HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-12 Planning Commission Regular Meeting MinutesSUMMARY OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 12, 2014
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Answering the roll call were: Schroeder, Potts, Olsen, Kilberg, Halva, Lee, Carr, Platteter,
Forrest, Staunton
Members absent from roll: Scherer
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the meeting agenda. Commissioner Carr
seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Platteter moved approval of the January 22, 2014, meeting minutes. Commissioner
Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
Chair Staunton asked if anyone would like to speak; being none, Commissioner Potts moved to
close community comment. Commissioner Forrestl seconded the motion. All voted aye; public
comment closed.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance. Amy Sells, 6604 Scandia Road, Edina, MN
Planner Presentation
Planner Aaker informed the Commission the subject property is located on the south side of Scandia
Road cul-de-sac consisting of a 1 and 11/2 story home with an attached two car garage. The property
Page 1 of 7
owner would like to expand the upper level to be a full second story. The new second floor includes a
laundry room, bedroom areas and bathroom. The existing front corner of the home is located 29.2 feet
from the north, (front), lot line. The zoning ordinance requires that all new homes and additions to
existing homes maintain the front yard setback of the adjacent neighbor that faces the same street. The
adjacent neighbor has a front yard setback of 40.3 feet. The ordinance requires all improvements to the
home to be 40.3 feet from the front lot line, even though the existing first floor of the home is 29.2 feet
from the cul-de-sac. The addition will simply match the existing nonconforming front yard setback and
will be no closer to the street than the current home. It should be noted that the homes at 6600 and
6606 Scandia Road provide a 32 and a 30 foot setback from Scandia Road right-of-way, which is a similar
distance that the subject home provides.
Planner Aaker further explained that the homeowners are proposing to increase the roof height in
order to accommodate more bedroom, bath and laundry room area. The second floor will be "stacked"
on top of the existing first floor. There will be no increase in building footprint. Spacing between the
subject home and the home to the west will remain the same.
Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance
based on the following findings:
I) With the exception of the variance for front yard setback, the proposal would meet the
required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District.
2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because:
a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing conditions
without reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors.
b. The imposed front yard setback and existing house location does not provide opportunity
for an increase in roof pitch or adequate room space above the existing home.
c. The original placement of the home closer to the front lot line makes it difficult to adjust
living spaces within the existing structure foot print.
Approval of the variance is also subject to the following conditions:
I) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the following plans, unless modified by the Survey date stamped: February: 25, 2014
and building plans/elevations date stamped: February: 25, 2014.
Appearing for the Applicant
Amy Sells
Applicant Presentation
Mr. Ryan 11420 Park Ridge, Minnetonka addressed the Commission and explained that the
existing non-conforming setback established the need for a variance. He added that in his
opinion the proposed addition is reasonable. The proposed renovation provides extra living
space without increasing the footprint of the existing house.
Page 2 of 7
Ms. Sells addressed the Commission and explained that she fully understands the role of the
Commission and how variances impact the City. Sells stated that it is her wish to have a full
second story and to achieve the rd story a variance is required. She said at this time her
daughter is upstairs and she's downstairs and the addition would eliminate that separation. Sells
concluded that this expansion allows her to remain in the neighborhood.
Discussion
Commissioner Platteter referred to a letter from a neighbor expressing concern about the
construction process and asked Planner Teague if this variance request rises to the level of
overview by the Residential Redevelopment Coordinator, Cindy Larson. Continuing, Platteter
said if not he would suggest that Ms. Larson oversee construction elements of the project.
Planner Teague responded that in this situation because a demolition permit is not required an
escrow fee would not be established and there would be no overview by the Redevelopment
Coordinator.
A discussion ensued on if this variance request should be monitored by the Residential
Redevelopment Coordinator. Commissioners also expressed the following opinions:
• Variances are individual and unique and conditions can be placed on them without
worry of precedent. In this instance the close proximity of the homes and the limited
parking on the cul-de-sac could be the nexus.
• If required overview by the Residential Redevelopment Coordinator is required as a
condition of approval is City staffing sufficient to respond to other remodels (under
50%) if the occasion arises.
• Consider encouraging applicants to follow the established construction guidelines based
on the Management Plan and not list it as a condition of approval.
• Requiring this as a condition could be viewed as a slippery slope if more approvals are
conditioned on compliance with the Construction Maintenance Plan..
• Review the 50% threshold requiring compliance with the Construction Maintenance
Plan.
Chair Staunton acknowledged receipt of e-mails about the project and asked if there was
anyone in the audience that would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Potts
moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All in favor;
motion to close public hearing carried.
Commissioner Potts commented that this request reminds him of his home. He explained a
second story was added to his home that required a variance.
Motion
Commissioner Potts moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to
staff conditions and the additional condition that the City's Residential
Redevelopment Coordinator monitor the construction aspects of this project
(parking, hours, dirt, etc.). Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. Ayes;
Page 3 of 7
Forrest, Platteter, Carr, Lee, Potts, Olson, Staunton. Abstain, Schroeder. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Lee commented in being new to this process that she has a concern with the
overall volume of the subject structure. She noted the subject house has a hipped roof which
reduces the mass by offering the feeling that the structure is moving away from the setback line.
A straight up expansion without acknowledging the architectural features of the existing home
that reduce volume may not be wise. Volume should also be considered.
VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. City Code Amendment — Tree Preservation
Chair Staunton asked Planner Teague to give a brief overview on the Commissions progress on
the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Planner Presentation
Planner Teague reminded the Commission the Tree Preservation Ordinance adoption was
continued to allow for suggested revisions to the Ordinance. Teague summarized the following
revisions and requirements:
• The ordinance applies to all demolition permits including those for accessory structures
including a garage, deck or pool.
• All permits are required to include a certified tree inventory plan
• Protected trees include birch, balsam fir, black walnut, buckeye, cedar, elm, hemlock,
hickory, ironwood, linden locust, maple (except silver maple) Norway pine, oak, spruce
and white pine varieties.
• Healthy protected trees that are removed within a building pad, or a I 0-foot radius of
the building pad or within a driveway or parking area must be replaced I to I.
• Any protected healthy tree that is removed within I 0-feet of the building pad or within
the driveway or parking area must be replaced 2 to I.
• Protected trees much be protected during construction; and
• Staff is required to monitor all construction projects with protected trees and/or
replacement trees to ensure that all trees are properly established for three years.
Concluding, Teague also noted there would be staffing concerns; however, this would be a
decision of the City Council in regard to staffing.
Discussion
Chair Staunton commented that the Ordinance only applies to tree removal one year prior to
construction not after. He noted that trees could be removed after the final CO was issued.
Commissioners agreed with that statement.
A discussion ensued with Commissioners supporting the revisions as referenced.
Page 4 of 7
Commissioners did express hesitation on #4 of the proposed Ordinance and compatibility
between numbers 5 and 7. It was further discussed that a variance process should be
considered if for any reason a property owner cannot comply with the proposed Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Further discussion focused on cost issues for the City (staffing) and
property owners. It was further pointed out that "relocating" a tree may be more expensive
than replacing a tree; and if a property owner could have an option.
Motion
Commissioner Platteter moved to recommend approval of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance with the following revisions:
• Delete paragraph #4
• #7 — Remove underlined text and replace it with like text found in #5.
• Add a paragraph that establishes a variance process.
Commissioner Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
Commissioner Platteter stated he is also waiting for comment from the Energy and
Environment Commission on the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. Platteter said he
hopes to have their response by the time the City Council hears the Ordinance. Platteter
stated he anticipates that the City Council will review the proposed Tree Ordinance at their
April 22, 2014, meeting.
Chair Staunton thanked everyone for their effort during this process adding Tree Preservation
can now be removed from the Commission's Work Plan.
B. Wooddale and Valley View Road/Small Area Plan
Chair Staunton told the Commission Commissioners Platteter and Forrest are working with
City Staff on implementing a small area plan for the Wooddale and Valley View area. Staunton
noted that the small area plan for this area is included in the Commission's 2014 Work Plan.
Platteter reported that Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager is also a member of the City staff he
and Forrest will be working with on this plan. Commissioner Platteter delivered a power point
presentation outlining for the Commission a broad overview of the process. Platteter and
Forrest stood for questions.
Commissioner Carr suggested considering adding an additional staff resource from either the
Transportation Commission or Living Streets Committee for additional input; especially as it
relates to transportation and streets.
Commissioner Forrest also noted that this neighborhood is a "true" neighborhood node that
has the potential to be heavily utilized by neighbors.
Page 5 of 7
Commissioners Platteter and Forrest told the Commission they would continue to update the
Planning Commission as the plan proceeds.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Staunton acknowledged back of packet materials.
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Staunton told the Commission the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for March
26, 2014 has been cancelled. Staunton informed Commissioners he would like the election of
new officers and revisions any revisions to the Planning Commission bylaws held in April.
Staunton further suggested a revision to the bylaws that would make the first Planning
Commission meeting in March the meeting to elect new officers and amend bylaws if needed.
Chair Staunton also informed Commissioners that the City Council upheld the decision of the
Planning Commission by approving the request for subdivision for the property on the 6300
block of Warren Avenue.
Commissioner Potts informed the Commission the Morningside neighborhood would be
holding a workshop on stormwater solutions from 2-4 PM, Sunday the 16th at Weber Park.
Potts also noted the City of Edina would also be offering a workshop on March 27th. Potts told
the Commission to refer to the City's website for further details on the City event.
Commissioner Carr told the Commission the France Avenue urban design has been given the
green light for the first phase of the project. Carr said in her opinion the plan is a great plan
adding greenery and lighting to the corridor. Schroeder agreed, adding pedestrian mobility was
also enhanced.
X. STAFF COMMENTS
Planner Teague informed the Commission that the applicants of the recently approved
subdivision on Warren Avenue submitted revised landscaping plans. The revised plans
indicated all trees would be preserved.
Planner Teague told Commissioners at the April 9th Planning Commission meeting he
anticipates the Agenda to include redevelopment of the old Wicke's Furniture store site and
Taco Bell.
Planner Teague reminded Commissioners of their joint meeting with City Attorney, Roger
Knutson on March 22, 2014 9-11AM at the Edina Senior Center.
Page 6 of 7
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lee moved adjournment at 8:30 PM. Commissioner Olsen seconded the
motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
(Tao& ikete/fallei/koir 40€6/6
Respectfully submitted
Page 7 of 7