HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-25 Planning Commission Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Fischer, Kilberg, Halva, Carr, Platteter, Forrest, Grabiel,
Staunton.
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Potts moved approval of the September 25, 2013 meeting agenda.
Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scherer moved approval of the September 11, 2013 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. 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.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Preliminary Plat with Variances. AKARE Companies. 5820 Brookview Avenue, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission AKARE Companies LLC on behalf of John Peterson is
proposing to subdivide the property at 5820 Brookview Avenue into two lots. The existing home would
be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. Planner Teague noted the following is
Page 1 of 10
required; subdivision approval, lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and lot area
variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,711 square feet for each lot.
Teague explained that both lots would gain access off Brookview Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the
median lot area is 6,725 square feet, median lot depth is 134 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet.
The new lots would meet the median width and depth, but would just fall short of the median lot size.
Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed two lot subdivision
of 5820 Brookview Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet and lot area variances
from 9,000 square feet to 6,711square feet based on the following findings:
1. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a
subdivision.
2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot width and depth and nearly meet
the median area.
3. The proposal would restore the property back to the form of the original plat, which included
two lots.
4. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because:
a. The practical difficult unique to the property is caused by the existing size of the
property which is two times the size of every lot on the block. This is caused by the
original property owner, who combined 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
nearly every lot on the block. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more
characteristic of the neighborhood.
c. The proposed lots would be the same size as the lots were originally platted.
d. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of
similar size to others in the neighborhood.
e. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of his property, a 50-
foot wide lot, which is common to the area. In addition, the applicant would be denied a
subdivision with variances that has been previously approved by the City, including the
same request for a subdivision with variances that were approved right across the street
in 2011.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
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 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require
revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements.
Page 2 of 10
b. A curb-cut permit must be obtained from the Edina Engineering department.
c. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer.
d. Grading and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the
time of building permit, and shall be subject to review and approval of the city engineer.
Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway would have to be directed to
Brookview Avenue.
Appearing for the Applicant
Rob Eldridge of Ridge Creek Custom Homes and John Peterson, property owner.
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Eldridge addressed the Commission and gave a brief history of his work, adding in his opinion the
subject lot subdivided into two smaller lots creates building pads for homes that are affordable to more
people, especially families. Continuing, Eldridge stated he prepared a power point presentation;
however, Planner Teague's presentation was similar to his and to avoid duplication he would stand and
answer any questions the Commission may have.
Chair Staunton opened the public hearing.
Public Testimony
John Peterson, 5820 Brookview Avenue, addressed the Commission and informed the Commission he
purchased the subject property in the 1960's when Pamela Park was a swamp. Peterson said he and his
wife have thought long and hard about subdividing their property and felt that the subdivision would
provide new families with the opportunity to purchase new homes in Edina. Peterson added that the
builder they picked, Mr. Eldridge met the criteria they wanted for the new homes.
The following residents spoke in support of the proposed subdivision:
George Raichert, 5816 Brookview Avenue, Edina, MN 60+ year Edina resident.
John Raichert, 5116 Indianola Avenue, Edina, MN
Jan Storey, 5825 Brookview Avenue, Edina, MN
Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner
Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye;
motion carried.
Page 3 of 10
Discussion
Commissioner Fischer stated he recalls that the Commission heard a number of subdivision requests in
this area; some were approved, some were denied, adding the reasons for approval or denial was
mostly based on the immediate neighborhood and if the block contained lots in excess of 50-feet or
didn't. Planner Teague said he agrees with that observation. Teague reported there were six
subdivision requests in the area; three were approved and three were denied. Teague explained the
reasons for denial had to do with lot size on the block, adding the subdivision requests that were denied
tended to be on blocks containing multiple lots in excess of 50-feet in width.
Motion
Commissioner Fischer moved to recommend Preliminary Plat approval with variances based on staff
findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Grabiel seconded the motion.
Commissioner Grabiel said it was interesting to him to hear positive comments from neighbors on the
proposed subdivision and the addition of new homes to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Forrest said that while she understands the issue; and is not averse to subdividing the
property she has difficulty supporting the variances because in her opinion the variance requirements
were not met. Forrest added she would like the Zoning Ordinance to better address the City's
preference in the smaller lot neighborhoods.
Chair Staunton commented the Commission has experience on requests to subdivide the larger lots into
two lots in the smaller lot neighborhoods, noting to some on the Commission a two lot subdivision is
better than retaining the one large lot because it ensures that the area remains consistent and the
houses constructed are smaller than what could be constructed if it remained one lot.
Chair Staunton called the vote; Ayes, Scherer, Schroeder, Potts, Fischer, Platteter, Carr, Grabiel,
Staunton. Nay, Forrest. Motion carried 8-1.
VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Sketch Plan — 3655 Hazelton Road, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague informed the Commission they are being asked to consider a sketch
plan proposal to redevelop the property at 3655 Hazelton Road. The proposal is to tear
Page 4 of 10
down the existing vacant restaurant and construct a two-story bank on the site. The
applicant would seek a Site Plan review and potentially a variance to develop the site.
Continuing, Teague reported the applicant is proposing three alternatives for the
Planning Commission to consider and provide feedback prior to an official application.
Option B would not require any variances as proposed. Options A and C would both
require building setback variances.
A traffic study would be required to determine the impacts on adjacent roadways.
Access would be obtained from the access road provided as part of the adjacent
redevelopment of the Byerly's site.
Concluding, Teague noted that Staff has encouraged the applicant to design the site
with emphasis on pedestrian connections to Hazelton Road, the Promenade and the
new Byerly's site development. While sidewalk connection would be provided to each;
however, connections to the north, south and east to the Promenade, would require
crossing an automobile drive-aisle or parking lot.
Appearing for the Applicant
Jeff Pflipsen
Discussion
Commissioner Platteter questioned the reason the Commission is reviewing this as a Sketch Plan since
what's submitted as option B meets ordinance requirements. Planner Teague responded that the
applicant indicated they wanted feedback from the Commission on differing options with the
understanding that in this area the City is looking for specific things.
Commissioner Potts referred to the three options presented by the applicant and asked if all three are
two stories and if the signs presented are part of the package. Planner Teague responded that all three
are two stories, adding signage would need to comply with the sign ordinance.
Commissioner Carr questioned if the Commission has a preference for less parking along the
promenade.
Applicant Presentation
Jeff Pflipsen addressed the Commission and explained the development team talked long and hard on
how to relate to the Promenade, adding they like Option B, it works for them. Continuing, Pflipsen said
the reason the development team provided three scenarios' was to offer the Commission and Council
different options to choose from. With regard to locating parking along the Promenade it was their
intent to provide vehicle parking so people could easily access the Promenade during non-business
hours (evenings, weekends).
Page 5 of 10
With graphics Mr. Pflipsen indicated to the Commission the three options-highlighting the patio on the
second floor that in his opinion interfaces well with the Promenade. Pflipsen also noted sustainable
materials would be used, and as previously mentioned by Planner Teague signage would meet
ordinance requirements.
Discussion
Commissioner Grabiel asked Mr. Pflipsen for clarification on the reason buildings A & C are similarly
located. Mr. Pflipsen indicated they brainstormed building placement and located the buildings on
options A & C closer to Hazelton and the access road between the subject site and Byerly's per
discussions with City staff. Continuing, Pflipsen stated these two scenarios provides the Commission
and Council with building placement options; either (A&C) buildings located farther from the
Promenade and closer to the street (Hazelton) or option B, a building more centrally located.
Continuing, Pflipsen said one component that drives building placement is the drive through for the
bank; a counter clockwise movement is required.
Commissioner Potts referred to the site plans and asked if all the parking spots delineated are really
needed. Mr. Pflipsen said in his opinion; they aren't needed. He added the site plan reflects ordinance
requirements for parking. Potts commented if manageable that some spaces could be removed to
provide more green space.
Commissioner Scherer said her concern is with what's up against the Promenade. She added she
prefers less parking and would like to see additional green space and landscaping added along the
Promenade.
Commissioner Schroeder said in his opinion in viewing Option C he would prefer to see the parking
oriented west and the building positioned closer to the street and Promenade to the east. He pointed
out if built as depicted the building would be hidden by the Byerly's building (from Hazelton), reiterating
moving it north and east would allow the building to be seen. Schroeder also noted that this
reorientation allows left and right turns. Schroeder said he agrees with previous Commissioner
comments that the "space" nearest the Promenade shouldn't be for parking. Schroeder also said he
finds the building interesting and to the proper scale. Concluding, Schroeder said he supports less
parking and more landscaping. Mr. Pflipsen stated Option C is the least preferred because it creates a
"head on" traffic flow which reduces parking spaces closer to the building and creates difficulty for night
deposits. Continuing, Pflipsen said moving the building up and farther east on the site would also
eliminate more parking stalls. Concluding, Pflipsen said it can be done; reiterating it's not a banks
preference.
Commissioner Platteter stated he agrees with comments from Commissioner Schroeder, adding some
variation of Option C may better suit the site and area. Platteter also observed if the building is oriented
closer to Hazelton the building would have more exposure, as previously mentioned by Commissioner
Page 6 of 10
Schroeder. Continuing, Platteter said close attention should also be paid to the south access, adding he
viewed Byerly's customers using this area to go back to their homes/ apartments. Platteter also stated
he doesn't want to see signage oriented toward the Promenade. He further stated enough can't be said
about the importance of landscaping. Concluding, Platteter commented he is disappointed this wasn't
part of the Byerly's redevelopment.
Mr. Pflipsen In response to the discussion explained that the rationale for offering options A & C was at
the suggestion of City Staff, reiterating B works for them. Pflipsen explained that staff shared with
them the importance of the Promenade and pedestrian flow, etc.
Commissioner Fischer said that he believes the use of the site for a bank is fine for a bank development;
however, he believes the City missed an opportunity to have this parcel folded into the redevelopment
of the Byerly's site. He added the plans presented appear out of context, adding it may be helpful if
their presentation to the Council places this site more in context with the area. Continuing, Fischer
noted the greater Southdale area is being redeveloped as a system for pedestrian movement and in his
opinion the site plans presented indicate a bank with parking lot, adding a sidewalk crossing a parking
lot wasn't his vision. Fischer stated he favors a Proof of Parking Agreement or variance approval to
allow less parking, adding the City shouldn't force parking where it's not needed. Concluding, Fischer
stated parking should be located to the west of the building so the site appears welcoming from the
Promenade. Also make the pedestrian connection without crossing parking.
Commissioner Carr stated she agrees with Commissioner Fischer's suggestion that when the Sketch Plan
Review goes before Council that they place the site in context with the immediate area. She said it
would be beneficial to view sketches that included different views and streetscapes and how the
properties interface with each other.
Commissioner Grabiel stated he echoes Commissioner Fischer's comments, adding he is disappointed at
the missed opportunities that have occurred in this area, including the one before the Commission this
evening.
Commissioner Carr stated she is satisfied with the layout presented in Option B with revisions, adding in
her opinion this doesn't have to be a disappointment if redeveloped with the suggestions from staff, the
Commission and further suggestions from the City Council. Carr said if some parking spaces were
eliminated and the site was well screened from the Promenade to include a connection to the
Promenade this use may work well. Carr said she agrees with the suggestion of lining up the proposed
building with the Byerly's building to establish continuity. Concluding, Carr said she is a member of the
Living Streets Committee and asked the applicant to also consider adding bike racks.
Commissioner Forrest stated shifting the building to the northeast could work along with increased
landscaping. Continuing, Forrest said with more thought Option B could be rearranged and depicted
more in context with the surrounding area, adding she believes it could also work. Forrest said this
Page 7 of 10
shouldn't become a missed opportunity, adding any revisions should keep in mind the goal of continuity
and walkability in the area.
Commissioner Kilberg stated if revisions are made to the site plan in his opinion the sidewalk should
continue to be located along the south property line, parking spaces should be reduced and additional
landscaping should be planted in place of parking spaces. Continuing, Kilberg said he likes the design of
the 2 nd floor and questioned if the applicant ever considered adding another use with the bank to
maximize the use of the property.
Commissioner Platteter asked Mr. Pflipsen how many parking stalls are on site and if there was an "end"
number they would be comfortable with. Mr. Pflipsen responded that originally the site was designed
with a larger building and more parking (48); however, since the original plan the square footage of the
building was reduced to 8,400 square feet and the parking stalls were reduced to accommodate the new
square footage which now provides 42 spaces. Pflipsen stated in his opinion they would be comfortable
with 33 spaces. Pflipsen said if they proceed with a variation of Option B they could eliminate the
parking stalls on the south. Commissioner Grabiel agreed those spaces could be eliminated however,
he pointed out those aren't the stalls the Commission was concerned with. The Commission is
concerned with parking along the Promenade. Mr. Pflipsen agreed, adding he was only suggesting
removal of those spaces to create more green space.
Chair Staunton thanked the applicant for his presentation and added from the discussion this evening
the Commission feels if the project proceeds that any revisions should include the relocation of the
building toward Hazelton Road, elimination of parking stalls, an increase in landscaping and develop a
way to better address the site's presence and connection to the Promenade.
B. WORK PLAN
Chair Staunton complemented Planner Teague on his final draft of the 2014 Work Plan.
Staunton asked the Commission to note the Zoning Ordinance topics that the work plan includes for
further discussion:
• Sign Plan
• Should apartment building size for senior buildings be regulated to a specific size;
• Lighting
• Noise regulation
Staunton said that these four items would be handled through City staff. Staff would research these
topics and bring their findings back to the Commission for review.
Page 8 of 10
Chair Staunton also noted the 2014 Work Plan also includes developing and reviewing policy
recommendations, adding three broad topics would be addressed:
• Sustainability
• Pedestrian friendliness
• Affordable housing
Staunton said much discussion on these topics will be needed as the Commission creates policies as a
guide.
Concluding, Staunton said there are a couple large topics out there that have been around for some
time; one is a tree ordinance and the other is (keeping in the back of our mind) the Comprehensive
Guide Plan. Staunton reported that the Comprehensive Plan was last completed in 2008-2009 with
updating 2017-2018.,
Commissioner Platteter also asked for continued monitoring on the impact of the recent zoning
ordinance changes and the new Residential Redevelopment Coordinator position. Commissioners
agreed those two topics were a good addition to the plan.
Concluding, Staunton reminded everyone that Commissioners also sit on different work group boards;
including, but not limited to Living Streets Work Group, Grandview Redevelopment Work Group, France
Avenue Revitalization Work Group and different liaison connections.
Staunton said he; along with Commissioner Platteter would be delivering the Work Plan to the City
Council on October f t .
Motion
Commissioner Grabiel moved to approve the 2014 Planning Commission Work Plan. Commissioner
Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Staunton welcomed Taylor Halva as student member.
Ms. Halva reported she is a junior at Edina High and thanked the Commission for this opportunity,
adding she's looking forward to her service on the Commission.
Chair Staunton said that due to unforeseen circumstances the session scheduled for this evening with
City Attorney Roger Knutson was cancelled. Staunton said he along with Planner Teague would work on
rescheduling this session.
Page 9 of 10
Chair Staunton acknowledged the Open House for the Pentagon Park revitalization.
Commissioner Fischer, member of the Grandview Advisory Team reported the group met last week and
is moving forward with a survey, adding the goal is to work with a developer as a partner in the process.
Fischer stated the team needs to find the best fit for the public works site within the bigger context.
Chair Staunton thanked Commissioner Fischer for co-chairing the Grandview Advisory Team.
X. STAFF COMMENTS
Commissioner Platter and Commissioner Carr shared the progress from the Living Streets Work Group.
Xl. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Carr moved adjournment at 8:35 pm. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All
voted aye; motion carried.
Pack & q0090t4Met
Respectfully submitted
Page 10 of 10