.
Chair Staunton asked if anything was found that would limit redevelopment of this area or
compel the City to amend the ordinance. Ms. Moffatt responded the City is not forced to
amend the ordinance as the result of this updating process. Planner Teague replied that this
entire area was rezoned to Mixed Development District (MDD) which covers a majority of uses.
Commissioner Schroeder questioned if the Master Plan would need to be revised if the
property owner decides to redevelop this piece through the PUD rezoning process. Teague
responded rezoning to a PUD is a distinct possibility; however, he can't envision redevelopment
presenting different uses. Continuing, Schroeder asked if the AUAR caps development. Moffatt
responded that the build out can be less; however, it can't exceed the maximum scenario
presented in the plan. Planner Teague noted any one of the four scenarios can proceed
without triggering a new AUAR; however, if there were to be a scenario 5 that includes higher
density than the maximum presented in the AUAR scenario's a new AUAR would need to be
completed.
Commissioner Forrest asked the property owner what's happening on this site at the present
time. Mr. Takenoff gave a brief history of his business explaining they are very good at doing
adaptive re-use, adding they take something broken and stabilize it, and if warranted redevelop
the site. Takenoff gave a brief presentation including photos highlighting the renovations to
the existing Pentagon office buildings. Takenoff said he believes this site is an excellent site;
the location is superior, pointing out the amenity of the golf course. Concluding, Takenoff said
he believes the stabilization formula is working very well; however, doesn't preclude
redevelopment in the future.
Chair Staunton noted that he believes the intent is to keep all options open for both the
property owner and the City. Staunton asked Teague if the Commission needs to take any
action. Planner Teague responded no formal action is required adding the minutes of this
meeting will be forwarded to the City Council.
C. Zoning Ordinance Update — Residential Redevelopment
Page 5 of 13
Chair Staunton reminded the Commission this is a continuing discussion of proposed
amendments to the Ordinance to include some housekeeping issues. Staunton explained that
nine topics have been identified for amending and at this time he would like each topic to be
addressed and voted on so this can move forward to the City Council for their action. Staunton
introduced Wayne Houle, City Engineer and Ross Bintner, Environment Engineer who would be
speaking to the first topic; Drainage, Retaining Walls & Site Access.
Drainage, Retaining Walls & Site Access
Planner Teague asked the Commission to note that much of the language found under
Drainage, Retailing Walls & Site Access was taken from the Construction Management Plan.
Teague reported that at the last meeting Commissioners chose to wait until Engineer Houle and
his staff reviewed the proposed language and commented. Teague said Engineer Houle and
Environmental Engineer Ross Bitner were present for the discussion.
Engineer Houle addressed the Commission and explained he proposed a few minor changes
noting when reviewing drainage what happens on private property does affect the public rate.
Houle said he suggested eliminating the word channeled to be replaced with the word
conveyed. Houle said it was thought that this needed. Continuing, Houle said an important
addition was clarifying what's required. Houle stated now as part of the building permit
process the applicant must submit a grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater
management plan that is signed by a licensed professional engineer.
Chair Staunton said that the Commission found that drainage was a big issue and the proposed
language is an excellent start. Houle noted that monitoring the rate is crucial. Mr. Bitner
agreed. He added the City realizes there will be drainage from a new home; however, we are
now suggesting that a professional engineer review the drainage plan to ensure best practices
are met.
Chair Staunton asked Houle and Bitner if this ordinance change provides them with the proper
tools to review drainage plans. Houle said he believes the changes are a plus; however, further
review should occur as an ongoing process.
Commissioner Platteter asked Houle and Bitner if they believe their language is specific enough.
He pointed out they are requesting a stormwater management plan but what does the plan
entail.
Page 6 of 13
A discussion ensued on if the proposed language change goes far enough. Commissioners
noted the language as proposed appears to place the owness on the developer. The discussion
focused on if Houle and Bitner should have the City Attorney "look at" the suggested language.
Planner Teague responded that the City Attorney, Roger Knutson along with input from Houle
and Bitner actually wrote the ordinance, Houle interjected that Bob Obermeyer with Barr
Engineering also reviewed the proposed language.
Commissioner Forrest commented there may be an issue with enforcement, pointing out if the
staff person reviewing the proposal requests soil borings, etc. how is the City sure that was
done. Commissioner Houle responded if the criteria requested by Engineering Staff during the
review process isn't met a Certificate of Occupancy wouldn't be issued. The homeowner
wouldn't be able to move it.
Planner Teague interjected with all new construction (teardown-rebuild) the new ordinance
411 requires a bond; if conditions are not met (in a specific timeframe) the City can proceed
with those changes through the initial bond. Commissioners stated they were satisfied with the
Bond requirement.
There was some discussion on how long the stormwater management plan is valid. It was
questioned what would happen if five years down the road after completion of the new house
and issuance of a occupancy permit a neighbor gets water in their basement. Houle said the
stormwater management plan would be on file, adding that issue would be addressed at that
time. Commissioners indicated they were satisfied with the language change.
The discussion focused on the proposed changes to the retaining wall portion of the ordinance
inquiring the Engineering Department was comfortable with those changes. Engineer Houle
stated he was comfortable with the language.
Commissioners continued to express concern with retaining walls. They worried that a
homeowner could "engineer" their way around the ordinance. Especially with terraced
retaining walls. Concern was also expressed for the height of these walls and the safety issue
they could present (should fences on top of walls be required). Commissioner Schroeder said in
his opinion the goal of the retaining wall should be to retain earth at its natural grade.
Continuing, Commissioners discussed if there should be a definition in the Ordinance of
retaining walls and the establishment of goals and standards for the walls. It was also noted
that some of the issues with retaining walls are with aesthetics noting an engineered wall can
present a large presence. Commissioners stressed the goal is to ensure structural safety of the
Page 7 of 13
wall with each "wall" reviewed on a case by case basis. Difficulties with a wall or its height
could be addressed through the variance or Conditional Use Permit process. Schroeder
reiterated if the natural grade is retained there should be fewer issues; the City runs into
difficulties with manufactured elevations. Commissioners agreed with the changes suggested
by Houle and Bitner on drainage and retaining walls.
The discussion on drainage and retaining walls concluded with Commissioners agreeing that the
proposed language on site access as presented was appropriate and the Commission was in
total agreement with requiring a three (3) foot width on one side of a single or two dwelling
unit from front to rear yard was adequate.
Motion
Commissioner Scherer moved to recommend amending Subd. 7 Drainage, Retaining Walls &
Site Access with changes. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion
carried.
Building Lot Coverage
Planner Teague commented that this section also included an Ordinance "cleanup" by adding
language addressing exclusions and inclusions
A brief discussion ensued on the language referring to paddle tennis courts under inclusions
and exclusions and if that term was outdated or even needed.
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend approval of the amended ordinance pertaining
to Building Lot Coverage. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. Commissioner
Forrest asked to amend the motion to include the removal of any reference to paddle court.
A brief discussion occurred with Commissioners Grabiel and Carpenter accepting the
amendment to the motion to remove reference to paddle court. Chair Staunton called the
vote; all voted aye; motion carried.
Sideyard setback including second story setback requirement
Planner Teague noted that the majority of changes would occur on lots less than 75-feet in
width; however there are changes to lots 75 feet in width or over (attached garage same as
Page 8 of 13
living space). Commissioners agreed indicating that the proposed setback changes were
needed.
A discussion ensued on setbacks for egress window wells and their impact on the smaller lots,
including safety in tight circumstances. The language as proposed for egress window wells
allows them to be located in the front and rear yard and encroaching into the setback made
sense to the Commission. Requiring a setback for egress windows on only one side at five (5)
feet was also the correct thing to do.
The proposed setbacks for lots between 50 and 60 feet in width a 12' total with no less than 5-
feet on one side was supported and single dwelling unit building on lots less than 50 feet in
width required a 5-foot side yard setback period. Commissioners also noted that a setback
chart for lots 60-74 feet in width is added to the Ordinance.
Commissioners also stressed their support for requiring a 10 foot side yard setback in all
instances on lots over 75 feet in width
Motion
Commissioner Potts moved to recommend approval of the Ordinance as amended to include
striking "b. attached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses, and garden houses". It was observed
that anything attached to a principle structure is part of the principle structure.
Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Building Height
Planner Teague pointed out the changes to building height noting height is limited to 2 1/2
stories; however the maximum height to the highest point on a roof or a single or double
dwelling unit shall be 30 feet. For lots that exceed 75-feet in width, the maximum height to the
ridge line shall be 35 feet, and the maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot
the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet.
A brief discussion ensued and Commissioner Forrest suggested clarifying what the City means
when it refers to grade.
Page 9 of 13
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend the proposed Ordinance amendments as
drafted. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Sidewall Articulation
Planner Teague introduced sidewall articulation and asked if the Ordinance as revised can move
forward or are further revisions needed.
Commissioners stated for the most part they agree with their changes; however, requested
some clarification on the one (1) foot by ten (10) foot offset. Commissioners suggested that the
language provide depth and width and should read a minimum of at least a one (1) foot deep
by ten (10) foot wide offset.
Continuing, Commissioners requested that #2 should read "Projecting bay or box window
(period)." #7 roof dormers should be stricken.
There was a brief discussion on if roof dormers should remain
Motion
Commissioner Carpenter moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
amendments with the mentioned revisions. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
Front Facing Garage
A discussion ensued on front facing garages. Commissioner Grabiel said in his opinion this is
another crucial issue and the Commission needs to get it correct.
Further discussion suggested that the new language read; that "the garage door shall be no
more than nine feet in height". This would minimize its impact.
Continuing, Commissioners said in reading the revisions that clarification is needed when one
refers to garage door and garage. It was observed that the intent of the Ordinance revisions
were to reduce the impact of the garage facing the front street. One bullet item could address
the issue by using the word fagade — "the garage facade shall not exceed 60% of the width of
Page 10 of 13
the principle structure". Lastly, Commissioners continued to support limiting the encroachment
of the garage into the front setback to five (5) feet.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend approval of the Ordinance amendments
subject to the above noted changes. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted
aye; motion carried.
Garage stall requirements
Planner Teague referred to garage stall requirements and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission that for lots 75-feet in width or less one fully enclosed space be required. For lots
in excess of 75-feet wide two fully enclosed spaces.
A brief discussion ensued on this condition with Commissioners Scherer and Carpenter
expressing their discomfort with this ordinance change. Commissioner Scherer noted that
Edina residents overwhelmingly own multiple cars, adding she doesn't want to create street
parking or overloading of driveway issues.
Continuing, Scherer stated in her opinion Edina residents also require storage space for their
lawn equipment, bikes, toys, etc. and if they don't have adequate storage these items could be
stored "elsewhere" and become eyesores to other residents. Concluding, Scherer said she also
doesn't want to see a proliferation of storage sheds or outbuildings compensating for the lack
of garage/storage space.
Commissioner Potts commented that while he understands their hesitation he doesn't believe
it will become "that big of an issue" because this only provides the option of one stall;
acknowledging the majority of new builds or remodels may still desire two stalls.
Commissioner Schroeder said one option could be to require "proof" that there is room to build
a second stall if the need arises or the house is sold and the new owner wants a second stall.
Schroeder stated this could alleviate any discomfort with permitting one stall.
Commissioner Forrest stated she tends to agree with Commissioner Potts that this may not
become a large issue. Forrest further stated this option provides diversity in the housing stock
especially for the smaller lots.
Page 11 of 13
Commissioner Potts suggested that the language remain as written, adding this provides
options for Edina's smaller lot neighborhoods.
Motion
Commissioner Potts moved to recommend amending the Ordinance as written.
"Single Dwelling Units, Double Dwelling Units and Residential Townhouses. Two fully enclosed spaces per
dwelling unit for single or double dwelling unit lots that exceed 75 feet in width. One fully enclosed space per
dwelling unit for single or double dwelling unit lots 75 feet in width or less. Townhouses must have two fully
enclosed spaces."
Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. Ayes; Schroeder, Potts, Platteter, Forrest, Grabiel,
Carr, Staunton. Nays; Scherer, Carpenter. Motion carried.
Nonconforming front yard setbacks
Planner Teague asked if further clarification is needed on this topic.
Commissioner Scherer said for her this is a difficult issue especially because its intent is for new
construction. Commissioner Carr asked for clarification noting in d. i. and ii. It states the
"addition", adding in her opinion that language is confusing because the intent is for new
construction. Commissioners and Planner Teague agreed.
New language for d. i. & ii. would read the "new construction" .... in both instances.
Commissioners agreed with that revision.
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend approval with revisions. Commissioner Potts
seconded the motion. Ayes; Schroeder, Potts, Carpenter, Forrest, Grabiel, Platteter,
Staunton. Nay; Scherer.
Miscellaneous Code Revision "clean-up"
Planner Teague reminded Commissioners certain sections of the Ordinance were "moved" to
more appropriate sections of the Ordinance or eliminated. These sections included striking
"Accessory Building and Structures Used for Dwelling Purposes". Teague explained that the
Ordinance doesn't allow accessory structures to be used as a dwelling unit; and the elimination
Page 12 of 13
of "Variance and CUP process Floodplain" because these provisions are already covered in the
Zoning Ordinance. Current variance and CUP process would apply.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend the proposed amendments to the Ordinance.
Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Chair Staunton thanked everyone for their participation during this process adding the action
taken will forward this to the City Council for their public hearing sometime in July. (July 16th )
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITION
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
VII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
Chair Staunton referred to the previous discussion on Living Streets and the request for
volunteers to serve on the Transportation Commission's work task force. Staunton suggested
those who are interested should contact Engineer Houle.
Chair Staunton said that the Commission should keep in the back of their mind the potential to
re-visit the Comprehensive Plan and to discuss a small area plan for the area of Valley View
Road and Wooddale Avenue.
VIII. STAFF COMMENTS
None.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Carr moved meeting adjournment at 11:05 PM. Commissioner Potts seconded
the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Potek'e Vloo9ouileieet
Respectfully submitted
Page 13 of 13